In his book Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making, David W. Brady defines a critical election as one in which one political party takes control of the House, Senate and Presidency for at least a decade. No election after the New Deal era meets these criteria. I believe that his definition is too strict and therefore fails to consider several elections that have had a great deal of impact on public policy.
After critical elections, the House of Representatives has created major policy changes, such as ending slavery or creating Social Security. Baker's own introduction credits the 1965 Congress for the major civil rights legislation it passed, yet in his conclusion he states that neither 1964 nor 1968 were critical elections. However, there was a dramatic shift in each party's stance on civil rights during this time period, accompanied by regions of the country shifting loyalties: the Democratic states in the South began to vote Republican, and Republican strongholds in the North began to vote Democratic. These opposing movements prevented either party from making large gains in the House or the Senate, but it was still an era of great change, much like earlier critical elections.
Baker's book was published in 1988, but if he had waited until after the 1994 election, he would not have included it as a critical election. President Clinton was reelected in 1996, an immediate disqualification in Baker's book. However, there was a 54-seat swing to the Republicans in the House and an 8-seat swing in the Senate. This also brought on great political polarization, culminating in government shutdowns, similar to the polarization noted by Baker after earlier critical elections.
In 2008, Democrats did take back the Presidency in another possible critical election, but they didn't hit the decade mark: Republicans took back the House two weeks ago after just 4 years of a Democratic majority. However, the health care reform bill was passed after this election, a major public policy shift similar to those seen after the elections of 1932 and 1964.
I definitely agree that we may see some major public policy shift due to the Republican-controlled Congress. I also feel that Republicans are going to take advantage of this power and draw district lines in their favor in order to maintain control in Congress. Since Republicans are the majority in Congress and they are in charge of redistricting, why wouldn't they draw lines in their favor?
ReplyDelete