Vitality of the Republican Party.

In our text reading for this week, the author mentioned several reasons for the demise of the Whig party in and around 1852. Briefly mentioned among these was the party's failed attempt at courting the immigrant and Catholic vote that had been predominantly Democrat. For the most part the Whigs seemed desperate, and as Aldrich points out in his ambitious politician theory, the party crumbled because it could no longer provide a vehicle for the success of up-and-coming politicians. In essence, the Whigs were no longer relevant or able to meet the demands of shifting demographics and coalitions. The compromise of 1850 was the last great success of the party and after those success were essentially destroyed by the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Whigs all but ceased to exist. The question posed then is: are the republicans making the same mistakes? Have they ceased to be relevant and as a result losing there coalitions represented in various demographics? To an extent they may be, but not to the overall detriment and longevity of the party itself.

Several shifts have recently taken place that have changed the face of current issues the two parties have to contend with: The war in Iraq has soured many to the position of the Republicans and their support for George W. Bush and the economy receded considerably. Regarding the former, the president as was mentioned in one of my previous blogs. His approval ratings reached historic lows. He was certainly one of the most controversial presidents in recent history. To make matters worse, he was in the White House during a cataclysmic housing melt-down that soured Republican prospects even further. These two issues of course are obvious and perhaps the most well known which is why I included them as examples for this argument.

But are the Republicans breathing their dying breath? See this article. Certainly not! As was suggested in the blog assignment under module 9 notes, this is a similar situation to 1994 and 2002. Much of the irrelevancy has stemmed from a rebellion to the previous eight years of Republican dominance and carelessness. Rewind to 2002. The republicans got a boost form current events as the war on terror was in full swing. People had grown unsure of our place in the world and wanted a party in charge that proved they had the where with all to do what was necessary apart from diplomacy. Americans were pissed. As a side-effect, the Republican party became a direct benefactor of the changing mood in America. Fast forward to 2008. The economy is in shambles. Hard working people lost considerable amounts of money in the market. The Republicans took the blame and perhaps rightly so.

In the late '60's and '70's as the civil rights movement changed the political landscape of the Democrat strong-hold south, there were probably pundits claiming the same. "The Democratic party is irrelevant!" But as we have learned in this class, coalitions change. The world of party politics is ever evolving. As the parties lose certain coalitions they gain others.

With this said, is the Republican party in a period of flux similar to that the Democrats faced in the '70's? Yes. The point I'm making is that the two parties have proven their resiliency over more than 140 years. The political landscape will continue to change requiring the continual evolution of the parties themselves. The Democrats would love to proclaim the irrelevancy of the Republican party and usher in their own period of "good feelings". However, as time has testified, they may have to wait quite a while.