Realignment is one of the few political science concepts that have made their way into the popular culture. Writers like Samuel Lubell, Kevin Phillips, and David Broder, borrowing heavily from the political science literature, have made informed political observers aware of the cyclical nature of party dominance in American political history and of the fact that the demise of the so-called “fifth” or New Deal party system has been overdue since about 1968. It is not unusual for political reporters to ask each other after a presidential election whether it was a “critical election” or not. They are, in other words, hip to our jargon.

What most journalists and politicians understand by realignment, however, is a good deal less complex than what political scientists mean. Realignment, to most people in Washington, means a Republican take-over. It means that the GOP will replace the Democrats as the “normal” governing majority in this country for the next generation, just as the Democrats replaced the Republicans as the “normal” governing party after 1932.

Certain facts suggest that things are changing in that direction. The Republicans have won three out of the last four presidential elections. The Democrats have obtained a majority of the presidential vote only twice in nine elections since 1944. The once-Solid South did not hold for the Democrats in 1964, 1968, 1972, or 1980. On the other hand, Democratic predominance has continued at most levels of office-holding below that of president and in party registration figures.