Great discussion. Regarding the generational dynasty of parties, perhaps one can make the argument that, unlike FDR, Reagan had to sell cutbacks rather than handouts. Therefore, perhaps the best Reagan could do was begin to reverse the Democrats' 50-year dominance of the White House, Senate and House that Democrats had largely maintained since 1933. As for Obama and his inability to establish the same dominance after 2009, one might note several things: Keynesian economics had been discredited by inflation, the Reagan recovery of the 1980s and the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Massive government handout programs, especially on the mass scale of the New Deal Era that may have ensured Dem dominance for half-a-century, could not be resurrected by Obama, or more recently by Biden, and therefore would not have the same lasting impact as FDR's New Deal . (Note: the term "handout" is not used pejoratively but simply as a term that tries to illustrate the relative impact of the New Deal.)
Question: What can guarantee one party or the other generational dominance in today's world?
I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
Great discussion. Regarding the generational dynasty of parties, perhaps one can make the argument that, unlike FDR, Reagan had to sell cutbacks rather than handouts. Therefore, perhaps the best Reagan could do was begin to reverse the Democrats' 50-year dominance of the White House, Senate and House that Democrats had largely maintained since 1933. As for Obama and his inability to establish the same dominance after 2009, one might note several things: Keynesian economics had been discredited by inflation, the Reagan recovery of the 1980s and the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Massive government handout programs, especially on the mass scale of the New Deal Era that may have ensured Dem dominance for half-a-century, could not be resurrected by Obama, or more recently by Biden, and therefore would not have the same lasting impact as FDR's New Deal . (Note: the term "handout" is not used pejoratively but simply as a term that tries to illustrate the relative impact of the New Deal.)
Question: What can guarantee one party or the other generational dominance in today's world?
I think the "generational dynasty of parties" may be a bit overstated. The origins of today's Democratic Party go back to Jefferson, and the GOP goes back to Lincoln, but today's versions of those parties are nothing like their predecessors.
If we got rid of our first past the post electoral system it would create space for other parties to emerge.
It's difficult to say and I'd be the first to argue it is perhaps overstated as well. But based on three periods from 1800-1980, I wouldn't discount that parties are able to capitalize on events and dominate a half-century or more. Jeffersonian Dems were 180 degrees different than FDR Dems -- but it didn't stop the New Dealers from their dynasty.
Is this the result of first-past-the-post? Possibly. But one could also argue Parliamentary elections have given Conservatives about twice the time as ruling party compared to Labour in the 20th century.
Oh, I certainly think parties have long dominant periods.