When this question had been posed in l968 or in l980 the answer was no because although the Republicans were dominating presidential elections, and had won the Senate for a brief period, they were unable to make any inroads in the House (and not many inroads in state and local elections). These incomplete electoral victories were a manifestation of a deeper problem. In the past, the GOP was not able to articulate a sufficient cause for realignment and, therefore, was not able form a new long term majority that would indicate a realignment had transpired (to realign means to both put something in a straight line and to take sides). In American politics, a realignment means that the voters take or switch sides in order to put the country back into alignment with its fundamental principles, or at least with what they regard as its fundamental principles. Were the Republican gains in the l994 elections of such a magnitude that Newt Gingrich is jus tified in saying that there has been "a decisive shift in American politics" a decisive shift toward the restoration of an idea of limited government?

Each period of realignment in American politics began with a "critical election" (in both l860 and l932, for example). In these years, the voters were presented with a real choice on a critical issue that transcended the normal party lines or coalitions. These were periods represented by a crisis in values, where the fraying of what had been thought of as the common culture had become obvious. In the l850s, the polarizing issue was the extension of slavery, and in the l930s, it was the extension of the power and size of the federal government. It was the beginning of what Margaret Thatcher calls the "Nanny State." This bureaucratic welfare state tried to do more than establish the conditions of happiness; rather, it tried to get government to provide happiness itself to the people by redistributing their wealth.

In each of these critical elections, the public was faced with a clear alternative between divergent views of what America was as a nation, of the Constitution as the frame of government for that nation, and of the principles by which that nation would be governed. Ordinary partisanship was temporarily replaced by grand partisanship a partisanship that shaped public opinion in the most profound way. Therefore, legislation based on public opinion was made possible. As a result, in each case, an enduring majority party was formed that dominated American politics for at least two generations.

American politics historically has maintained over long periods of time a majority and minority party. This is a two-party system that does not alternate victories, but keeps a dominant majority and a long suffering minority in national politics. (This has a great moderating effect on political life.) After a realignment, the minority party, in order to survive, has to speak in terms that are defined by the new majority. The new majority defines what the center of American politics is, and then all political battles are fights for, and within, this center.

The Democrat realignment of the l930s did this, and that is why the GOP has seemed, for two generations, the "me-too" party. The Republican Party did not, until recently, question the very core of the New Deal regime and its completion with the implementation of the Great Society programs. Instead, the Democrats had set the terms of the debate, and the GOP had been content with having the same purposes. The parties differed only on how those ends would be carried out, the Republicans arguing that they could run the bureaucratic welfare state more efficiently.

How were these new majorities formed during these critical elections, during these periods of realignment? In the l932/36 critical election cycle, for example, the Democrats gave a positive argument for being a Democrat; hence, many independents and Republicans were persuaded to become Democrats. Franklin D. Roosevelt had made it clear that he was reconstituting the Democratic Party along new and progressive lines. The new principles for his party were comprehensive and intentionally divisive principles to which public loyalty could attach itself. FDR was a grand partisan; he intentionally polarized the country. He made it clear that voters were faced with a fundamental choice between what he called democracy and oligarchy a choice between the true principles of l776 (as he saw it) and that of the "Tories" (or the traitors to those principles the GOP). Roosevelt contended that the Republican Party had become the enemy of liberty. FDR argued that it was the purpose of the federal government to insure a certain level of security for the American people, else they could not remain free. He re-interpreted our understanding of equality and liberty. He argued that limited, Constitutional government could not cope with the crisis at hand and therefore needed to be replaced. FDR was successful both electorally and intellectually, and he was able to weld a new and enduring majority. We have been living under this realignment and have been speaking the language of the New Deal the language of liberalism for two generations.

Now, every critical election is about the same issue (although wrapped in a different setting) the issue being the capability of a free people to govern themselves in accordance with the proposition "that all men are created equal." So every critical election is an authoritative pronouncement on this great question of self-government, deciding what the grounds of political consensus for the next generation or two will be. Every critical election re-opens the question of justice that animated the American Revolution the relationship between equality and liberty. In other words, the original questions to which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution addressed themselves are given new life: What is the purpose of government? What is the relationship between government and society? What is the relationship between government and the individual?

Although it is beyond doubt that in l994 the GOP won a spectacular electoral victory, it is incomplete. In order for the electoral victory to be finished by l996, the Republican Party has to continue its intellectual victories. The GOP has to retain control of not only Congress and take back the presidency, but we have to continue to our philosophical attack on the unjust principles of liberalism and persuade people to become Republicans. Then the meaning of these victories will be absolutely clear: The GOP will have built a majority that endures.

The clearest electoral sign of the coming realignment is that the Republicans won the House of Representatives. This is significant because in the past presidential victories, the GOP could make no serious inroads on the Democrats’ domination of the House. Why? Because under the New Deal/Great Society dispensation, the House could ignore national public opinion. This is just as Franklin Roosevelt had intended it. The New Deal Liberals wanted to have a realignment that would be the political realignment to end realignments. They thought they could do it because they would make Representatives nothing but administrators of the bureaucratic welfare state, and as such, individual citizens would find it almost impossible to vote against them.

Members of the House were supposed to act as if they were bureaucrats whose sole purpose in the Welfare State was to provide services and programs and money for the people by administering the huge federal apparatus. Representatives acted like auctioneers encouraging squalid competition between beneficiaries of rival entitlement programs. Since they were acting in the "interests" of their constituents, and because they had been telling the citizens since the l930s that this is what representatives in a democracy were supposed to do, well over 90% were regularly re-elected.

By l994, the people were suspecting that this is not what political life in a Constitutional Republic should be like, that this is not what Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist called "deliberation and choice," and, therefore, the Republican Party was able to "nationalize" the elections. The Democrat argument that "all politics is local" (i.e., not based on principle but on interest) had become less persuasive. The Democrats made a strategic mistake by attacking the GOP Contract. In doing so, they helped make the election one between differing philosophies of government. The Republican principles proved more persuasive; people actually voted against their "interests" because they came to see that their "interests" had become unjust. If the Republican Party does things right in the immediate future, the House can never again ignore national public opinion. And this means that the "Nanny State" is finished. This is the beginning of the end.

The Republicans have done a very good job in this election, but they need to do two more things between now and l996, and it looks like they are doing both. On the one hand, they need to act as they said they would. They must begin to dismantle the New Deal/Great Society programs that have had such a detrimental effect on the character of the people and have been so costly. They must begin cutting back the size of government. They must do this not only around the edges, but go for the core. They must gut the size and power of the federal government.

Certainly they must also lower taxes, not just by giving breaks for families with children (although God knows parents could use it), but by lowering the rates of taxation. They should probably go to a flat tax, thereby killing forever the progressive income tax, the greatest source of the redistributive power of the federal government. They must do this because such a system of taxation is unjust, and by fighting for lower taxation, we are fighting against the growth of the centralized bureaucratic Welfare State.

On the other hand, the Republicans must also continue to talk persuasively about these matters to the American people. They must explain what they are doing and why, and ask the citizens to take sides. The Republicans must become grand partisans. They must argue on the basis of principle, as partisans of Constitutional Government. We must do this without apologies, even if the Liberal press doesn’t understand what we are doing or doesn’t like it. They must do this with confidence and self-assurance, with what James Madison called manly eloquence. The people are ready to be persuaded. Their opinions about these fundamental matters have been changing over the years (partly due to GOP efforts, partly due to the lifeless ideology of liberalism as well as Democrat Party incompetence).

The great task of statesmanship now is to persuade the citizens that the principles of the New Deal/Great Society are deeply flawed and detrimental to self-government. Republicans must make it clear that their opposition to the Democrat past is based on more than the fact that these programs cost too much, are inefficiently run, and are bankrupting the country (although these things are true). Republicans must argue that these programs are unjust and that the American people are made less independent, less able to govern themselves, and less free under the New Deal/Great Society regime. Republicans have to argue that the purpose of government is to secure freedom and opportunity and not security and entitlements, and that nothing less than the character of the citizens and the character of the nation is at stake.

Republicans have to articulate their position on, and their understanding of, self-government and explain why it is in accord with the principles of l776 and the Constitutional framework of l787. Republicans have to make the case for limited, Constitutional government; they have to contend what once was obvious: that men can take care of themselves. And they are going to have to do this in all other realms, including the categorization of citizens on the basis of race and ethnicity, which will likely be the next big philosophical and political rumble. And in doing these things we should not hesitate to be divisive. The Republicans have to clarify and intensify the divisions between themselves and Democrats. It is critical that during this time of crisis we speak with the utmost clarity and without compromising the things for which we stand. The Republicans have to ask citizens to move in a straight line and take sides. They have to make positive arguments for becoming Republicans and make it clear that they are reconstituting the Republican Party along new conservative lines. If they don’t do this, they will not be able to build the new grounds for a political consensus the grounds for the new majority.

The Bush loss in l992 is the most recent example of what happens when a party, although in a position to form public opinion, abnegates its responsibilities. It does so either because it doesn’t have any principles or vision, or because its leaders are cowards. The effect is that the Democrat Clinton was elected President without having formed a majority electorally. Lacking the grounds of political consensus, even though his Party controls Congress, he still cannot govern. Also, a fifth of the people had become alienated and supported Ross Perot, a third party candidate.

If it turns out that the GOP is not successful in shaping public opinion between now and l996, our country will suffer, and our party will not be able to become the majority party. Since the Democrat Party is intellectually insipid, it will not be able to regain the majority. What is most likely to happen is that a number of new parties will be formed from the two old, and for many years the country will have to live in a chaotic political universe in which there will be no true governing majority. This is dangerous and unprecedented. Various forms of extremism are likely to prosper and the two party system will be imperiled.

The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, is the only party that can prevent this. The Republican Party is the only party that is in a position, both intellectually and electorally, to form the new majority. Our principles must be firm and uncompromising, and we must not be seduced by the call for "bipartisanship" on the part of our political enemies. Certainly we can cooperate on some things, as long as the Democrat Party understands that they are now playing in the political universe we created as long as they understand that they now have to become the "me too" party. We are re-writing the definition of bi-partisanship. (And if the press will not understand this, then the people will altogether stop listening to Dan Rather and his ilk and listen to alternative news sources like Rush Limbaugh and C-SPAN.) We should no longer be in the re-action mode. Let them re-act to our purposes. We are the ones who have been victorious both intellectually and electorally. We have nothing to apologize for. The sound sense of the American people is with us. We must not give up our position of leadership.

The Republican Party’s duty is to the eternal principles of liberty and equality of opportunity; of limited Constitutional Government supported by the common sense of the American people. If we continue to persuade the citizens to move in a straight line and take sides, of being divisive on matters of principle, not only will the Republican Party prosper, but we will have done much good for the country. In his last public address, Abraham Lincoln reminded the country that "important principles may and must be inflexible," and we must continually remind ourselves, and those Republican Representatives who may not fully understand it, of this.

We have the opportunity after two generations in the political wilderness to become the majority and realign the country. Our interests as Republicans, our duty as citizens, and our honor as men, demand that we take it. We must stay hard.