Polarized electorate?There was a great deal of scholarship throughout the 1990s confirming that the political parties had polarize to distinct sections of the ideological continuum, with Democrats on the Left and Republicans on the Right. Of course, for many years the parties were coalitions of liberals and conservatives. You had some liberal northeastern Rockefeller Republicans and Conservative heartland/southern Republicans. Then you had conservative Southern Democrats, Socially conservative/economically liberal labor Democrats, Northeastern/Left Coast liberals, African American liberals, etc. Parties were a mishmash of these various forces. Congressional votes split parties apart and Presidents often worked across the isle to accomplish their goals (LBJ with Republicans for Civil Rights, Reagan with Democrats for a number of things, etc.).
What happened? Well, many congressmen simply changed parties. Mostly, the old liberal Republicans/Conservative Democrats simply retired/died. Those who entered politics after 1980 looked at the new framework when deciding which party to join. Liberals were more likely to join the Democratic party, etc.
The obvious consequences of this ideological polarization were increased partisanship and gridlock in congress. Party unity increased. Voters are now able to use the party identification heuristic to identify which candidate tends towards their preferences.
None of what I've said so far is new or surprising. However, I'd like to propose that this new framework has been shaken apart by the Bush Presidency (and starting in Clinton's). The parties have stayed polarized and unified on the Left and the Right, but the definition of the Left and Right has changed.
The Right used to be for fiscal responsibility (Bush's Medicare package killed that notion). Now the Left demands it. The Right has become a confusing mixture of isolationism and intervention. The Left is the same way.
Libertarianism has grown in the past couple decades. Where does it fit on the political spectrum? Libertarians often defy definition (I'm not talking about backwoods crazy libs, just mainstream ones), but they are usually socially liberal and economically free-market oriented. They are also mostly secular. They generally vote for Republicans and their influence in the party is growing.
Then you have the emergence of New Dems like Clinton - free market oriented Democrats (at least relatively speaking). These Democrats defy the liberal convention of shunning big business and regulating heavily.
Republicans are for lower taxes, but their policies have certainly led to higher taxes at the state level. I know, it's controversial to blame national Republicans for higher state taxes, but I'll try: Democrats proposed a huge state bailout in 2002 that would have eased the pain, and Republicans opposed it. I know, I know - irresponsible states and a poor economy caused the state fiscal crises, but when presented with the option of keeping state taxes low by bailing states out, Republicans rejected it.
What's my point here? Well, despite the recent gains in party cohesiveness and ideological polarization, low information voters who try to use the "D" or "R" as a helpful heuristic have to be getting somewhat confused lately. Which party is for what? Another shakeup in party identification might be in the near future.
update, 8:30 PM: I failed to mention what has undoubtedly caused previous party shakeups: this same sort of ideological confusion between the parties. Whenever 1. voters realize their party does not represent them anymore and 2. an elite from the opposing party effectively enunciates this contradiction (see FDR, Nixon, Reagan) you have a shift in partisan identification. Sometimes it takes years and sometimes it happens suddenly. I'm suggesting that in some ways, perhaps today's parties are becoming less ideologically polarized, and this might allow a charismatic leader to move confused voters into other camps.
