Thoughts on the 1994 Congressional Election

The conservative landslide in the 1994 elections raises some difficult questions for students of cycles in the mass psychology of the American electorate. The election of Bill Clinton seemed to confirm the Schlesingers’ hypothesis that periods of liberal and conservative dominance alternate in approximately fifteen-year cycles. The Schlesingers documented this pattern for a period of over 200 years of American history, so it is difficult to dismiss it out-of-hand. But even a 200-year period is not enough to be statistically confident of a pattern in such a long cycle, so this theory will remain speculation for a very long time.

What does seem to be clearly operating is a shorter cycle tied to the presidential term. Many observers have noted this, and Lloyd deMause has examined it from a psychohistorical point of view. Clinton has had a very short honeymoon period, followed by an exceptionally strong disillusionment. This may have something to do with the role of Hillary in the administration. For a time, she seemed almost a co-President, which seems to have built up what Bion called a “pairing assumption” in the mass psyche. This means that unconsciously people expect a pair of leaders to “give birth” to something new and exciting which will transform the world. Thus, people expected dramatic change from the “first couple”, and when Hillary’s health reform failed they felt cheated and abandoned. And they used the 1994 election to punish the Clintons for doing that to them.

There is support for this interpretation in

Page 1

theoretical studies. Childhood and Society, for all the unfair and irrational attacks on Hillary on the talk shows and other popular media, despite her obvious popularity with the liberal media. I have no sympathy for this sexist assault on an intelligent and dedicated woman, but I do believe that both Bill and Hillary got swept up in the mass enthusiasm engendered by the pairing assumption and tied their fate to a plan which was not politically viable.

I don’t believe that the Republican victory was inevitable. If Bill and Hillary had done something more modest but successful on health care (perhaps, some kind of catastrophic coverage for the uninsured), and had made some substantive changes in the welfare system, I believe we would be talking about the emerging Democratic majority today. I think the Schlesingers were right in that there is an alternation between active and passive moods in the mass psyche. What has happened is that the conservatives have taken the initiative with an activist agenda for change just when it seemed that the new liberal President and his wife were dropping the ball.

Page 2

I also believe that there are generational cycles in the political culture, as Strauss and Howe observed in their book Generations: The History of America’s Future. The best evidence of this is Newt Gingrich’s preoccupation with the Tofflers’ ideas on “future shock.” The emerging Republican leadership may be “conservative” in a lot of its political ideas, but it is culturally-attuned to the baby boom generation. Strauss and Howe, as well as the European generational theorists they rely upon, are more focused on this sort of cultural pattern than on shifts in public policy preferences.

Page 3