In Focus

If George W. Bush does indeed become the nation's next president, it appears he will work with a Congress with Republican majorities in both houses. These majorities are, however, about as slim as can be.

Five times in American electoral history (1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932), the voters have indicated their confidence in one party--or their lack of confidence in the other--by rewarding it with control of both executive and legislative branches. Such elections are known as realignments, and the electorate has tended to keep the party in power for a decade or two. Indeed, one cannot be sure that a particular election is the start of a realignment for by definition, it must be followed by several others with similar results.

Might the 2000 election be understood in any sense part of a Republican realignment? Probably not, as the margins won in the House and Senate, to say nothing of the close presidential race, are so narrow that they exhibit no national shift toward Republicans. And if the GOP has truly gained the presidency, its already slim margins in Congress were reduced still further on November 7.

Moreover, it is arguable that realignments of the type once experienced belong to an era of less extensive and less expensive government than we have at present. If anything, we may have in this election a continuation of a long-term anti-realignment, with the voters indicating that they trust neither party enough to grant heavy majorities in the legislative branch and a clear mandate to the executive.