One of the most important titles historians and political scientists confer on elections is that of a "critical realignment election." The basic idea behind this is that the campaign and its outcome had a significant impact on the political culture of the nation and significantly impacted political culture, often creating, changing or destroying a party.
The rise of Lincoln's Republican Party in 1860, the split in the Democratic-Republican Party in 1828 and Franklin Roosevelt's redefinition of the Democratic Party in 1932 are all strong examples of this concept.
When Democrats decisively took control of the White House and both houses of Congress this November, it marked the complete transformation of Washington from the conservative Bush reign to the Obama era. President Obama's ascension to power was helped by the nation's animosity toward the Bush administration.
While the long-term effects of this election are yet to be seen, it has had an undeniable impact on American political culture. As with any critical realignment election, Obama responded to the nation's demand for new policies and ideals; that was the simple part.
Now, as with every critical realignment election, the Republican Party will face the hard part: reshaping the party platform to fit the new demands.
Amidst the flamboyant conservative backlash of pundits Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News (like them or not, they are the de facto conservative news station of choice), many Americans have become estranged from the Republican Party.
Before I go further, I must make a quick but important interjection. Conservatism and the Republican Party are not synonymous. Conservatism is a political philosophy advocating low economic regulation by the government while it maintains high involvement in social factors. The Republican Party, however, is a political organization dedicated to the election of its members. This difference allows the Republican Party to adjust its platforms as the times change - in spite of conservative hardliners' wishes.
One of the first political lessons the new commander in chief proved during the election is that young Americans can be a strong force in politics. Tapping the well of young voters who have grown up and grown weary of President Bush's Constitutional discrepancies, Obama's campaign capitalized on this tide, taking the under-30-year-old voters and the election.
Now, as the Republicans try to fight back from the brink of oblivion, strategists and pundits are running themselves ragged trying to salvage the party's authority.
Fox News is attempting to recreate the Boston Tea Party on tax day, and Rush has moved out of New York (gasp). However Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele, the heirs-apparent to Republican leadership, have fallen by the wayside; Jindal was simply out-gunned by Obama in his State of the Union rebuttal and Steele, well, it was ugly.
Whether he was attacking Rush (and later hiding like a child who knows he's plucked his older brother's last string) or claiming "there was a Michael Steele before there was a Barack Obama" (yes, party chair is a career-maker, just ask Howard Dean), he ran along his own sword.
Perhaps the reason these attempts failed is because they are all quick-fixes and gimmicks. How do you counteract the first black president? Find a minority figure to make the face of your party. Perfect. Did the people who came up with this ever hear of Clarence Thomas?
We need a black guy, but he also has to be a conservative; yeah, that went well. If the Republican Party wants to survive the 2012 elections, it's going to have to get its hands dirty. Its ideals will have to be overhauled. Enter Libertarianism.
Just last year during the party's primary elections, libertarian candidate Ron Paul outraised eventual nominee John McCain. More impressively, Paul did this by receiving thousands of small donations in a grassroots movement very similar to the one Obama used to defeat McCain in the general election.
The main difference, and perhaps the most encouraging, between the Obama strategy and Paul's movement is merely "for whom" versus "for what." Obama became a fundraising dynamo because he is a dynamo; his energy, youth and speaking prowess were keys to his efforts. Paul, however, is a 73-year-old Texan who had to fight for every second of media coverage. It was his ideas, not Paul himself, that were bringing in the money.
While Republican platforms already capture the libertarian notion of free markets, they are less open to social freedoms. However, with the evangelical moral majority movement receding, Republicans need to rethink their social strategy; Jerry Falwell isn't winning elections for them anymore. Instead, the party needs to open itself to the Constitution: Freedom of speech, warrantless wiretaps and habeas corpus are something to embrace, not do a political two-step around.
These are the reasons the Republicans lost the last election. Even when Paul dropped out of the race, he acknowledged to Time Magazine that he probably would not endorse any other candidate. "Those people who support me wouldn't believe it," he said. Indeed, many of his supporters were drawn to Obama during the general election, with McCain and Palin embodying a repackaged version of Bush conservatives.
There is still hope for the Republicans; the next four years offer a chance for the party to rebuild its strategies and tinker with its principles. It gives them time to distance themselves from the previous administration and level the playing field.
But if the leadership chooses to stay the course and continue to ignore the outcry for social liberty, it will be a long and harrowing four years, as there is nothing more dangerous than uncontested power, especially in a national crisis.
But no matter what the actions the Republicans take, the principles are still alive in the American public, and because of this the critical realignment will come - the only question is whether the Republican Party will change with it or give way to a party that will.