Cyclical theories of history are intended to explain the numerous recurring events and patterns in humanity's recorded history. Several such cycles and recurring events have been described for the United States, cycles in both domestic affairs and in foreign policy, cycles with varying amounts of support.
United States cycles
These are cycles first identified in the United States or are specific to United States politics.
Schlesingers' liberal–conservative cycle
Historians Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr., Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and others have proposed that the United States has an alternation of national moods and tendencies between liberalism and conservatism. Each phase has characteristic features, and each phase is self-limiting, eventually generating the other phase. This alternation has repeated itself several times over the history of the United States. + Schlesinger phases of American historyCYCLES OF AMERICAN HISTORY (archived page at the Internet Archive) From To Duration(in years) Type Name 1776 1788 12 Lib Liberal Movement to Create Constitution (Revolution, Confederation Period) 1788 1800 12 Con Hamiltonian Federalism (Federalist Era) 1800 1812 12 Lib Liberal Period of Jeffersonianism (Jeffersonian democracy) 1812 1829 17 Con Conservative Retreat (War of 1812, Era of Good Feelings) 1829 1841 12 Lib Jacksonian Democracy 1841 1861 20 Con Domination of National Government by Slaveowners (Origins of the Civil War) 1861 1869 8 Lib Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction (Civil War, Reconstruction Era) 1869 1901 32 Con Gilded Age 1901 1919 18 Lib Progressive Era, World War I 1919 1931 12 Con Republican Restoration (Roaring Twenties) 1931 1947 16 Lib New Deal (Great Depression, World War II) 1947 1962 15 Con Postwar Era 1962 1978 16 Lib Civil-Rights Era 1978 ? ? Con Reagan Era, Trump Era Types: Lib: Liberal Con: Conservative The Schlesingers' periodization closely parallels other periodizations of United States history. The features of each phase in the cycle can be summarized with a table. Liberal Conservative Wrongs of the Many Rights of the Few Increase Democracy Contain Democracy Public Purpose Private Interest Human Rights Property Rights The Schlesingers proposed that their cycles are "self-generating", meaning that each kind of phase generates the other kind of phase. This process then repeats, causing cycles. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. speculated on possible reasons for these transitions. He speculated that since liberal phases involve bursts of reform effort, such bursts can be exhausting, and the body politic thus needs the rest of a conservative phase. He also speculated that conservative phases accumulate unsolved social problems, problems that require the efforts of a liberal phase to solve them. He additionally speculated on generational effects, since most of the liberal–conservative phase pairs are roughly 30 years long, roughly the length of a human generation. The Schlesingers' identified phases end in a conservative period. In a foreword written in 1999, Schlesinger Jr. speculated about why it has lasted unusually long, instead of ending in the early 1990s, from how long previous conservative periods typically lasted. One of his speculations was the continuing Computer Revolution, as disruptive as the earlier Industrial Revolution had been. Another of them was wanting a long rest after major national traumas. The 1860s Civil War and Reconstruction preceded the unusually-long Gilded Age, and the strife of the 1960s likewise preceded the recent unusually-long conservative period.
An alternative identification is due to Andrew S. McFarland. He identifies the liberal phases as reform ones and conservative phases as business ones, and he additionally identifies transitions from the reform ones to the business ones, with his Figure 1 roughly agreeing with Schlesinger's identifications. Reform Trans. Business 1890s 1901–14 1915–18 1919–33 1933–39 1940–48 1949–61 1961–74 1974–80 1980- ?
Huntington's periods of creedal passion
Historian Samuel P. Huntington has proposed that American history has had several bursts of "creedal passion".This 1981 book eerily predicted today's distrustful and angry political mood - Vox Huntington described the "American Creed" of government in these terms: "In terms of American beliefs, government is supposed to be egalitarian, participatory, open, noncoercive, and responsive to the demands of individuals and groups. Yet no government can be all these things and still remain a government." This contradiction produces an unavoidable gap between ideals and institutions, an "IvI" gap. This gap is normally tolerable, but it is a gap that sometimes leads to bursts of "creedal passion" against existing systems and institutions, bursts that typically last around 15 years. He identified four of them:
1770s: Revolutionary era 1830s: Jacksonian era 1900s: Progressive era 1960s: S&S: Sixties and Seventies (Huntington's name)
Huntington described 14 features of creedal-passion eras. Nine of them describe the general mood: "Discontent was widespread; authority, hierarchy, specialization, and expertise were widely questioned or rejected." "Political ideas were taken seriously and played an important role in the controversies of the time." "Traditional American values of liberty, individualism, equality, popular control of government, and the openness of government were stressed in public discussion." "Moral indignation over the IvI gap was widespread." "Politics was characterized by agitation, excitement, commotion, even upheaval — far beyond the usual routine of interest-group conflict." "Hostility toward power (the antipower ethic) was intense, with the central issue of politics often being defined as 'liberty versus power. "The exposure or muckraking of the IvI gap was a central feature of politics." "Movements flourished devoted to specific reforms or 'causes' (women, minorities, criminal justice, temperance, peace)." "New media forms appeared, significantly increasing the influence of the media in politics." The remaining five describe the resulting changes: "Political participation expanded, often assuming new forms and often expressed through hitherto unusual channels." "The principal political cleavages of the period tended to cut across economic class lines, with some combination of middle- and working-class groups promoting change." "Major reforms were attempted in political institutions in order to limit power and reshape institutions in terms of American ideals (some of which were successful and some of which were lasting)." "A basic realignment occurred in the relations between social forces and political institutions, often including but not limited to the political party system." "The prevailing ethos promoting reform in the name of traditional ideals was, in a sense, both forward-looking and backward-looking, progressive and conservative."
Party systems and realignment elections
The United States has gone through several party systems, where in each system, the two main parties have characteristic platforms and constituencies. Likewise, the United States has had several realigning elections, elections that bring fast and large-scale changes. These events are mentioned here because their repeated occurrence may be interpreted as a kind of cycle.
+ Party systems Begin End System 1792 1826 First Party System 1828 1854 Second Party System 1856 1894 Third Party System 1896 1930 Fourth Party System 1932 1974 Fifth Party System 1980 ? Sixth Party System Opinions differ on the timing of the transition from the fifth to the sixth systems, opinions ranging from the 1960s to the 1990s. Some political scientists argue that it was a gradual transition, one without any well-defined date.
+ Realigning elections Date President 1800 Thomas Jefferson 1828 Andrew Jackson 1860 Abraham Lincoln 1896 William McKinley 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt1980Ronald Reagan Other dates sometimes cited are 1874, 1964 (Lyndon B. Johnson), 1968 (Richard Nixon), 1992 (Bill Clinton), 1994, 2008 (Barack Obama), and 2016 (Donald Trump).
Skowronek's presidency types
Political scientist Stephen Skowronek has proposed four main types of presidencies, and these types of presidencies fit into a cycle. He proposes that the United States has had several political regimes over its history, regimes with a characteristic cycle of presidency types. Each political regime has had a dominant party and an opposition party. Presidents can be in either the dominant party, or the opposition party.The Presidency in the Political OrderOpinion | The Fight Over How Trump Fits in With the Other 44 Presidents The New York TimesIs Trump the last gasp of Reagan's Republican Party? - The Washington PostReview of "The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush" by Stephen Skowronek, reviewed by Richard J. Ellis, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 128-130The Politics of Politics: Skowronek and Presidential Research on JSTORDonald Trump will follow a failed political transformation, just like Benjamin Harrison - VoxPreemptive Presidents and President Trump – Presidential Power archived from the original + Dominant Party President's Party Type Vulnerable Opposition Reconstruction Vulnerable Dominant Disjunction Resilient Opposition Preemption Resilient Dominant Articulation The cycle begins with a reconstructive president, one who typically serves more than one term. He establishes a new regime, and his party becomes the dominant one for that regime. He is usually succeeded by his vice president, his successor is usually an articulation one, and that president usually serves only one term. This president is usually followed by a preemptive president, and articulating and preemptive presidents may continue to alternate. The cycle ends with one or more disjunctive presidents. Such presidents are typically loners, detached from their parties, considered ineffective, and serving only one term.
Some of the articulating and preemptive presidents' types have been inferred from their party affiliations. George Washington is classified here as a reconstructing president because he was the first one. One source lists Theodore Roosevelt as a possible reconstructing president and not just an articulating one.
Klingberg's extroversion–introversion foreign-policy cycle
Historian Frank J. Klingberg proposed a theory for American foreign policy a cycle of alternating moods and tendencies that is somewhat similar to the Schlesingers' cycles. What he described as "the historical alternation of moods in American foreign policy" is an alternation between "extroversion", willingness to confront other nations and to expand American influence and territory, and "introversion", unwillingness to do so. He examined presidents' speeches, party platforms, naval expenditures, wars, and annexations, identifying in 1952 seven alternations since 1776. He and others have extended this work into more recent years, finding more alternations. + Klingberg phases of American foreign policy From To Duration Type Events1776179822IntRevolution, establishment of government1798182426ExtFrench naval war, Louisiana Purchase, War of 18121824184420IntNullification Crisis, Texas question1844187127ExtTexas and Oregon annexations, Mexican War, Civil War1871189120Int(none)1891191928ExtSpanish-American War, World War I1919194021IntLeague of Nations rejections, Neutrality Acts1940196727ExtWorld War II, Cold War, Korean and Vietnam Wars1967198720IntVietnamization, détente, dissolution of Soviet Union1987201629ExtPost-Cold-War assertion, Gulf War, War on Terror2016 ? ?Int Ext: Extroversion Int: Introversion (none): no events listed in the sources Arthur Schlesinger Jr. concluded that this cycle is not synchronized with the liberal-conservative cycle, and for that reason, he concluded that these two cycles have separate causes.