Coalitions are the backbone of politics, and the instruments of societal progress. They determine the capacity of leaders to win elections, implement policies, and maintain public support. While all coalitions are built on shared interests, they differ significantly in structure and strategy depending on how those interests are defined.
In this essay, I will divide political coalitions into two types: those based on widely shared pain points or goals, and those cobbled together out of a balkanized set of sub-tribes. Each approach is considered to have strengths and weaknesses, and the outcomes they produce can vary greatly depending on the context in which they emerge.
The first of these evolves naturally and is led by an opportunistic politician who decides to lead it. The second type is created out of disparate parts to be led by a leader who is seen as the principal architect of the coalition.
In what follows, I will refer to the first type of coalition as Organic, one that is based on a widely shared sense of membership (such as being an American), and widely shared needs or pain points (Such as a war, rising financial stress, or oppressive government policies). Relatively independent of ethnicity, religion, identity, or geographic location, these coalitions tend to form spontaneously. The second type, which I will refer to as Cobbled, is based on identity politics (African American, Latino, Gay, Woman, etc.) and begins with a balkanized society of sub-tribes which are welded together based on assumed shared grievances or goals.
Organic Coalitions Based on Widely Shared Pain Points
Coalitions built around widely shared pain points are rooted in addressing common grievances that transcend demographic and ideological divisions. A good example is Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition during the Great Depression. It arose during a worldwide crisis when people from disparate backgrounds face similar economic and social challenges, such as widespread unemployment, declining living standards, or systemic corruption. The crisis allowed government to act in support of a wide coalition and played a significant role in helping American society to recover. FDR did not build this coalition; he chose to lead it.
Such coalitions tend to be strong because they are built on naturally occurring, unifying themes, and focus on issues that affect a broad swath of the population. Organically occurring coalitions often drive transformative policies because their strength lies in collective urgency. FDR’s New Deal coalition led to the establishment of Social Security, labor protections, and massive infrastructure development. It created opportunities for solidarity across class, race, and geographic divides, fostering a sense of shared purpose and accomplishment.
The weak points of such coalitions are that, once the pain points are addressed, the coalition can lose cohesion. Such coalitions often oversimplify or sideline specific sub-tribe concerns, as the focus remains on broadly applicable solutions. As an example, after the economic recovery post-World War II, FDR’s coalition fractured over civil rights and labor disputes. A society which was once united by the idea of being an American began to fracture into sub-tribes.
FDR and His National Coalition
It is useful to remember something of the conditions that brought about the FDR coalition. Americans were crushed by the Great Depression and welded together by World War II. The first gave them a common cause. Massive unemployment will do that to a population. The war gave them a common enemy. In both cases, the working class was in it together. And that togetherness was being an American.
Roosevelt’s presidency (1933–1945) was a defining era in American history, characterized by sweeping reforms, and a transformation of the federal government’s role in society. Roosevelt tapped into a broad and enduring coalition that helped him win four consecutive terms and enabled the United States to recover from the Great Depression, redefine national identity, and lay the groundwork for modern America. Through the New Deal, FDR utilized the government as a catalyst to reduce unemployment, improve living standards, and build critical infrastructure, thereby revitalizing the very idea of what it meant to be an American.
By 1933, nearly one in four Americans was unemployed, with the national unemployment rate peaking at 25%. The American people faced unprecedented hardship as unemployment soared, poverty spread, and confidence in the future wavered. The conditions they endured reveal the profound human cost of economic collapse and the resilience required to overcome such challenges. Entire industries collapsed, and jobs that had once offered stability disappeared seemingly overnight. Those fortunate enough to remain employed often saw their wages slashed or their hours reduced. Many families, dependent on a single breadwinner, quickly fell into poverty as their savings dwindled.
Unemployment created ripple effects throughout society. Breadlines and soup kitchens became common sights in cities, where charitable organizations and churches struggled to meet the overwhelming demand for food and aid. Men, once proud providers, wandered the streets in search of work, while women and children bore the burden of keeping households together with dwindling resources. The psychological toll of unemployment – marked by feelings of shame, helplessness, and despair – was as significant as its economic consequences.
Poverty during the Great Depression was widespread and deeply felt. Families that could no longer afford rent or mortgages were evicted from their homes, leading to a dramatic rise in homelessness. Shantytowns, derisively called “Hoovervilles” after President Herbert Hoover, sprang up across the country. These makeshift settlements, often constructed from scrap materials, provided shelter for the displaced but were plagued by squalid conditions and a lack of basic sanitation.
Rural Americans faced their own struggles. Farmers, already struggling with low crop prices during the 1920s, were hit even harder during the Depression. Falling demand for agricultural products led to plummeting incomes, forcing many off their land. The situation was compounded by the Dust Bowl, a series of severe droughts and dust storms that ravaged the Great Plains in the 1930s. Entire communities were abandoned as desperate farmers and their families migrated westward in search of work and better living conditions, often facing discrimination and hardship in their new environments.
The Great Depression had a profound impact on families, particularly children. Many children were forced to leave school to help support their families by working in fields, factories, or as domestic laborers. Malnutrition became a common problem as families struggled to afford food. In extreme cases, parents sent their children to live with relatives or in orphanages, believing they could not provide for them adequately.
Traditional family structures were strained under the weight of economic pressures. Divorce rates declined, not because marriages were more stable, but because couples could not afford the legal fees. However, the Depression saw an increase in family desertions, as some men, unable to cope with the shame of unemployment, left their families in search of work or simply disappeared.
The psychological toll of the Great Depression was immense. For many, the loss of jobs, homes, and savings represented a loss of identity and self-worth. Suicide rates increased during the early years of the Depression, reflecting the profound despair many Americans felt. For those who survived, the experience often left a lasting imprint, fostering a culture of thrift, caution, and mistrust of financial institutions that persisted for decades.
The economic crisis also fueled social unrest and political discontent. Protest movements, such as the Bonus Army march of 1932, highlighted the desperation and anger of the unemployed. Thousands of World War I veterans descended on Washington, D.C., demanding early payment of a promised bonus. Their eviction by federal troops shocked the nation and underscored the government’s inability to address the growing crisis.
Despite the bleak conditions, the American people demonstrated remarkable resilience and ingenuity in the face of hardship. Families pooled resources, neighbors helped one another, and communities came together to survive. Popular culture – through movies, music, and radio – provided an escape from daily struggles and helped foster a sense of shared identity and hope. The New Deal began to restore confidence in the government’s ability to address the crisis, offering relief to the unemployed and creating a safety net for the most vulnerable.
The coalition that Roosevelt tapped into was a diverse alliance that included labor unions, African Americans, Southern whites, urban immigrants, farmers, and intellectuals. It was united by a shared belief in the federal government’s responsibility to address the economic and social crises of the time. Roosevelt’s charisma and ability to communicate directly with Americans, particularly through his famous “Fireside Chats,” helped to bridge divides between these disparate groups. His optimistic and inclusive rhetoric appealed to a nation that was struggling with widespread poverty, unemployment, and uncertainty.
One of Roosevelt’s most significant achievements was restoring hope, and a sense of purpose, among the American people. His use of the federal government to address economic and social challenges redefined its role in American life. His leadership fostered a sense of collective responsibility and national unity, with citizens increasingly looking to Washington for solutions to their problems. While the New Deal faced criticism from both the political left and right, it undeniably laid the foundation for a more equitable and prosperous society. The infrastructure and institutions built during Roosevelt’s presidency not only helped the country recover from the Great Depression but also prepared it to face the challenges of World War II and the postwar era.
By leveraging the power of government, FDR reduced unemployment, raised living standards, and built the infrastructure that would support future growth. More importantly, he restored faith in the American Dream, proving that even in times of crisis, the nation could come together to achieve transformative progress. Roosevelt’s presidency remains a testament to the potential of leadership and collective action in shaping a better future.
Cobbled Coalitions Based on Balkanized, Identity Politics
In a politically fragmented or “balkanized” society, coalitions are often fragile alliances of competing interest groups stitched together to win elections. These coalitions emerge in environments of deep polarization and cultural division, where no single issue or identity can unite the majority. Examples include the contemporary Republican Party’s alliance of evangelical Christians, rural voters, and anti-regulation business interests or the Democratic Party’s coalition of urban progressives, minorities, and moderate suburbanites.
Identity-based coalitions focus on mobilizing voters from various sub-tribes around shared characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. In the United States, examples include the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s or the LGBTQ+ coalition that has grown over the past few decades. These coalitions often aim to address historic, and systemic, inequities faced by marginalized groups.
They can be strong coalitions because they tend to amplify the voices of marginalized communities, fostering political empowerment and cultural recognition. Sub-tribe coalitions can produce profound societal changes, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015. These coalitions often have strong emotional resonance, as they are deeply connected to people’s lived experiences and sense of belonging. Balkanized coalitions reflect the complexity and pluralism of modern societies, giving voice to a wide range of interests. They are pragmatic, prioritizing electoral success by assembling enough disparate groups to secure a governing majority. When managed effectively, they can advance incremental policy changes
But such coalitions can weaken as they unintentionally alienate those outside the identity group, making it harder to build broader support. A good example is Barack Obama’s 2008 coalition, which flowered for such a short time, and generated a massive blowback from parts of American society.
Because of the inherent fault lines in them, it is easy for opponents to exploit identity-based coalitions by stoking resentment and division, as seen with the “white backlash” against civil rights gains in the 1970s or right-wing opposition to multiculturalism. These coalitions can sometimes struggle to articulate a cohesive agenda beyond addressing the specific grievances of the identity groups.
Cobbled coalitions are inherently unstable, as the interests of their constituent groups often conflict. For example, labor unions and environmentalists within the Democratic Party frequently clash over energy policies. They are more likely to produce gridlock than sweeping change, as coalition leaders must appease competing factions. Balkanized coalitions can exacerbate polarization, as parties focus on catering to their narrow constituencies, rather than addressing national challenges.
Barak Obama’s Balkanized Coalition
Barack Obama’s coalition, which propelled him to the presidency in 2008 and secured his reelection in 2012, was one of the most diverse and dynamic political alliances in modern American history. This coalition was built on a foundation of hope, change, and the promise of progress. It united an array of demographic groups, including young voters, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, educated suburbanites, and progressives. Obama’s ability to inspire these groups with his charismatic leadership and compelling rhetoric made him a transformational figure in American politics.
However, the coalition faltered after his presidency, failing to deliver on its full promise and quickly losing the cohesion that had brought it together. The reasons for its rapid collapse are rooted in structural challenges, unrealized expectations, and shifts in the political landscape.
Obama’s coalition was rooted in the changing demographics of America and his ability to inspire a sense of shared purpose. He galvanized young people with his aspirational message and progressive stance on issues like healthcare, climate change, and social justice. African Americans, energized by the historic nature of his candidacy, turned out in record numbers. Latino and Asian American voters, alienated by Republican rhetoric on immigration, also aligned with Obama. Educated suburbanites, disenchanted with the George W. Bush administration and Republican extremism, found his pragmatic, post-partisan tone appealing. Women voters, particularly single women, were drawn to his support for reproductive rights and equal pay.
Obama’s campaign strategy combined grassroots mobilization with technological innovation. His use of social media and data analytics revolutionized voter outreach, allowing him to connect with people in ways that felt personal and empowering. The slogan “Yes We Can” became emblematic of a movement that transcended traditional politics and inspired millions to believe that collective action could bring real change.
Despite its successes, the Obama coalition struggled to deliver on many of its aspirations, leading to growing disillusionment among its members. Key promises – such as comprehensive immigration reform, significant action on racial inequality, and broad economic justice – were either watered down or unrealized.
Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and his administration’s policies, such as the stimulus package and the rescue of the auto industry, stabilized the economy. However, the recovery was uneven. Wealth inequality grew, and many working, and middle-class, Americans – especially in rural areas and Rust Belt states – felt left behind. The administration’s close ties to Wall Street, evident in its handling of the financial crisis, alienated many progressives who had hoped for a more aggressive stance against corporate greed.
Immigration reform was a cornerstone of Obama’s 2008 campaign, and his promise to address the status of millions of undocumented immigrants energized Latino voters. However, despite efforts like the DREAM Act and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), comprehensive immigration reform failed due to Republican obstruction in Congress. Meanwhile, the administration’s increased deportations alienated many in the Latino community, leading to a sense of betrayal.
While Obama’s presidency was a historic milestone, it also exposed deep racial divisions in the United States. His cautious approach to addressing systemic racism and police brutality disappointed some Black activists, especially as the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum after the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. Obama’s reliance on measured rhetoric, and incremental policy changes, frustrated those who demanded more urgent action.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or “Obamacare,” was Obama’s signature legislative achievement, expanding healthcare coverage to millions of Americans. However, the law’s complex design and uneven rollout – along with relentless Republican attacks – left it politically vulnerable. Many progressives felt the ACA did not go far enough, as it fell short of the universal healthcare systems they envisioned. Simultaneously, conservatives and moderates in the coalition were alienated by the perception of government overreach.
The Obama coalition began to fracture almost as soon as it had formed, for several interrelated reasons:
In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Democrats suffered historic defeats. Low turnout among young voters and minorities, combined with a backlash from older, white, rural voters, allowed Republicans to retake the House and Senate. With Congress controlled by Republicans, Obama’s ability to advance his agenda was significantly curtailed, leading to frustration among his base.
The coalition’s failure to address growing economic disenfranchisement created an opening for Donald Trump’s populist appeal in 2016. Many working-class white voters in the Midwest, who had supported Obama in 2008 and 2012, turned to Trump, drawn by his promises to restore manufacturing jobs and renegotiate trade deals. Meanwhile, many progressives felt disillusioned with the Democratic establishment, leading some to stay home or vote for third-party candidates.
Obama’s coalition relied on a delicate balance of diverse groups with different priorities. The progressive wing, demanding bold action on climate change, healthcare, and wealth inequality, often clashed with moderate Democrats who sought incremental change. Cultural divisions between urban, educated voters and rural, socially conservative communities widened, further eroding the coalition’s cohesion.
The rise of social media and partisan echo chambers intensified polarization, making it harder to sustain a broad, inclusive coalition. Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts, especially targeting minority communities, also undermined Democratic gains.
Barack Obama’s coalition represented a profound moment of possibility in American politics, demonstrating the potential for diverse groups to unite around shared ideals. However, its rapid collapse highlights the difficulty of sustaining such a coalition in the face of structural challenges, entrenched opposition, and unmet expectations. While Obama’s presidency achieved significant progress – most notably the ACA, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, and advancements in LGBTQ rights – it also revealed the limits of coalition politics in an era of deep polarization and economic insecurity.
The lessons of the Obama coalition continue to resonate for Democrats today. Building a winning alliance requires not only inspiring rhetoric and shared values but also sustained attention to the economic and social grievances of all its members. Without meaningful, tangible progress that addresses inequality and systemic injustice, even the most hopeful coalitions risk disintegration. Obama’s presidency remains a testament to the possibilities and perils of coalition-building in modern American democracy.
Organic vs. Cobbled Coalitions
The viability of a given type of coalition depends on the context within which it emerges. FDR’s coalition rivaled that of Revolutionary War times in breadth and depth. In both cases there were opponents, but the overwhelming majority of the country shared the same sense of identity and purpose. John Kennedy built what was probably the longest enduring identity politics coalition. He brought Americans together in common purpose. But his coalition, unlike FDRs, was balkanized.
The potency of both coalitions was enabled by the times and context in which they arose. Let’s compare the two types of coalitions based on four sets of metrics.
Unity vs. Fragmentation: Coalitions based on shared pain points or society-wide agendas emphasize unity and common purpose, while identity politics and balkanized coalitions often reflect fragmentation within society.
Transformative vs. Incremental Change: Shared pain point and society-wide agenda coalitions have the greatest potential for transformative change, while identity-based and balkanized coalitions tend to focus on incremental or piecemeal reforms.
Sustainability: Coalitions formed around society-wide agendas or identity politics tend to be more sustainable than those based on transient pain points or balkanized alliances, which can dissolve as circumstances or priorities change.
Appeal: Coalitions built on widely shared pain points or society-wide agendas have broader appeal, while identity-based and balkanized coalitions often face the challenge of unifying diverse or competing interests.
Conclusion: Quo Vadis?
Before wrapping up, I would start by reiterating an earlier statement. The purpose of this essay was to discuss coalitions within the bounds of current environment. I recognize that, under other circumstances, the analysis, and resulting conclusions, would be different. But, in politics, we must live today and leave the past to historians and the future to readers of tea leaves. Politicians who understand that, have a leg up on those who don’t. Those who can accurately anticipate which type of coalition meets the demands of the present, make decisions that will be more impactful than those who are living in the past or some anticipated version of the future.
The Lesson of 2024
In 2024, the Republicans opted for leading an Organic coalition, while the Democrats, following a pattern developed in the 1960s, opted to recreate a Cobbled one. The election demonstrated, beyond question, that, in this time and under current conditions, the former trumps the latter.
It will sound perverse at first, but if you take the time to think it through, the coalition that the Republicans are leading looks a lot like the one that FDR led. It is made up of the trodden down, dismissed, and screwed. The defining characteristic of the Trump coalition is a widely shared feeling of disappointment, despair, and rising rage. With over sixty percent of American families living paycheck-to-paycheck, massive and rapidly rising disparities in income and wealth, and governments, both Republican and Democratic, that seem distant, and to care more about making the wealthy wealthier, these citizens have formed into a natural and rapidly growing coalition.
On the other hand, the Democrats, resorting to the Cobble together strategy, seem to be playing a hand that is seriously out of date – a remembrance of things past. Their identity politics are seen as an insult to the sub-tribes that make it up. Treating each as a monolith, dictating their needs and agendas to complete the cobbling, and telling them their issues rather than asking and listening, are simply not making the grade in the current situation.
Members of each of the sub-tribes are finding common cause with members of other sub-tribes. But they aren’t the ones the Democrats are selling. The message that “you stay in your sub-tribe, and we will take care of you” is a non-starter to families who feel themselves part of a growing coalition of Americans whose concerns focus less on which sub-tribe they are a member of and more on how the American Dream is slipping away – being highjacked and then stolen by the wealthy and politically powerful. As the results of 2024 show, they increasingly believe that joining the larger tribe – the one of the trodden down, dismissed, and screwed – will better serve their interests.
The balkanization of American society by identity politics is a major loser because increasing numbers of Americans are in the same boat – watching the American Dream fade, and facing futures that are more like servitude than citizenship. Selling division to an increasingly consolidating population is a kamikaze raid on a vacant lot.
© Earl Smith