I will begin with a disclaimer. I have no interest in partisan politics of any kind except as a focus of study. As a theorist with a PhD in political and social theory from Strathclyde University in Scotland, a Masters from MIT Sloan School of Management and a BA in Business from the University of Texas, my focus is on the operation of Madisonian Republicanism.
I am one of those who has traditionally seen US national politics as a pendulum that swung between extremes and rarely spent much time in the center. What follows is based on the assumption that the current swing to the right will either produce increasing pressures to reverse direction or, in the extreme case, will break the process and undo the Republic.
At issue is the credibility of one of the parties. The results of the introspection following the 2024 election will determine if the nation returns to a two-party system or breaks with the vision of the founders and becomes an oligarchy with an authoritarian government.
The question is simple. Why would groups of voters trust the Democratic Party? Let’s look at a series of issues. What follows are a series of hard questions that must be answered effectively before the pendulum begins to swing in the opposite direction. If they are not, there may be no pendulum to swing for future generations.
Abortion: Why would women trust Democrats to protect the right to make decisions about such a personal issue? The history in this area does not favor them. For fifty years, the opposition has been telling them, and women, what they intend. It’s not as if their agenda was hidden. And, during those decades, Democrats had many opportunities to enshrine protection in both federal and state laws. But they didn’t. The party developed a reputation of talking about doing, as a substitute for actually doing. And operated on the weakly based assumption that the opposition would never succeed in overturning the settled law. So, why should women believe Democrats, who vociferously promise to protect their rights, when they have proven incompetent in doing so in a past that contained many notices of intention?
The Supreme Court: If there is an area that the Democrats really looked like amateurs, it was in their approach to the Court. They have been consistently outmaneuvered by the Republicans and sabotaged by their own. An arrogant old woman helped the Republicans establish the conservative majority – a majority that will dismantle all she spent her life working for. A legacy of hubris and putting self over the national interests. The Senate, dominated by a very slim Republican majority, put judges on the Court who were determined to overturn Roe v Wade, and the Democrats were unable to expose that agenda effectively. Now. the Republicans have an opportunity to replace the two older judges, Alito and Thomas, with younger judges (something that the Democrats did not do when they had a chance) and face the possibility of replacing one or more of the older left-leaning judges. In either case, a conservative majority on SCOTUS will be guaranteed for at least four decades. So, why should women, or members of minorities for that matter, trust Democrats in this area?
Civil and Voting Rights: The 1960s saw a high-water mark in these areas. And, since that time, there has been a steady erosion of rights driven by right-wing groups. Much of this erosion occurred while the Democrats controlled both the White House and at least one branch of Congress. During that time, citizens, particularly members of minorities and the poor, have found it more difficult to exercise their voting franchise. Increasingly conservative courts have made it more difficult for them to assert their civil rights. Democratic handwringing has proven ineffective. The lack of urgency by Democrats is reflected in the fact that fewer judges will be confirmed during the Biden Administration than during Trump’s first term. Voters see Democrats as being in opposition intellectually, but not practically. Words will not prevent the return of Jim Crow. So, why should voters trust the Democratic Party to defend their civil and voting rights?
The neat, wealthy, and entrenched elite: Voters expect that candidates will at least have a passing recognition of the pain points that are defining their lives. A major characteristic of the last six or seven decades has been the widening gap of income and wealth inequality. It is the major driver of political inclinations. You would think that the “party of the working class” would have recognized and responded to this development.
For a rapidly growing segment of the population, the American dream is unachievable. Families are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with no savings for retirement. They know that their children will have it harder than they do. The American dream was tha you would get a good education without going deeply in debt, find a good job, get married, buy a house and a car or two, raise two to four children on a single income, take a couple of weeks off each year for vacation, and have enough set aside to retire. None of that is available to Gen-Zers. And, in the minds of many voters, Democrats have stood by – offering only platitudes and irrelevancies – while the rich became oligarchs and the middleclass was eviscerated. So, why would voters trust Democrats to reverse the trend in income and wealth inequality and make the American dream achievable again?
The Rule of Law: It is arguable that no man did more to maintain Donald Trump as a viable candidate than Merrick Garland. If justice delayed is justice denied, he slow-played the prosecution of Trump in a way that virtually guaranteed his reelection. He is the poster boy for why voters don’t trust Democrats to protect this fundamental underpinning of the Republic. The evidence is clear. Trump organized a mob and sent them against the Capitol to overthrow an election. He took highly classified materials and stored them in the bathroom and auditorium of his beach house. And four years plus after the events, Trump will completely escape accountability for his actions. Garland should be at the top of his Christmas gift list. He, more than any other, made the second Trump term possible. And the Democrats stood by silently while it happened. If they are the party of protecting the wealthy and powerful from accountability, why should voters trust them to protect their own interests?
Actors vs. Kibitzers: A while back I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher. He had two guests – a talking head Democrat and a MAGA operative. I like to watch Bill because he allows conversations between such opposites. The contrast between his two guests could not have been starker. The talking head was just so pleased to be there. She had arrived and was basking in the limelight. She had no agenda except her celebrity. She contributed nothing to the discussion. Just an occasional giggle. The operative came with a clear set of objectives – points to make and issues to raise. He was there to advance the cause. In voters’ minds, that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans, as typified by Trump, are committing to do something – change something – even break something. They have an intentionality to act. Democrats, as typified by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, seem old, stale and in the way. In a country where increasing numbers of voters find their lives untenable, which do you think they would choose?
The Rubicon That Needs Crossing: These, an many more, are hard questions that the Democrats must find answers for. The Republic requires two functioning parties that are seen by voters as relevant to their lives. At stake is the very existence of Madison’s government. Once lost, it will be devilishly difficult to reclaim. Authoritarians, once in control, are not easily displaced. The wealthy will not easily give up their wealth and privilege.
Some believe it has already gone too far, and, like the climate change tipping point, we are already beyond redemption. Others believe that the ideal of Representative Democracy has run its course. They quote John Adams. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” And still others think that the ideal resulted in an “excess of democracy” that is only counterbalanced by the dominating influence of the wealthy and politically powerful – the uber-class.
Whether these are right, and the Republic is lost, or the ship will right itself, is beyond my ability to foresee. But I do know that the answers that Democrats find to the credibility challenges they presently face will have a substantial impact on the outcome.
© Earl Smith