Those of you who are familiar with US electoral politics probably know that there are two major parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. Because of how our democratic system evolved, the US has almost always had two main big-tent parties, with each party representing a range of ideologies and interest groups united by a single cause. The issues uniting/dividing the parties have changed over time, such that the composition of the two main parties has changed quite a bit over the years, with a major change usually occurring every 30-40 years or so. (Source 1, source 2), more detail on Party System history courtesy of Shofercia.
First Party System (1800-1824)- Federalist Party vs Democratic-Republican Party. Federalists favor a strong central gov't, Dem-Reps favor a weak central gov't. Ended due to the emergence of popular democracy under Andrew Jackson.
Second Party System (1828-1860)- Democratic Party vs Whig Party. Democrats are pro-expansion, Whigs are pro-industrialization. Ended due to slavery (this destroyed the Whigs) and the Civil War (started by Abe Lincoln’s election to the White House).
Third Party System (1860-1890s)- Democratic Party vs Republican Party. Republicans stronger in the North and among businessmen/professionals, Democrats stronger in the South and among immigrants. Ended due to recession and US overseas expansion.
Fourth Party System (1896-1932)- Republican Party vs Democratic Party. Republican and Democratic coalitions similar as before, political focus is on social reform (Progressive era). Ended due to Great Depression.
Fifth Party System (1933-1970s)- Democratic Party vs Republican Party. This is when the modern "economic left-right" split between the two parties emerges. Dems are the party of the working-class, labor, South, and minority groups. GOP is the party of the middle-class, business interests, and small-government advocates. Ended largely due to the Civil Rights and Counterculture movements.
Sixth Party System (1970s-2010s)- Republican Party vs Democratic Party. This is when the modern "social liberal-conservative" split between the two parties emerges- think race relations, feminism, LGBT rights, abortion rights, the Religious Right, the New Left, environmentalism, etc. Dems are the party of urban areas and racial/ethnic minorities, GOP is the party of suburban/rural areas and white Southerners.
So where are we now heading into 2018 and the 2020s? Considering it's been anywhere between 30-50 years since the last realignment took place, we're probably due for another one this decade. Some of the major themes of last year's election was immigration and free trade- issues that weren't as divisive during the Sixth Party System when liberals and conservatives were battling over LGBT rights, abortion, and feminism, or during the Fifth Party System when the main political cleavage was between labor and capital.
Michael Lund has made two slightly different predictions on how this new post-Sixth Party System cleavage will play out, one in 2014 and the other in 2016 in the middle of campaign season. Both involve continued cleavage along urban/suburban lines, but with an emphasis on liberaltarianism/populiberalism in the first scenario, and globalism/nationalism in the second.
How do you see the parties evolving in the next 10-20 years? Do you think Prediction 1 or Prediction 2 is more likely? And which party do you think will dominate after 2020? I personally think the Populiberal Republicans would dominate in Scenario 1 and the Multicultural Globalist Democrats would dominate in Scenario 2, but am not sure which is more likely after Trump leaves the White House.
What "Populism vs Elitism" might look like for the parties:
The forthcoming “alignments” are speculative, but a proposition that is increasingly supported by the movements of the two parties.
The Republicans will be the party of Nationalism. “America first” will become their prime mantra. Every action will have the patina of nationalism with a hint of xenophobia. They will view the American Dream as something under siege by outside forces and in need of defense. Ideologically the party will be diverse, comprised of a spectrum of protectionists: the white working class, socialists, market interventionists, social conservatives, manufacturers, nativists and organized labor. The core of the party being Trumpian “Economic Nationalists” and Bernie Sanders style “Democratic Socialists.”
The diversity of political views within the party, ranging from TEA Partiers to “Sandernistas,” will lead to some internal fracturing, especially in the realm of taxation, and some social issues, such as abortion and the legalization of marijuana. However they will be united in opposing trade deals, immigration and economic liberalization, and will be very hesitant to support America’s allies abroad. Economic interventionism will become the norm within the party, typically through strong-arming businesses and playing favorites with companies that do their bidding (see Trump’s Carrier deal).
Unlike their disparate political views, the factions within the Republican party will share much in their methods. The party will grab populism in a deep embrace, claiming to fight for the little guys against the establishment and the Globalists. The party will favor grand gestures over small ones and will be hostile to the opinions of experts (including mainstream economists, sociologists and intelligence figures). Additionally there will be a strong authoritarian streak in the party, favoring “winners” and powerful men as leaders, and possibly a hostility to portions of the Constitution (see Trump’s threat to sue his detractors for libel).
The Democrats will be the Globalist party. “America is for everyone” will become a major mantra. They will emphasize the American “duty” to help maintain the global free order, as well as allowing new people in to participate in the American Dream. Ideologically the party will be comprised of several large blocks, instead of dozens of smaller ones. These will be immigrants, business leaders, social liberals, urbanites and foreign policy hawks.
Similarly, the policies of the Democratic party will be fairly homogenous, spanning a moderately sized concinnity, rather than the stark difference between Republican factions. Policies favored by the Democrats will be moderately business friendly, in favor of international trade, advocating immigration and an open economy, as well as fighting for a continued and strong American international presence. They would seek to take a strong stance against Russian and Chinese aggression and advocate for America to retain its role as the “world’s policeman” keeping everything tidy so that goods, capital, people and ideas (especially American ideas) can continue to spread around the globe.
The methods of the Democratic party will be opposite those of the Republicans. Instead of eye catching grand gestures, the Party will focus on incremental change, more policy than personality. Additionally significant weight will be placed on experts and expert opinion, as opposed to gut feeling. A restrained, yet focused, party also has a long precedent in American politics. The Republicans before the 1990s could be described this way, smaller but more united and more professional, and putting great weight on the policies of experts within their fields.
Nuances of American nationalism and multicultural globalism:
The culture war and partisan realignment are over; the policy realignment and “border war” — a clash between nationalists, mostly on the right, and multicultural globalists, mostly on the left — have just begun.
For the nationalists, the most important dividing line is that between American citizens and everyone else—symbolized by Trump’s proposal for a Mexican border wall. On the right, American nationalism is tainted by strains of white racial and religious nationalism and nativism, reinforced by Trump’s incendiary language about Mexicans and his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
But while there is overlap between nationalists and racists, the two are not the same thing. The most extreme white nationalists don’t advocate nationalism as a governing philosophy in our multiracial country; they hope to withdraw from American life and create a white homeland within the nation-state. Nationalism is different than white nationalism, and a populist American nationalism untainted by vestiges of racial bigotry might have transracial appeal, like versions of national populism in Latin America.
The rise of populist nationalism on the right is paralleled by the rise of multicultural globalism on the center-left.
For multicultural globalists, national boundaries are increasingly obsolete and perhaps even immoral. According to the emerging progressive orthodoxy, the identities that count are subnational (race, gender, orientation) and supranational (citizenship of the world). While not necessarily representative of Democratic voters, progressive pundits and journalists increasingly speak a dialect of ethical cosmopolitanism or globalism — the idea that it is unjust to discriminate in favor of one’s fellow nationals against citizens of foreign countries.
This difference in worldviews maps neatly into differences in policy. Nationalists support immigration and trade deals only if they improve the living standards of citizens of the nation. For the new, globally minded progressives, the mere well-being of American workers is not a good enough reason to oppose immigration or trade liberalization. It’s an argument that today’s progressive globalists have borrowed from libertarians: immigration or trade that depresses the wages of Americans is still justified if it makes immigrants or foreign workers better off.
Non-Americans: what are your thoughts on the topic? How do you see the two parties evolving in the near future?