It has become commonplace to say that America is undergoing a political realignment, as working class and rural people become more Republican and suburban and wealthier people become more Democratic.
However, it is less common to convey what that means beyond political party affiliation. The recent election gives us more data to understand what is going on, and the good news is that may give hope to those worried about America’s direction.
In previous decades, the split was between two different economic philosophies — state direction versus free market. However, in the 1990s, during the Clinton presidency, it looked like the free market had won, so social issues grew more important.
From 2001 to 2007, terrorism and war were predominate concerns; but then economic issues came back in a big way after the financial crisis. However, voters’ party affiliations remained remarkably consistent despite these changes in emphasis.
By the 2016 election, however, it was apparent things were changing. Large numbers of people in distinct areas of the country switched parties. Blue collar counties went one way, more affluent counties the other. By the 2020 election it appeared that the main division was over identity.
Voters who considered themselves American first and foremost were upset at the damage caused by globalist policies like free trade and immigration to them and their neighbors. Voters with a more cosmopolitan outlook were horrified by “children in cages” at the borders, ongoing racial injustice and the repudiation of global environmental treaties.
Thus it appeared that the election choice was between hardline nationalism on the one hand and progressive radicalism on the other. The results, like the lack of a “blue wave” of Democratic votes, were surprising in many ways, indicating the issue is not so simple.
On the one hand, large numbers of Hispanic immigrants voted for the “nationalist” side, which seems counterintuitive. Meanwhile, large numbers voted for a split ticket, voting against the nationalist president but in favor of his congressional or state-level allies.
Finally, in the progressive radical heartlands, ballot initiatives aimed at expanding government power were voted down. In other words, the simple nationalist/progressive divide can’t explain everything. It appears that there are two other voting blocks that may be crucial in deciding future elections.
The first group is what we might term new conservatives. These are people who still see America as a land of opportunity, not a land of economic carnage. They are not motivated by resentment but by aspiration.
Immigrants who fled socialist regimes in Latin America are strongly represented in this group. They are more worried by the socialist policies of progressive radicals than they are by the nationalist policies of the current administration.
The second group is what we can call new liberals, in the broadest sense of the term. They are shocked by the extremes of both parties, opposing both nationalism and radical progressivism.
They are likely to split tickets, finding Joe Biden’s moderate record attractive, but worrying about the radicalism of younger Democratic candidates. They will oppose attempts to kill off innovations like Uber or to promote aggressive affirmative action, but vote in favor of both minimum wage increases and drug liberalization.
This is the party of the suburbs.
What this suggests is that to break the nation out of its 50/50 polarization, one of the parties will have to persuade both of these groups to support it consistently. If the Republicans hope to do so, they will need to ditch their anti-immigrant policies to secure a hold on the new conservatives and reach out to the new liberals with a kinder tone.
If the Democrats want their support, they will need to wall off the radical socialist wing of their party and offer a more moderate tone to the new liberals that does not imply that they are racist simply by existing.
The attacks by some moderate Democrats on socialist House members last week suggests this will be debated openly in the party. If this analysis holds up, we will see less of the “Build the Wall”/”Defund the Police” sloganeering.
In its place would be a more nuanced set of arguments that realize that America’s strengths are in its free enterprise system, opportunity, local decision-making, and respect for rights.
If that is where the political realignment ends up, the city on a hill will shine again.
