The analysis of the coming changes in the makeup of the U.S.
Congress, in yesterday’s New York Times, has a
certain amount of blather in it, but there is also much evidence
adduced to support the conclusion that the Congress, which has
become increasingly partisan (especially on the Democrats’ side, I
should note), will be even more so in the next session. Not a huge
surprise, but an interesting phenomenon.
This is happening, of course, because the two major parties have
increasingly divided along ideological lines as opposed to the
ethnic and social-class coalitions built during the early years of
the past century and solidified during the Great Depression, in
which the Democrats set themselves as the party of the underdogs
and the Republicans made themselves the party of social order. That
is to say, the Democrats emphasized the pursuit of justice, and the
Republicans pressed the pursuit of order.
Ronald Reagan and his opponents had a good deal to do with
blowing those coalitions to pieces, as has been widely observed.
But the reasons, I think, are rather different from what most
analysts have given us. Reagan actually never shook off his core
ideas of true (a.k.a. classical, Whig) liberalism. He never left
the Democratic Party, Reagan always said, but instead the party
left him; and just so, he never left liberalism, but instead modern
liberalism left him. As a result, when Reagan ran for the
presidency, he emphasized how much social disorder, economic
stagnation, and social stratification harmed society’s underdogs,
taking up a traditionally Democratic theme and offering a highly
plausible political alternative. As president, he acted on those
premises, and was reelected overwhelmingly.
The Democrats, for their part, dug in their heels and continued
to press the underdog button, citing especially the terrifying
specter of rule by conservative, Southern, evangelical Christians
(not coincidentally, a large part of Reagan’s base, whom the
Democrats judged they had to attack in order to retain their
support among the wealthier class of so-called liberals).
The Democrats would have been smarter to try to woo the
evangelicals back into the fold by acknowledging them as underdogs,
which would have been an easy, logical move to make. But this would
have involved jettisoning the antireligious, ACLU wing of the
party, along with the rest of the intellectual class, which they
were by no means prepared to do.
That decision, however, meant that the Democrats would openly
become increasingly the party of the privileged classes, which
would finally confirm the very role reversal the Republican had
been trying to establish: the Republicans as the party of the
search for ordered liberty, and the Democrats as the party of
privilege, atheism, pacifism, and social and economic
sclerosis.
BILL CLINTON MANAGED TO forestall this disaster temporarily,
presenting himself as a formerly (and indeed often currently)
oppressed southern Christian, and as a result, he and Al Gore were
able to hold down turnout among evangelicals and induce a huge
turnout among African-American voters in recent presidential
elections, thereby winning a few Southern and Midwestern states the
Democrats had been unable to wrest from the Reagan Republicans. The
party’s nomination of John Kerry in 2004, however, made impossible
any outreach to southern Christians, especially given that the
token Southerner on the ticket was such an obvious empty suit.
That left the Democrats with only modern liberals to woo, and
the Republicans with the conservatives. (In actuality, the
Democrats of today are the real conservatives, wanting to preserve
the welfare state, sexual revolution, pacifism, and Court-ordered
restrictions on individual liberty that were implemented during the
past half-century. The Republicans of today are the truly liberal
party, with their emphasis on creating an economically and socially
dynamic “opportunity society.”)
Hence the severe ideological divide of today, and the hardening
of the nation into two camps along the lines noted above. The
policy differences between the two candidates in the recent
election, which played out in similar terms on the state and local
levels, simply reflected and confirmed these divisions.
THIS APPEARS TO BE a largely salutary change, as it brings a
certain amount of clarity to the political situation. It appears,
however, to be an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.
The Republicans have their side staked out and seem fairly
comfortable with it, despite some internal divisions-but the
Democrats seem increasingly uncomfortable with theirs.
African-Americans, suburban mothers, and union members, for
example, do not share most of the values of the farther-Left side
of their party. The three former groups adhere to the Democrat
Party mainly for its traditional championing of the underdog, and
they are by no means in it for a radical transformation of the
American mind and society.
That tension seems likely to remain until these persons either
leave the party or take it over.
These weaknesses of the Democratic Party also create a
temptation for the Republicans to press their agenda beyond what is
politically wise. The presence of two strongly plausible political
parties, each with a serious respect for the pursuit of both
liberty and order both within the United States and in the
international environment, would surely be much better than the
current situation.
It will be up to the Democrats, however, to change themselves
sufficiently to make this happen. The Republicans, being in the
driver’s seat, have little incentive to alter their direction.
