In 1950, America’s leading political scientists published a seminal report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” They argued that America’s political parties were — get this — too similar. It seems inconceivable today but was true then.
Not an exaggeration to say this is the best piece I’ve read in some time on the matter. Great breakdown of the trends and effects in the electorate. Excellent work
That's a great point: Had Trump never moderated on economics (or appeared to moderate, who knows if/how extensively DOGE will cut spending), the realignment probably doesn't happen.
You've helped me articulate a point I was gesturing at more crisply: Some combination of social media + Trump himself "freed" the Republican Party from needing to compete on economic fundamentals, which makes voting with our cultural lizard brains relatively more appealing. (Not to dismiss voting on cultural concerns — those are real and have always influenced voting.)
It's funny: Even "economic fundamentals" are no longer really fundamental, as the term "vibecession" conveys!
Some interesting points. However, this time around, it’s clear that our uneducated voter base has resulted in elevating a fascist demagogue. I don’t really see where the democrats could have moved more to the center—heck it was the republicans that blocked a significant border bill from passing so immigration (which many point to as an area for moderation) has already been covered by the party. I agree with your populist sentiment, which ultimately contradicts your call for moderation. It will take significant progressive reform to counteract much of the corruption, rot, and inequality we will see in these next four. It remains unclear where we will go, but as long as cuts to education and assistance programs continue, our population grows more manipulatable, and my faith gets weaker.
“Uneducated vote base”, “fascist demagogue”, “don’t see where the democrats would have moved to the center”
Wow! Talk about living in a bubble! I speak as one who has voted blue ALWAYS and was blow away from 2016, heaved a sign of relief in 2020 and was not at all surprised in 2024
I suggest a Gandhian tour of middle america, recommend a roadtrip that bypasses the big blue cities
Yeah sure maybe I have been in a bubble. But, as we’ve been seeing in the FIRST month, many have grown to regret their decision, how is that not imply an uneducated voter base? What is your criticism with my comment above?
Let me make you a bet! The Senate GOP majority will increase in 2026 as will their house majority.
I could be wrong and I hope I am wrong but it’s unlikely
Why? Cause way too many in the Democratic Party (and I have contributed way too much to them anyways) think as you seem to, atleast as articulated by the quotes I call out
What are you talking about?! Me calling the voter base uneducated?! Look, there’s no denying that the democrats have been catering towards an elitist, college educated demographic. However, they’re the ones that are not trying to eradicate every facet of the social safety net, heck, they acknowledge climate change! Also, I’m not a democrat, I’m a progressive. If we had it my way, the voter base would be educated enough to debate our politics on the basis of philosophy, not demagoguery, such as trans people harming our youth. The republicans favor the culture war because they don’t serve the American people, the same may be true for the corporate democrats. Yet, I believe there is a important distinction between corporatism and oligarchy!
Makes my point! “Progressives” are why the Democrats lost the most winnable election in a century both in 2016 and 2020 against an absolutely despicable person like Trump.
And the fact that you don’t even see how poorly “progressive” positions (DEI, unnuanced Climate Change doomerism, anti business, high priests of regulation) land in wide swathes of the country is why the Democrats will lose in 2026 and 2028.
I repeat take a road trip through areas of those you look down on. They are neither uneducated nor voting against their own self interest.
And they are rooting whole heartedly all that you are likely aghast by, especially the shenanigans of Musk and his merry band of marauders at DOGE and the EO that has started to dismantle “DEI”
Luckily for me, a “corporate democrat” or better put a “classical liberal”, I am quite immune from the vicissitudes of electoral wins and losses and as such will, in the future, restrict myself to munching popcorn and watching the shitshow from the sidelines as the “left of center” party fades into a oblivion for at least a decade till another Clinton like centrist triangulates his way out of the wilderness. Yes, it will be a man!
And here is another bet, the first woman POTUS will be from the GOP 😉 and the position of said woman will be certainly not “progressive”
I think it’s crazy how you represent an ideology that is “immune from losses.” People are hurting, our countries problems are getting worse. Centrism doesn’t address any of it. I fail to see how centrism would have won. It’s what got us citizens united, the mediocre ACA, poor climate action.
I think it’s funny how you can stand here and talk about how you’re immune to election outcomes when the majority of Americans are struggling with the simple cost of living. And I think it’s funny that you think there’s so many others like you such that it decided an election 🤣. Many people voted for trump because of a promise to lower prices. This of course is was a lie. It was an uninformed decision to vote for him on that basis.
I think he took your comments to mean knowledge and understanding when you referenced "education", instead of the socialization mechanisms of centralized education systems, which what is relevant here
"Working class Americans increasingly identify with a party whose stated policy goals — tariffs, DOGE-style spending cuts, etc. — would actively harm them. Meanwhile, Democrats have become the party of economic winners — people who are so insulated from material concerns that they might (might!) favor intellectual purity over the messy compromises it would take to win working class voters back to their side."
Lmao imagine thinking DOGE hurts average Americans. It hurts liberal sinecures and activists. It certainly helps me.
Admittedly, I wrote this post before DOGE's focus became clear. This was from the heady days when the stated goal was saving $2 trillion, not... whatever the grand plan currently is.
Looks good to me. For the first time in ~80 years the federal government is going to do something for the middle class. If we massively cut federal taxes then any slack can be picked up by the states. As it should be. Why the fuck is DC paying for peoples food in Montana? The answer, of course, is because it grows the regimes power and provides juicy sinecures for DC scum.
The reason Montana is a net beneficiary of federal largesse is that it's relatively poor by American standards. High-income states like California and Massachusetts subsidize Montana and other low-income states through taxes and transfers. Moreover, many big programs (e.g., Medicaid, SNAP) are administered by individual states even if they're partially funded by the federal government.
"Taxes and transfers mathematically favoring poor states" strikes me as a much simpler explanation than "growing regime power." But at this point we should probably agree to disagree.
But alot of the broader things he reference there are the result of the broader changes to the economy and system-writ-large that began after WW2 and then were not entirely but mostly done via that actions that made up the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era and eliminated the deliberate redundancy we operated with for the first 150 to 200 years of our existence concentrated power and decision making into a relatively small number of hands; and globally as well with the advent of capital "G" Globalization which are domestic system is deeply worked into. The system essentially centrally planned our broader economic geography into concentrated hub-and-spokes. The set-up we have there is the System performing maintenance functions, like how it keeps the Congo an impoverished mining colony but gives them "aid"
But alot of the broader things you reference here are the result of the broader changes to the economy and system-writ-large that began after WW2 and then were not entirely but mostly done via that actions that made up the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era and eliminated the deliberate redundancy we operated with for the first 150 to 200 years of our existence concentrated power and decision making into a relatively small number of hands; and globally as well with the advent of capital "G" Globalization which are domestic system is deeply worked into. The system essentially centrally planned our broader economic geography into concentrated hub-and-spokes
Regarding the two parties in 1950, the old parties were decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties and they were honestly named, the Democratic Party was a small "d" democracy party and the Republican Party was a small "r" republican party, and most all the parties members were neither conservative or liberal as we understand those things today; but now the two parties have long been transformed into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties and the Democratic Party is now actually a small "t" technocracy party and the Republican Party is now a small "c" conservative party, neither of which cares much for either democracy or republicanism. And given that the system in 1950s was still a politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system that by design had significant amounts of redundancy in each of those areas and allowed for real policy variability, the two parties are actually more similar to each other today than they were back then (it may be that we're in the early phase of this changing, but we'll have to wait and see if that is the case), both conservativism and technocracy are poles on axis of anti-democracyism and deep political, economic, governmental and scientific centralization with very little policy variability. I suspect there's a chance that what political scientists at the time were really trying to do, their ulterior motives, was to justify interventions by powerful special interest groups to change one and then eventually both into an anti-democracy and anti-republicanism party
And the "interests of Black Americans [being] sidelined" was becoming less of a problem overtime, whereas with advent of the Neoliberal Era most all black americans, like most all of the rest of ameicans, lost most all of their communities political and economic agency
Yeah, that wasn't totally core to my argument — just a fun aside. But this is the argument put forth by Haidt and others under the banner of "Moral Foundations Theory."
You can read his book The Righteous Mind to decide if you find the studies convincing! I'm guessing there is something to it, but it's probably far from being the fundamental determinant of political preferences.
Not an exaggeration to say this is the best piece I’ve read in some time on the matter. Great breakdown of the trends and effects in the electorate. Excellent work
Thanks so much, Alex, I appreciate you taking the time to read as well as your kind words!
Non-whites are conservative* culturally, but not economically. Romney got all time lows with non-whites running against the ACA.
The Trump Republican Party has made peace with entitlements. You don’t have to choose between your ACA subsidies and people shitting in the street.
*conservative in a law and order anti-degeneracy sense. Wanting to be left alone by woke.
Non-whites aren’t for instance raising stable nuclear families or going to church all that much, and Trump doesn’t judge them for it.
That's a great point: Had Trump never moderated on economics (or appeared to moderate, who knows if/how extensively DOGE will cut spending), the realignment probably doesn't happen.
You've helped me articulate a point I was gesturing at more crisply: Some combination of social media + Trump himself "freed" the Republican Party from needing to compete on economic fundamentals, which makes voting with our cultural lizard brains relatively more appealing. (Not to dismiss voting on cultural concerns — those are real and have always influenced voting.)
It's funny: Even "economic fundamentals" are no longer really fundamental, as the term "vibecession" conveys!
Some interesting points. However, this time around, it’s clear that our uneducated voter base has resulted in elevating a fascist demagogue. I don’t really see where the democrats could have moved more to the center—heck it was the republicans that blocked a significant border bill from passing so immigration (which many point to as an area for moderation) has already been covered by the party. I agree with your populist sentiment, which ultimately contradicts your call for moderation. It will take significant progressive reform to counteract much of the corruption, rot, and inequality we will see in these next four. It remains unclear where we will go, but as long as cuts to education and assistance programs continue, our population grows more manipulatable, and my faith gets weaker.
“Uneducated vote base”, “fascist demagogue”, “don’t see where the democrats would have moved to the center”
Wow! Talk about living in a bubble! I speak as one who has voted blue ALWAYS and was blow away from 2016, heaved a sign of relief in 2020 and was not at all surprised in 2024
I suggest a Gandhian tour of middle america, recommend a roadtrip that bypasses the big blue cities
Yeah sure maybe I have been in a bubble. But, as we’ve been seeing in the FIRST month, many have grown to regret their decision, how is that not imply an uneducated voter base? What is your criticism with my comment above?
Let me make you a bet! The Senate GOP majority will increase in 2026 as will their house majority.
I could be wrong and I hope I am wrong but it’s unlikely
Why? Cause way too many in the Democratic Party (and I have contributed way too much to them anyways) think as you seem to, atleast as articulated by the quotes I call out
Time will tell!
What are you talking about?! Me calling the voter base uneducated?! Look, there’s no denying that the democrats have been catering towards an elitist, college educated demographic. However, they’re the ones that are not trying to eradicate every facet of the social safety net, heck, they acknowledge climate change! Also, I’m not a democrat, I’m a progressive. If we had it my way, the voter base would be educated enough to debate our politics on the basis of philosophy, not demagoguery, such as trans people harming our youth. The republicans favor the culture war because they don’t serve the American people, the same may be true for the corporate democrats. Yet, I believe there is a important distinction between corporatism and oligarchy!
Makes my point! “Progressives” are why the Democrats lost the most winnable election in a century both in 2016 and 2020 against an absolutely despicable person like Trump.
And the fact that you don’t even see how poorly “progressive” positions (DEI, unnuanced Climate Change doomerism, anti business, high priests of regulation) land in wide swathes of the country is why the Democrats will lose in 2026 and 2028.
I repeat take a road trip through areas of those you look down on. They are neither uneducated nor voting against their own self interest.
And they are rooting whole heartedly all that you are likely aghast by, especially the shenanigans of Musk and his merry band of marauders at DOGE and the EO that has started to dismantle “DEI”
Luckily for me, a “corporate democrat” or better put a “classical liberal”, I am quite immune from the vicissitudes of electoral wins and losses and as such will, in the future, restrict myself to munching popcorn and watching the shitshow from the sidelines as the “left of center” party fades into a oblivion for at least a decade till another Clinton like centrist triangulates his way out of the wilderness. Yes, it will be a man!
And here is another bet, the first woman POTUS will be from the GOP 😉 and the position of said woman will be certainly not “progressive”
I think it’s crazy how you represent an ideology that is “immune from losses.” People are hurting, our countries problems are getting worse. Centrism doesn’t address any of it. I fail to see how centrism would have won. It’s what got us citizens united, the mediocre ACA, poor climate action.
I think it’s funny how you can stand here and talk about how you’re immune to election outcomes when the majority of Americans are struggling with the simple cost of living. And I think it’s funny that you think there’s so many others like you such that it decided an election 🤣. Many people voted for trump because of a promise to lower prices. This of course is was a lie. It was an uninformed decision to vote for him on that basis.
I think he took your comments to mean knowledge and understanding when you referenced "education", instead of the socialization mechanisms of centralized education systems, which what is relevant here
Excellent writing as always, Dan!
Thank you, Shashwat!
Well done.
I'm kind of in the middle, which is why I waste so much time on Substack.
GREAT writing!
Thank you!
"Working class Americans increasingly identify with a party whose stated policy goals — tariffs, DOGE-style spending cuts, etc. — would actively harm them. Meanwhile, Democrats have become the party of economic winners — people who are so insulated from material concerns that they might (might!) favor intellectual purity over the messy compromises it would take to win working class voters back to their side."
Lmao imagine thinking DOGE hurts average Americans. It hurts liberal sinecures and activists. It certainly helps me.
Admittedly, I wrote this post before DOGE's focus became clear. This was from the heady days when the stated goal was saving $2 trillion, not... whatever the grand plan currently is.
That said, I think it's worth grappling with the material stakes of the Republican agenda: https://www.slowboring.com/p/congressional-republicans-coming
Looks good to me. For the first time in ~80 years the federal government is going to do something for the middle class. If we massively cut federal taxes then any slack can be picked up by the states. As it should be. Why the fuck is DC paying for peoples food in Montana? The answer, of course, is because it grows the regimes power and provides juicy sinecures for DC scum.
The reason Montana is a net beneficiary of federal largesse is that it's relatively poor by American standards. High-income states like California and Massachusetts subsidize Montana and other low-income states through taxes and transfers. Moreover, many big programs (e.g., Medicaid, SNAP) are administered by individual states even if they're partially funded by the federal government.
Sources:
- https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-states-by-gdp-per-capita/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/07/states-federal-benefits/
"Taxes and transfers mathematically favoring poor states" strikes me as a much simpler explanation than "growing regime power." But at this point we should probably agree to disagree.
True and thus it always struck me as odd that rich blue state politicians did not scream for a smaller federal government
Another example of ideology overcoming self interest ?? 🤔
But alot of the broader things he reference there are the result of the broader changes to the economy and system-writ-large that began after WW2 and then were not entirely but mostly done via that actions that made up the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era and eliminated the deliberate redundancy we operated with for the first 150 to 200 years of our existence concentrated power and decision making into a relatively small number of hands; and globally as well with the advent of capital "G" Globalization which are domestic system is deeply worked into. The system essentially centrally planned our broader economic geography into concentrated hub-and-spokes. The set-up we have there is the System performing maintenance functions, like how it keeps the Congo an impoverished mining colony but gives them "aid"
But alot of the broader things you reference here are the result of the broader changes to the economy and system-writ-large that began after WW2 and then were not entirely but mostly done via that actions that made up the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era and eliminated the deliberate redundancy we operated with for the first 150 to 200 years of our existence concentrated power and decision making into a relatively small number of hands; and globally as well with the advent of capital "G" Globalization which are domestic system is deeply worked into. The system essentially centrally planned our broader economic geography into concentrated hub-and-spokes
Regarding the two parties in 1950, the old parties were decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties and they were honestly named, the Democratic Party was a small "d" democracy party and the Republican Party was a small "r" republican party, and most all the parties members were neither conservative or liberal as we understand those things today; but now the two parties have long been transformed into centralized and publicly inaccessible exclusionary membership parties and the Democratic Party is now actually a small "t" technocracy party and the Republican Party is now a small "c" conservative party, neither of which cares much for either democracy or republicanism. And given that the system in 1950s was still a politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system that by design had significant amounts of redundancy in each of those areas and allowed for real policy variability, the two parties are actually more similar to each other today than they were back then (it may be that we're in the early phase of this changing, but we'll have to wait and see if that is the case), both conservativism and technocracy are poles on axis of anti-democracyism and deep political, economic, governmental and scientific centralization with very little policy variability. I suspect there's a chance that what political scientists at the time were really trying to do, their ulterior motives, was to justify interventions by powerful special interest groups to change one and then eventually both into an anti-democracy and anti-republicanism party
And the "interests of Black Americans [being] sidelined" was becoming less of a problem overtime, whereas with advent of the Neoliberal Era most all black americans, like most all of the rest of ameicans, lost most all of their communities political and economic agency
Genetically determined political preferences? I will hold my breath until you produce the studies backing this up.
Yeah, that wasn't totally core to my argument — just a fun aside. But this is the argument put forth by Haidt and others under the banner of "Moral Foundations Theory."
You can read his book The Righteous Mind to decide if you find the studies convincing! I'm guessing there is something to it, but it's probably far from being the fundamental determinant of political preferences.