Republicans and Democrats: The inversion of their souls
In his monthly column, Alfredo Toro Hardy explains how Republicans and Democrats underwent a dramatic inversion of their respective souls, becoming very much the opposite of what they were several decades ago. The future of America is tied to the correlation of forces of their inverted souls.
In the seven decades between 1861 and 1932, the Democrats only managed to place two occupants in the White House, thus constituting a clear minority party. During that time, the fundamental base of Democrats was essentially made up by the white population of the South. It was, indeed, a party mostly dedicated to protecting its own closed vision of society. One, that aimed at keeping in check the black population of the states that had formerly been part of the Confederacy, managing to put an end to the Reconstruction era and passing restrictive “Jim Crow” laws that enforced segregation.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s turning point
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s success in 1932 would represent both a turning point and a take-off moment for this political organization. Propelled to power by the economic depression of those years, Roosevelt’s arrival would determine a relaunch of the Democratic party. One, that would transform it into the predominant political force for several decades to come. His “New Deal” would unleash a dynamic set of progressive policies in economic, social, and infrastructural matters.
The former would attract to the party the working masses of the North plus minority sectors of society, including an important percentage of the black population which had, hitherto, been a captive Republican preserve. Although Roosevelt’s policies would bring no small number of challenges in relation to the traditional Democratic base, the Southern whites, they would not desert the party’s ranks. Democrats would thus become a powerful, although highly diverse, coalition.
A coalition subject to important contradictions, as evidenced during Roosevelt’s own administration. Indeed, in order to keep the support of the powerful Democratic congressmen of the South for his transformative agenda, he was forced to guarantee them the immutability of the correlation of racial forces in their part of the country. This implied leaving intact the segregationist policies that prevailed there.
Starting with Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, this situation began to change, albeit slowly. Democrats took, indeed, their first timid steps in improving the civil rights of the Southern black population. The civil right policies conceptualized by John F. Kennedy and forcefully implemented by Lyndon B. Johnson after his dead, represented a true leap forward in this direction.
Migration in both directions
This would make the “Dixicrats”, the name given to the white Democrats of the South, feel out of place in the party that they had dominated for such a long time. In parallel, the Republican presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964, would represent the opportunity for them to move into this party. Their distrust of a strong Federal Government and their preference for promoting the rights of state and local governments, were in tune with Goldwater’s own agenda. In other words, while the Federal Government in the hands of Democrats attacked the segregationist policies that they supported, Goldwater’s Republicans aimed at strengthening the autonomy that they sought. From that moment on, whites from the South migrated in masse to the Republican ranks.
This migration towards the Republican party helped in consolidating the loss of presence and influence, already taking place, of those that had traditionally controlled that organization: Moderate Northeasterners. Increasingly marginalized within a party that was turning ever further to the right, this sector lost even more of its foothold with the avalanche of former Democrats coming from the South.
A political migration in the opposite direction began thus to take place, with moderate and mainline Christian Republicans from the Northeast moving into the Democratic ranks. Meanwhile, the new backbone of the Republican party was structured around the South and the rural areas of the Midwest. Mainly, the so-called “Bible Belt”, integrated by most of Southern United States, including a majority of both Texas and Oklahoma, and extending into Missouri and parts of Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. In both cases, it reflected white populations marked by militant Christianity and socially conservative values.
Curiously enough, the laid-back Californians joined for a time the former Republican backbone in a coalition of convenience. Known as the “Sunbelt Coalition”, this revolved around the common rejection of a strong Federal Government. By the 1990s, however, Californians felt increasingly out of step with the style and the values of the South and the Midwest. With their departure from this transactional coalition, the Republicans consolidated their status as a “white” and “inland” party, characterized by strong evangelical overtones and a nostalgic view of a more homogeneous society not distorted by racial integration and Latin immigration.
Between paranoia and rationality
Trump made an important contribution to this Republican base by attracting into it an important chunk of white workers from the so-called “Rust Belt”. This expression symbolizes the impact of deindustrialization, economic decline, population loss and urban decay in several states of the Midwest and the Northeast. Displaced by globalization and enraged with the liberal values that fed not also global trade but also immigration, these workers brought with them their own nostalgic views about a more predictable and a less tinted society. This helped in reaffirming the racial and cultural uniformity of the party, making of it an organization based on a strong sense of shared identity.
Under Trump’s leadership, however, identity merged with populism. MAGA’s proposals are, indeed, an explosive combination. As a result of it, fear, hate, conspiracy theories, and a closed vision of society took the forefront, becoming the trademark of the party. The fact that in its second run for the White House, Trump choose an “alter ego” as his number two in the ticket, speaks volumes. J.D. Vance is all about identity and populism. Hence, instead of choosing a Marco Rubio, who could have projected the party into the wide Latino community, Trump preferred to project MAGA values into the future by way of a replacement generation.
By contrast, Democrats today embody a diverse coalition of races, identities, cultures and constituencies, within a much more open and inclusive vision of society. Finding the middle ground within their own heterogeneity is always their main challenge. As such, ideas and policies represent the natural ways of seeking cohesion amid diversity. And although ideas and policies are, by their own nature, difficult to homogenize, they represent rational endeavors. In other words, rationality could be described as the trademark of the party.
Within American politics, thus, fear, hate and paranoia confront the seek for rational outcomes. Each side represents the antithesis of the other. It is a curious and dramatic inversion of the souls of two parties that, until not so long ago, represented very much the opposite of what they have become. America’s future is thus tied to the correlation of forces of their inverted souls.
Alfredo Toro Hardy, PhD, is a retired Venezuelan career diplomat, scholar and author. Former Ambassador to the U.S., U.K., Spain, Brazil, Ireland, Chile and Singapore. Author or co-author of thirty-six books on international affairs. Former Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor at Princeton and Brasilia universities. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations and a member of the Review Panel of the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov
