One of the classic mistakes pundits make is writing about politics right before the election. So let’s see what politics might look like after the election. One prediction is simple: expect a lot more political inconsistency and hypocrisy.
The term “realignment» is used and abused a lot, because people have agreed to use it without agreeing on a definition. Traditionally, realignments are said to occur when majority and minority parties change places. Beginning in 1932, FDR attracted black, working-class, and white immigrant voters to the Democratic Party, making it the majority party for generations. It is a sign of the magnitude of this coalition that its shrinking since the 1960s without the Republicans ever becoming the clear majority party, even if the story becomes complicated with the increase in the number of voters calling themselves independent.
Over the past 20 years, parties have essentially been relatedand it seems unlikely that this will change any time soon. But there is still a lot of realignment going on. Donald Trump has accelerated the trend of the white working class fleeing Democrats. Meanwhile, college-educated and suburban voters shifted significantly toward Democrats.
In other words, as parties become stuck in an impasse, the coalitions that make up the parties change dramatically.
And this is where the inconsistency and hypocrisy come in. Parties reflect the interests of their electoral coalitions. You can see signs of adjustments everywhere. Republicans like JD Vance are a lot like the anti-war Democrats of 20 years ago, attacking warmongers, chicken hawks, and “neoconservatives.” Democrats haven’t changed as dramatically, but they are much more comfortable than before talking about American leadership in the world and the importance of our alliances.
Parties also reflect their candidates, which is why Bill Clinton’s flirt party now talks a lot about good morals while Republicans worship Trump’s alpha dog.virility.”
Democrats have been much more consistent on abortion, because in a post-Roe environment, it’s a winning issue. But Trump has pushed the Republican Party toward a de facto pro-choice stance, denouncing “heartbreaking bills” while insisting that states should be free to do what they want on matters of abortion.
Neither party is consistent – or good, in my opinion – on trade and industrial policy, but Trump has definitely made the Republican Party more protectionist and protectionist. director than at any time in my life. Given the movement of rank-and-file members of private sector unions toward the Republican Party, it is not difficult to imagine a new partisan divide between public and private sector unions.
The most interesting change might concern the question of democracy itself. I’m not talking about arguments about Trump’s pernicious election fraud lies (the kind of lies once associated with left-wing Democrats like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), but the broader debates over the Electoral College and so-called voter suppression.
For decades, the two parties shared the defective the hypothesis that higher voter turnout primarily benefited Democrats in national elections; Democrats had the opposite view in big cities elections. Voter ID laws and tighter restrictions on early and mail voting were seen as a way to ensure that high-propensity voters — that is, disproportionately Republican and educated suburbanites — who could be counted on to vote – were overrepresented and low propensity. voters – uneducated black, Latino and rural white voters – were underrepresented. The heated rhetoric about “voter suppression” or “election integrity” was unwarranted. But the dynamic was real, because the electoral calculation was real.
After 2016, many Democrats reiterated their assertion that the Electoral College was racist or undemocratic, which in itself was remarkably hypocritical given their previous boasts that Democrats had a nearlockdown on the electoral college — this is how the expression “the blue wall» was born. Bragging about your advantage in the Electoral College and then calling it racist and undemocratic when it works against you is not a great idea.
The Harris campaign relied heavily on high-propensity voters while the Trump campaign relied heavily on low-propensity males. Assuming these trends are real and become the new norm, it will be interesting to see if parties will change their rhetoric about democracy.
Again, I’m writing before many states begin counting votes: Imagine a scenario in which Harris wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote and the hypocritical change that could cause. Suddenly Democrats might hail the wisdom of the Founders and Republicans might denounce the Electoral College as a rigged and racist relic.
