Republic of Wrath

1. Partisan Conflict is America's Enduring Reality

The men who wrote the Constitution disagreed on a lot of issues, but they all agreed with Washington about this—political parties were poison.

Founders' illusion. America's founders, including George Washington, viewed political parties as dangerous factions that would destroy the republic, yet parties emerged almost immediately. This initial aversion meant the Constitution provided no guidance on how to manage partisan disagreements, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by intense, often ruthless, political competition. The very first contested presidential election in 1800, between John Adams' Federalists and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, quickly demonstrated the impossibility of running a republic without organized political factions.

Disagreement is democracy. Despite the founders' hopes for consensus, Americans consistently disagreed on fundamental issues, from the role of national government to foreign policy alliances. These disagreements naturally led to the formation of parties, which served as vehicles for expressing popular will and organizing political support. The early parties, though initially claiming their existence was temporary, quickly became permanent fixtures, proving that robust debate and competition are inherent to a functioning democracy.

No escaping politics. The enduring lesson from the early republic is that there is no "politics outside of, well, politics." Attempts to rise above partisan divisions, like the Constitutional Union Party in 1860, often fail because they ignore the deeply felt values and clashing interests that drive political life. Partisanship, for better or worse, is the "oxygen to democracy," a necessary mechanism for a diverse society to debate and decide its future.

2. Race and Immigration Fuel America's Tribal Divisions

The conflicts over race and immigration touch every aspect of the American story. They reshape the partisan debates because race and immigration create disruptive new answers to the deepest question in American politics: Who are we?

Core identity questions. Throughout American history, no issues have ignited political passions more consistently than race and immigration. These intertwined conflicts force the nation to constantly redefine its identity, challenging who belongs, who deserves rights, and what values are truly American. From the earliest debates over slavery and European refugees to modern discussions of civil rights and diverse populations, these issues have been central to shaping partisan divides.

Early partisan patterns. The election of 1800 established a recurring pattern:

• Conservative parties (Federalists, Whigs, early Republicans) often showed more tolerance towards African Americans (e.g., Adams' alliance with Haiti) but were suspicious of immigrants (e.g., Alien Acts).
• Democratic parties generally welcomed European immigrants but staunchly defended slavery and white supremacy.
  This division meant that the nation's most explosive identity conflicts were diffused, with each party claiming different marginalized groups.

Modern convergence. This historical pattern dramatically shifted in the 20th century. By the 2000s, a new alignment emerged where:

• Democrats assembled African Americans, immigrants, and their liberal supporters.
• Republicans gathered those who considered themselves white and native.
  This unprecedented convergence meant that the most passionate differences in American history—those surrounding race and immigration—became directly organized into the two major parties, intensifying every political debate into a tribal "us versus them."

3. Election Rules are Consistently Manipulated for Power

To this day, there is often no neutral arbiter to oversee elections, carve the districts, decide who qualifies to vote, determine registration procedures, specify how votes are cast, count the ballots, or adjudicate disputed returns.

Constitutional silence. The founders, wary of political parties, left the crucial details of running elections to the states, creating a vacuum that partisans eagerly exploited. From the very first presidential campaign in 1800, states ruthlessly changed voting rules to gain electoral advantage, a practice that continues today. This lack of clear, universal guidelines has made the electoral process a constant battleground.

No fundamental right to vote. Astonishingly, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to vote; instead, it defers to the states. This absence has fueled ferocious conflicts throughout history, particularly around African Americans and immigrants. Examples include:

• 1800: States like Virginia and Massachusetts altered electoral college rules to favor their preferred candidate.
• 1840: Whigs introduced voter registration requirements, often targeting Democratic-leaning immigrant populations.
• Reconstruction: Loopholes in the Fifteenth Amendment allowed southern states to implement literacy tests and poll taxes to disenfranchise black voters.
  These manipulations highlight how the absence of a clear right to vote has historically enabled partisan and racial exclusion.

Perpetual conflict. The "rigmarole that surrounds voting" has been a persistent feature of U.S. politics, intensifying whenever new groups gained political influence. This ongoing struggle over who votes and how easily underscores the fragility of democratic processes when fundamental rules are left to partisan discretion, leading to a cycle of advantage-seeking and counter-measures.

4. Anti-Government Sentiment Often Masks Racial Animosity

Throughout American history, the honorable tradition of resisting the central government in the name of liberty has drawn much of its potency from an alliance with raw racial animosity.

Racial roots of anti-federalism. A deep-seated fear of a strong national government has often been intertwined with racial anxieties. From the early republic, a "white supremacy party" consistently fought federal power, fearing it might someday threaten slavery, segregation, or white privilege. This link is evident in:

• Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798): Secretly drafted by Jefferson and Madison, these resolutions challenged federal power, partly to protect states' control over slavery.
• Democratic opposition to federal programs: Democrats often resisted national initiatives like the Homestead Acts, fearing they would empower non-white populations or disrupt the racial order.
• Confederate Constitution (1861): Explicitly limited federal authority over "internal improvements" to prevent any expansion of government that could challenge slavery.

"Fishing for niggers." The phrase, used by Senator Benjamin Wade in 1859, starkly illustrates how southern resistance to federal programs was often driven by a desire to protect slavery and expand slave territories, rather than genuinely promoting "land for the landless." This dynamic meant that federal power was selectively opposed: embraced for genocidal campaigns against Native Americans (which opened land for white planters) but rejected for infrastructure or social programs.

Enduring connection. This historical alliance between anti-government sentiment and racial animosity remains robust. Modern conservative movements, while often articulating principled arguments for limited government, have frequently attracted support from those with racial grievances. This connection poses a challenge for future Republicans to sever the historical link between resisting federal power and attacking it out of racial hostility.

5. Gender and Sexuality Intensify Political Culture Wars

Finally, sexuality escalates the intensity of each fray. Racially divided societies always construct powerful taboos against interracial sex.

Interracial sex taboos. In racially divided societies, strict taboos against interracial sex are common, as they are seen as crucial for maintaining fabricated racial differences. In the U.S., these taboos were violently enforced and intertwined with rigid gender controls, particularly for women, who were historically barred from politics and markets. This created a volatile mix where challenges to racial or gender norms often triggered intense sexual anxieties.

Women's political emergence. Women's entry into politics, often through moral causes like abolition or temperance, directly challenged these rigid gender spheres.

• 1840 campaign: Women actively participated, cooking for rallies and discussing politics, provoking outrage from Democrats who saw it as a threat to traditional roles and a precursor to "amalgamation."
• Populist movement (1890s): Women served as leaders and orators, pushing for suffrage and broader equality, but faced scorn and accusations of being "unmanly."
  These movements often faced backlash that explicitly linked women's activism to fears of interracial sex and the breakdown of white racial purity.

Modern culture wars. The 1970s saw a dramatic split in women's politics, with two opposing movements shaping the modern parties:

• Feminists: Championed gender equality, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ rights, framing them as civil rights issues, which became central to the Democratic Party.
• Conservative women (e.g., Phyllis Schlafly): Organized against the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, defending traditional family values and gender roles, which became a defining feature of the Republican Party.
  This clash solidified the link between gender, sexuality, and partisan identity, with racial anxieties often underlying the defense of "traditional" values.

6. The Civil War Era Fractured and Reshaped Party Identities

But, one way or another, the parties split up the nation’s most explosive conflicts by picking different sides in the struggles over race and immigration. Then, beginning in the 1930s, a new alignment began to take shape.

Whig collapse and new alignments. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which opened new territories to slavery via "popular sovereignty," shattered the Whig Party. Its inability to reconcile northern anti-slavery sentiment with southern pro-slavery demands led to its demise. This created a vacuum, filled by two new factions:

• Know Nothings: A nativist movement that attacked immigrants, particularly Catholics, and briefly surged in the 1854 midterms.
• Republicans: A new party formed to oppose the spread of slavery into the territories, attracting former Whigs and disgruntled Democrats.
  This period marked a profound realignment, as parties struggled to define themselves amidst escalating identity conflicts.

Dred Scott's impact. The Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that black people could not be citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory, further intensified partisan divisions. While initially celebrated by Democrats, it ultimately broke their party into northern and southern factions. For Republicans, it was a "summons to disband," yet it galvanized them, forcing them to confront the constitutional implications of slavery and racial status.

Tribal sorting. The era saw a hardening of tribal identities within the political landscape. The Know Nothings, though short-lived, channeled nativist sentiment that later flowed into the Republican Party. Democrats, meanwhile, largely united around white supremacy and states' rights. This period laid the groundwork for the eventual sorting of identity issues into distinct partisan camps, setting the stage for the Civil War and its aftermath.

7. Populism Introduced the Idea of Active Government for the People

"Government is intended," wrote Donnelly, "to insure every industrious citizen… an educated mind, a comfortable home, an abundant supply of food and clothing, and a pleasant, happy life."

Challenging the status quo. The Populist movement of the 1890s emerged from widespread economic hardship, particularly among farmers, and fundamentally challenged the prevailing notion of limited government. They argued that a powerful national government was not a threat to liberty, but rather the only entity capable of protecting ordinary people from the "Wall Street bandits" and "soulless, heartless corporation[s]" of the Gilded Age. This marked a significant ideological shift from earlier Jeffersonian and Jacksonian anti-government sentiments.

The Omaha Platform's vision. The 1892 Omaha Platform articulated a radical agenda that foreshadowed 20th-century liberalism:

• Government as solution: Advocated for government ownership of railroads and banks, and direct election of senators.
• Economic equality: Called for a progressive income tax and government assistance during hard times, including pensions and public jobs.
• Expanded freedom: Defined freedom not just as absence of government interference, but as economic security and access to basic necessities like food, housing, and education.
  This vision of "positive freedom," where government actively ensures well-being, would profoundly influence future Democratic platforms.

Long shadow on liberalism. Though the People's Party itself faded after 1896, its core ideas were gradually adopted and refined by subsequent movements. Progressive reformers and, most notably, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democrats, embraced the Populist's policies and rhetoric. FDR's "economic bill of rights" in 1944, promising rights to a job, adequate food, housing, healthcare, and education, directly echoed Ignatius Donnelly's earlier vision, cementing the idea of government as a guarantor of basic needs within the Democratic canon.

8. Black Migration Transformed the Democratic Party

For the first time, black Americans and immigrants were members of the same party.

The Great Migration's impact. In the early 20th century, nearly a million black people left the rural South for northern and western cities, initiating a "Great Migration" that would eventually involve six million individuals. This demographic shift had profound political consequences. In their new northern homes, African Americans gained the right to vote, becoming a crucial swing demographic that local Democratic bosses, often locked in contests with rural Republicans, began to actively court.

Shifting allegiances. This led to a dramatic realignment of the black vote:

• 1932: First signs of a shift, with some black urban precincts voting Democratic.
• 1936: A majority of black voters (estimated 70-90%) voted Democratic for the first time, largely due to New Deal relief programs that, despite segregationist filters, provided unprecedented aid to black communities.
• 1948: Truman's strong civil rights stance and the Dixiecrats' walkout solidified black support for Democrats, with over three-quarters of African Americans voting for him.
  This marked an "epochal political moment," as Republicans permanently lost the black majority vote, fundamentally altering the political landscape.

Uneasy coalition. The influx of black voters created a complex and often contradictory Democratic coalition, balancing:

• Southern segregationists: Who still dominated congressional committees and resisted civil rights.
• Northern African Americans: Who pushed for racial justice and federal intervention.
• Organized labor: Which, influenced by the CIO, began to organize across racial lines.
  This uneasy alliance, though fraught with internal conflict (e.g., the FEPC debates, anti-lynching bill filibusters), slowly pushed the Democratic Party from its historical stance of white supremacy towards becoming the party of civil rights, culminating in the dramatic events of 1964.

9. The 1964 Election Forged Modern Partisan Alignments

The election of 1964 marked the emergence of the political parties as we recognize them today.

Conservative ascendancy. The 1964 Republican convention saw a grassroots conservative movement seize control from the party's traditional northeastern establishment, nominating Barry Goldwater. Goldwater's platform, emphasizing "extremism in the defense of liberty" and "law and order," resonated with white voters uneasy about civil rights and urban unrest. His vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite Republican support for the bill, cemented his image as a champion of states' rights and implicitly, racial backlash.

Wallace's northern appeal. George Wallace, running in the Democratic primaries, exposed a significant "white backlash" in the North. His anti-civil rights message, warning that federal intervention would threaten white jobs, homes, and schools, garnered surprising support in states like Wisconsin and Maryland. This demonstrated that racial anxieties were not confined to the South and hinted at the fracturing of the New Deal Democratic coalition.

Democratic landslide and its aftermath. Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964, fueled by a massive liberal majority, enabled the passage of landmark legislation:

• Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965): Ended legal segregation and dramatically expanded black suffrage.
• Medicare and Medicaid (1965): Created massive federal health care programs.
• Immigration Act (1965): Reopened the U.S. to large-scale immigration, linking it to civil rights.
  These achievements, however, came at a cost. Goldwater's success in the Deep South signaled the beginning of white southern flight from the Democratic Party, while Wallace's appeal revealed the vulnerability of northern white working-class Democrats, setting the stage for a profound political realignment.

10. Identity Politics Define Contemporary Tribalism

For the first time, all the so-called minorities are on one side.

Nixon's realignment. Richard Nixon shrewdly capitalized on the racial backlash and white flight from the Democratic Party, implementing a "southern strategy" that appealed to white voters' anxieties about civil rights, urban crime, and federal overreach. This strategy, articulated by Kevin Phillips' "Emerging Republican Majority," predicted a new conservative coalition rooted in the Sun Belt, driven by "ethnic polarization." Nixon's campaign, while avoiding overt racism, used "law and order" rhetoric to implicitly appeal to racial grievances, solidifying the Republican Party's identity as the party of white conservatives.

Reagan's conservative movement. Ronald Reagan further cemented this alignment, articulating a clear conservative philosophy centered on:

• Boundless patriotism: Emphasizing American exceptionalism and pride.
• Anti-communism: Framing political debates as a Manichean struggle between good and evil.
• Limited government: Declaring "government is the problem," advocating for tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced social spending.
  Reagan's geniality masked a "we win, they lose" approach that intensified partisan conflict and shifted the national discourse towards market-based solutions, even as inequality grew.

Culture wars and media polarization. The 1970s saw the rise of two clashing women's movements, with feminists championing gender and LGBTQ+ rights (Democratic Party) and conservative women defending traditional values (Republican Party). This, combined with the reopening of immigration and the "war on terror," further sorted the parties along identity lines. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of partisan media (e.g., Fox News) amplified these divisions, creating fractured realities where each side consumed different "facts" and viewed the other as an existential threat.

Unprecedented tribalism. By the 2000s, the parties became ideologically sorted and tribally defined:

• Democrats: A diverse coalition of African Americans, immigrants, and women, united by a civil rights framework.
• Republicans: Predominantly white, native-born, and often anxious about demographic shifts, immigration, and cultural changes.
  This alignment, intensified by close elections and new media, has transformed American politics into a fierce, often vitriolic, "us versus them" struggle over national identity.

11. Democracy's Fragility Demands Robust Electoral Reforms

But today’s divisions ought to worry us, for they go deep. They are not simply about policy preferences but about essential identity—about who we are and what Americans look like.

Beyond consensus and bipartisanship. The historical record shows that American politics is rarely about deep consensus or sustained bipartisanship; instead, it's a continuous process of passionate disagreement over fundamental values. The founders' dream of unity proved elusive, and attempts to force consensus often mask underlying conflicts. Therefore, the solution to today's divisions is not to suppress partisanship, but to ensure that the system for resolving these disagreements is fair and robust.

Securing the vote. The most critical reform is to secure the right to vote for every eligible citizen, automatically and easily. This means:

• Automatic voter registration: For all Americans at age 18, eliminating complex paperwork and residency tests.
• Universal election day: Holding all national, state, and local elections on the same day to maximize participation.
• Mandatory voting: As practiced in countries like Belgium and Australia, to ensure broader representation beyond intense partisans.
  Such reforms would counter historical patterns of voter suppression, which have disproportionately targeted marginalized groups and fueled tribal anxieties.

Unrigging the electoral machinery. To ensure fair competition, the electoral process must be removed from partisan control:

• Nonpartisan oversight: Independent bodies should oversee elections, count ballots, and certify results, rather than partisan officials.
• Clear, simple standards: For casting ballots, with verifiable records for recounts.
• Nonpartisan redistricting: Independent commissions should draw electoral districts to prevent gerrymandering, which diminishes democratic competition.
• Proportional electoral college: Allocating electoral votes based on popular vote percentage, rather than winner-take-all, to ensure broader representation and encourage national campaigning.
  These reforms are essential to prevent the manipulation of rules for partisan advantage, a practice that has plagued American democracy since its inception and is exacerbated by today's deep tribal divisions.

Last updated: March 4, 2026