Followers of American politics are well aware of the rising polarization between the two parties, coupled with closely divided national elections that can determine the control of government every two to four years.
The above is an excellent observation, but the situation seems likely to get worse, long before it improves. Dems will retake the House. That is not a problem. Political parties who fail to deliver, are punished in the voting booth.
The change in control, however, will likely lead to immediate and perpetual Impeachment of the President and Cabinet members. It will not matter that even if Dems retake the Senate, they will be far short of 67 votes to convict anyone, of anything. The Impeachments are very likely to drag on, until day Trump departs the WH for the last time.
More important than the Circus returning to town, will be Dems likely owing their victory to a small number of actual DSA candidates and a much larger group of DSA adjacent candidates. This group will hold the House hostage, as they attempt to accomplish the minimum. It is very probable Dems will soon make one of the most dramatic Left turns in all of US history. Anyone who thinks we could never possibly be more divided than the last decade, hasn't seen anything yet.
The problem is not the system; it’s the identity ideology of the voters that refuses all compromise. The parties reflect this “it’s all about me” culture. We have met the enemy, and it is us. Refuse to follow the extremist radicals.
Just a reminder: As the two parties struggle to have control of DC, remember that Congress generally never has an approval rating that exceeds 15%. Presidents are elated if they can maintain 55%. SCOTUS is loved or hated on a decision by decision basis.
We are being misled, when anyone in either party suggests that their party represents America. They do not. Not even close.
Leftism views the Enlightenment and Western Civilization as an authoritarian mistake that needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. And conservatives view Western Civilization as humanity’s greatest accomplishment, and it needs to be conserved.
There is no structural solution that would allow these two ideologies to cooperatively govern.
This is not new. In his book Unstable Majorities from 2017, Morris Fiorina described just this dynamic. His view also was that the first unified government for either party makes it a priority to pay off their core supporters, and that this alienates the political middle enough to drive loss of control by that party.
When I see a system repeatedly producing the same behavior, I tend to view that behavior as a fingerprint of the system itself. You can change the people operating within it, but unless you change some of the underlying structures driving their behavior, you should expect much the same fingerprint to keep reappearing.
So when I look at the cycle you’re describing here, my first question is: what within the system is rewarding this behavior? Who wins from a 50-50 political environment where control keeps shifting, every election becomes enormously important, and neither side ever really wins for very long?
You’ve identified several of the winners yourself—party media operations, activist mobilization efforts, and fundraising organizations. I would add Super PACs, advocacy groups, political consultants, and some of the other organizations that have grown up around the campaigns.
Then I would follow the money.
What struck me when I started looking at this was what happened to outside political spending over roughly this same period. It was about $144 million in the 2008 presidential cycle. After Citizens United in 2010, followed by SpeechNow, it went to roughly $1 billion in 2012, about $1.4 billion in 2016, and more than $2.5 billion by 2024. McCutcheon in 2014 also opened up additional opportunities for very large donors to put money into candidates and party organizations.
I’m not saying that proves these campaign-finance changes caused the cycle you’re describing. It doesn’t. But if I’m looking at this as a system, that is a pretty significant change in the reward structure that occurred just before the period you’re examining. Suddenly there was a great deal more money available to organizations that benefit from competitive elections, high levels of partisan mobilization, and the continuing possibility that the other side is about to take control.
That makes me think this is an important part of the system to understand. If there is a powerful reward system reinforcing this behavior, it’s going to be very difficult to change the behavior without somehow getting at that reward system itself. The fingerprint will keep reproducing itself
Thank you, you nailed why I am becoming an Independent. America desperately needs respectful governing, not partisan politics
This is beneficial for the parties’ media operations, activist mobilization efforts, and fundraising numbers. But it is not beneficial for a nation that desperately needs stable governance, focused cooperation on America’s chief economic and security challenges, and politics that are less engulfed in partisan enmity and contempt.
Great post, as always, but I hate gridlock :). I think I wish we had a parliamentary system, where "Labor" or "Conservative" could just come in as a block and DO something. If what they did was no good, voters could give the other group their chance during the next cycle. Yes, I miss the days when the lawmakers set aside politics and worked across the aisle - I've got a post about that happening as recently as the Obama era, but nowadays, since neither side will budge on their ideologies, at least when one party sneaks in or slams in after an election, legislation gets passed, things change, etc. Thank you again!
Nicely put, John. What you've described was exactly the mistake that George W Bush and the GOP made after securing very narrow majorities in 2000 (and of course coming in second in the popular vote for pres). Jon Rauch has made a similar point regarding parties overreaching and the inevitable backlash going back to that year and even further.
Overall, I think this is correct but I'd argue for all three of those administrations (Trump 1, Biden, Trump 2) the legislation was not the focal point of overreach/misgovernment. I'd say Trump 1's biggest flaw was the whole trying-to-overturn-an-election thing. For Biden, it was dereliction regarding the border and excessive deference to "the groups" on executive branch policies. The IRA was a good bill, albeit a huge missed opportunity for permitting reform. For Trump 2, though OBBB is a terrible bill, his real trainwrecks have been his liberation day/subsequent tariffs and the Iran War.
I am all for a return to 1950s politics, where folks worked across the aisle. Each party had policies and priorities and communicated and conversed. I don't see that possible in this decade, where anti-Trump sentiment has turned the Democrat Party toward deeply socialist inclinations, and Trump's undisciplined governance has left the bulk of rational folk isolated in the middle. In his book "The Storm Before the Calm," George Friedman pretty well predicted the mess we are in within this decade. Regardless of who rules we are a mess until the '30s. Both parties have had a crack at it, and seem to have had their share of screwups. I will stay in the middle with suspicion of both Dems and GOP, but won't be seduced by the over vocal Socialist element.
Bad government has created a pendulum effect that causes control changes every four or eight years. It started after Eisenhower. I've been watching since then. He begat Kennedy and Johnson, who begat Nixon who begat Carter who begat Reagan, etc.
The alternative is Proportional Representation which is always a disaster.
The mistake here is believing that democracy is about voting for the party you want.
This only happens 2 or 3 times a century. The power of democracy is in voting OUT the party that you DON'T WANT.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is only the fear of being kicked out of office that maintains any control of politicians' excesses.
With Proportional Representation different splinter parties form alliances to form a government so that awful party you didn't want is now allied with another party and STILL IN A POSITION OF POWER! Worse still, it may be holding the balance of power between two other more popular parties. These allied parties don't agree on much but trade off compromised policies to keep each other satisfied. Nothing of any value gets done.
Unelectable parties (like the current Democrat Party) always campaign for Proportional Representation (PR) but if they get into power, PR is quickly forgotten.
Winston Churchill famously stated that although the First Past the Post system has many failings, it is by far the best method.
The Dems are teeing up for misreading the potential 2026 wave. Hating The Evil Orange One is not an endorsement of their agenda.
That is their agenda
The above is an excellent observation, but the situation seems likely to get worse, long before it improves. Dems will retake the House. That is not a problem. Political parties who fail to deliver, are punished in the voting booth.
The change in control, however, will likely lead to immediate and perpetual Impeachment of the President and Cabinet members. It will not matter that even if Dems retake the Senate, they will be far short of 67 votes to convict anyone, of anything. The Impeachments are very likely to drag on, until day Trump departs the WH for the last time.
More important than the Circus returning to town, will be Dems likely owing their victory to a small number of actual DSA candidates and a much larger group of DSA adjacent candidates. This group will hold the House hostage, as they attempt to accomplish the minimum. It is very probable Dems will soon make one of the most dramatic Left turns in all of US history. Anyone who thinks we could never possibly be more divided than the last decade, hasn't seen anything yet.
The problem is not the system; it’s the identity ideology of the voters that refuses all compromise. The parties reflect this “it’s all about me” culture. We have met the enemy, and it is us. Refuse to follow the extremist radicals.
Just a reminder: As the two parties struggle to have control of DC, remember that Congress generally never has an approval rating that exceeds 15%. Presidents are elated if they can maintain 55%. SCOTUS is loved or hated on a decision by decision basis.
We are being misled, when anyone in either party suggests that their party represents America. They do not. Not even close.
The incentives for cooperation just aren't there .
Leftism views the Enlightenment and Western Civilization as an authoritarian mistake that needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. And conservatives view Western Civilization as humanity’s greatest accomplishment, and it needs to be conserved.
There is no structural solution that would allow these two ideologies to cooperatively govern.
This is not new. In his book Unstable Majorities from 2017, Morris Fiorina described just this dynamic. His view also was that the first unified government for either party makes it a priority to pay off their core supporters, and that this alienates the political middle enough to drive loss of control by that party.
When I see a system repeatedly producing the same behavior, I tend to view that behavior as a fingerprint of the system itself. You can change the people operating within it, but unless you change some of the underlying structures driving their behavior, you should expect much the same fingerprint to keep reappearing.
So when I look at the cycle you’re describing here, my first question is: what within the system is rewarding this behavior? Who wins from a 50-50 political environment where control keeps shifting, every election becomes enormously important, and neither side ever really wins for very long?
You’ve identified several of the winners yourself—party media operations, activist mobilization efforts, and fundraising organizations. I would add Super PACs, advocacy groups, political consultants, and some of the other organizations that have grown up around the campaigns.
Then I would follow the money.
What struck me when I started looking at this was what happened to outside political spending over roughly this same period. It was about $144 million in the 2008 presidential cycle. After Citizens United in 2010, followed by SpeechNow, it went to roughly $1 billion in 2012, about $1.4 billion in 2016, and more than $2.5 billion by 2024. McCutcheon in 2014 also opened up additional opportunities for very large donors to put money into candidates and party organizations.
I’m not saying that proves these campaign-finance changes caused the cycle you’re describing. It doesn’t. But if I’m looking at this as a system, that is a pretty significant change in the reward structure that occurred just before the period you’re examining. Suddenly there was a great deal more money available to organizations that benefit from competitive elections, high levels of partisan mobilization, and the continuing possibility that the other side is about to take control.
That makes me think this is an important part of the system to understand. If there is a powerful reward system reinforcing this behavior, it’s going to be very difficult to change the behavior without somehow getting at that reward system itself. The fingerprint will keep reproducing itself
Good insights, thanks.
Thank you, you nailed why I am becoming an Independent. America desperately needs respectful governing, not partisan politics
This is beneficial for the parties’ media operations, activist mobilization efforts, and fundraising numbers. But it is not beneficial for a nation that desperately needs stable governance, focused cooperation on America’s chief economic and security challenges, and politics that are less engulfed in partisan enmity and contempt.
Great post, as always, but I hate gridlock :). I think I wish we had a parliamentary system, where "Labor" or "Conservative" could just come in as a block and DO something. If what they did was no good, voters could give the other group their chance during the next cycle. Yes, I miss the days when the lawmakers set aside politics and worked across the aisle - I've got a post about that happening as recently as the Obama era, but nowadays, since neither side will budge on their ideologies, at least when one party sneaks in or slams in after an election, legislation gets passed, things change, etc. Thank you again!
Nicely put, John. What you've described was exactly the mistake that George W Bush and the GOP made after securing very narrow majorities in 2000 (and of course coming in second in the popular vote for pres). Jon Rauch has made a similar point regarding parties overreaching and the inevitable backlash going back to that year and even further.
Again, thanks, John, for an excellent post.
Overall, I think this is correct but I'd argue for all three of those administrations (Trump 1, Biden, Trump 2) the legislation was not the focal point of overreach/misgovernment. I'd say Trump 1's biggest flaw was the whole trying-to-overturn-an-election thing. For Biden, it was dereliction regarding the border and excessive deference to "the groups" on executive branch policies. The IRA was a good bill, albeit a huge missed opportunity for permitting reform. For Trump 2, though OBBB is a terrible bill, his real trainwrecks have been his liberation day/subsequent tariffs and the Iran War.
Perfect description. Should be required reading for all students capable of reading and read to the rest.
I am all for a return to 1950s politics, where folks worked across the aisle. Each party had policies and priorities and communicated and conversed. I don't see that possible in this decade, where anti-Trump sentiment has turned the Democrat Party toward deeply socialist inclinations, and Trump's undisciplined governance has left the bulk of rational folk isolated in the middle. In his book "The Storm Before the Calm," George Friedman pretty well predicted the mess we are in within this decade. Regardless of who rules we are a mess until the '30s. Both parties have had a crack at it, and seem to have had their share of screwups. I will stay in the middle with suspicion of both Dems and GOP, but won't be seduced by the over vocal Socialist element.
Bad government has created a pendulum effect that causes control changes every four or eight years. It started after Eisenhower. I've been watching since then. He begat Kennedy and Johnson, who begat Nixon who begat Carter who begat Reagan, etc.
The alternative is Proportional Representation which is always a disaster.
The mistake here is believing that democracy is about voting for the party you want.
This only happens 2 or 3 times a century. The power of democracy is in voting OUT the party that you DON'T WANT.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is only the fear of being kicked out of office that maintains any control of politicians' excesses.
With Proportional Representation different splinter parties form alliances to form a government so that awful party you didn't want is now allied with another party and STILL IN A POSITION OF POWER! Worse still, it may be holding the balance of power between two other more popular parties. These allied parties don't agree on much but trade off compromised policies to keep each other satisfied. Nothing of any value gets done.
Unelectable parties (like the current Democrat Party) always campaign for Proportional Representation (PR) but if they get into power, PR is quickly forgotten.
Winston Churchill famously stated that although the First Past the Post system has many failings, it is by far the best method.