When a Political Party Becomes a Cult…
The United States desperately needs two vibrant political parties. Regardless of philosophical beliefs or the conviction that the ideology to which one ascribes has cornered the market on virtue and proper governance, the need to accommodate the demands of those with whom one disagrees will almost always lead to a better solution to a problem than blind, lock-step obedience to one point of view or the other.
Making a two-party system work in this country is a difficult chore, since the Constitution was written with an entirely different means of conflict resolution in mind. When the delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, most believed the United States would consist of any number of local, state, and regional interest groups, necessitating compromise and producing coalitions that would work to limit centralized authority.
That today’s adversary might need to be tomorrow’s ally suited most of the delegates just fine, since one of their main goals was to avoid despotic rule. Article I, which defined the legislative branch, was therefore written to facilitate shifting alliances coming to workable solutions of the nation’s myriad problems.
It turned out to be a short-sighted choice, since a mere dozen years later, the plan collapsed. Thomas Jefferson realized that a national interest group could wield a good deal more power than smaller local or regional groups and his Democratic-Republicans wrested control of Congress and the presidency from the more ad hoc Federalists. That takeover of government required those who wished to unseat the Jeffersonians to organize as well. Although there were variances in the make-up of the parties during the first half of the nineteenth century, by the conclusion of the Civil War, the current structure of Democrats vying with Republicans was set.
As a result, rather than many voices heard in public debates, there came generally to be just two, and that limitation set up a starker contrast and more potential acrimony than if the original blueprint had been successful. Nonetheless, the nation muddled through, with each of the parties in ascension at different times under different conditions.
Americans, at least those who were allowed access to the ballot box, had the means to make a reasoned choice because each party had a specific agenda and advocated for policy initiatives that were discernible to advocates, opponents, and especially independents, whose allegiance would shift depending on which program they thought best reflected their interests.
This does not imply enlightenment. Sometimes party platforms were abhorrent, as with Democrats’ defense of slavery before the Civil War, then the Black Codes, and eventually Jim Crow and segregation. Republicans were once notable for their rejection of government as a vehicle for protecting the weak and the vulnerable, opposing such programs as Social Security and Medicare during periods of want in which some senior citizens were forced to subsist on dog food in order to afford rent or medical care.
But, for better or worse, Americans had options they could recognize and each party realized that if it went too far, it would be out and its opponents in. This limitation of the swings of the pendulum, as tortuous and chaotic as is often appeared, allowed the United States to foster a vibrant business community and build a powerful military while also expanding the rights of the previously disenfranchised and creating what became known as the social safety net.
For all the grousing and mutual denunciations, the result was a nation in which no one got everything but most people got something. Recently, “most people” came to be expanded with initiatives such as the Voting Rights Act, food stamps, gay marriage, and many other programs that created enhanced opportunity for previously marginalized Americans. Over the fierce objections of the wealthy, in 1913 the United States even ratified a Constitutional amendment authorizing a progressive tax on income.
The current Republican Party, however, wants to change all that. It has replaced philosophy with rage and allegiance to the Constitution with allegiance to Donald Trump, a man who has no respect for either the document or the ideals it attempted to nurture. For Trump Republicans, there is no real agenda nor any goal except self-perpetuation. Beyond banning abortions, closing the border, eliminating restrictions on the ownership or use of firearms, and humiliating anyone who does not fit their 1950s sitcom definition of a “real American,” it would be difficult to determine where the Republican Party stands on any issue.
They have, in other words, devolved into a cult.
Cults have certain notable characteristics beyond blind allegiance to its leader, one of which is the use of strong-arm tactics to prevent members from straying or even questioning the precepts that have been forced on them.
And that is precisely what Trump Republicans are attempting to do to cement their current control of the House of Representatives and future control of the Senate and the presidency. Although appearing to outsiders to be loyal Trumpists themselves, both Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise were seen by “real” Trumpists, such as Matt Gaetz, Chip Roy, or Andy Biggs, as unacceptably heterodox and so they were banished. Trumpists then sought to anoint one of their own, Jim Jordan, viewed by many members of his own party and almost everyone else as a particularly loathsome human being.
Jordan has spent his entire career in Congress trying to tear the institution down rather than build it up—in sixteen years there is not a single piece of legislation with his name on it. That delights the Trumpists, but has alienated many others.
As a result, to the consternation of the cult, House Republicans voted Jordan down on the first ballot, and thus, as of this writing, have refused to totally annul their status as a political party. Democrats have offered to participate in a power sharing arrangement, in which their principal demand is that bills with bipartisan support be brought to the floor for a vote, an ambition all should share. Adopting such a plan would largely neuter the Trumpists and help return the nation to the principles under which it was founded.
There are a sufficient number of “traditional” Republicans in the House to bring that solution to fruition, but it will take a good deal of political and moral courage for them to do so.
Let’s see if they have it.