The "Enemies" Within

Realignments offer "communitarians" a temporary "seat" at the dominate "individualist" American political table. They don't last.

After a political realignment, political parties find that they have pitched a tent larger than they intended—or find comfortable.  While American politics normally take place within the framework of the Lockean Liberal (individualist) perspective, during a realignment both political parties are “invaded” by “radicals,” i.e. those that seeks fundamental changes to the system itself, not just the recruitment of new groups of voters and the swapping of one’s traditional party identity.

That is, while the vast majority of realigning voters are expressing their dissatisfaction with the leadership of their political party “home,” and the way it is governing, ideologically they are firmly inside the dominant American individualist enlightenment view of truth, i.e.  human rights, scientific method, liberty, rational inquiry, and individualism.  Their belief in the “American Dream” remains strong. What they object to is the extent that governing elites, often of both parties, are enforcing policies that “block” their way. They view the leaders of both politcal parties as backing a traditional set of “winners,” who have used their gains to hold on to status and wealth and pass it on to their children. 

They (the Americans searching for a new party or reformed party to represent their interests) are sought after as the new party base, by the ambitious dissidents within the leadership of one or both of the two existing parties (younger operatives within the parties, or by those whose path to leadership in the party is blocked by “enemies”).

There are many reasons why elements within both political party organizations want to encourage top leadership to make room or retire. A recent article in the New Yorker provided a detailed mapping of the struggle within the Republican Party for the last decade to both replace old leaders, find and train young recruits and to reach out for new voters within the general population.  It is a little too unsettled a picture for me, as it resembles the wall display in TV police stations, mug shots, locations, and events all tied together by string and thumb tacks.  The existence of the turnover, however, is clear.  And probably the confusion, the alliances and betrayals are as old as our political system.

At the same time, and underreported as the threat (or salvation) they are, far more radical forces seize the moment. For example take the 1930s realignment, the newly refurbished party, the Democrats, as well as reaching out for the support of those parts of the population who were facing economic despair while still holding onto their strong belief in the “American Dream” (still Lockean Liberals), also attracted supporters who were largely outside the Lockean individualist consensus, communitarian intellectuals on the left who were swiftly labeled communists by the opposition. By communitarian I mean they were doubters about the individual’s natural and easy passage to wealth through a sink or swim economic system (they called it Capitalism). They were uncomfortable bedfellows to the centrist New Dealers who saw themselves as making adjustments to the economic system in order to “save” Capitalism.

Is it possible that in today’s realignment the “rebuilding” party is similarily attractive to modern day communitarians who seem extreme to centrists in the party and are labeled “fascists” by the Democrats.

Such dissidents will always seem to American Lockeans to be enemies of “the system” (i.e. of democracy, separation of church and state, or to diversity). They will take divergent positions in foreign relations. And define patriotism differently.

Since American individualism has a robust history and a strong appeal to the population (if only because it is based on beliefs that most don’t even think about challenging), I think the “fascists” will be outliers in the operations of the new Republican Party. That is to say that the 2025 project will be of more interest to historians than policy makers.

However, I suspect that today, as in the 1930s, we will be distracted from the main developments of government policy (necessary adjustments to a rapidly changing environment) under the next administration, by our fear of such “radicals.”

I even suspect they will, like the “radicals” of the 1930s, contribute to American political thought and introduce important new ideas for public consideration.

It is likely again, that American Lockean individualism will be able to accomodate some of these ideas while largely remaining the organizing center of American thought about politics, government, economics and religion. More on that in another post.

Please comment for the general readership.

Begin a personal conversation with me.

Bring someone you know into the conversation.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe for free to receive new posts (bi-weekly usually). Substack doesn’t ask for more than your email. Politics, history, religion and education seem like my go-to subjects, with a more expansive view of baseball when the Chicago Cubs are winning. I write, however, whatever comes to mind when I read widely in the mornings, and these days, that covers a wide area. Oh, and the pictures these days are from Ed’s garden, a topic, after reading Lewis Mumford’s essay on landscaping and the urban environment, I need to write about soon.