An engineer by education, Fitzgerald is a part-time writer with interests in history, science, politics, geography, literature, and poetry.
The Sixth Shift
The United States is undergoing a political realignment. There have been at least five realignments in U.S. history, and it is my contention that the 2016 election represents a sixth. A realignment is a shift in political ideology that is funneled into existing parties, changing their dynamic, including policies and priorities, or causing a new party to emerge, representing a new dynamic. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States as a Republican. He had previously been a Democrat and supported some liberal values, including abortion.
Now as a Republican, he has embraced many traditionally conservative values but rejected fiscal conservative doctrines, including rolling back the social safety net and free trade. (You can argue how he has governed versus how he ran, but party dynamics can be messy and many fiscal conservatives that Trump had to work within his first two years have now left politics, the party altogether, or have embraced Trump and what he ran on, leaving behind calls for balanced budgets.) He also rejected the neoconservative positions on foreign interventionism—most Bushites are gone or largely marginalized in the Trump administration.
Right Populism Emerges: What Does It Want?
Trump saw a political opportunity and formed a coalition of many previous Democratic voters, who were typically blue-collar working class, concentrated in the Midwest along with longtime Republicans, who felt their priorities were marginalized by Republican elites, and took over the Republican Party. He won the nomination and then the country. You may say: but he barely won! He lost the popular vote! Yes, but he did win the nomination as a newly minted Republican out of a very large field of candidates that represented at least every major facet of the previous Republican Party doctrine.
However, if Trump had lost the general election, he would likely have been seen as an aberration and his coalition again largely ignored by the Republican establishment. But, regardless of how he won, he did win based on the rules of winning the presidency in the United States. His victory cemented the change he represents—at least within one major party.
The Republican Party After Trump's Rise
Trump’s coalition has now largely captured the Republican Party and excised from it the fiscal conservatives and neoconservatives (neocons). I would call this new coalition the Right Populists. While they're made up of many existing Republicans, they now include blue-collar working class voters, many of whom were previously Democratic voters. The old-guard Republicans who cannot stomach Trump or his policies have mostly left the party.
Towards Right Populism
The doctrine of the Right Populists voters is generally nationalistic, viewing globalization negatively, holding conservative social values, are economic populists (i.e. focused on working class concerns as opposed to big business), are anxious about immigration and changing racial demographics, and want to avoid foreign intervention. Of course, many of these views were held by the old Republican Party, except for the economic populism (which aligned more with the old-Democratic Party) and the new aversion to foreign interventions (The Democratic Party also embraced a form of interventionism).
The other significant change is a shift in priority given to many issues like immigration. Of course, this has been a Republican issue for many years, but was generally given a lower priority until Trump (at least in terms of policy, if not necessarily rhetoric). So the core of the Republican Party remains, but with new voters, many of whom were former Democrats, and absent old-elites.
Democrats Becoming Progressives: The Other Side of the Coin
The Democratic Party has also shifted priorities and doctrine, with the result of pushing out many white working class voters, as working class priorities are no longer party priorities. Instead, the Democrats have focused economic priories towards an urban, college-educated, diverse, and younger population who hold much more culturally liberal values, while many of the working class voters hold much more culturally conservative values.
What Is "Progressive"?
This shift in priorities within the Democratic party is coming from a movement that I will call Progressives. Progressives believe in socialism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and generally liberal cultural values. The Democrats have prioritized minority needs since the Civil Rights Act of 1965; they have since been accused of playing identity politics. The passing of the Civil Rights Act also began the process of shifting southern Democrats to the Republican Party (with a counter-flow of minorities to the Democratic Party). This shift is now complete and has been for some time.
What has changed within the Democratic Party is that Progressives reject a classical liberal ideology and instead embrace a true identity politics based on categorizing everyone by identity group, classifying certain groups as victims with societal grievances, real or perceived, and other groups as privileged purveyors of power, whether known or unknown by any individual within a particular group. You could say the Progressives have rejected Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision regarding identity (i.e. this should not matter except on moral grounds) and embraced Malcolm X's views. This classification system creates good groups and bad groups. The new ideology is now pushing out some former Democratic Party voters, usually members of a bad group—i.e., white working class. This shift is ongoing.
Embrace of Socialism
The other significant change within the Democratic Party pushed by Progressives is an unabashed embrace of socialism. There can be legitimate debate about exactly what socialism actually means and whether the U.S. has adopted a form of socialism since at least the Roosevelt administration. One can also argue that Right Populist economic views are aligned with some aspects of socialism. However, I argue, to put it simply: Progressives want to minimize, to a great extent, capitalism as a whole (if not out-right eliminate it); while Right Populists want to work within capitalism to minimize the excesses.
The Democratic Party has not completely surrendered to the Progressives as of yet. But, the Progressives are winning. Most of the 2020 Presidential candidates are self-described "progressives", but more importantly, most have embraced Progressive ideology regardless of what they call themselves. It is to be seen whether a true Progressive wins the nomination and then the White House to cement the shift within the Democratic Party. But, even in a loss, the Democrats may have burned the ships behind them, in an attempt to forge a path towards a new coalition.
Regardless, the shift within the Democratic Party is clearly underway as it has been completed within the Republican Party. You can argue that once Trump is gone, the parties will shift back. But this would mean that Trump loses in 2020 to a likely Progressive Democrat, cementing that party to the Progressives, but with no clear path for the Republicans to win under the old dynamic. Or if Trump wins in 2020, then clearly his coalition will be seen as a winner by Republicans.
The political shift means that 2020 and future elections will take on a different dynamic. Swing states will shift, as will voter patterns. The 2017 tax cut may be the last hurrah of the fiscal conservatives for a while. Foreign affairs will change to become much less involved in world affairs. The so-called culture war continues, but with a new dynamic as many white voters with a less multicultural world-view will feel out of place within the new Progressive-Democratic Party and may start voting more like minorities likely within the Populists-Republican Party (one can argue this has been the case for a while, but if so this trend will only accelerate).
As this plays out, the politics of the old era are over. Of course, the issues people vote on don't go away, but merely transform and adapt along with political parties. The new era is here. A new politics is underway. The shift will have implications for at least a generation. What happens in these next elections will define much of the next century for the United States and the world.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2019 W J Fitzgerald
Brad on July 26, 2019:
I read all your words, but it was elusive to see any point.
The reason that Trump is president is to generate a new paradigm for the government. To replace the nesting and the lack of accomplishments a politicians that promise and don't deliver.
Neither the traditional party, or the progressive part can do the job, they are just good as generating greenhouse gasses with their orations.
Trump is not really a republican, but someone that just want to move America, and Americans forward or as the movie says back to the future.
Wesman Todd Shaw from Kaufman, Texas on July 26, 2019:
Yeah. I used to be so very angry my parents didn't do much towards me getting a 4 year degree. Every one of my peers from their church got sent to a university. I felt like I was at the very least as smart as any of them.
And if I'm being serious, I felt like I was truly much smarter than the church peer group I grew up with.
I wound up doing hvac work for a lot of years. It's a fine trade, but I'm a book smart guy, not a mechanically inclined guy.
Nowadays I think, gosh, you know what would be brilliant? Be a fireman. It's a great job, and you get lots of time off. And become a plumber too. Plumbers make so much money. Just wow.
Paying for your own university education? Terrible idea.
Once I hear someone talking about a 'living wage' as some sort of virtue, I tune them right out. I mark them down in my mind. 'Living wage' is as vague a term as there could possibly be.
Ken Burgess from Florida on July 26, 2019:
Wes the funny thing is, so many of those who support the Democrats' talk of open borders, global economy, etc. are young kids that don't realize the reasons why they receive poor pay, no benefits, and can't get ahead are because of open borders, global economy and unfair trade agreements, etc.
They can't remember back to the 80s and even 90s when jobs provided good insurance and 401k plans... BEFORE NAFTA, before all those manufacturing jobs were moved to Canada, Mexico and China, before tens of millions of illegal immigrants came to America and were allowed to fill good construction jobs that would have paid Americans over $20 an hour, etc. etc.
The causes that the Democrats champion are the very reasons why young people, college degrees in hand, cannot find work that pays them a 'living wage' and offers no benefits.
Wesman Todd Shaw from Kaufman, Texas on July 25, 2019:
Trump is currently attempting to cut back on the SNAP or food-stamp benefits. And this to save a measly bit of money. I'm all for Donald Trump, but I don't think cutting back on the food-stamp program is a good idea.
The old saying is that demographics equate to destiny. Can't really argue with that, and so populism is pretty important. I see a lot of fear-mongering in this department. Well, I don't think everyone has thought it all through very well. Things are not always what they appear to be, and taking ques from the hoax mongers of mass media certainly won't get a body anywhere close to the truth.
I'm with Ken's point below regarding immigration and safety nets. Giving away worker's money to illegals just isn't any kind of incentive to be proud of paying taxes, or towards legal immigrants doing all the right things.
Sweden is certainly a horror movie. The worst kind - the true story horror film.
Ken Burgess from Florida on July 25, 2019:
This is a well thought out, well articulated article.... I daresay one of the best summarizations of the current political landscape:
QUOTE: [Trump Republicans] Right Populist voters are generally nationalistic, viewing globalization negatively, holding conservative social values, are economic populists (i.e. focused on working class concerns as opposed to big business), are anxious about immigration and changing racial demographics, and want to avoid foreign intervention.
QUOTE: Democratic Party has also shifted priorities and doctrine with the result of pushing out many white working class voters, as working class priorities are no longer Party priorities. Instead the Democrats have focused economic priories towards college-educated, diverse and younger population who hold much more culturally liberal values. I will call [them] Progressives. Progressives believe in socialism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and generally liberal cultural values. Progressives reject a classical liberal ideology and instead embrace a true identity politics based on categorizing everyone by identity group, classifying certain groups as victims with societal grievances, real or perceived, and other groups as privileged purveyors of power. [End]
I could argue some of your points... such as Business folks big or small don't have much choice but to go Republican, as the Democrats' plans and ideas would all be detrimental to business, property owners and stock holders. Whether they like him or not, the alternative is ten times worse.
I would also argue those voting for Trump don't fear a change in demographics, they fear the stupidity of our government giving social supports to tens of millions of immigrants... which will only hasten the demise of the Safety Net that Americans have worked and paid into, that is supposed to be there to take care of them, not immigrants, things like Social Security, complete coverage of the elderly by Medicare, and other supports will not survive this drain on resources.
We see this in smaller countries like Sweden. Prior to 2015 Swedes were proud of their welfare state. The “Scandinavian model” combines high taxes, collective bargaining and a fairly open economy. The result was excellent living standards, high wages, parental leave for both sexes. Its reputation had leftist politicians elsewhere filled with envy.
Fast forward to 2019, after the small country of about 9 million people took in over 1 million immigrants over the course of 4 years (not the 'official' government number).
What is the cost for those immigrants?
Associate Professor of Economics Jan Tullberg, who teaches at the Stockholm School has upgraded the costs to just over three percent of GDP, which is around SEK 110 billion per year. This is almost half of the overall cost of Swedish health care, or an additional annual net income of SEK 23,000 per employed person. And as they remain at over 90% unemployment, the costs are expected to increase over time as they remain dependant on welfare.
These new realities, will cost Sweden their Social supports and safety nets, the people who spent their lives contributing to the welfare state will find when they get older, it is no longer there to take care of them.
The typical American is smart enough to figure out, if we allow tens of millions of immigrants into the country, and our social services support them... those social services won't be available for them when they need it. Its not about race, its about economics.