The Hope of a Post-Trump Populism
Critical Elections and Realignments
Political scientists often talk about “critical” elections and “realignments” to describe election results and changing voter trends. A critical election is one that ushers in a new political era and empowers one party long-term, leaving the other party in semi-permanent minority status. The only critical election in the 20th century was in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt and Democrats were swept into office during the Great Depression. The Democrats would then dominate American politics at the national level for 35 years. FDR would be elected president four times in a row (1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944) followed by Harry Truman. Yes, Dwight Eisenhower served two terms in the 1950s, but he often had a Democratic-controlled Congress and was largely on board with the welfare state programs created by the New Deal. Then, the 1960s brought JFK and Lyndon Johnson’s landslide in 1964. During these decades, the Democratic Party was truly dominant in a way that neither party has been since.
One of the developments that ended Democratic dominance was the party’s gradual embrace of racial equality. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, many white southern conservative voters started to abandon the Democratic Party. Thus began the most consequential realignment of the 20th century, the “solid Democratic South” turning to the Republican Party, which ended the political period that began in 1932. Democratic dominance came to an end in dramatic fashion at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago as the party split bitterly over Vietnam. The election of Richard Nixon, however, was not a critical election that ushered in a new era of Republican dominance. Instead, the divisive year of 1968 marked the beginning of decades of divided government that persists in 2024.
Divided government has two meanings. On the one hand, it is a neutral description of the balance of power. Government is literally divided when one party controls the White House and the other controls at least one chamber of Congress. On the other hand, divided government can also refer to gridlock and animosity that exists between Republicans and Democrats. Since 1968, American government has been divided in both senses of the word. More often than not, the balance of power has been divided, or shared, between both parties at the national level. And, over time, the two parties have become increasingly divided ideologically. Gone are the days when it was common to have conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Gone too are the days when one party would have extended unified control, that is, controlling the White House, Senate, and House at the same time.
In previous political eras, it was common for one political party to have unified control for multiple election cycles. In other words, dominance. Textbooks cite a series of critical elections that produced successive realignments. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans came to power for a few decades. Then, in 1828, Andrew Jackson and the modern-day Democratic Party. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans came to power, and often dominated national politics, until the Great Depression. The United States has not had a critical election since the 1930s. Since 1968, there have been significant elections that changed the tone or trajectory of the country: Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008, and Donald Trump in 2016. Yet, none of these elections produced long-term unified control of government or dominance. Unified control has tended to occur once a decade, then quickly lost. For example, Bill Clinton and the Democrats lost the House in 1994, Barack Obama and the Democrats lost the House in 2010, and Donald Trump and the Republicans lost the House in 2018.
The New Norm of Divided Government
While many voters bemoan how divided American government has become, the fact that Republicans and Democrats seem unwilling or unable to compromise, they also take divided government for granted as the status quo and safe option. Because the two parties are so ideologically opposed, voters on either side of the spectrum tend to have existential fear whenever the other party has unified control. In fact, both parties talk about the prospect of the other party having long-term unified control as the “end of American democracy” or the “end of individual freedom.” If either party did somehow gain long-term dominance, then half the country would feel that they had “lost their country.” Yet, this is exactly how American history progressed prior to 1968.
There were a series of critical elections that empowered one party to implement its agenda over the other party’s objections. If this were to happen again, far from being the end of American history, it would be more of a return to the politics of the country’s past. Of course, if this hypothetical critical election ushered in an authoritarian movement that undermined liberal democracy, then it would surely constitute the end of something. But, if the critical election was simply the triumph for a few decades of a conservative or progressive policy agenda, then it would look a lot like previous political eras in American history.
One way to understand why American government is so divided today, and why both parties talk about elections in existential terms, is that Republican and Democratic leaders crave and fear a critical election. They don’t want to compromise with each other. They want to dominate one another. When one party wins big, like Obama and the Democrats did in 2008, the other party doesn’t interpret the results as a “mandate” from the American people. They obstruct the party in power as much as possible. The quickest way to return to power is to make the party in power fail or lose the confidence of the people. Sadly, Americans are intimately familiar with this dynamic. They vote, say, Democrats into power, who are then undermined by Republicans. Voters, confused about why Democrats didn’t bring change, then vote Republicans back into power. Then, Democrats work to undermine the Republicans, and the cycle continues. All the while, inequality worsens, and opportunity shrinks.
While Reagan’s election in 1980 did not usher in long-term Republican dominance, it did move the country in a more conservative direction and the Republicans won three presidential elections in a row after George H.W. Bush’s win in 1988. What happens when one party loses the White House three times in a row? They must reinvent themselves. Democrats successfully did this as “New Democrats” like Bill Clinton and Al Gore branded themselves as more business-friendly centrists. Clinton and the Democrats enjoyed unified control of government after the 1992 election, but Republicans didn’t really view Clinton’s victory as legitimate. They believed that independent candidate Ross Perot cost them the election and they immediately sought to undermine Clinton at every turn. Newt Gingrich, who eventually became Speaker of the House, pioneered a new era of negative partisanship driven by deep animosity between the parties. The Republicans shut down the government multiple times and impeached Clinton. The economy was good, so voters didn’t really care about some of the Culture War issues that Republicans obsessed over. Also, Clinton and Gore were both southern Democrats. They, like Jimmy Carter, could still win a fair share of white voters in the American South.
Then, the 2000 election. The “New Democrats,” the centrists, almost made it three in a row. Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush and was very close to building on the Democratic Party’s new centrist agenda. Alas, the razor-thin vote margin in Florida gave Bush a razor-thin Electoral College victory. As divided as Republicans and Democrats were during the 1990s, it seems miraculous from the perspective of 2024 that Al Gore gave the concession speech he gave after the Supreme Court intervened in the election. He conceded, he encouraged the American people to support Bush, and the peaceful transfer of power took place without a doubt. Of course, Democrats didn’t feel any need to re-examine their policy positions because they didn’t really feel like voters had rejected their agenda. More voters, in fact, had voted for their candidate. At the same time, George W. Bush acted as though he had a mandate from the American people. The national trauma of 9/11 further empowered and emboldened the Republicans, both domestically and abroad. Huge tax cuts, deregulation, and wars of choice.
I came of age during Bush’s second term, having voted for him as a high school senior in 2004. Looking back, I am now amused at my naivety. In college, I studied history, literature, and philosophy. I was eager to understand the merits of opposing ideologies and policies. I analyzed and examined neo-conservative foreign policy and supply-side economics. I wanted to understand what the Bush Administration was promoting and determine whether it made sense to me. I was dumb enough to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and engage with their commentary in a good faith manner. I assumed other people were serious and honest. I actually believed that American society’s opinion leaders cared about discovering truth and following the evidence. In 2007, when the Iraq War devolved into chaos, I was confused when other people didn’t see the event as the discrediting of neo-conservative foreign policy. I thought a set of ideas had been proven false, or at least severely flawed, and that American society would learn an important lesson. In 2008, when the housing market and Wall Street crashed, I was confused when other people didn’t see the event as the discrediting of deregulation and trickle-down economics. It felt like the Republican Party’s entire worldview was crumbling before my eyes. Surely, other people see what I’m seeing, right? Yes, they do!
The Realignment That Wasn’t
With the election of Barack Obama, it seemed like the American people agreed not only about the failed presidency of George W. Bush, but about the failed ideology that fueled it. As I understood it at the time, the 2008 election was a rejection not just of a party or a president, but of a set of ideas. Some political scientists even described the 2008 election as a possible critical election driven by a new coalition of voters that symbolized the nation’s new diversity. I honestly believed that Republicans were going to self-reflect, do some soul-searching, and maybe even take some intellectual responsibility for the destruction that had occurred under Bush. They did no self-reflection and took no responsibility. They plotted how to undermine Barack Obama’s presidency to get back into power themselves as quickly as possible.
What followed was the Tea Party Movement. Obamacare “death panels.” Birtherism. Unprecedented filibusters. Stealing a Supreme Court seat. The cynicism of Republicans during Obama’s presidency, often led by Mitch McConnell, obliterated many of the things I had believed about American politics. My naivety was gone. The Obama presidency was a crash course in how power operates. It was clear that the Republican Party would never work with Democrats in good faith to improve American society. It was also clear that Democrats were bringing knives to a gun fight.
As frustrating as the Republican obstruction was during the Obama years, it seemed like the country was moving in a more liberal, tolerant, and inclusive direction. I considered Obama the Democrats’ Reagan. There had been no critical election that empowered Democrats long-term with unified control, but he had set the country on a new course as the first Black president. When Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012, the Republican Party determined that they needed to do a better job appealing to non-White voters. The electorate was becoming more diverse, and many assumed the increasing diversity would continue to benefit Democrats. The Republicans weren’t exactly reinventing themselves, but the party leadership seemed convinced that a pivot was necessary to construct a governing majority.
One of the Republican Party’s major recommendations to alter its image with voters was a bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers. In 2013, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate compromised on a bill to secure the border and provide legal status and/or a pathway to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants. This transformative legislation passed the chamber 68–32 with enormous bi-partisan support. The House never voted on it due to something called the Hastert Rule, which says a bill will not be debated unless it has the support of a majority of the majority. In other words, the Republican-controlled House would not allow a vote on the bill unless a majority of Republicans supported the bill. Had the bill been brought to the House floor it would have passed easily on a bi-partisan basis, but because enough Republicans were against it the bill died.
Two years later Donald Trump was running a presidential campaign fueled by anti-immigrant and nativist ideas. Trump’s campaign was so offensive and unconventional, and Trump himself so unqualified for the presidency, that many predicted this was going to be the “end” of the Republican Party that had existed since Reagan, which should have already come to end given the results of the George W. Bush presidency. Many predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump in a landslide and then the Republican Party would be forced to do what the Democrats did in the late 1980s: moderate and move to the center. Obstruction can be a valid short-term strategy, but if you lose three presidential elections in a row then you have to be honest with yourself and reflect on why the American people don’t support your agenda. It seemed like the Republicans were on the cusp of this type of reckoning and self-assessment.
The Arrival of Trump and Populism
Enter the alternative universe that we now live in. Donald Trump, having lost the national popular vote to Clinton, narrowly won the Electoral College. As in 2000, the Democratic candidate received more votes, but the Republican candidate moved into the White House. Commentators competed to provide the best answer to the question “what does the election mean”? Traditionally Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had taken a chance on Trump. Was this a “Rust Belt” realignment toward the Republican Party like the one in the “Solid South” in the 1960s? What do liberals need to learn about rural voters? Clearly, said many pundits, the progressive urban elites needed to show some humility and curiosity toward Trump supporters and seek to understand their perspective. The election of Trump, like the election of Obama, was not a critical election. Both presidents lost the House to the other party two years into their presidency. Many Democrats didn’t feel a need to learn about rural voters. Why? Two reasons: 1) Hillary Clinton received more votes than Trump, 2) Have rural voters or conservatives ever been told that they need to be curious about what liberals believe and try to understand them?
So, the cycle continued. Democrats sought to undermine Trump to regain power, which they believed was rightfully theirs anyway. During Trump’s presidential campaign, his critics had argued, insisted even, that he was unfit for office and posed a threat to basic constitutional principles like checks and balances and the rule of law. During Trump’s presidency, he proved his critics right every week of every month of every year. Did his supporters self-reflect? Were they honest with themselves about who Trump was and what he was doing? No. They ignored their own eyes. They became intoxicated with Trump’s lies and then lied to themselves. Republican politicians lost all credibility. The people who impeached Bill Clinton for lying about an affair were now supporting someone who ordered a hush money payment to a porn star he slept with after his wife gave birth. The people who had criticized Barack Obama for 8 years as an un-American tyrant who didn’t respect the U.S. Constitution now defended someone who trusted Vladimir Putin more than the CIA and knew less about the U.S. Constitution than an 8th grader.
Trump abused the office of the presidency and usurped the power of Congress when he threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless they launched a knowingly bogus investigation into Joe Biden, his political rival in the upcoming presidential election. For this he was impeached. Trump further abused the office of the presidency by trying to bully state officials, members of Congress, and his own Vice President to overturn the results of a free and fair election. He was the first President in American history to not concede defeat and attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. His supporters attacked law enforcement and illegally entered the U.S. Capitol with the intention of preventing Congress from certifying the Electoral College results. For this he was impeached.
Trump and Populism Endure
The election of Joe Biden, a moderate Democrat, in 2020 seemed to promise an end to Trump’s tortured hold over the Republican Party. The “fever” could now break, and the cult of personality could fade. Serious people would once again lead the party. Nope! Trump’s grip on the GOP only strengthened after he left office. Democrats, meanwhile, tried to win back the blue-collar voters who were attracted to Trump. The Biden Administration invested billions in revitalizing manufacturing in the “Rust Belt” and implemented numerous policies that increased wages, benefits, and protections for workers. Some publications hailed Biden as the most pro-worker President since FDR. The Democrats assumed that if they improved people’s lives, then they would earn their votes. They were wrong.
In 2024, Trump received more votes than ever and won the national popular vote for the first time. Despite the American economy being very good based on all macroeconomic metrics, voters cared more about inflation in particular. They were also moved by arguments about illegal immigration and transgender women playing sports. One could argue Trump’s main motivation for seeking the White House was to avoid prison. He doesn’t seem to have a positive agenda to improve Americans’ quality of life. Now, as in 2016, pundits are asking the question “what does the election mean”? and liberals are once again being told they should try to understand Trump voters.
Maybe Trump voters should try to understand that the inflation in 2022 was a global phenomenon impacting all countries that wasn’t caused by Joe Biden. In fact, under Biden the United States experienced less inflation than other industrial democracies. Maybe Trump voters should try to understand that if the price of goods and services is their main concern, then tariffs and mass deportations of undocumented immigrants will only raise prices further. It’s not that voters don’t have plenty to be upset about. They do. The cost of health care, housing, child-care, and higher education are too high. And, yes, groceries are too expensive. Americans’ quality of life is diminishing. Discontent makes sense. But Donald Trump and the Republicans are not the answer to these problems. In the aftermath of Trump’s re-election, many pundits are now claiming that it is Democrats, not Republicans, who must self-reflect and do some soul-searching. Why should they? Republicans never did that when they lost. Republicans just doubled down on their most extreme positions. From the Democrats’ perspective, the whole thing just feels unfair.
And none of it makes much sense. How did the Republican Party, which first promoted the free trade and neoliberalism that resulted in American jobs being moved to other low-wage countries, become the party of workers? How did the Republican Party, which has suppressed the vote of minorities and stoked White anxiety about a “great replacement,” become the party of a multi-racial coalition? How did the Republican Party, which presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth toward the wealthy, become the party of those angry at economic elites? How did the Republican Party, which initiated 20 years of endless wars to fight terrorism and promote democracy, become the anti-war party that wants to cut deals with dictators who invade sovereign self-governing countries? Donald Trump is a con man. As a Republican, he has campaigned against many of the problems and sources of discontent created by Republicans themselves.
As Trump enters the White House for the second time, Democrats have plenty to oppose and promote. Whether they can effectively do either remains to be seen. Was the 2024 election a critical election ushering in long-term Republican dominance or will Democrats retake the House in 2026? We’ll see. Will Trump become even more authoritarian in a second term and try to maintain Republican power through anti-democratic means? In other words, will Republican dominance be earned or rigged? Will the American people be able to tell the difference? Whether 2024 proves to be a critical election or not, Donald Trump has certainly changed the tone and trajectory of the country. He ushered in a political era defined by populism. So far, his supporters seem more interested in cultural populism than economic populism. Do people want a bigger share of the pie and to live their lives as they see fit, or is hating the elites and the prospect of dominating those who are different satisfying enough? America can do populism. American was born in populism. The question now is what kind of populism will fuel our politics?
A Post-Trump Populism
There are plenty of leaders and policymakers within the Democratic Party who can offer the American people a populism that will improve their lives. It shouldn’t take voters long to see that a presidency focused on the priorities of Elon Musk doesn’t have a working class agenda. Nothing that Donald Trump has proposed will make housing, health care, child care, or higher education more affordable. These will remain the big ticket items that Americans are most concerned about. Democrats can offer real policy solutions and do so by harnessing the populist energy that shows no signs of abating. Populism has two sides: cultural and economic. Democrats are already pretty effective at offering economic populism. Republicans have been calling them socialists since the 1980s whenever they propose raising taxes on millionaires to increase access to medical care or educational opportunity.
If Democrats can learn anything as they reflect on the enduring appeal of Trump, it is that they must offer some form of cultural populism too. Trump does this by marginalizing and scapegoating others. Democrats can offer the American people solidarity, respect, and dignity. The American people want to be seen and heard, which doesn’t require the demonization of others. Democrats should offer the American people a cultural populism based on solidarity. We must promote each other’s individual well-being through the collective protection from risk and promotion of opportunity. As a society, we are too stressed out, too anxious, and too depressed. It’s no longer just rent that it too high, it’s everyone’s blood pressure. Democrats can reverse the darkness of Trump’s populism by talking instead about the pursuit of happiness and quality of life. Democrats should vigorously defend entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, but also promote the idea that Americans are entitled to good health, vacation time, and joy. Each individual should be entitled to happiness, and we should care about whether our fellow Americans are happy.
A positive, post-Trump populism is one where Americans work together to construct a society where everyone is invested in everyone reaching their potential and living a full life. Populism isn’t about whether a politician looks like you, talks like you, or spends their free time like you. Populism is about whether a politician will work like hell, against elites if needed, to guarantee that each individual can pursue their own happiness with fair wages, access to medical care, paid vacation, and family leave. What matters is whether people can afford to take their child, spouse, or parent to the doctor. What matters is whether people can afford to take a vacation with their family. What matters is whether people have access to opportunity. A post-Trump populism is one fueled not by revenge or anger but by righteous demands that everyone be able to enjoy life. Democrats can offer a new populism, an inclusive populism, that moves beyond the idea of America as a land of opportunity to demands that America become a land of dignity and fulfillment.