Since Trump was elected I’m seeing a lot of social media posts from Democrats and Never Trump Repubicans decrying the Republican Party as the party of white grievance now and how the GOP is to blame for the current state of things. But even as someone who is a recovering Republican, this doesn’t ring true to me. For one, as somebody who has been in the weeds with the party and even involved in the Tea Party movement, it’s not that some elites made a big decision to fan the flames of white grievance and my side got outvoted or outspent. The elites and big money in the Republican party either don’t care about racial issues or are firmly on the side of more liberal immigration and trade policies. What happened to the Republican party was just the ugly side of grassroots democracy. Enough people got mad as hell, blamed brown people, or at least government neglect of their interests, and took over a major American poitical party.
Here’s why I think it happened, and none of this is really radical thinking. The fact is, in any functioning democracy, any sufficiently large group of people will be represented in government. Much as free speech protects intelligent speech and dumb speech, enlightened speech or offensive speech, democracy provides representation to both the good people and the bad people. It is morally neutral. That is one reason why most countries have constitutions, to prevent immoral majorities from taking away the rights of minorities. But if a country is racist, then it’s elected officials are either going to be racists themselves or officials who feel the need to cater to racism.
55% of white Americans believe that whites face discrimination:
While imperfect, this is probably the simplest way to measure any type of racial grievance: does the group in question feel they are treated unfairly? If 55% of whites feel treated unfairly, that’s a pretty powerful political force that cannot be denied at the ballot box.
A group that large will be represented one way or another. The obvious way, is by being a major force in a major political party. The other way, and one that hasn’t been grappled with as honestly IMO, is that large, powerful voting blocs are often represented by BOTH parties. Either a party can represent a group on all issues, or both parties can represent a group on some issues. Yes, the Republicans catered more to white grievance, but this wasn’t so much a conscious strategic decision so much as a reordering of coalitions. Prior to Obama, the Democrats catered to white grievance as well. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party has been trying to move away from this, but defeats at the ballot box always brought them back to some extent. This was most apparent in the campaign and administration of Bill Clinton, where the Democratic Party neutralized the issues of crime and welfare and attempted to neutralize affirmative action as a potent political issue by promising to “mend it, don’t end it”. All three issues were implicit acknowledgements that angry white folks had a legit beef, and on two of those issues the Democrats worked with the GOP to make major dents in those social problems.
But by the time we get to 2008, the demographics of the country have changed. Now Democrats can potentially win without resentful white voters. So they became pretty much uninterested in compromising with white grievance. So now if you’ve got one party completely uninterested in representing 35% of Americans. In that situation, what do you think is going to happen? They are going to move to the other party. It’s not the first time in history a group has moved en masse to a party and won’t be the last. The GOP could not have reasonably prevented it from happening even if they had stood up straight and spoke out against white grievance.
None of this is meant to absolve the GOP of responsibility. While the party never made a conscious decision to become the party of white grievance, they were certainly happy to use it to win elections, while pursuing their real agenda of tax cuts and low regulation. This was a strategy built on a foundation of sand and they should have seen it. There is no popular constituency for tax cuts for the rich and lax business regulation sufficient to lead a major political party.
Basically, a few rich guys riled up a mob and then thought they could control it. White progressives in the Democratic Party are also under the impression that they can stoke the grievances of minorities and still have a progressive party at the end of that process. They’ll find out too, in time. What is happening in the Republican party will only accelerate that process within the Democratic party, and the fight between the Sanders and establishment wings of the Democratic Party are just the first round in what will be a 20-year fight that will likely end with a fairly nonideological, minority led party focused mainly on combatting racism and injustice(as the Democratic Party does now), but with substantially less interest in the non-identity poltiics aspects of the progressive platform.
So to make a long post shorter, the parties are sorting by race and region now. This has actually been the norm throughout our history. It is the norm in balkanized countries all over the world. Ideological sorting is a luxury of countries that are mostly homogenous or where racial controversy is relatively low key. We’re seeing Europe change into racially sorted parties at the same time we are returning to that norm.