One of the core arguments I advance in this series is that as American citizens we have no hope of understanding, much less arbitrating, today’s bitter polarization without a deep appreciation of the antecedent roots from which it comes. Further, I propose that many of the divisions we have experienced over our entire 250-year history are in fact derivative of the original late 18th century schism from the nation’s founding period. As I’ve previously written, history can act as a salve for our wounds if only we would apply it.
The framework proposed, originally developed in the book American Schism, alludes to a pendulum-like oscillation between two conflicting visions of the nation that first manifested during its early formative days, each vying for dominance.
In that era, the inchoate vision of Jeffersonian democracy anchored in the credo of the 1776 Declaration migrated over the subsequent decade to Alexander Hamilton’s vision of Federalist expertise positioning the new nation for prosperity. By the time of the adoption of the 1788 Constitution, Hamilton’s model of the aristocratic republic had became dominant over the more idealist decentralized democratic republic of the early revolutionary years. In practical terms, perhaps it was inevitable that the urgent needs on the ground at the time (refinancing the War debt, fusing oversea alliances, the need for a inter-state commerce framework) demanded the pragmatic solutions which only holistic and centralized design could offer.
In describing the first quarter 21st century American landscape, once again we witness a pendulum-like swing between two vastly conflicting visions of the country, each contending for prominence. Contrast the significance of the Obama and Trump eras, not in terms of concrete legislation, but as contrasting symbolic world views. Irrespective of its actual accomplishments, during the Obama era we reached the apotheosis of a globalized world view where expertise and institutions reigned paramount. In this era, under the auspices of the “establishment,” we strove to transcend the sins of our past with a new meritocratic, color-blind regime as epitomized in President Obama himself.
As we reflect back on the Obama era in the rear view mirror, it is no surprise that the birther movement, which loomed throughout that period, was propagated by the same controversial figure who would champion a radically opposing vision to which the pendulum has now swung.
The political manifestation of this swing is manifested in a complete reversal of the two party landscape itself. By the end of Obama’s first term, demographic trends seemed to secure the Democrat’s position as the “big tent” transcendent party when compared to the stodgy and aging Republicans who had begun conducting their autopsy. Yet, in a stunning about face, the tent sizes now look quite different. How did this happen in such a relatively short period of time? Albeit with tight margins, the Trump MAGA vision, through remarkable coalition building, is now in the driver’s seat.
So much has been written about MAGA’s anti-elite populist nature, wary of expertise and distrustful of the governmental and higher education institutions that together form the “Cathedral,” the regime overseeing the world order during much of the last century. It was perhaps unpredictable that the bond, however tenable, between the “new right” and the “new tech right” could be forged in the first place. Even more murky is how exactly the mandate prescribing the dismantling of the old world order (as best articulated in tremendous detail in Project 2025) will be viewed and supported by the most recent constituents of the coalition. At the moment, following the Elon-initiated cascade from silicon valley also reaching significant pockets within the east coast financial Brahmin, the partnership seems formidable: the combination of the far left’s rebellion against capitalism and the great “aWOKEning” has indeed forged unconventional bedfellows.