The World Turned Upside Down
An Optimistic Fantasy
“We need a leader who is not in the pocket of big business, but answers to the working man, union and non-union alike, a leader who won’t sell out to multinational corporations, but will stand up for American corporations and American industry.” (J.D. Vance at the Republican convention, quoted in the Financial Times)
Trump is a populist with no political principles of his own, willing to adopt those past Republican positions that are not politically inconvenient, deregulation but not free trade. Vance is a populist with opinions of his own, some of which fit the Democratic party better than the Republican.
He co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) to lower the price of insulin.
He backed legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to claw back executive pay when big banks fail.
He spearheaded legislation with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to regulate the rail industry following the disaster in East Palestine.
He worked with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) for drug price transparency and to promote greater credit-card competition.
He introduced a bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to battle corporate mergers.
(Zaid Jilani, “Why the Left Gets J.D. Vance Wrong”)
Vance is articulate, young, has a beautiful and intelligent wife, is widely viewed as Trump’s heir, the future leader of his movement. Which raises an interesting possibility.
Suppose Vance succeeds in becoming the leader of the MAGA movement, the de facto boss of the Republican party, and pushes out of the party its remaining libertarian/free market elements, converting it into something rather like the Democratic party of the pre-woke era, the party of labor unions, the poor, big government used to benefit the party’s causes and supporters. Further suppose that that revised Republican party is electorally successful. What is left for the Democratic party?
One possibility is to keep its progressive wing, become the party of woke, that being one element of the current Democratic party that Vance opposes. Suppose, however, that the optimistic speculation of my previous post turns out true, that Wokeism collapses in a preference falsification cascade. What then?
With the Republicans in control of the government, reduction in government power may start looking attractive to the Democrats. With the Republicans the party of protectionism, there may be votes and money in support for free trade. With Republican immigration restrictions producing a shortage of workers at both the high end — nurses from the Philippines, doctors from India — and the low, there may be votes for expansion of legal immigration. With the Republicans running big deficits, as Trump did and populists are likely to do, and the debt becoming harder and harder to finance due to both its size and the increased risk premium demanded by lenders worried about default, cutting spending may at last be a politically viable policy.
If I live another twenty years I may finally have a major party I am willing to vote for.
Historical Parallels
I do not know of any examples of political parties trading places completely — perhaps a reader can offer one — but there are multiple examples of parties trading places on major issues. In the years before WWII the Republican party of Robert Taft supported a non-interventionist foreign policy, the Democratic party of FDR the opposite. After the war, when the foreign enemy was communist instead of fascist, the Republican party supported an aggressive anti-communist foreign policy. Opposition was located mostly on the left of the Democrats. The flip is clearer if we look at movements instead of parties. The right of Taft was for less involvement in foreign conflicts, the right of Buckley for more. The left of FDR was for more involvement, the post Vietnam left for less.
In 19th century America, the Republican party favored high tariffs, the Democrats low, a pattern continued well into the 20th century.1 In the post WWII period the pattern reversed, with Republican presidents, starting with Eisenhower, pushing for freer trade, the Democrats, from the late 1960’s on, supporting protectionism. With Donald Trump’s election the Republican position has reversed again.
The 2020 Democratic platform has:
Democrats believe more products in our homes, stores, workplaces, and communities should be stamped “Made in America” and will expand support for American manufacturing. We will end policies that incentivize offshoring, and instead accelerate onshoring of critical supply chains, including in medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. We will expand effective tax credits that support domestic manufacturing and grow rural manufacturing jobs through investments in bio-based manufacturing.
That doesn’t match Trump’s support for protectionism but neither does it reject it. In another few days we will see what the 2024 platform says. I expect it will at least support tariffs against China, as Biden does.
For an example of a party reversing its ideology more broadly, consider the New Zealand labor party. Its founding principle was democratic socialism. During its first period in power, from 1935 to 1949, it established New Zealand’s welfare state. Up to the 1980’s it advocated a strong role for governments in economic and social matters. But:
When it governed from 1984 to 1990, Labour's emergent neoliberal faction had a strong influence; the party broke precedent and transformed the economy from a protectionist one through extensive deregulation. As part of Rogernomics, Labour privatized state assets and greatly reduced the role of the state, … (Wikipedia)
Past posts, sorted by topic
A search bar for past posts and much of my other writing
A historical example with a different spin on your thesis: Alaska and Hawaii were together admitted into the union in 1959 as a compromise between Democrats and Republicans. With a large military base on its soil, Hawaii was supposed to be a Republican bastion (although it was moving left starting around the mid-1950s). Indeed, its only ever Republican senator, Hiram Fong, was elected the year that statehood was granted. Alaska, meanwhile, elected exclusively Democrat senators and representatives for a decade.
Nowadays, of course, Alaska is seen as solid red (despite a confusing ranked-choice poll in 2022 that resulted in the election of a Democrat representative); and Hawaii as virtually uncontested blue.
I have heard it said that the reason DC and Puerto Rico have not yet been made states is because there is no compromise to be achieved: it is assumed both would heavily favor Democrats during national elections. And indeed I have trouble seeing the city of civil servants swinging Republican in remotely near future (although if, as David points out, the Republicans were to take control of the federal government for an extended period of time, I suppose that's possible). But I believe Puerto Rico is quite open to being contested if Republicans were to give it a try.
I fear that what we are seeing is the demise of limited government power and a focus on markets instead of government intervention. It seems that the argument has gone from whether there should be someone wielding a lash to merely who that should be.