In a recent diary entitled Democrats and Republicans -- two very different kinds of internal party struggle, science fiction writer David Brin argued that the Democratic Party is becoming the only party in which real debate and deliberation occurs (between Progressives and Blue Dogs), while the Republican Party drifts into an irrelevant role of reflexive opposition to all thoughtful political policy.
This may currently be the case, but I can envision a very different future for the two major political parties: a Democratic Party that becomes the safe, centrist, corporate "establishment" party; and a Republican Party that becomes a populist vehicle for everyone in America who wants to challenge the corporate establishment status quo in our government, whether from the right wing or the left wing.
Because of winner-take-all congressional districts and the Electoral College system for presidential elections, the American political system naturally tends to produce a two-party system. Third parties rarely achieve significant and lasting success in the United States, and this is unlikely to change unless the very structure of our government and its election systems were to be changed.
Because of current conditions, in which one major party is identified in most people's minds as "liberal" or "left-leaning" and the other one as "conservative" or "right-leaning," we tend to assume that this has always been the case. It has not. There have been times in American history when the parties were not divided along liberal-conservative lines as we think of it today, but along completely different spectrums, such as populist vs. elite, states rights vs. national power, or nativist vs. internationalist.
For example, for several decades prior to the most recent major political realignment that took place from the 1950s through the 80s -- the rise of the "New Right" in the Republican Party and the transformation of the Democratic Party from a predominantly Southern, rural, traditionalist party into the Northern, urban, progressive party we see today -- the partisan split in the United States had more to do with "populist" vs. "elite" sentiments. The Democratic Party was seen as the party of the common folk (especially Southern and rural people), and the Republican Party as the party of the wealthy and educated (Northern business interests and their supporters).
Over a period of a few decades, things have changed a lot! In the late 20th century and early 21st century, the Democratic Party has been perceived as the party of the North, the coasts, the city-dwellers, minorities, the poor, and the non-religious; whereas the Republican Party came to be perceived as the party of the South, the interior, the country folk, the whites, the wealthy, and the religious.
I think there are signs that the current perception of the divide between Republicans and Democrats may be beginning to change. We may be in for another major political realignment in America. I propose the theory that the new primary axis of difference between Democrats and Republicans could become "establishment vs. anti-establishment."
The fact that President Obama is turning out to be a centrist, pro-corporate, establishment-oriented Democrat may cause many radical, populist, anti-corporate, anti-establishment Democrats to begin to drift away from the Democratic Party. Some of these people may start to look for a new political home -- but those who are wise will not bother with small third parties like the Greens, which are destined to remain minor parties for only the most extreme on the left.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party is rapidly establishing itself as a party of radicalism, a fighting spirit, populist anger, and opposition to a distant and corrupt government. The "tea party" movement actually has little to do with conservatism as it used to be defined a couple of decades ago; it has much more to do with anti-establishmentism. Many of the "teabaggers" may actually have been supporters of Ross Perot. Similarly, the popularity of Ron Paul among many young, anti-militarist, anti-status quo Republicans and independents who have left the Republican Party can be said to represent a populist ferment arising from "the Right" as we think of it today. But it has little to do with the traditional left-right dichotomy of late 20th century politics. It is a new phenomenon that transcends those labels. It could more accurately be called "post-conservative."
I wonder whether the Republican Party -- shrunken and pathetic as it appears today -- could actually be setting itself up to become a new populist party, a party in which a broad spectrum of people who oppose the corporate domination of government would battle among themselves to represent the voice of anti-centrism. Right-leaning and left-leaning anti-establishmentists would fight for control of the Republican Party, which would become the de facto party in which all meaningful political debate in America would take place. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, would become the party of bland, establishment centrism dominated by corporate-influenced politicians who can always be counted on to preserve a money-and-military-friendly status quo and never to rock the boat.
Of course, this vision of a new political realignment and ideological division between the Democrats and Republicans could only take place if significant numbers of left-leaning independents and disgruntled progressive Democrats decided to join the Republican Party and compete for control of its nascent anti-establishment message. Sounds far fetched? Don't be so sure. Not all Democrats and progressives are as far away from Ron Paul and the tea partiers as you might think. There are plenty of left-leaning people in America today who might prefer to belong to an anti-establishment populist party along with conservatives of a similar radical bent, and compete in primaries against them to determine a new direction for the Republican Party, rather than be a thankless source of votes, money, and volunteer time in a Democratic Party that inevitably seems to govern in a centrist, pro-corporate, pro-military fashion.
Am I advocating the idea that progressives should join the Republican Party? No, I am not. I am simply pointing out that a political realignment in which radical populist progressives end up in that party is not out of the question. The Republican Party right now is really just becoming a blank slate for angry, disgruntled, anti-establishment Americans to write upon -- not all of them necessarily conservative as that term has been defined in recent history.
Old-fashioned "establishment" conservatism is on life support. All kinds of radical ideologies are sprouting up in the Republican Party, ranging from neo-fascism/ultra-militarism/security state (e.g. Rudy Giuliani) to Christian Dominionism (e.g. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee) to anti-internationalist and libertarian-leaning populism (e.g. Ron Paul). More could arise or enter the fray. Who knows which school of thought will emerge as the new Republicanism? But one thing is clear: The old Republican coalition of white pro-business religious people is no longer an electoral majority, so the Republican Party will have to find a new identity in order to remain competitive.
With the Democratic Party increasingly defining itself as the party of incrementalist centrism and accommodation to corporate interests, the Republican Party may naturally find an opening to become the party of bold and radical populism (of some sort). Don't be surprised if some progressives may end up playing a role in the redefinition of the Republican Party. Stranger things have happened -- such as the South and the North completely switching sides in the partisan divide.