The polarization of political parties has seemingly transformed U.S. politics into a binary of subjective lesser evils. You see this manifested in catch phrases like “Vote Blue No Matter Who,” which serve to reinforce this fear-based electoral tactic. Polarization-focused voting schemes have been largely criticized in the past years alone, but their history provides an important lens for analyzing how party disunity affects electoral trends and creates repercussions varying from widespread dissent to acts of treason.
Ye olde disagreements and divide
In the election of 1860, Republicans faced a crisis as party fractures occurred around the issue of slavery. The Republican National Convention (RNC) candidate, Abraham Lincoln, campaigned on ending the forced migration of enslaved people, which caused him to face immense backlash from the Democratic Party. The issue became warped through a large game of newspaper telephone, ultimately framing Republicans as a pro-abolitionist party. This perceived threat against the commercial backbone of the South caused Democrats to fracture into several groups with varying viewpoints surrounding the institution of slavery.
The Democratic Party, headed by Stephen A. Douglas, maintained their position against Lincoln but were seen by their constituents as insufficiently committed to the pro-slavery cause. As a result, groups like the Southern Democratic Party popped up with campaigns driven by the preservation of slavery. Other groups, like the Constitutional Union Party, had similar opinions to the Southern Democrats but differed based on opinions surrounding secession.
While the Democrats quibbled in a corner over partisan issues, Republicans organized and mobilized to garner voters for the election. Republicans used every campaign method possible — they brought out notable speakers to sway opinion, published endorsements throughout Northern states, targeted and translated speeches to German immigrant voters, and utilized grassroots organizations, such as the Wide Awakes, to target young voters. In contrast, Democrats pushed the easily disproved Republican abolitionism lie, yet did not make nearly the same effort to organize voters throughout their various party offshoots. Republicans’ unity against the Democrats allowed them to successfully gain enough electoral support from the split faction votes of Southern states. As a result, immense resentment burst from the Democrat-aligned parties, and, feeling unfoundedly threatened by the dissolution of slavery, some states decided to break from the union in opposition. Secession, the first step in protest against Lincoln’s election, underpinned the escalation that soon caused the Civil War.
Building dissent through absurdity
Lincoln’s battle against the Democratic-aligned parties resonates closely with many recent elections, even down to the same campaign issues stemming from white supremacy. Perhaps the most poignant example of unintentional disunity is the 2016 election, which saw an ideological divide spanning over Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, Democrat Hillary Clinton, and various third party candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc). As Sanders increasingly voiced his criticisms of Clinton’s policies — amplified greatly by the media — she responded by acquiescing to herd over potential Democratic voters in Sanders’ base. Her email controversy served as the pallbearer, cementing the divides across partisan lines. On the other hand, Republicans, less divided than Democrats, doubled down on supporting Trump and were resolved to campaign a solid and unchanging message to target evangelicals, their core voter base, along with coordinating various behind-the-scenes deals regarding Supreme Court nominations, reminiscent of a “corrupt bargain.” Intentional or not, Democrat disunity combined with Republican scheming and campaigning hurt Clinton’s voter base enough that she lost the electoral vote by a record-breaking five faithless electors.
Clinton’s loss is regarded as the catalyst for Trump’s, along with the larger conservative hive’s, ascension to power. However, almost eight years later, Trump’s popularity is not nearly the same level as it was during his inauguration. Inundated and shrouded in back-to-back scandals, the officials and the public alike have grown tired of Trump’s antics, ironically, with the same party disjunction he exploited in 2016 coming back to bite him. His relentless attacks aimed at deposing fellow Republicans have jaded party members, and his insistence on spewing outrageous soundbites has greatly diminished his public credibility. It is in this environment that Kamala Harris’ united front of Democratic voters and organizations poses a large threat to the disillusioned and fractured Republicans.
In response to actualized and potential election losses, there are clear, direct parallels regarding Trump supporters who call for secession or preparation for an imaginary civil war, along with more sinister allusions towards a complete revolution. The consequences of another Trump loss have an unsettling unpredictability — his previous loss incited treason, which only strengthened his most radical counterparts. There’s no telling what the next course of action is for a group that has no issue committing blatant seditious acts against the United States.
