As the political tacticians firm up their new lines in response to the change in the Democratic ticket, the underlying antagonisms remain in place. Neither “MAGA right” nor “woke left” will simply accept defeat in November. And the campaign themes are the same, albeit with different scripts of attack and defense. The latter may well alter the electoral outcome, as anything could make a difference in so close a race. But that closeness in itself will feed objections from the losing side.
This site has noted before how our polarized discourse might well make for unrest in 2025. It is possible that somehow the new language of the campaign reduces some of the vehemence of the activists. The favored Democratic VP candidates come from the ranks of governors rather than the “squad.” The head of the Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025” is stepping down after criticism from Donald Trump himself. But these, and other campaign developments, will not by themselves alter the partisan geography. Until the basic dynamics of the left/right political duopoly are reshaped, the trench lines of polarized partisan warfare will not move.
The playbook for would-be activist agitators is well known. One side has previously launched discredited accusations of vote fraud and an invasion of the Capitol. The other has declared “police-free zones” in major cities. One side is accused of partisanship in voter registration, the other of spuriously blocking election certification. Polarization will not abate just because the campaign is over. Something really bad is all to likely. Even beyond the question of post-election disorder, will, say, the next funding bill get passed?
Both sides say they are campaigning against the other side’s threat to freedom. The “blue” side invokes January 6. The “red” side invokes impositions of new cultural rules. Democrats say “democracy is at risk” when they cite January 6, but quickly add other issues, as though democracy is one of a smorgasbord of concerns. Republican activists spend as much time trying to alter voting rules as on their policy issues.
Once again, we all share an identity based on freedom. Our common holding of the truth of unalienable rights, as laid out when the nation was created, defines our national purpose. The two polarized camps dominate our discourse, as though they are the only choices. They would have you believe you can only be ‘good,’ ‘evil,’ some wishy-washy in between, or an extreme version of one or the other. But in fact their arguments, to the extent they’re actually about the nation behind their interests or the ideas behind their rhetoric, is about means to the ends that we all share. For a first start to defuse the ever-deeper animosities, we need to recognize this. Neither faction is dealing in the true bedrock of American identity. Neither is worth invading the Capital, defunding the police, or messing with the Constitution for.
The one thing that the rapid re-focus of political rhetoric does offer is confusion among the tacticians. Just maybe, if politics looks a bit unfamiliar for a while, just maybe the divisions will blur, if only a tad, for a few of us. No head-to-head election undoes the polarized divisions of the party duopoly, but maybe the aftermath will not carry over quite the same vituperative focus of the politics of two months ago. Comity will not burst out just because the combatant wannabes don’t have their lines straight. But just maybe there will a bit of air, a bit of room for people to reset their viewpoint in terms of our common national identity.
With any luck we might work out something like that next year.
Common Conviction 