Constitutional Rot
A Political Cycle Timeline
Mark Twain famously once posited, “History never repeats itself, but the kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends." Henry Adams argued that American History moved like a pendulum between the concentrations and diffusions of power. Polybius explained how regimes cycled among monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.
The Ancient Greeks and Ancient Chinese would argue that history is cyclical, not linear, and by viewing history from this, we can point to the political lifecycle of national parties. What if I told you there are more than three cycles at work right now, and when they line up, it's a perfect storm of sorts, and what we get are darkness and disturbing times.
These political cycles cause mobilization, organization, and political will in a government institution. These institutions shape the actions, while the effects slowly remake the institution, and we overcome our despair and inaction.
It's hard not to feel hopelessness or despair, but I can tell you we are not in a Constitutional crisis; it's more like constitutional rot. I know hope doesn't always guarantee any action, but it does make the movement more likely.
Understanding the political party life cycle, and constitutional rot in political life will provide you with some context in history. You'll see that what we're currently experiencing has happened six other times. How do we recognize these cycles?
THE CYCLE OF REGIMES
Stephen Skowronek, A Yale political scientist, developed a theory on presidential leadership that's proven remarkably influential, and it goes something like this; our history has featured successive governing regimes in which parties compete, and it's during these regimes that there's a dominant party and it's the prevailing party that sets the floor and ceiling for what's permissible in politics. In other words, the dominant party's ideology is the politics of the time.
Let's look at the past regimes in our history for an easy explanation, and we'll use the last two regimes as a comparison. We've been in the Reagan regime since 1980. The neoliberalism ideology of Conservatism was deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, weak labor unions, and increasing economic inequality. The New Deal/Civil Rights regime that preceded it was dominated by the democratic party, with increased regulations, higher taxes, and organized protection for labor, civil rights, and civil liberties. It was liberalism, and the Democratic party shaped the political discourse during this era.
History has shown us that these regimes rise and fall, and what we are seeing now is the fall of the Reagan Regime. Political parties need coalitions to ascend and rise to power.
At first, the birth of an ascending and dominant party seems strong. Still, when the prevailing party faces new problems and social, economic, and demographic changes, the dominant party finds it more difficult to keep its coalition together. A party's legislative success often creates these problems by making the transition difficult within the government institution.
Six times in our nation's history, we have reset the Constitutional clock;
The first regime, the Federalist, lasted from 1789 to 1800, and after the election of 1800, they fell apart as a party. The second regime was the Jeffersonian Regime which lasted from 1800 to 1828. The following regime was Jacksonian Democracy which lasted from 1828 to 1860. Then the most extended party rule in our history took place with the Republican regime that went from 1860-1932. Then these regimes were followed up by the Civil Rights regime and the Reagan regime, which has lasted since 1980. What we are witnessing today is the fall of the Reagan regime.
The political regime has a lifecycle, and it does something like this; opposition forms over time, and the dominant party's agenda, ideology, and solutions are nonsensical, irrelevant, and out of touch with current events. The party then divides into factions and becomes radicalized. Their coalition begins to break apart because they feel slighted and marginalized. Compromise becomes more complex, and existing voters leave the party, while new voters reject it. The party then finds a shrinking coalition, fragmenting into tribal factions, which creates an opportunity for a new political regime.
Over the last decade, the Republican party has become radicalized. Their extreme turn to the right only increased political polarization and distrust between the parties. If history tells us anything, it is this. The regime we live under is nearing the end of its lifecycle. The Reagan regime and the days of deregulation, culture wars, and guns are over, and we will see a new government of democratic ideology rise as the Reagan regime comes down, like the Berlin Wall.
When we talk about the history of our country, we see history as linear, but that's not how we should view our constitutional history. We need to see it as cyclical. Henry Adams had the right idea when he argued our history swings like a pendulum between concentrations of power on one extreme and diffusion of power on the other. History helps us to think about these questions. So what does history tell us about this time? Let's find out.
We discussed the six regimes that have cycled through our constitutional history and what that meant for our country. There's another factor to consider. In his book "The Politics Presidents Make," Harvard political scientist Stephen Skowronek studied and classified the presidents as the leaders they would be. He based this on when they were elected in their existing regime.
There are four political situations a president could find himself in: reconstructive, affiliated, preemptive, and distinctive. To better understand how this looks, we will use Donald Trump and his election in 2016. I'll be using his presidency to apply this theory and to provide further proof that we're witnessing the fall of the Republican party. Here's some background to give some context.
The Reagan regime has influenced politics since his election in 1980. The prior regime, the Civil Rights/New Deal, began in 1932 and ended in 1980. We can look back at all the preceding ones and see that the GOP doesn't have history on its side. What we are seeing is the last of the Reagan regime crumbling. I'll show you what I mean.
Like the New Deal Democrats, the Republicans are victims of their own success. Since their ideology of lower corporate taxes, deregulation, and family values have been ongoing since 1980, they've hit the ceiling. They have difficulties coming up with fresh ideas, so, factions begin to develop, radicalization becomes a feature, and party members can feel marginalized and slighted. We can see this happening with today's Republicans.
To some, it may seem like the GOP is the ascendant in politics, but are they? It wasn't long ago that the Republicans held all three branches of government. The last time a conservative movement had as much political power was in 1928, and we know how that ended.
The politics of the Cold War ended in 1991 and was replaced with the War on Terror, while the GOP ignored domestic issues and put them on the back burner. A fissure has been created between the MAGA hardcore faction and the institutionalists. It is also a party that rejected campaign finance reform and opened the doors to corporate overlords, to which the party became beholden and vice versa.
40 years of culture wars, sex mores, and abortion restrictions find a party on the wrong side of current debates causing new voters to turn their back on a party that appears disconnected. Let's not forget since 1988, the GOP has only won the popular vote once. This party has remained relevant through gerrymandering and voter suppression bills.
Let's apply the four political situations that Trump could find hhimsef in:
The first one I want to discuss is the "reconstructive president." This president replaces a weakened regime and leads the dominant party. The presidents we can place in this category; are Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Roosevelt. It would be hard to put Trump in this category. To be considered this type of president, he would be tempted to overturn Reaganism for Trumpism. All the presidents of this type turned out to be our greatest.
The following situation is Affiliated. These presidents are in alliance with a particular regime but take office at a later time. They try to keep their commitments under changing circumstances. Examples of this would be Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson during the Civil Rights regime, and under the current government are George H.W. Bush and George Bush, Jr. An affiliated President Trump would promote Reaganism and limit dissension.
Preemptive presidents come from the opposing party, and they are the presidents who had to find a different way of getting an agenda passed - Eisenhower and Nixon during the civil rights regime, and Clinton and Obama in the current one.
Disjunctive presidents come from the dominant party but are elected at the end of a political regime. This president would be breaking orthodoxy for support and trying to reshape the party's base. Jimmy Carter was the end of the Civil Rights/New Era, and Hoover the end of the long post-Civil War political regime. These presidents are usually viewed as failures. How will Trump be viewed? As Skowreneck writes:
"One of the great ironies of the politics of disjunction is that the Presidents who come to the office in these situations tend to have only the most tenuous relationship to the establishments they represent. Long-festering problems within the regime tend to throw up leaders only nominally affiliated with it. To address the day's issue, these affiliates often press major departures from the standard formulas and priorities set in the old agenda. The political effect of these departures is disjunctive: they sever the political moorings of the old regime and cast it adrift without anchor or orientation.”
Based on all the historical evidence, applied theories, and constitutional time, this is the start of MAGA, and the end of Reaganism.