Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

In 2025, who has the "Big Tent" now?

Part Two of the American Schism in 2025 Series.

In 2025, who has the "Big Tent" now?

A microphone in front of a crowd.

Canva Images

One of the core arguments I advance in this series is that as American citizens we have no hope of understanding, much less arbitrating, today’s bitter polarization without a deep appreciation of the antecedent roots from which it comes.

Further, I propose that many of the divisions we have experienced over our entire 250-year history are, in fact, derivative of the original late 18th-century schism from the nation’s founding period. As I’ve previously written, history can act as a salve for our wounds if only we would apply it.


The framework proposed, originally developed in the book “American Schism ”, alludes to a pendulum-like oscillation between two conflicting visions of the nation that first manifested during its early formational days, each vying for dominance.

In that era, the inchoate vision of Jeffersonian democracy, anchored in the credo of the 1776 Declaration, migrated over the subsequent decade to Alexander Hamilton’s vision of Federalist expertise, positioning the new nation for prosperity. By the time of the adoption of the 1788 Constitution, Hamilton’s model of the aristocratic republic had become dominant over the more idealist decentralized democratic republic of the early revolutionary years. In practical terms, perhaps it was inevitable that the urgent needs on the ground at the time (refinancing the War debt, fusing overseas alliances, the need for an inter-state commerce framework) demanded the pragmatic solutions that only holistic and centralized design could offer.

In describing the first quarter of the 21st-century American landscape, once again, we witness a pendulum-like swing between two vastly conflicting visions of the country, each contending for prominence. Contrast the significance of the Obama and Trump eras, not in terms of concrete legislation but as contrasting symbolic world views. Irrespective of its actual accomplishments, during the Obama era, we reached the apotheosis of a globalized worldview where expertise and institutions reigned paramount.

In this era, under the auspices of the “establishment,” we strove to transcend the sins of our past with a new meritocratic, color-blind regime, as epitomized in President Obama himself.

As we reflect back on the Obama era in the rearview mirror, it is no surprise that the birther movement, which loomed throughout that period, was propagated by the same controversial figure who would champion a radically opposing vision to which the pendulum has now swung.

The political demonstration of this swing is manifested in a complete reversal of the two-party landscape itself. By the end of Obama’s first term, demographic trends seemed to secure the Democrat’s position as the “big tent” transcendent party when compared to the stodgy and aging Republicans who had begun conducting their autopsy. Yet, in a stunning about-face, the tent sizes now look quite different. How did this happen in such a relatively short period of time? Albeit with tight margins, the Trump MAGA vision, through remarkable coalition building, is now in the driver’s seat.

So much has been written about MAGA’s anti-elite populist nature, wary of expertise and distrustful of the governmental and higher education institutions that together form the “Cathedral,” the regime overseeing the world order during much of the last century. It was perhaps unpredictable that the bond, however tenable, between the new right and the new tech right could be forged in the first place. Even more murky is how exactly the mandate prescribing the dismantling of the old world order (as best articulated in tremendous detail in Project 2025) will be viewed and supported by the most recent constituents of the coalition. At the moment, following the Elon-initiated cascade from Silicon Valley also reaching significant pockets within the East Coast financial Brahmin, the partnership seems formidable: the combination of the far left’s rebellion against capitalism and the great “awokening” has indeed forged unconventional bedfellows.

Now that we are in the first weeks of the promised regime dismantling, no one can predict how it will evolve and where it will lead. Will the U.S. end up following much of the world’s governing undercurrent to a new illiberal autocracy where power is consolidated around a strong man? (Inevitably a man in this model). Putin has so successfully consolidated power in Russia that he can spin a narrative that the vast majority of the public seems to adopt. Since the U.S. media is undoubtedly more difficult to control, stateside we observe a gradual but strident breaking of democratic norms, not so much of an Orwellian information ban but more akin to a Huxleyesque-type landscape. As Steve Bannon calls it, the “flood the zone” strategy, in which the most often repeated and loudest narrative (even if it’s a bunch of half-truths and lies) rules the day. In such an environment, many citizens simply abandon the pursuit of truth altogether, nestled in their chosen and more comfortable cocoon.

Much of the immediate future will depend on the cooperation between the competing factions in the Trump coalition. In the next installment of this series, we will dive deeper and review the key points of coalescence, along with the inevitable conflicts that will arise between the factions.

The only thing that looks clear for now is that better insight might be provided by an examination of the historical episodes of the oscillation between the opposing poles of the American Schism.

Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation ” and serves on the Advisory Councils at Business for America, RepresentUs, and The Grand Bargain Project. This is the second entry in a 10-part series on the American Schism in 2025.


Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less