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

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.