Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Making sense of the 2024 elections as a 21st century paradigm shift

Torn American flag being pulled in two directions
wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images

Where do we go in the aftermath of our recent elections? As MAGA forces mobilize to swiftly implement Donald Trump’s agenda, the Democrats are counseled to look in the mirror to understand how they ceded the working class to Trump’s now bigger-tent Republican Party.

The thing is, one cannot truly comprehend today’s new political landscape without historical context, since the forces that are fighting for prominence today have a rich history. Specifically, the very philosophies underlying our bitter polarization are in fact derivative of the first American schism in the last quarter of the 18th century. Further, these same viewpoints have been omnipresent in much of history, even as they mutated considerably across this 250-year period.


For most of the 20th century, the dominant axis motivating partisan divisions is usually referred to as the “left-right” continuum, in which the central determinants pertain to the degree of prescribed government intervention in the political economy. Movements toward the right are associated with a belief in laissez-faire capitalism as the true driver of prosperity in an economy, and are extremely circumspect of government interventions.

On the left side of the continuum, two main philosophies have driven the call for a more active central government. On one hand, economists counsel that the government must assume an active role to address the inevitable market failures (providing public goods, addressing externalities and limiting monopolistic power). The other philosophy underpinning the movements on the left relate to redistributive efforts, such as the creation of a safety net for those whom capitalism leaves behind.

Regrettably, this entire framework is no longer so helpful in understanding where we are today.  The paradigm has shifted. The left-right continuum is still relevant, but it has been eclipsed by a new ideological clash driven not primarily by economic philosophy, but instead by core questions regarding where the authority to govern lies in the first place. So much has been written recently about the reciprocal disdain between the elite establishment — those responsible for the governing policies for the last half-century — and populist forces representing tens of millions of working class Americans who have been irreparably hurt by these same policies. In the MAGA era, the pent-up working class rage towards the elites that has accumulated erupted in a reckoning by “throwing the bastards out,” and in hopes of dismantling the elite set of institutions that have been built over decades.

While understanding the dynamics behind yesterday’s left-right continuum required a solid grounding in political economics, to comprehend the current elite-populist divide we need to understand our history. Interestingly, the origin of this latter divide goes back much further before the modern economy, to our founding era, when two very distinctive and conflicting visions of the new nation vied for prominence. In my book American Schism, I provide a retracing of today’s divisions back to these roots. Moreover, I illustrate how this elite-populist tension regarding the authority to govern has continually lurked under the surface during our most difficult periods. Furthermore, I posit that at times during certain eras we developed a “magic formula” to best navigate these challenging periods that resulted in better outcomes.

In the original schism, the two distinctive visions proposed conflicting governing structures for the young republic. On one hand, founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton believed that designing the mechanisms of governance was an enormously complicated task that required the dutiful dedication of the best and the brightest. At the time, this model was referred to as an “aristocratic republic” and its proponents eschewed democracy fearing the tyranny of the mob. In the other camp were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, who believed that the only sustainable form of republic was a representative democracy in which the people selected delegates to advocate for their interests. This later model favored decentralized governance where decisions were closer to the dispersed communities versus centralized loci of power.

The fight between these two factions became quite bitter and drove the formation of the first political parties in our country, Hamilton’s Federalists, and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. Had it not been for the incredible skill and foresight of James Madison, who bridged the two groups, we might never have succeeded in drafting and ratifying our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Much of American history has been a pendulum-like swing between these two poles: After 30 years of Federalist dominance, the Jacksonian movement ushered in a new era of populism. Later, as the country industrialized in post-Civil War America, the elites in the Northeast — railroads, oil, banking — were confronted by the populist forces of the Farmers’ Alliance, a bottom-up populist movement to educate and empower independent farmers in the South and West. Despite limited success, the tremendous wealth created in the nation pushed the pendulum towards the elites by the turn-of-the-century Gilded Age, and populists’ demands were not addressed until the progressive era of the 1920s. Later in the 20th century, we witnessed big pendulum swings: After the cohesive post-World War II era led to a huge expansion of the middle class, a long span of elite dominance emerged at the end of the century. And today, formidable populist forces look to dismantle much of the elite infrastructure recently built since the middle of the 20th century.

Therefore, if we are going to make sense of this year’s election cycle, we need to look into a rear view mirror and see the complexity of the elite-populist schism in its rich context. As Jefferson and Adams corresponded in their later years before they died (on the same day), they seemed to reconcile that both the elite and populist models had elements to contribute in rendering our republic exceptional. In the book, I illustrate how at times in our history, we deployed a “magic formula” for balancing these two conflicting visions of our governing model. This raises a key set of questions: Over our history, what mechanisms did we use in this “secret sauce”? How exactly did these approaches allow us to achieve superior outcomes when compared to others? How did we successfully leverage elite expertise when required to solve complex problems, whilst also ensuring that egalitarian forces kept the elites in check?

Tragically, in today’s environment, this same analysis points to a grim reality — these tools have been abandoned and replaced by futile polemics. Sure this new paradigm of counter-productive citizen engagement can be entertaining at times, and it certainly allows the media world a rich business model. But if we want to solve the very real problems we face (e.g. immigration, climate change, an education crisis), we might be better advised to examine some historical, more pragmatic approaches.

Indeed, history can act as a salve for our wounds if only we would apply it.

Radwell is the author of  “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation ” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the fourteen entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

Read More

America Is Losing Its Light
New legislation would convene Congress at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the site of the Declaration of Independence’s signing on July 4, 1776, for the 250th anniversary on July 2, 2026.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

America Is Losing Its Light

America has been, for most of its 250-year history, a beacon to the rest of the world. It has been a light of freedom and humanity—regardless of its own failings—in a world in which there has been little freedom and humanity. In a world where the 20th century saw the rise of dictators for whom the words freedom and humanity were of no use, where the peoples of Europe, Russia, and China were subjected to unspeakable horrors and daily deprivations.

In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the citizens voted these misbegotten men into office. These men did not hide what they wanted to do. But they were forceful, charismatic men, and the despair of the people resulted in their being hailed as God-like creatures: der Führer and il Duce. All the powers in those countries—politicians, judges, the military, educators—bent their knees to these elected dictators and swore absolute subservience to their leader.

Keep ReadingShow less
Musk’s Third Party, RCV in NYC, and Miami Backlash

Musk’s Third Party, RCV in NYC, and Miami Backlash

Expand Democracy: Musk’s Third Party, RCV in NYC, and Miami Backlash

The Expand Democracy 5: Elon’s push for a third party, turnout and RCV in NYC, preserving voting rights for the incarcerated, cancelled Miami elections, and timely links

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. From Eveline Dowling, with Rob Richie and Juniper Shelley’s assistance, we highlight timely links and stories about democracy at the local, national, and global levels. Today's stories include:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Musk Gambit: Can a Feuding Billionaire Fix American Democracy?

Billionaire businessman Elon Musk speaks during a town hall meeting at the KI Convention Center on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

The Musk Gambit: Can a Feuding Billionaire Fix American Democracy?

Elon Musk has officially launched the America Party, dramatically breaking with Donald Trump and mounting an unconventional challenge to the country’s two-party duopoly. With populist messaging and a growing list of high-profile allies, Musk’s political move is already stirring national debate. But is this a serious attempt at democratic renewal or just another chapter in the era of billionaire-driven politics?

The ideological shape of the America Party is still fuzzy. What we know so far suggests a blend of libertarian anti-spending rhetoric, populist anti-establishment framing, and a self-proclaimed appeal to the “80% in the middle” who feel alienated by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, as Nate Silver notes, that exhausted majority is not a monolith. Just because many voters dislike polarization doesn’t mean they agree on what should come next.

Keep ReadingShow less