Doug Lowe lives in Concord.
I have asserted that the Civil War was the longest in American history. That assertion acknowledged a victory by the North in what I refer to as the shooting phase. It also suggested that the war was not over. I find much evidence suggesting not only a continuation of a state of war but evidence that the South is winning. We have been the Divided States of America for a long time.
Let’s think about the current non-shooting phase of the war. The adversaries are clear but the lines of separation can be confusing. It is no longer correct to say it is North vs. South. We can be comfortable with the use of liberal vs. conservative or left-wing vs. right-wing. The most common identification today seems to be blue states vs. red states.
Important, however, is a comprehension of what each side represents. The roots are deep. An examination of the goals and aspirations is appropriate.
The three motivating principles in the red states are state rights, white supremacy, and Christian nationalism. Those are the drivers pushing the red state leaders. The leaders of the blue states are guided by valuing the national government, equality for all, and freedom of religion.
In many instances, we observe an electorate that merely follows the party leaders. Unfortunately, the leaders that emerge are often at the fringes of their party. Thus we wind up electing extremists. This happens in both parties. Extremists are so named because they are not capable of seeing beyond their limited perspective.
The negotiating skills that had been a part of our democracy are lost. History tells us there is always a gap between principles and reality. Hence, compromise is an important ingredient in the democratic process. I guess that many rank-and-file members of both parties are just following the leaders.
That leads me to suspect that a study of party loyalty would be of tremendous value. I started my adult life as a Republican, primarily because my parents were Republicans. This fidelity led me to harbor a rejection of the Democratic Party. I suspect that such a selection process is not unusual. It suggests that there would be some value in studying the patterns of party loyalty adopted by young people as they merge into maturity.
Is it not true that most people adopt the party of their parents? Is it not similar to the way we adopt a professional sports team? Political parties change and sports teams move. If a party changes its “stripes” do followers adhere? If a sports team moves, do fans follow? When the Dodgers left Brooklyn did their fans remain loyal?
In the early 1860s the South had a mix of party affiliations. But in 1864 the South became the “Solid South.” It became Democratic. Lincoln was a Republican and he had freed the slaves. Few Southerners could support any Republican. However, in 1964, in response to the Civil Rights Act, the Solid South moved to the Republican Party. And, with a brilliant strategy, spread over decades, the “Solid South” took control of the Republican Party. I see that as a major turning point in our history.
This land of ours has provided a unique experience in world history. Recall that most of that world history describes a situation wherein people were ruled by one form of autocracy or another. Through the Middle Ages in Europe, people were ruled by a union of a monarchy and the church.
Our experience has been an experiment. The experiment aimed to determine the viability of democracy. Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln: “…testing whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
We have tested a question that was first raised in the 5th Century B.C. Athens: Can a people govern themselves? That question might well be answered in the next four years.
What do you think the answer will be?