Month: November 2025

People trying to understand politics in the United States today often turn to history for precedents and perspective. Are our current divisions like the ones that preceded the American Revolution or the Civil War? Did the dramatic events of the 1960s generate the same kind of social and political forces seen today? Are there lessons from the past that show us how eras of intense political turmoil eventually subside?

As a scholar of American politics and the presidency, I believe one American historical period is especially worth revisiting in this turbulent moment in the U.S.: the 20 tumultuous years between the presidencies of Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley in the second half of the 19th century.

The two decades between 1876 and 1896 are usually remembered as a time when the cities in the East grew rich and the West was wild – a “Gilded Age” in New York City and gunslingers on the frontier.

It was also a time when Americans struggled with immigration issues, racial injustice, tariff levels, technological change, economic volatility and political violence.

There was even a president, Grover Cleveland, who served two nonconsecutive terms in the White House – the only time that happened before Donald Trump.

In the elections between Grant and McKinley, the nation was closely divided. No president in those years – not Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Cleveland or Benjamin Harrison – served for two consecutive terms. No presidential candidate won more than 50% of the popular vote, except the Democrat Samuel Tilden. And Tilden, after winning 50.1% of the ballots cast in 1876, lost in the Electoral College. That happened again in 1888 when Cleveland, the first time he was seeking a second term, won the popular vote but failed in the Electoral College.

The narrow victories that characterized presidential politics in the 1870s and 1880s were matched by constant shifts on Capitol Hill. In the 20 years between Grant and McKinley, there were only six years of unified government, when one political party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the remaining 14 years, presidents encountered opposition in Congress.

The U.S. has the same kind of divided politics today.

Heating up partisanship and raising stakes

President Bill Clinton had two years of unified government; President George W. Bush had less than that. Barack Obama, Donald Trump in his first term and Joe Biden all came into office with party majorities in the House and Senate, and then, like Clinton, their parties lost the House two years later.

Divided politics, with close elections and neither party in power for very long, make partisanship more intense, campaigns harder fought and the stakes sky high whenever voters go to the polls. That’s part of what produced instability in the second half of the 19th century and part of what produces it today.

Divided government is, of course, one of the most powerful “checks” in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Intense competition between political parties can prevent the national government from making rash decisions and serious mistakes. It can sometimes generate compromise.

But there’s a cost. Political division can also allow critical problems to fester for far too long. The dramatic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution after the Civil War were not seriously addressed in federal legislation until the Progressive Era early in the 20th century.

In the second half of the 19th century, Congress raised or lowered tariffs – depending on which party controlled the White House and Capitol Hill. The nation debated immigration but only once passed meaningful legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A long list of issues connected to railroads, banks, currency, civil service, corruption and the implementation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ignored or only partially addressed.

When major legislation was passed in 1883 to create a merit-based civil service – reforming the spoils system of political appointments – it passed because Garfield’s 1881 assassination by a disgruntled federal job seeker temporarily pushed the issue to the top of the national agenda.

Immigration, fake news and riots

Political violence accompanied the period of closely divided national elections in the 1870s and 1880s.

In the 1880 presidential campaign, both candidates – the Republican, Garfield, and the Democrat, Winfield Hancock – called for restrictions on Chinese immigration to the United States. Neither supported the complete ban that many Westerners wanted.

But just before Americans went to the polls, newspapers across the country printed a letter, allegedly written and signed by Garfield, that endorsed an open border to Chinese immigrants. Before anyone could learn that the letter was a fake, there was public uproar. In Denver, an angry mob burned down all the homes in Chinese neighborhoods.

There were more incidents of political violence: anti-Chinese riots in Los Angeles in 1871, in San Francisco in 1877 and in Seattle in 1886.

Throughout the 1880s, anti-immigrant nativists targeted immigrants from Italy and sometimes vandalized Catholic churches.

Political violence in the South successfully suppressed Black voting rights and reestablished white control of state and local politics.

Realignment

Political division in the second half of the 19th century produced more problems than solutions. How and when did it end, or become less intense?

The simple answer is what political scientists call a “realignment,” a major shift in national electoral patterns.

In 1893, the first year of Cleveland’s second term, the nation suffered a financial crisis followed by a severe economic depression. As a result, McKinley was able to win solid victories in 1896 and 1900 and build a Republican coalition that dominated presidential politics until the election in 1932 of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s not hard to imagine how an economic disaster, or a crisis of some kind, could shake the country out of a period of closely divided politics. But that’s a painful way of building a higher level of national unity.

Can it happen when large numbers of voters get thoroughly frustrated by languishing issues, swings back and forth in Washington, nasty elections and rising political violence?

Perhaps.

But either way – responding to crisis or finding a public change of heart – is a reminder that voters are the ultimate arbiters in a functioning democracy. Today, as in late-19th-century America, elections make a difference. They can mark continued division or they can take the nation in a new, and perhaps more unified, direction.

Robert A. Strong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The United States was founded on the idea that government exists to serve its people. To do this, government must deliver services that promote the common good. When the government shuts down, it fails to meet its fundamental purpose.

While government shutdowns are not new in the U.S., most have lasted less than a week. At 40 days, the current shutdown may well be on the way to an end this week, as enough Senate Democratic caucus members have voted with Republicans on a measure to reopen the government. But it will remain the longest in the history of the nation.

When the government shuts down for such a long time, it inflicts hardships, anxieties and irritations on its citizens. You might wonder why elected officials allow lengthy disruptions to happen.

It is common to blame the politicians for the shutdown. However, as a philosopher who researches democracy, I think the fault lies also with us, the citizens. In a democracy, we generally get the politics we ask for, and the electorate has developed a taste for political spectacle over competent leadership.

American democracy has grown increasingly tribal, leading us to become more invested in punishing our partisan rivals than in demanding competent government. We are infatuated with the spectacle of our side dominating the other.

Understandably, politicians have embraced obstruction. They have learned that deadlock can pay, because they have the support of their voters in behaving this way. Politics is no longer about representation and policy, it’s now about vanquishing and even humiliating the other side.

More fervent, not better informed

To see this, we must examine polarization. Let’s start by distinguishing two kinds of polarization.

First is political polarization. It measures the divide between the U.S.’s two major parties. When political polarization is severe, the common ground among the parties falls away. This naturally undermines cooperation. That Republicans and Democrats are politically polarized is certainly part of the explanation for the shutdown.

But that’s not the entire story. As I argue in my book “Civic Solitude,” the deeper trouble has to do with belief polarization.

Unlike political polarization, which measures the distance between opposing groups, belief polarization occurs within a single group. In belief polarization, like-minded people transform into more extreme version of themselves: Liberals become more liberal, conservatives become more conservative, Second Amendment advocates become more pro-gun, environmentalists become more green, and so on.

Importantly, this shift is driven by the desire to fit in with one’s peers, not by evidence or reason. Hence, we become more fervent but no better informed.

Additionally, our more extreme selves are also more tribal and conformist. As we shift, we become more antagonistic toward outsiders. We also become more insistent on uniformity within our group, less tolerant of differences.

Animosity and obstruction

The combination of intensifying antagonism toward those on the “other side” and escalating cohesion among those on “your side” turns all aspects of life into politics.

In the U.S. today, liberals and conservatives are heavily socially segregated. They live in different neighborhoods, work in different professions, vacation in different locations, drive different vehicles and shop in different stores. Everyday behavior has become an extension of partisan affiliation.

Ironically, as everyday life becomes politically saturated, politics itself becomes more about lifestyle and less about policy. Research suggests that while animosity across the parties has intensified significantly, citizens’ disagreements over policy have either remained stable or eased. We dislike one another more intensely yet are not more divided.

This paints a grim portrait of U.S. democracy. Note that this condition incentivizes politicians to amplify their contempt for political rivals. Politicians seek to win elections, and stoking negative feelings such as fear and indignation are potent triggers of political behavior, including voting.

Consequently, when citizens are belief polarized, animosity and obstruction become winning electoral strategies. Meanwhile, politicians are released from the task of serving the common good.

Channeling contempt

It is no surprise that discussions of the shutdown have consistently focused on blame.

The Republicans, who hold the congressional majority, have sought to score points by depicting the shutdown as the Democrats’ fault. Several official websites maintained by the federal government included statements denouncing the shutdown as strictly the doing of the Democrats. Their aim has been to channel citizens’ frustration into contempt for the Democratic Party.

At the beginning of the shutdown, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed that there was “literally nothing to negotiate” with congressional Democrats.

But there’s the rub. Democratic government is fundamentally a matter of negotiation. Neither winning an election nor being a member of the majority party means that you can simply call the shots. The constitutional procedures by which our representatives govern are designed to force cooperation, collaboration and compromise.

Thanks to polarization, however, these noble ideals of political give-and-take have dissolved. Cooperation is now seen as surrender to political enemies. That’s very clear in many Democrats’ outraged reactions to the eight senators from their caucus who have now voted with Republicans to end the shutdown.

Meanwhile, more than 1 million government employees haven’t been paid, many crucial government services have been interrupted, diminished or suspended, and, with the Thanksgiving holiday approaching, travelers are experiencing flight disruptions. While there may be an end to the shutdown on the near horizon, any deal could simply postpone crucial policy debates and could well end in another shutdown in the new year.

The key to avoiding this kind of failure is to become a citizenry that demands competent government over partisan domination.

Robert B. Talisse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Senate Democrats’ embrace of a shutdown deal that doesn’t guarantee extended health care subsidies is already an electoral issue.

Nearly every major Democratic Senate candidate panned the deal, from Texas hopeful Colin Allred, a former member of Congress, deriding it as a “joke” to Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton condemning it as a “complete betrayal of the American people.” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), the party’s most vulnerable incumbent in 2026, voted against advancing it, as did several senators eyeing a 2028 White House bid.

“Pathetic,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “This is not a deal — it’s an empty promise,” Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois said. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called it a “bad deal.”

The Sunday agreement even caused a familial dispute: Stefany Shaheen, who is running in a crowded Democratic primary for an open House seat in New Hampshire, said she couldn’t support a deal that failed to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Her mother, retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, was one of the lead Democratic negotiators of the deal.

Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who is running to replace Jeanne Shaheen, creating the very opening her daughter is vying to fill, also rejected it in a statement Monday.

After looking to make soaring health care costs an albatross for Republicans in the midterms, Democrats’ deal to reopen the government after 40 days without language extending the expiring insurance subsidies delivered a blow to their base. The result was so fraught, even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposed it amid intense criticism for allowing eight members of the Democratic caucus to side with Republicans.

Now it’s creating a litmus test for candidates in competitive midterm races next year, as Democrats fight to retake the Senate — a tough task they feel better about after routing Republicans in last week’s off-cycle elections throughout the country. They’d need to net four seats in order to seize control of the upper chamber.

“The infighting over the deal will fade quickly and by the time we get closer to the midterms, it’s very clear that Democrats will aggressively prosecute the case against Republicans on health care,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way. “They will say Republicans yanked lifesaving money away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for the rich. And that will have the benefit of being true.”

Thirty-three Senate seats are up for grabs next year and Democrats are making a serious play for holding or flipping at least a dozen of them. A quartet of candidates vying for open seats — Graham Platner in Maine, Mallory McMorrow in Michigan and Zach Wahls and Nathan Sage in Iowa — reiterated their opposition to Schumer’s leadership as news of the deal spread.

“Chuck Schumer failed in his job yet again,” Platner said in a video on X. “We need to elect leaders who want to fight. … Call your senators and tell them Chuck Schumer can no longer be leader. Call your congressman and tell them that they cannot vote for this when it comes to them.”

In Michigan’s three-way primary, each candidate panned the deal, representing the ideologically vast opposition within a party otherwise mired in internal dispute.

“This is a bad deal,” McMorrow said in a video late Sunday, adding that “the old way of doing things is not working.” Abdul El-Sayed slammed the “shit” agreement and castigated Democrats for giving up their leverage “when we actually can force [Republicans] to the table” after their electoral losses last week. Rep. Haley Stevens said the deal “doesn’t work for Michigan” and that she’s “going to need a whole lot more than empty promises that we’re going to lower costs.” She did not say how she’d vote on the measure in the House. Stevens’ team confirmed she would vote against the measure in the House.

Senate Democrats’ capitulation opened an off-ramp to the record-breaking government shutdown that has snarled air travel and led to missed paychecks and lapsed food assistance. The agreement now advancing through the Senate would fund some agencies and programs for the full fiscal year and extend others until Jan. 30, 2026. It also promises Democrats a December floor vote on extending the expiring Obamacare subsidies, though it’s uncertain to pass the GOP-controlled chamber and Speaker Mike Johnson won’t promise to bring up such a vote in the House.

But in cutting a deal, Senate Democrats infuriated a party reinvigorated by its off-year electoral blowout, sparking accusations that the party again squandered its only leverage in the Republican-led Congress — and ensuring Schumer’s leadership will remain a touchstone in competitive Senate races.

None of the eight Democrats who voted to break the shutdown stalemate are facing voters next year. Two are retiring; the rest are not up for reelection until at least 2028.

They cited the financial pain the prolonged federal funding lapse was inflicting on their constituents. They cast the pending floor vote on the tax credits as a win for Democrats. And they touted other concessions they secured, like the rehiring of federal workers laid off during the shutdown.

“This bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reduce their shutdown’s hurt,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat who is retiring next year, said Sunday.

The Democrats vying to replace him disagree. Stratton, who’s previously called for new Senate leadership, cast Democrats’ cave as “a complete betrayal of the American people.” Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly both said the outcome failed to help millions of people whose health care premiums are set to skyrocket.

Across the Senate map, opposition spanned Schumer’s handpicked recruits — who’ve been largely silent about the shutdown — to the insurgents who’ve called for his ouster.

“This is a bad deal for Ohioans,” former Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a statement. Maine Gov. Janet Mills panned “the promise of a vote [on the subsidies] that won’t go anywhere.” Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper — Democrats’ best chance for flipping a Senate seat and the last major candidate to weigh in on the deal — said in a statement that “any deal that lets health care costs continue to skyrocket is unacceptable.

Sage slammed the Senate Democrats who “caved and accomplished nothing.” Jordan Wood, another Democrat running in Maine, said “America needs an opposition party willing to fight for them.” Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan said in a video, “we deserve so much more than this bullshit.” Hours later, she was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the deal.

“If people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you,” said Flanagan’s rival, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), adding that she’s a “no” when the measure comes up for a vote in the House. “I’m not going to put 24 million Americans at risk of losing their health care.”

Senate Democrats who brokered the spending deal argued Sunday that they had succeeded in hanging rising health care costs on Republicans’ necks heading into the midterms.

“If Republicans want to join us in lowering costs for working families, they have the perfect opportunity,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) said Sunday at the Capitol. “If they do choose not to come to the table, they can own the disastrous premium increases.”

Democrats continued to target their own.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who was elected the next governor of New Jersey in last week’s blue wave, denounced the deal as “malpractice.” Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s incoming mayor who Schumer declined to endorse, said the compromise and anyone who supports it “should be rejected.”

“That’s not a deal,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who drew a primary challenge last week, said Sunday. “It’s an unconditional surrender.”

Anger toward Senate Democrats also appears to be fueling the party’s recruitment efforts. Run for Something, a progressive candidate recruitment organization, saw double the number of signups over seven hours Sunday night — as the shutdown deal moved through the Senate — than over the same time period last Tuesday night as Democrats won elections across the country, according to co-founder Amanda Litman. The group saw 838 signups Sunday night versus 417 on election night.

The political blast radius is extending to Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2028.

Some progressive Democrats and advocacy groups called for his ouster as leader, blaming him for failing to keep his caucus in line even as he voted against the deal he said didn’t address the “health care crisis” and vowed to “keep fighting.”

Schumer “is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a potential 2028er, blasted out on X. On Monday, Khanna turned that push into a pitch to pad his supporter list.

The Sunrise Movement called for Schumer to step aside. Justice Democrats urged voters to reject the eight Senate Democrats who allowed the funding patch to proceed.

“I don’t think the Democrats leading this surrender effort understand the trust they are shattering in their own voting coalition,” Andrew O’Neill, the national advocacy director for Indivisible, warned Sunday night.

Schumer voted against the bill because it does “nothing” to address a “health care crisis” he called “devastating.” He pledged to “keep fighting.”

As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, too, vowed to fight on, O’Neill called for his caucus to follow suit. Several said Sunday that they would.

Adam Wren and Elena Schneider contributed to this report.

​Politics

Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer and Jamie Raskin are inserting themselves into the state’s redistricting fight, escalating pressure on state lawmakers and the senate president to take up the mid-decade redrawing of congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The two prominent Maryland Democrats sent a four-page letter to the entire Maryland General Assembly Monday, where they framed their endorsement of redrawing the state’s maps as a way to rebuff the president’s “authoritarian attack on democratic elections and voting rights” while casting the fight as an “ethical moral and political imperative” to act.

That nationwide effort has been stymied in Maryland, where the state’s Senate president, Bill Ferguson, has rejected the push to change maps in the state.

“We write today to applaud the governor’s redistricting initiative and urge you to move forward to explore what we can do as a state to help prevent the imminent disaster of President Trump determining the results of the 2026 congressional elections through aggressive mid-decade gerrymandering and therefore clinching control of the U.S. House of Representatives before a single vote is even cast,” the lawmakers write.

The letter comes a week after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced the creation of a redistricting advisory commission that is expected to solicit feedback from Marylanders on whether the state should move forward with redrawing maps. Democrats dominate the state’s congressional delegation and if the party is successful in redrawing the maps it could only pick up a single seat — currently occupied by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus.

While the state’s top Democrats, including Moore and Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones, are all on board with exploring redistricting, Ferguson has remained a holdout.

Two weeks ago Ferguson sent his own letter to dozens of state lawmakers bucking his party and outlining why the Maryland Senate would not take up the effort. Part of his rationale was that the Maryland Supreme Court is packed with several justices appointed by Moore’s successor, former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. He suggests that not only raises the possibility that any new maps that give Democrats an 8-0 advantage could be struck down, but it could trigger a loss of Democratic seats in the state, something he referred to as “the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic.”

Ferguson’s office acknowledged it had received the letter but did not comment. The Baltimore Sun was the first to report on the letter.

Moore, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, said in an appearance on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Maryland should not stand on the sidelines as other states, especially Republican-led states, jump into redistricting.

“If other states are going to have this process and go through this- go through this journey of identifying whether or not they have fair maps in a mid-decade cycle, then so should Maryland,” Moore said. “I’m just not sure why we should be playing by a different set of rules than Texas, or than Florida, or than Ohio or all these other places.”

There’s been pressure mounting on Maryland to move for weeks, and Ferguson is seen as the party’s biggest impediment to moving forward. Democrats’ resounding victories last week in Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races, as well as the overwhelming passage of a ballot initiative passed by California voters to redraw state lines to pick up five liberal-leaning seats to counteract a similar move in Texas to net five Republican-leaning seats, is ramping up the urgency to act.

Hoyer and Raskin’s letter calls Ferguson out by name and attempts to undercut some of his reasons for hesitating on moving forward.

“While Senator Ferguson is obviously right that there is an element of uncertainty in all litigation, there are some well-established doctrines that courts follow out of deference to the legislature’s constitutional power over redistricting,” the lawmakers write. “Chief among these is the principle that, when a court strikes down a newly enacted map as unlawful, the legislature must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy the violation.”

The letter also appears to be aimed at pressuring Ferguson by energizing some of the state lawmakers that he leads, possibly ramping up the stakes they could move against him.

“We don’t need to remind you that Marylanders have paid a heavy price during the first year of the second Trump Administration,” they write, listing off items including 15,000 federal employees that have been fired since Trump returned to power and thousands more workers and federal contractors that have been furloughed since the shutdown began more than a month ago.

The memo also asks state lawmakers three questions they should answer as to whether they deem the redistricting fight as imminent. “Are we in the fight of our lives to defend American democracy and freedom and our Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?… is it an ethical, moral and political imperative to use every lawful means at our disposal to fight back…: can we successfully and lawfully redistrict to respond to these GOP assaults?”

To all three questions, Raskin and Hoyer write, “We believe the answer is yes.”

​Politics