The upcoming US midterm elections in early November promise to be exceptional in every sense of the word.
They will amount to a series of major “tests” taking place on a single day—tests that could lead to a different set of calculations for President Donald Trump’s second term and redefine the interests of the various factions—or what remains of them—within the two major parties, Republican and Democratic.
At the top of Republicans' priorities, undoubtedly, is solidifying the 'master of the White House's' position in the face of an opposition whose resentment grows in parallel with Trump's, and the hardline right-wing faction that supports him, tightening his grip on the 'three powers'—executive, legislative, and judicial—which have rarely been dominated by... not just one of the two parties, but a specific faction within the dominant party.
There is no longer any “coexistence” within the Republican Party between two wings or factions—one moderate and the other more hard-line. This is because any dissenting or critical voice capable of pushing for internal dialogue or advocating a change in course that may be uncomfortable for broad segments of the American public has effectively faded away.
Things were not always this way throughout the history of the Republican Party following the American Civil War in the second half of the 19th century. Indeed, by many measures, most Republicans—particularly those in the northeastern United States—were to the “left” of Democrats in the agrarian Southern states.
During that period, Democrats, driven by their interests as owners of vast agricultural lands, were keen to maintain slavery, which provided them with cheap Black labor brought from Africa. Religiously, they were predominantly conservative Protestants (especially Southern Baptists).
In contrast, Northern Republicans built their wealth through industry, trade, banking, education, and fostering innovation and technological progress. With the growth of cities and the prosperity of industry, services, finance, and the 'transport and communications revolution,' Northern cities, especially in the Northeast, became 'attraction zones' for ambitious and active European immigrants of various religions and cultures.
In short, this 'party' equation continued until the late 19th century, with the only change being the gradual collapse of the Democratic Party in the secessionist Southern states... which lost the 'Civil War' at the hands of the great Republican President Abraham Lincoln.
Another major turning point came with the “New Deal” in the first half of the 20th century, during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945). It marked a significant expansion of government intervention in the economy in the aftermath of the Great Depression, whose causes had accumulated during a period when Republicans had largely monopolized the White House in the years leading up to World War II.
For clarification, it must be noted here that Democratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) might not have governed had it not been for the Republican split at the time between former Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. Indeed, after Wilson, Republicans reclaimed the 'White House' throughout the presidencies of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover between 1921 and 1933.
After that, the United States experienced the 'Cold War' and the era of 'McCarthyism' (named after the hardline Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy). Then came the period of the 'Vietnam War' and the 'Civil Rights Movement'... and with them, the 'ideological' content of both the Republican and Democratic parties began to change.
Then, after the end of the 'Cold War,' following the fall of the 'Berlin Wall' and the Soviet Union, the new identities of the two major parties became entrenched. The Republican Party became the platform for the conservative right, and the Democratic Party became a haven for a spectrum of opposing forces, from centrist liberals to left-wing democratic socialists.
In the latest battles over nominations for the midterm elections, it is fair to say that a kind of “silence” prevailed within the Republican camp. No serious candidate—or significant faction—was willing or able to break ranks and put forward an explicit alternative to the Trumpism that dominates every level of the party. This was underscored just days ago in the vote to confirm the new attorney general, Todd Blanche, Trump’s former lawyer. On the Democratic side, however, the picture was markedly different.
Here, after the word 'liberal' was almost an 'insult' in the lexicon of President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and his conservative Republican movement, the Democratic left no longer shies away from using the word 'socialism' in its recent election campaigns. In fact, the 'dean' of this left, Senator Bernie Sanders, considers himself a socialist before being a Democrat, and Democrats in Congress currently include members who describe themselves as 'democratic socialists'.
And yesterday, in key northern states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the internal contests for the Democratic nomination were particularly intense. Commentators and analysts followed them closely, seeking to assess the extent to which a more radical, reformist current is gaining ground within the party in opposition to its centrist leaders, who remain confident in the support of traditional “lobbies.”
In Michigan, socialist Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed won despite opposition from Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the Democratic establishment, both of whom had backed his opponent. In Minnesota, Lieutenant Governor and socialist Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan—who is Native American—also won by a wide margin.
The opposite happened in Wisconsin, where socialist candidate Francesca Hong, who is of Asian descent, narrowly lost to her African American opponent. What was particularly striking, however, was that some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent left-wing leaders—including Bernie Sanders—declined to endorse her against him.
Based on this, the picture is still far from complete. I expect plenty to happen between now and November, and I would rule nothing out—particularly given the algorithms controlled by the “oligarchs,” lobby money, and a media landscape rife with incitement, polarization, and disinformation.
