The Conservative Death Spiral

How Gerrymandering and the Primary Process created Trump

The first month into Donald Trump’s second term has been, by far, the most destructive of any administration in American history. The second Trump administration has chosen a maximalist conservative agenda, one that has been broadly endorsed by his party in both chambers of Congress and to the shock of most observers. Even I made the mistake of thinking that at least a few of Trump’s more heinously unqualified cabinet picks would make it out of the Senate, but despite occasional defections from former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, every one of Trump’s cabinet picks was confirmed. Even a wildly destructive budget that previous Republican trifectas never would have attempted looks likely to pass despite a razor thin majority in the House. How is Trump getting away with this? In short: Gerrymandering, and the Primary Process.

A Little History

At the turn of the 20th Century there was a little remembered movement by progressives to take the nominating process away from political machines and party bosses in favor of political primaries. For most of American history, candidates were not selected by popular vote, or even by party caucus. It was basically a handful of party leaders who were hilariously corrupt, selecting candidates they thought would be most likely to win, grant jobs in the government to their supporters, and advance the party's national interests. The adoption of primary elections was an on-and-off process with states adopting and rejecting primaries throughout the first half of the 20th century, with only about 12 states ever hanging onto primaries. These elections generally endorsed the candidate the party leadership would pick at the convention, but were treated as little more than political theater.

Then came the contentious election of 1968. After LBJ withdrew party leaders were quick to rally around Vice President Hubert Humphrey, however in the primary Humphrey won only 2.2% of the popular vote compared to the 38.7% of Eugene McCarthy (mainly for McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War). Humphrey’s nomination would be marred by protests and civil unrest at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and a split in the party that contributed to Richard Nixon’s victory that year. Following the elections George McGovern and the DNC began pushing for nationwide adoption of primaries. The logic went if the party adopted a more inclusive selection process, there’d be a lower risk of disunity in the general election. The Republicans followed suit, not wanting to have a permanent electoral disadvantage, and by 1976 both parties had fully implemented primary elections for the selection of candidates. And if this was the only election reform movement of the 1970s, perhaps this story would have a happy ending. Sadly, no.

Not long after both parties adopted primary elections, a political strategist named Thomas Hofeller came on the scene. Hofeller was an early architect of the Republican strategy to use the 1965 Voting Rights Act to pack African Americans into fewer districts, leaving a slew of white majority districts that Conservative Republicans could easily win. He worked to dismantle gerrymandered congressional maps that favored Democrats, and then helped develop notoriously lopsided maps that favored Republicans. To his mind, the gerrymandering was the key to Republican political dominance, saying, "Redistricting is like an election in reverse. It's a great event. Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters." Acting behind the scenes, Hofeller and the Republican party developed the strategy of gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement that would define the next half century. The goal was to secure Republican political dominance, but when paired with the primary process, what it actually did was create the conditions for a hyper-partisan feedback loop.

The Death Spiral

By gradually making most congressional districts non-competitive in the general election, Hofeller and his ilk made Primaries the only elections that mattered. Primary elections by their nature have lower turnout, usually only pulling in the party’s base. So for Republicans to get elected to the House, they have prove they're more Conservative than any would-be primary challenger. This process gradually radicalized the Republican party as House Republicans became more conservative while those in higher offices followed suit, either being replaced by younger and more dynamic Conservatives or themselves adopting more right-wing positions to avoid primary challenges. The party leadership has no choice but to bend to their members will if they want to keep their own jobs. The alternative results in a leadership purge akin to Eric Cantor and John Boehner in 2014-2015 or Paul Ryan in 2018, or Kevin McCarthy in 2023. This is the fundamental reason why no longer matter who is the leader of the Republican party, because whoever they choose to lead them will always be the most conservative leader the party has ever had.

While both parties have moved further from the center, the Republicans have moved far more to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. Source: Pew Research Center

By this logic, the Democrats should also be moving in their own hyper liberal spiral, but that has not been the case. The gerrymandering strategy and primary process both began when the coalitions of both parties had reorganized into roughly what they would be over the next 40 years. The Republican coalition was ideologically unified, and composed of factions that seldom opposed one another. The Democrats however have been an opposition coalition since the 1980s, united less by ideology and more by disdain for Conservatism. This is a coalition that even at the best of times was notoriously prone to infighting, and only manages to win Presidential elections when they nominate Charismatic stars like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Republicans meanwhile could nominate anyone with a pulse and be confident that the party will show up on election day. That began to change in 2016 when Donald Trump exploited the hyper-partisan glitch in the Republican party to win that party’s primary and to hold onto power within the party.

Trump is no mastermind, he’s the lucky beneficiary of a political system having reached its end-state where primaries, gerrymandering, and threats of violence allow him to maintain a hold over his party. His greatest obstacle is no longer from defecting moderates, but rather from the extreme right wing which frequently opposes legislation they deem insufficiently Conservative. This system appears to be shockingly effective when Trump gets his way, but frequently reveals itself as a chaotic mess. Trump has never won an electoral majority, his party governs by a razor thin majority that frequently breaks down into intraparty bickering and government shutdowns, and with no regard to the voices of moderation and compromise it barrels ahead with a wildly unpopular legislative agenda. That’s not a system of brutal efficiency, that’s systemic audacity. Audacity has a lot of power, it emboldens the attacker and stuns the defender, but it is often just a mask for weakness.

Trump’s support among the public was tenuous when he took office, and once again is in decline. The Republican party’s actions are already prompting political action and fueling discontent, even among the Conservative Base. This will not stop them from attempting some version of a maximalist Conservative agenda, but it will assure their defeat. This is the end-state of the Sixth Party System, and Conservatism as we know it will not survive.