Scholars of facism are fleeing the United States. The right to due process and protections on lawful detainment are in jeopardy. International alliances are being upended. Various constitutional guarantees, including presidential term limits and birthright citizenship, are being rethought. We are living through an unprecedented political era which some on the left are calling armageddon, and those more right-leaning think of as rapture. Across both parties, one message is clear: This time period will be extraordinarily consequential.
But, this isn’t the first time we’ve witnessed this kind of upheaval and destabilization. Granted, this time around is undeniably extreme, but the nation has seen famously atypical advancements before this point. The Articles of Confederation were replaced when their limitations became evident. The right to religious liberty entirely redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state. The Civil Rights movement reoriented the moral compass of a substantial portion of the nation while turning rigid legal precedents completely on their heads.
Their means and ends may be worlds apart, but all of these movements — including the shifts we are witnessing from the White House — are united by a common undercurrent: The fact that they plainly and convincingly dissent from the mainstream political landscape that precedes them. All of these moments are reminders that the supreme law of the land is mutable. Public opinion is constantly in flux by nature. Structures of power, discretion and hegemony, although undeniably ironclad, still have their points of vulnerability.
The American populace has been vexed over the two-party system since the emergence of the Know-Nothings party in the 1850s. Third parties and independent candidates never fare well come election season — political sociologist Maurice Duverger told us this in the 1950s. However, the two predominant parties haven’t always withstood the test of time exceptionally well, and thus, the need to pivot has been elicited throughout history.
In an ironic twist of fate, the disorganized left-leaning party has become known for merely speaking of revolution, while the right is now forwarding it more effectively — for better, or for worse.
At an event hosted by UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology, former Democratic Representative Katie Porter acknowledged the fact that many people are unable wrap their heads around what Democrats stand for in the current day and age. She cites the disenchanted citizens she has interacted with, expressing their confusion about what Democrats represent and how they are initiating any action or championing any specific causes. Additionally, Porter prompted, “Is anybody confused about whether [Trump] is doing something or not?”
Devout Republicans, even those with a basic understanding of the party’s tenets, can attest to the fact that the pseudo-conservative ideology of the 21st century is a maladaptive attempt to end pluralistic democracy. And yet, they remain successful.
As described by veteran political analyst Ed Kilgore, a common interpretation of the 2024 election results frames Trump’s victory as a conservative correction to the perceived progressive overreach of Biden’s presidency, but we are not witnessing moderation or restraint.
We are witnessing an admitted, full-throttle incursion that is attacking the foundations of 20th-century governance. This includes retaliation against distinctively progressive principles, a tactic emphasized to voters that are discontented with federal welfare and DEI efforts. But additionally, this campaign entails retaliation against the foundations of our market economy, the increasing accessibility of education, the sanctity of federalist systems and the process of democratization — aspects that have become central to the coherence of America as a nation, even beyond partisan ties.
This rebrand of the Republican party has been notably controversial, but irrefutably successful. That’s largely because it is challenging the country’s dominant habits of political thought and action — something Americans have seen as essential for years.
They are creating more revolutionary advancements than actual self-proclaimed revolutionaries in our mainstream political discourse, despite the fact that their aims and rhetoric supposedly seek to reorient society in past values. In reality, this appeal to tradition functions more as a strategic political veneer than a genuine commitment to historical continuity. While many of the new claims from the “Republican” faction posit defense for individual freedoms and Constitutional values, their sights seem to be set on replacing these principles rather than restoring them.
For example, to the classic conservative, a small government is a government that is efficient, responsive, accountable and constrained. Even these notions have been disputed when put into practice, but the pseudo-conservative’s conception of a small government is far more insidious: highly centralized, and with power concentrated among a few familiar faces.
In this instance and in many others, the invocation of “American ideals” is selectively applied in order to justify tearing down the institutions that keep power balanced and in check. The American public is too busy grappling with their shared frustrations to notice these instances of hypocrisy and misinformation slipping straight through the cracks, onto ballots and into office.
It should be acknowledged that deviating from the paradigm can be lucrative for political success and advancing American society, but this process should be a tool for facilitating remedy and progress — not the kind of overhaul that plunges the country into a state of destruction, division and disarray. Thoughtfully reorienting in meaningful ways is necessary to maintaining the integrity of this nation. Initiating misbranded regression out of impulse and frustration is proving to lead to corrosive results that are fundamentally incompatible with the American democratic experiment.
Casey Mendoza is an Opinion Apprentice for the spring 2025 quarter. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Rebecca Do and Gabrielle Neve Landavora.