The Potential Collapse of the Democratic Party

Will 1852 repeat itself in 2028?

The Potential Collapse of the Democratic Party

Abstract: The current political environment in the United States resembles the pre-civil war environment where mediocre politicians ruled, problems were ignored, repugnant or poorly crafted policies were adopted, and substantial intra-party disputes dominated political discussions. This political system began to unravel with the collapse of the Whig party in the 1852 election. The continued leftward drift of the Democratic party and the continued rightward drift of the Republican party could start a similar seismic political shift in the near future.

The Potential Collapse of the Democratic Party

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have a vested interest in claiming that a third party is not viable. However, political parties can cease to exist, and new parties can form when existing institutions fail to help solve problems and there are large intra-party disputes.

The last time a political duopoly ended was in the 1850s in the period leading up to the civil war. The purpose of this essay is to consider the political landscape that existed in the 1850s, the one that exists today, and evaluate the possibility of a new political upheaval similar to the one that occurred in the 1850s.

Historians generally have an extremely negative view of the presidents in power in the United States prior to the civil war because of their inability to deal with the issue of slavery. Both political parties – the Whig party and the pre-war Democratic party basically imploded because of slavery.

The Whig party lost the 1852 presidential election in a landslide. The Whig electoral vote percentage went from 56 percent in 1848 to 14 percent in 1852 and they never again had a presidential candidate. The Whig party was the last political party, not labeled Democrat or Republican to win a presidential election.

In 1860, the pre-war Democratic party imploded. In 1860, Lincoln, the first Republican president, had 39.7 percent of the vote, Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat had 14.4 percent, Bell had 12.6 percent and Douglas had 21.5 percent.

The abrupt decline in the Democratic/Whig political duopoly can also be documented by examining the composition of the House of Representatives. The number of Whigs in the House of Representatives went for 86 in 1850 to zero in 1856. The major opposition to the Democrats in 1856 consisted of 90 Republicans and 14 Know Nothings.

The politics of the 1850s and the politics leading up to the 2026 midterms and 2028 elections are different from the politics of the 1850s in one major respect. American politics of the 1850s was dominated by one major issue – slavery. There is no one dominant political issue defining the concerns of all voters today. Instead, there are myriad issues – the economy, immigration, abortion, Social Security, health care, the Mideast, Ukraine, tariffs, and isolationism.

There are commonalities between the politics of the 1850s and today.

In both eras, big important issues were ignored or papered over. In both eras, there is strong intra-party disagreements about issues and governing philosophy. In both eras, some of the policy choices adopted by a party were difficult to defend.

The issue of primary importance to voters in the 2020s is the economy broadly defined to include not only the traditional problems of unemployment and inflation but also the future of Social Security, adequacy of health insurance coverage, and the ability of households to save.

Centrists who want progress on these issues are unhappy with both parties. Basically, big spending and tax bills were crafted by the White House in both the Biden and Trump eras and voted up or down with a relatively small amount of input from a few connected congressman or Senators. The main effect of this legislation is often larger deficits.

The economic policy priorities and proposals, which I have written about in this blog, are not being considered.

· Both parties are ignoring growing Social Security and Medicare solvency issues.

· Republicans are indifferent to growing student debt burdens and Democratic proposals to fix the problem have not proven to be effective.

· Very little progress has been made on building on improvements in health insurance generate from the ACA.

Republican and Democratic foreign policies are increasingly based on isolationism and protectionism.

Historically, support for tariff was largest in the progressive wing of the Democratic party while most Republicans were free trade. Now tariffs are championed by Trump and most of the Republican party.

Trump continued to undermine Ukraine in its defense against the Russian invasion.

Biden’s criticisms of Israel and delays in arm shipments, liberal and Democratic support for Hamas, and the lack of real pressure on Arab states is the key reason why Hamas continued to hold and torture Israeli hostages and the war in Gaza continues.

I am increasingly concerned that the Democratic party now constructs Mideast policy and responds to antisemitism on American college campuses with the objective of placating the “progressive” wing of the Democratic party. I have very little in common with the Democratic politicians who could not condemn Hamas after October 7.

I am deeply disturbed by the deportation of many hard working peaceful immigrants, the lack of a Republican desire for a compromise on immigration, and the denial of due process to immigrants. Young people who came to this country at the age of four who have not broken any laws, who are actually good and productive citizens, like this college student in Georgia, should not be arrested and threatened with deportation. Immigrants from Vietnam and Burma should not be put on a plane and sent to the Sudan, especially when there is a judge’s order explicitly prohibiting the removal.

I am politically homeless. There are some really bad people in both parties. This is probably the way a Whig felt about the party’s position on slavery in the 1852 election. The time is ripe for the creation of a third party.

Most of the political discussion on the creation of a third party centers on contests for the presidency. Both parties fear that a vote for a third candidate could result in the election of the opposing candidate. Ross Perot may have tilted the election to the Democrats in 1992 and it is likely the third party candidate caused the election of a Republican in 2000 and 2016. The potential impacts of defections from the Democrats to a fringe left wing party and defections from the Republican party to a fringe right wing party are pretty obvious.

The Democratic establishment is fixated on the possibility that young “progressive” voters who would only support one health care reform, Medicare-for-all, and who want to eliminate Israel will stay home of vote third party. Another scenario, a progressive candidate, say AOC gets the Democratic nomination.

In most economic and political environments, AOC would lose the election in a landslide. She could lose her home state of New York because most New Yorkers would not respond well to an ad blasting AOC coupling her support of preventing Israel from having an iron dome with footage of Iranian missile attacks. This scenario would also lead to large Republican gains in the House and Senate.

Barring an 1852 type upheaval, it would be difficult for a third party to win a majority of the electoral college. A third-party could determine the outcome of the election if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral vote. This happened twice in U.S. history, 1800 and 1824. Any outcome is possible once the election is turned over to the House

The third party could also be influential in determining the outcome of the contests for control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Any analysis of the impact of third-party scenarios on the contests for control of the House and Senate needs to consider the regional differences in the political viability of the two parties. This review of the political landscape indicates the Democratic party is not viable in large swathes of the country, including areas of the country -- Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa -- which were highly contested in the past. The primary reason why Democrats are doing so poorly in many red parts of the country is the drastic left wing drift of the Democratic party.

· Democrats have not won a statewide election in Texas since 1994.

· Florida, the swing state of 2000, has two Republican senators and a Republican governors. Elections are not close.

· Long term Democratic incumbents lost reelection to the Senate in Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania.

· Trump won the 12 states with divided government in 2024.

Democrats will not retake the Senate barring a political or economic calamity, perhaps one caused by Trump’s tariffs. We know the Democratic candidate won’t win in Texas or Florida and any contributions to the Democrat in these races is just a waste of money.

The House of Representatives is nearly evenly divided and remains a coin toss. There are a lot of competitive seats in red or purple states where a third party candidate would be more popular than either the Republican or Democratic candidate. There are also many currently red Congressional Districts where an ultraconservative Republican wins a closely contested primary and then prevails in the general election because voters in the district do not want Democrats to control the House. It is possible an open-minded independent could win against both the Democrat and Republican in rural conservative districts across the country.

It will only take a few competent centrists in the Senate and in the House to force consideration of better policy proposals. The argument that the only way to beat MAGA is to blindly follow the leadership of the Democratic party is no longer credible. The way to beat MAGA is to come up with good solid policies and to do the right thing regardless of politics. The Democratic party, which is pandering to its left wing is incapable of doing this.