Neither Party Is Interested in “Heterodoxy”

They talk about big tents and pluralism, but partisan fealty and ideological conformity always win out.

One of the biggest buzzwords in politics over the past few years is “heterodoxy.” It’s a dead-on (if jargony) term precisely because of its religious origins—to be heterodox means you hold beliefs or opinions that go against official, or orthodox, positions.

“No, the Eucharist is not actually the body and blood of Christ.” “Blasphemer!” That sort of thing.

Every major religion, sect, and denomination in world history has experienced intricate and abstract theological disputes about what counts as the “real” position of their respective faith traditions and what should be labeled as heresy with its adherents punished, excommunicated, or otherwise ostracized by the community. In addition to dense doctrinal debates, orthodoxy versus heterodoxy in religious and historical terms frequently involves schisms over who or what is the “true” leader of a particular church or movement—and who is a heretic. For example, communist politics in the 20th century was chock full of arcane and violent debates about Marxist-Leninist theory and praxis and who exactly embodied its true meaning and purpose and who was deviant. Economists later picked up the term to label academics and practitioners who held divergent views from mainstream or “neoclassical” economics. Today, there are entire think tanks and academic centers dedicated solely to heterodox economic ideas that seek to challenge neoliberalism and free market orthodoxy.

In American politics, “heterodoxy” typically signifies individuals, leaders, or movements within Democratic and Republican circles that hold economic or cultural views significantly at odds with either (1) party leadership, elected officials, and donors or (2) other voters and activists in the party, along with ideological enforcers in the media, who sustain orthodoxy through personal network effects and routine denunciations of apostates.

For modern-day Democrats, an example of heterodoxy on the cultural front would be someone saying, “Men can’t become women and boys shouldn’t be allowed to play in girls’ sports,” or “We should restrict all forms of immigration.” Why is this heterodox? Well, because nearly every Democratic elected official, donor, and activist group in the country holds the exact opposite view on both these matters, thereby embodying and enforcing orthodoxy on trans and immigration issues. Alternatively, economic heterodoxy among Democrats could come from the more social democratic and labor side of the party in the form of someone arguing, “We should have a fully nationalized health care system paid for by a VAT,” or “Strategic tariffs and oil production are good for America”—policy ideas that deviate significantly from the accepted and allowable views of mainstream party officials, donors, consultants, and policy institutions.

Perhaps more pertinent to recent party debates, ideological enforcers on both sides of the Israel divide in the Democratic Party are desperately seeking to create a new orthodoxy and set of policy “litmus tests” to patrol the issue—either Israel should be cut off, morally shamed, and labeled as an “apartheid state” that committed genocide in Gaza, or Israel should be unequivocally supported financially and militarily no matter what its national leaders choose to say or do. Of course, rather than admit that they are seeking to create and enforce these new orthodoxies in electoral and policy-making terms, both the anti- and pro-Israel sides proclaim to be the true heterodox voices facing persecution by the other side, which is full of establishment stooges or extremists who don’t allow for differences of opinion and conflicted views about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Meanwhile, the average Democratic voter, who basically doesn’t care about these fights over Israel, is constantly poked and prodded to pick one side or the other and signal the correct choice with the appropriate language and social media postings—or else face partisan opprobrium, anonymous denunciations, and community snubbing.

For modern-day Republicans, heterodoxy mostly indicates someone who says, “I disagree with Donald Trump.” At one point, Trump himself represented the heterodox. Then he gained power, and like an ancient priest or holy emperor, Trump emerged as both the definer and enforcer of Republican orthodoxy: “President Trump is MAGA, and MAGA is President Trump,” his spokesperson announced. Behavioral shifts toward the new orthodoxy are exemplified by once stalwart free traders and free enterprise Republicans arguing in favor of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and his direct interference in various American businesses. Why? Because Trump acted on them and told everyone to support him without question, at least until the Supreme Court invalidated most of them. A more acute potential orthodoxy-heterodoxy schism among Republicans is emerging on the Iran war. Where Trump and the entire MAGA movement once decried foreign interventionism by their opponents and said America should instead focus on the home front, now the president and nearly all his followers have morphed into ardent war proponents and supporters of Trump’s interventions in Venezuela and Iran and his attempts to strong-arm Denmark into giving him Greenland. Old-school MAGA media personalities don’t like this shift, but they are dismissed as “not smart enough” to understand what he’s up to on foreign policy.

The treatment of existing heterodox politicians by both parties highlights these recent ideological developments—DINOs and RINOs are seen everywhere in their respective parties, waiting to be tagged and shipped off for re-education by orthodox officials and their enforcement units. Anyone who deviates from the party line will be punished, demoted, “primaried,” and attacked nonstop on social media.

As Michael Baharaeen outlined nicely in a post last week, look at the Democrats’ apoplectic reactions to Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman on any number of issues, including immigration, crime, and primarily Israel. Democrats absolutely hate Fetterman for his heterodoxy while independents and many Republicans in his home state kind of like him. Similarly, notice the activist and media savaging of the handful of congressional Democrats who voted against the Iran war powers resolution, or perhaps those like Jared Golden who may have supported some aspect of Trump’s economic plans or those in the Senate who voted to end the government shutdown back in the fall. All pilloried by the Democrats’ orthodox militia. On the Republican side, you’ll see Trump’s and MAGA’s denigration of heterodox right-populists like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Thomas Massie—people who took stands against the president and then were cast out and labeled as heretics for daring to disagree with Trump’s foreign policy agenda and his administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

Heterodoxy among voters is a slightly different issue where voters themselves either hold ideologically inconsistent or contradictory positions (e.g., we should reduce deficits but not cut spending or raise taxes; America shouldn’t be the world’s policeman, yet we should still attack Iran) or they hold a mix of views that are not represented at all by traditional party institutions arranged along the left-right axis (e.g., pro-gun and against religion in politics; anti-illegal immigration and pro-immigrants’ rights; “Medicare for All” but no welfare fraud; support deregulation of business plus a strong safety net for the poor.)

Increasing numbers of Americans are heterodox in either one of these two ways, and many also would support a heterodox legislator from the same or opposite party in their local voting district and state. Unfortunately, these voters and candidates don’t get a lot of backing from the two parties. Perhaps if America had a more democratic party system—e.g., proportional representation and a multi-party Congress—independent Americans would feel better recognized and more inclined to participate in politics and policy deliberations.

But since these politically abandoned and heterodox Americans lack serious representation nationally from either Democrats or Republicans, they mostly keep their heads down, stay out of politics, and avoid partisan battles over orthodoxy as the priests and clergy of the two parties bless the true believers and denounce the dissenters.

Maybe the heterodox really are the smartest sect around. “Splitter!”