The Gerrymandering Wars and America’s Decaying Political Culture
A “tit-for-tat” politics is guaranteed to lead nowhere good.
America’s worsening political polarization entered its latest chapter this summer. In an effort to retain their majority in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party, led by President Trump, decided to embark on a mid-decade redraw of House district maps in virtually every state where they hold a state-government trifecta and have room to gain further ground. In response, Democrats have vowed to do the same in states where they have complete power.
This latest tit-for-tat between the country’s two major parties is emblematic of how fights about the future of American politics are becoming almost existential, for underpinning these battles is a troubling development: a growing share of people on both sides of the political spectrum increasingly see it as unacceptable to not only be governed by the other side but to even share power with them. Consider:
A 2022 SPLC survey found that “Republicans and Democrats are not only extremely distrustful of each other, but…majorities (roughly two-thirds) believe that people on the other side of the aisle are immoral and ‘want to harm people who disagree with them.’”
A 2021 University of Virginia study found that at least 80 percent of both Biden and Trump voters “at least somewhat agree” with the statement, “I have come to view elected officials from the opposing party as presenting a clear and present danger to American democracy” (and slim majorities “strongly” agreed).
In the same UVA study, three-quarters of both Biden and Trump voters at least somewhat agreed that “Americans who support the opposing party have become a clear and present danger to the American way of life.”
Compounding all this is a perception held by a giant majority of partisans that their side is losing more than it is winning, a concern that has increased substantially over the past decade and appears to be especially strong among whichever party does not control the presidency.
All this has raised the stakes of election outcomes over time and greatly stressed our system of self-government. When the two parties come to view politics in such zero-sum terms, it reduces the incentive to embrace shared principles governing political behavior or buy into a system that gives the other side an equal chance of acquiring and exercising power. Instead, they become likelier to pursue changes that are merely expedient for expanding their own power or curtailing their opponents—and to sometimes even reverse themselves when the terrain changes and those positions no longer serve their interests.
For example, as the party that has historically favored a more active federal government, Democrats have strongly advocated for abolishing the Senate filibuster since President Obama’s first term, when Republicans made liberal use of it to stymie his agenda. However, when Democrats have found themselves in the minority, their tone has shifted (which hasn’t gone unnoticed by Republicans). Of course, Trump himself has also flip-flopped on the issue depending on whether he and the GOP had power. While there are arguments both for and against the filibuster’s continued existence, neither party has been willing to adopt a principled stand and stick with it.
Arguably a more consequential version of this same dynamic is the debate among Democrats over what to do about a Supreme Court that most of them view as far too conservative and that many fear they won’t have a chance of controlling for at least a generation. Polling shows that a paltry 11 percent of the party’s voters approve of the Court’s performance—the lowest on record for either party—and most believe the conservative justices are influenced by their personal views when making their rulings.
One idea that has been gaining traction is to “pack” the Court, a reference to a failed attempt by FDR to add more justices who would tilt the body in his favor. Though President Biden declined to back the idea in his late-term package of court reform proposals, a number of Democrats I have talked to since the start of Trump’s second stint in office have warmed to it. In the Court’s latest term, the conservative majority issued several rulings on hot-button issues that frustrated a lot of Democrats. Many also increasingly believe the Court is far too deferential to Trump, allowing him to usurp more and more power for himself and threatening American democracy.
While adding more seats to the Court is likely constitutional, such a move would clearly be seen by Republicans as escalatory and risk further politicizing the institution. If Democrats add, say, four more seats the next time they are in power to give liberals a 7–6 majority, it is reasonable to assume Republicans will simply add four more seats after that (or even just remove Democrats’ four new seats). This solution offers no permanent fix—only never-ending, ever-intensifying political warfare.
Perhaps even more unsettling than court battles is the growing normalcy of political persecution. Democrats surely believe their efforts to pursue impeachment and, later, legal action against Trump were sound and morally right. But in an era whose political ethos seems to be defined by “their side did it first,” Republicans inevitably saw these and other actions as little more than retribution against a president whose politics Democrats did not like. They have thus become very supportive of Trump’s second-term efforts to go after people whom they don’t like.
Gerrymandering is just the latest front in this war. And while it’s true that Republicans fired the first shot with their 2010 project REDMAP and did so again by pursuing mid-decade redistricting, Democrats’ hands certainly aren’t clean here, either. But what is most worrisome is that this latest escalation is undoubtedly setting a new precedent for future redistricting. The parties will now see it as imperative to not only draw as favorable maps as possible in states that they control but to do it whenever they feel like it. Failing to do so, the thinking will go, could consign them to minority status in the House for years. An easy fix would be a federal ban on political gerrymandering, which House Democrats proposed in 2019 but did not see through.
Though I am normally an optimist about America, I would be lying if I said the antipathy and distrust that pervade our politics aren’t extremely concerning. Both parties are coming to view politics not just through the lens of self-interest but self-preservation, and there is little desire to turn down the heat. Barring a major shift, a worst-case (and entirely realistic) future scenario is that the two sides come to distrust one another so much that they eventually become convinced the only sensible course of action is to block the other party from gaining power entirely, lest that side beat them to it. Should that materialize, it would mark the end of—or at least an indefinite pause in—the American experiment.
I don’t think that future is inevitable. The vast majority of Americans still care about their country and have grown weary of its divisive politics and steady decline into ungovernability. But those who share these concerns must decide what they are willing to do to forestall that future because our current course is leading nowhere good—and fast.
Gerrymandering is the current hot button, but likely to burn out quickly. Like the phrase "due process" constantly regurgitated regarding deportation, with little understanding of actual immigration law, Gerrymandering is the new word of the summer. Many screaming have no idea, gerrymandering has existed for centuries. Nor do they realize, SCOTUS has already ruled the subject must be left to the States. Moreover, many Blue States are already as nearly heavily gerrymandered, as possible.
The real drama will arrive after the 2030 Census when 10-12 House seats leave Blue States for Red ones. While certainly a long shot, if SCOTUS should decide the number of people dwelling illegally in the US has reached such critical mass, they dilute the votes of US citizens, Blue States will really come unglued. If those dwelling illegally no longer count for apportionment purposes, Blue States would likely lose up to another 6 or more House seats, on top of the dozen lost due to declining Blue State populations. At that point, SCOTUS packing by Dems, becomes far more likely.
Ironically, such a ruling would likely end immigration as an issue. Those dwelling in the US illegally cost State's billions of dollars annually in healthcare and other local and State subsidies. If migrants are no longer counted for apportionment, many Blue States will quietly decide they have more important priorities than fighting deportations.
Packing the Court is comical to those old enough to recall the Warren Court. Under Warren, for nearly a decade and a half, SCOTUS spit out one ultra liberal ruling after another. The thought of packing SCOTUS was never even considered. Reps set about winning elections.
Packing SCOTUS is the real nuclear option. At that point, all bets are off. Certainly no violent Civil War, but a mess, to say the least.
When the government runs your life, it becomes very important to you who runs the government. American politics has become so polarized because you cannot trust the opposing party not to intrude on your freedom economically, socially and culturally. A government which considers most things none of their business would inspire much less political contention than what we have now, a regulatory state where everything not forbidden is compulsory.