The philosopher Confucius argues that virtuous rulers must lead by example, for laws alone cannot make people just or moral.
Political parties divide us, and that divide keeps growing. We should consider whether this is really helping us. The more we stick to one party or group, the harder it becomes to think for ourselves and choose what’s truly best. Even when we believe something is true, it can be hard to admit when we’re wrong. As Mark Twain said, “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just isn’t so.”
We can train our brains to help us become the people we want to be. If we choose violence, our brains adapt and make us more likely to act that way. If we choose compassion and kindness, our brains help us express them. Our groups need to support what we want to be. Changing our habits is tough.
Political parties change over time, and we need to keep up with those changes. Sometimes, it’s better to switch groups or leave before we change without realizing it. Sharon Begley’s Science Journal in the Wall Street Journal once explained that the groups we join shape who we are. If we hold tightly to our party membership, the party will likely change us more than we change it. When we change groups or leave, we change too.
Many studies by social psychologists show that the groups we identify with often shape our behavior more than our individual personalities do. We start to see things the way our group does and may stop noticing things we once saw.
However, if we step away from a group, we often become more open-minded and uncertain. Alone, we question ourselves more, but in a group, we feel more confident in our actions and beliefs. The groups we join—whether friends, work, church, or a political party—matter a lot. This influence doesn’t fade with age; both young and old are shaped by their groups.
Psychology experiments reveal how easily people can be influenced to do harmful things. Being part of a group gives us a sense of belonging and responsibility.
When we want to change, we often join a group, but fitting in matters. Our surroundings shape us. Do we like our coworkers and leaders? Has anyone close to us noticed changes in us? Sometimes, our jobs cause these shifts. To understand, watch both official and unofficial leaders. Are we becoming more assertive, tolerant, patient, or maybe more bossy, judgmental, or restless? Are we conforming more, seeing the bigger picture, or becoming more self-centered? The people around us influence the way we change.
Andrew Jackson altered Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln anchored the creation of the New Republican Party. Franklin Roosevelt revived the Democratic Party, which had almost disappeared after the Civil War. Donald Trump has changed how the Republican Party, once associated with leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, is viewed. According to the Associated Press, historians such as Harold Holzer have criticized Trump’s comparisons to Lincoln, describing his portrayals as inconsistent and self-serving. Over time, Americans began voting for their party’s nominee rather than the individual. At the same time, Americans have increasingly found nothing but contempt for the opponent. This trend, which has risen since the 1970s, became particularly clear in the 2016 national election.
Registered voters in 2024 were/are evenly split between the two major parties. It’s been this way for the last 30 years. 49% of registered voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, and a nearly identical share – 48% – are Republicans or lean Republican. According to a report by Thom Reilly, independent voters in the 2024 presidential election increased their share of the vote and were more likely to split their tickets between presidential and Senate candidates, thereby increasing their overall influence across both major parties.
- 33% of all registered voters are ideologically conservative and, as one would guess, associate with the Republican Party.
- 14% of registered voters describe their views as liberal or moderate, and as one might not guess, also associate with the Republican Party or are Republican leaners.
- 23% of all registered voters identify as liberal and align with the Democratic Party.
- 25% of all registered voters describe their views as either conservative or moderate and associate with the Democratic Party.
The most recent significant shift in party affiliation occurred when large numbers of Southern state Democrats became Republicans after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the Democratic party, it was a change by subtraction; for the Republican party, it was a change by addition.
This change in popular vote would be more interesting if the President were elected by popular vote, but they are not. Instead, candidates are elected by an Electoral College. Each of the 50 states receives electoral votes equal to its total congressional delegation (Senators + Representatives). Because all states have two Senators and at least one congressional district, the fewest electoral votes a state can have is 3. In addition, although DC is not a state, it receives three electoral votes. As a result, the total electoral votes are 538, which reflects 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 3 for DC. The percentage of the 435 congressional districts a state gets is determined by its Census population.
All but two states use a winner-take-all system to apportion their electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that don’t). For example, a state with 100 electoral votes in which 49% of the popular vote went to candidate A, and 51% to candidate B would award all 100 electoral votes to candidate B. This means the popular vote for candidate A was changed to candidate B. In this case, all 100 electoral votes were given to candidate B. That’s why there are swing (purple) states. In swing states, the popular vote is fairly evenly divided between the two candidates, and a small difference would still give 100% of that state’s electoral votes to only one of the two candidates.
Democrats and Republicans are everywhere—our neighbors, coworkers, and friends—but we often don’t know their political views unless we talk about politics or see a yard sign. Still, we sometimes form harsh or unrealistic opinions about the other party, letting our feelings get in the way and making it hard to see others fairly.
Letting go of strict party loyalty is essential if we want our country to move forward in a balanced way. If we loosen the grip of group identity on our thinking, we can overcome divisions and face challenges with a broader view.
In study after study, social psychologists have shown that the group with which we identify, not individual personality, often determines behavior. We began to see what the group saw and stopped seeing some of the things we had been seeing.
However, when we leave a group, we often become more open to new ideas and start questioning things more. On our own, we’re less certain, but in a group, we’re more sure of what we say and do.
Most of us don’t remember when or why we joined a political party, but now we’re likely committed to it. Let’s look at that connection. Knowing the history of political parties is key to understanding politics. There were no parties when George Washington was President. The Founders warned against them, believing politics should be rational and cooperative, not competitive. Parties slowly formed as the new country decided what it needed from the government, like a central bank and national policies.
Long before there were Republicans and Democrats, there were Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and Anti-Federalists led by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists became the first American political party in 1787. They were businessmen and merchants who wanted a strong central government to protect industry. The Anti-Federalists were primarily small farmers and planters who wished for a smaller government that wouldn’t interfere with their lives. They would later form the Democratic-Republican Party.
In 1828, the United States elected Andrew Jackson, a pro-slavery Southerner. Although Jackson is thought to have changed the Democratic-Republican Party’s name to the Democratic Party, political party names evolved as part of broader political developments.
Based on the constituency, the newly renamed Democratic Party was the dominant Party at the time, but was still full of Democratic-Republicans. It was ripe for its eventual splitting between North and South, and did so during the 1860 Presidential election, whose results were a precursor to our Civil War. The four parties that participated in the election were the Northern faction Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Constitutional Union Party, and the Southern faction Democratic Party. Shortly after Lincoln’s election, the Whig Party quickly faded away and was replaced by Lincoln’s Republican Party.
The Republican Party, which was a relatively new party formed in 1854, opposed the expansion of slavery and nominated Abraham Lincoln as its presidential candidate. Lincoln’s election platform was based on the idea that slavery was a moral wrong and should not be allowed to spread to new territories.
The Constitutional Union Party was formed by a group of former Whigs and Know-Nothings who opposed the sectionalism and extremism of the other parties. They nominated John Bell as their candidate, and their platform was based on preserving the Union and avoiding the issue of slavery altogether.
Lincoln won the election, receiving a majority of the electoral votes despite not appearing on the ballot in ten southern states. His victory led to the secession of several southern states and the start of the American Civil War.
After Reconstruction, Southern Democrats (“Redeemers”) used fraud, violence, and voter suppression to regain control, creating a one-party region. This powerful Southern bloc influenced national Democratic politics, even during the liberal New Deal era. But, as the national Democratic Party embraced civil rights in the 1940s-1960s, many white Southern Democrats became alienated. The Republican Party capitalized on this, attracting these voters with promises of limited government, leading to a major geographic party realignment. This culminated in the 1980s, with Southern states shifting from overwhelmingly Democratic to reliably Republican.
After the Civil War, the Republicans grew, and the Democrats shrank. Republicans promoted economic isolation and policies that benefited monopolies. At the same time, Democrats called for relief from economic distress and reforms, such as those later enacted by Franklin Roosevelt, including economic recovery measures and Social Security. The Democratic Party expanded significantly during this period, appealing to those hurt by the economic crisis. They wanted the federal government to actively help those affected by the Depression, while Republicans, being more pro-business, preferred not to burden business with those costs.
People from both political parties often revere their favorite past presidents, but few elicit as much admiration across the aisle as two illustrious Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, a dramatic chasm had emerged between the affluent and the impoverished, leaving the daily lives of ordinary citizens increasingly strained, while the middle class felt the squeeze. However, by the end of Roosevelt’s presidency, a powerful wave of reform had surged across the nation, fostering a new vision for the presidency and for the relationship between government and its people.
Roosevelt recognized that the most effective strategy to overcome the entrenched political machines and reshape public sentiment was to forge a strong alliance with the press. He transformed the government from a passive, laissez-faire entity into a dynamic force shaping America’s economic and social direction.
Under his leadership, Roosevelt’s administration achieved remarkable victories: securing a series of antitrust lawsuits, enacting legislation to regulate railroads, strengthening labor rights, tackling political corruption, abolishing corporate campaign contributions, imposing limits on the workday, safeguarding consumers from unsafe food and drugs, and conserving vast expanses of natural resources for future generations. His legacy is a testament to the power of reform and the enduring impact of effective leadership.
Parties and affiliations change over time. The party you belong to now isn’t the same as your parents’ or grandparents’ party, even if most people don’t notice or remember how much things have changed.
Research that includes brain maps, gene pool analysis, and unconscious attitudes suggests that people who prefer a simple vision of good and evil, are fond of hierarchy, and are uncomfortable with uncertainty and change tend to vote Republican. Republicans want to spend on the military and the military-industrial complex. Conversely, people who are more open-minded, adaptable, and value equality tend to vote Democratic.
Sometimes, both major parties take unusual directions. Still, having two main parties is helpful because our votes can guide them back to a better path.
“The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system to remake it. There are many persuadable voters in both Parties who just want to see things make sense. They don’t want to see crazy stuff.” — A former American President.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpVbQBZkg38ukPKTpGf7F7xOJn3HAkxxRjx-_BDbANU/edit?usp=sharing