What's happening to the GOP? Nothing that hasn't happened before.

Heather Cox Richardson, historian of the Republican Party, says the party has always gone through cycles of bubbles and backlash.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson says it’s routine for the GOP to go through a cycle.

 We’ve had Democratic and Republican parties for so long in the US that we might assume that it’s always been this way. But even in America, political parties come and go. And more often, they evolve into new forms that would shock anyone who pops in from the past to check out the way we do things.

Now, all eyes are on the Republican Party as it seems ready to crack up amid Trump mania.

What can we learn from past GOP splits? For perspective, I turned to Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson, author of 2014’s well-received To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party.

In an interview, Richardson says it’s routine for the GOP to go through a cycle. First, it becomes more and more pro-business. Then, in response to a backlash, it retreats. After a while, the cycle begins anew.

Where are we now? She believes we’re in the tumultuous part of the cycle when members of the party challenge their leadership to change course. This time, the party’s emphasis on the wealthy is under fire.

Richardson says a friend who supports Trump puts it well: “The filthy rich have someone to speak for them, and the poor have someone to speak for them, but who speaks for me?” Through Trump, her friend has found a voice.

Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: How do these cycles within the GOP work?

The Republicans have an ideology that makes them swing from supporting the idea of equality of opportunity to protecting the wealthy.

When they’re in the beginning of the cycle, they use the federal government to promote equality of opportunity. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower each worked to make it possible for every man to have an opportunity to rise.

This means that the federal government does not favor any class: It does not favor the people at the bottom or those at the top. It’s supposed to be moving the ball forward to create equal opportunity for everyone. If you pass legislation that helps wealthy people or poor people, you’ll have thrown a wrench into the spokes of this perfectly oiled machine, and you’ll destroy it.

At the end of the cycle, the party begins to tie itself to big business and becomes a pro-business party.

In every case there’s a moment when voters wake up and say “this is not what we thought we voted for.” When that happens, there’s trauma. 

Q: Where are we now in the cycle?

We’re at that point where it’s clear to the majority of Republican voters that the elites are not protecting them, that they’re protecting business. They’re incredibly angry.

Q: Why do we end up with moments like this when a political party – Democratic or Republican – faces an uprising from within?

It always happens when you have a political party that is no longer operating in reality. They operate in a bubble, and they get further into that bubble, and they’re only speaking to converts.

When that bubble bursts, the backlash sends us flying in the other direction. The party that has so protected itself will be crying in the wilderness for a long time.

Q: It sounds like we’re in for quite a bit of turmoil. Is there a reason to be hopeful?

I’m very bullish on America, which has  come the closest to creating a system to help people have political determination.

But people who believe in America and our values of pluralism and opportunity and equality really have to start taking up some oxygen and taking it away from those who don’t believe those things.

Randy Dotinga, a Monitor contributor, is president of the American Society of Journalists and Authors.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.