The life of the Republic is on the line. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/guy-100x100.gif)
In the summer of 1924, the Democratic Party gathered in New York City for what turned out to be one of the ugliest conventions in US history. It not only revealed the fractures within the party, but also those in the country as a whole: animosity and mistrust along the lines of race, ethnicity, religion, culture and ideology cast a shadow on American politics then, as they do now. And yet, despite it all, this historical moment showed that Americans on opposing sides could still come together and realise a common destiny.
The episode is particularly poignant today, in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, when it appears as if the very life and unity of the republic is on the line. In light of this, 1924 offers a parable not just for Democrats but for Republicans and, indeed, all Americans, who may be interested in taking the longer-term view and envisioning how the nation might get through this darkly ominous season of disunity.
During the Twenties, the Republicans were the party of the “ins”, uniting financial and industrial interests centred in the Northeast with well-to-do farmers, professionals and businessmen from most of the rest of the country, outside the South. The election of 1920 saw the triumph of the Republicans under Warren Harding after the Wilson interlude and the First World War.
The states of the old Confederacy voted against Republicans not just out of post-Civil War bitterness but because their region had been reduced to an economic backwater, left out of the industrial development that transformed the North and consigned to be its captive market. The fact that Southern elites retained the racial hierarchy of Jim Crow on top of a half-feudal agrarian economy based on exploitation of ex-slaves and poor whites alike did not help. And for these reasons, they, along with some of the similarly underdeveloped regions in the Western periphery, saw themselves as outcasts and opponents of Northeastern capital, and were thus Democrats.
But they were not the only segments of the country with an axe to grind. The industrial working class in many big Northern cities suffered from the effects of a highly unequal economy: shabby tenements, low wages and poor working conditions. This united them with the hinterlands and cemented Democrats as the party of the “outs”. There was, however, one problem: the ranks of the urban classes were swelled by immigrants and their children, many were Catholic or Jewish and, if not Irish, came from even more alien south and east European cultures. Meanwhile, the American South and West were — just like their Northern rivals — overwhelmingly Anglo-Protestant and were susceptible, to say the least, to xenophobic and anti-Catholic prejudice.
It’s worth mentioning that the debacle of 1924 took place before cultural affinities became the main criterion for party affiliations, as it is today. This meant that parties, the Democrats in particular, could hold constituencies with radically opposed views on identity or morality (“culture war issues”) as part of the same electoral coalition.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe lesson from this essay appears to be that the way to heal huge cultural divisions is for the nation to rally around a massive, prolonged external threat. The example provided in the essay was a sixteen year period that included the Great Depression and WWII.
The real key to overcoming national division in the 1920s/30s appears to have been economic rebirth, especially the remarkable boom period after WWII. That makes perfect sense; how else can you unite a country as diverse as the USA except around material prosperity? But for that to happen nowadays we’ll need, at least, to bury the Net Zero fantasy. I don’t see the left giving that up anytime soon.
I disagree with claim that China would take over Taiwanese technology industry.
USA would never allow it to happen.
Even if China was successful, there would be nothing left to take over.
Is there much disunity on show at the Republican National Conference?
The disunity is all the Republicans, like me, who wouldn’t be caught dead there. The R party has really split into MAGA and RINO parties and is in trouble despite some electoral successes.
America needs a President with vision, who can inspire people, and unite people.
The current President hardly inspires people :-
‘”So tonight, I’m asking every American to recommit to make America so … to make America … to, think about it, what’s made America so special?”‘
Is that really a slogan people can unite behind?
The guy in the earpiece was screaming for God’s sake, DON’T SAY GREAT AGAIN!!!!!!!
Interesting essay. I think that a lot of the cultural issues are also amplified by neoliberalism, inequality, offshoring, cronyism, etc. The 2008 GFC amplified all of that even more.
It might be noteworthy that before the 1920s, the US had already gone through the “progressive era” – a period where the corruption of the robber barons, extreme inequality and cronyism came under fire. Today we are also dealing with an oligarchy who – either consciously or unconsciously – can be very resistent to serious reforms and might actually see some benefits in the distraction of the culture war.
If the US demands that other NATO countries or Taiwan finance their own defenses, these nations will likely seek diplomatic solutions, avoiding war, much like how Singapore navigates its relationship with China.
American enforcement and support often lead to conflict. However, without U.S. involvement, other countries may opt for diplomacy over warfare. American isolation could actually foster global dialogue, as the current presence of a U.S. military base in nearly every country hinders such communication.
The primary purpose of U.S. defense payments is to create an environment for testing new American-made weapons. The global community is growing weary of this approach.
Meaningful dialogue is stifled by the ubiquitous presence of American military bases.
This article promotes warmongering!
Or, without massive assistance from the US (Taiwan) and the US with Nato (Ukraine), these countries might be completely over run in short order by aggressor nations, making “meaningful dialogue” useless and irrelevant.
Utter nonsense.
Just look at Eastern border of NATO.
Democratic countries under threat of Russia already attacking Ukraine.
What sort of diplomatic solution you propose?
Subjugation by Russia I guess.
American presence prevents this scenario.
The same goes for China threat to neighbouring countries.
‘meaningful dialog’ occurs only between democratically elected governments.
How exactly should Taiwan (or anyone else) having a meaningful dialog with China.? or Putin? or Hamas?
Your demilitarised approach seems to be in favour of pacifism.
As Orwell observed:”a pacifist exists only because someone else chose to fight on their behalf”
It’s a different country now, no prevalent demographic and a watered down primary culture. Before any of the other things can happen it has to be decided what an American is. That and people have to love the country which a good many do not; that was not the case 100 years ago.
And so what if China takes over Taiwan’s chip making capabilities. Who cares given that China would not stop making the chips. More importantly, it would not exactly be a bad thing for the entire electronic/high tech manufacturing industry came back to US soil. After all the US needs the jobs, and far more importantly it is way better to be self-reliant. Indeed, thios is something that should have been learnt during the Covid pandemic.
China would absolutely stop Taiwan from selling us chips if we got into a serious dispute.
We should never have stopped making them, but we haven’t made them in over a decade. We won’t recreate that industry here for years.