Picture of author.
14+ Works 347 Membros 4 Reviews 1 Favorited

About the Author

Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. He is the founder and director of Yale's Information Society Project and directs the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale.

Inclui os nomes: Jack Balkin, Jack M. Balkin

Image credit: Yale Law School (faculty page)

Obras de J. M. Balkin

Associated Works

Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials (1983)algumas edições81 cópias

Etiquetado

Conhecimento Comum

Membros

Resenhas

Balkin looks at American history as a series of cycles resulting from four factors all related to polarization and its negative effects on our political system: a.) generations polarized by an event die off; b.) party coalitions change as they begin to fracture; c.) income inequality becomes more pronounced leading to corruption and political protests; and finally d.) immigration slows in response to events or policies and that diminishes a source of anger.

He has identified three of these cycles that cause the rise and fall of political parties and alternate what he calls constitutional rot and renewal through its affect on the courts and constitutional interpretation.

Race is a crucial element in the rise and fall of these cycles. Even though Balkin doesn’t explicitly use race as one of the organizing principles of the book, race is clearly a fundamental factor in all of American politics, as he acknowledged in a recent law review article. 1 Each of the cycles has deep connections to successive political struggles in the United States over race and racial equality. The coalitions that rise and fall often do so because of massive disagreements regarding slavery (before the Thirteenth Amendment) and race (after it, often intertwined with immigration.) Nothing is more polarizing than race in American society.

The cycles are characterized by what he calls regimes, each dominated by one particular party. The dominant party may not win all the elections in a given regime, but it sets the agenda. The three he identifies are Federalists v Agrarian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats; Republican domination during and after the Civil War; the Democratic domination during the New Deal; and the waning one we are currently in of the Reagan Republicans.

In the first cycle, Jefferson won over John Adams only because of the 3/5ths clause (see also Garry Wills’ book)2 That clause determined the presidential winners for the next half century by giving power to the slave-holding states. Eight of the first nine presidential elections were won by candidates who were plantation owners from Virginia. As there was a requirement that Supreme Court justices had to live in the state where they rode circuit, Jacksonian Democrats made sure that a majority of the circuits were composed of slave-holding states. This, in turn, helped ensure that a majority of Justices were from slave-holding states, or were otherwise sympathetic to the interests of slavery. “The defense and expansion of slavery had become a dominant force in American politics.”
The second major regime cycle was the dominance of the Republicans (1860-1932). Again, race was crucial, as the ending of the slave-state dominance became a goal of the new regime. Initially concerned primarily with the rights of newly freed slaves, as the years wore on, the Republican regime became less concerned about racial equality and more concerned about the defense of business interests. Support for black suffrage was also undermined by white violence and terrorism so the goals of the regime changed. As the Democrats began to win more elections (1874 they won both houses) they changed state constitutions to make black voting more difficult and the Republicans interests were more focused on economic issues. Their Supreme Court emphasized the protection of capital and business, in 1888 reinforcing the idea that corporations had the same rights as persons, thus using the 14th Amendment in a way completely foreign to its creators. “These decisions reflected the evolution of the Republican regime during the Gilded Age. The Republican Party transformed from a multi-racial coalition devoted to equal rights for all citizens into a coalition primarily concerned with the protection of business interests, including the interests of railroads and other corporations.”
The thirties saw the rise of black migration to the north, where they could vote with less hindrance. The Depression fueled antagonism toward the moneyed classes and big business, so northern Democrats created a new regime that relied on emphasis on individual and civil rights.

“Political depolarization allowed cross-party alliances on different issues. But the success of the New Deal coalition always rested on a Faustian bargain concerning race. Southern and northern Democrats agreed on economic issues, but not on race. Democratic unity frayed following the election of Truman who infuriated southern Democrats with his integration of the military and other support for civil rights, so they began to flee to the Republican Party. This was deliberately accentuated by Nixon who courted southern racists. The New Deal coalition was doomed over differences in race. Even though Johnson beat Goldwater handily, he managed to win five southern states, a harbinger of the future. Opposition to desegregation, court-ordered busing and affirmative action became key issues in American politics. A racist demagogue, Alabama Governor George Wallace, managed to attract a large number of Democratic voters in the 1968 presidential election.

The Reagan regime was formed by a coalition of Catholics, evangelicals, southern Democrats, and white voters concerned about black civil rights. They swept presidential elections for the next 20 years. Republican politicians and conservative political entrepreneurs discovered that the key to becoming the nation’s dominant party was to fight the culture wars and make issues of race, religion, morality, and culture the central focus of their campaigns. It was very effective at splitting the Democratic Party. Law and order became a euphemism for keeping the blacks in their place. For example, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority, was first drawn to the New Right not because of opposition to abortion but because the federal government refused to allow tax exemptions for private “segregation academies” that discriminated on the basis of race. Falwell’s decision to focus on abortion came in the late 1970s, well after Roe v. Wade was decided.

Continuing the campaign, Trump found multiple ways to invoke race and racial stereotypes both during the 2016 campaign and throughout his presidency. Republican political strategies on culture and race have made Republicans increasingly a white person’s party. Moreover, the party has been losing college-educated professionals and suburbanites – who became independents or Democrats – for white working-class voters, especially in the South and rural areas. Balkin notes this is not a good strategy for a party that wants to remain in power. Indeed, “since George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988, the Republican Party has won the popular vote for the Presidency only once, in 2004. This is not good news for a political party that wants to remain dominant.”

This would seem to imply that the Reagan/Republican cycle is nearing an end. Not necessarily write Balkin. “In the 2020 election, however, Donald Trump attracted a slightly larger number of Black and Latino voters – particularly male voters – than he had in 2016....Trump’s modest inroads with non-white voters probably surprised Democrats, who assumed that these voters would never vote for an overt racist like Trump. But this neglects several factors. First, minority voters are not monolithic. They have conflicting and cross-cutting values, which will become ever more salient as the percentage of non-white voters in the population grows. Second, many non-white voters are culturally conservative and aspire to be prosperous members of the middle class; this may attract them to the Republican Party.” Republican talent for winning in smaller states that hold the balance in the Electoral College may also become a factor, as it did with Trump in 2016 and George Bush in 2000.

Of course, I'm just scratching the surface. His discussion of what he calls "constitutional rot" and how it relates to the development of demagogues and polarization is quite intriguing.

Related.:
1. Jack M. Balkin, Race and the Cycles of Constitutional Time, 86 MO. L. REV. (2021) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol86/iss2/6
2. Wills, G. (2005). Negro president: Jefferson and the slave power. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
3. Conlin, M. F. (2019). The constitutional origins of the American Civil War. Cambridge University Press.
4. Wilentz, S. (2016). The politicians and the egalitarians: The hidden history of American politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
5. Balmer, Randall. " The Historian’s Pickaxe: Uncovering the Racist Origins of the Religious Right." The Changing Terrain of Religious Freedom, 2021, pp. 173-185.
6. Balkin, Jack M. (2019) "The Recent Unpleasantness: Understanding the Cycles of Constitutional Time," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 94 : Iss. 1 , Article 6.. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol94/iss1/6
… (mais)
 
Marcado
ecw0647 | Dec 11, 2022 |
One of my favorite commentaries on the Yi Jing (I Ching).
 
Marcado
CraigLeger | 1 outra resenha | Jul 9, 2010 |
this is ok, but i am not totally in love with it.
 
Marcado
humdog | Feb 19, 2007 |
Out standing.
Reader Friendly
Beautiful Paper
1 vote
Marcado
PamelaEverhart | 1 outra resenha | Nov 28, 2005 |

You May Also Like

Associated Authors

Estatísticas

Obras
14
Also by
1
Membros
347
Popularidade
#68,853
Avaliação
½ 3.7
Resenhas
4
ISBNs
36
Favorito
1

Tabelas & Gráficos