America has gone through many wars, from the War of Independence to World War II, the Vietnam War, and numerous episodes of US military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. Traditionally, war milestones are presented in chronological order. Historians try to understand what led to the war, how events unfolded, and how large numbers of casualties could have been avoided. However, the new APD approach proposes to consider what consequences wars brought for the states that participated in them. The APD approach analyzes the American wars regarding how they influenced or even drove American Political Development. This paper argues that, in terms of APD, the American wars gave an impetus for the development of the US fundamental pillars of its statehood and that many significant mass societal improvements evolved as the results of changes stimulated by the need to extract at least small positive benefits from wars.
I intend to present a series of examples to prove this point. First, it is necessary to provide examples of when the war gave impetus to the development of socio-cultural processes aimed at improving the political and economic situation. I will do my analysis with the APD approach, which tries to track US politics and the government’s philosophical and historical roots and analyze the overall nature of political development and evolution. In his article “Wars and American Politics,” David Mayhew (474) argues that there were at least five major wars faced by the US which determined its fate as a progressive state: the War of 1812, the War with Mexico, the Civil War, the World War I, and the World War II. According to the scholar, these wars created “windows that are opened by problems” (Mayhew 473). In other words, these wars gave an impetus for the further development of the state.
According to Mayhew (475), the War of 1812 was the first important milestone that brought about historical change. In particular, this war brought three important innovations – the emergence of the Second Bank of the United States established by Congress, the introduction of the high new protective tariff, and some internal improvements of transportation facilities. The Second Bank was created as the reaction to “near-bankruptcy, currency disorder, and debt brought on by the war,” and the tariff was established “to shield American industries nourished during the war, notably cotton textiles that in peacetime became vulnerable to British competition” (Mayhew 476). This war also led to the creation of the Canadian state and the end of Native Indians’ aspirations for an independent state.
The scholar presents a comprehensive list of other achievements that can be attributed to the war, which is viewed as a large-scale revolution in the traditional views, norms, and rules according to which the state functions. For example, the author claims that the War with Mexico led to the expansion of the United States to the Southwest, to the borders of Texas and California, which can be considered an outstanding geographical fact, given that the area of these territories exceeds the combined size of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK.
Mayhew (476) also argues that the Civil War of 1861-1865 brought the changes that laid the foundation for the current political and economic order. First, the Civil War famously led to abolishing slavery and the extension of rights to African Americans. Although the Civil War was rather beginning than the end of the fight for African Americans’ civil and human rights, it was an important milestone in this fight.
This extension of civil rights was represented by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to Constitution – abolishing slavery, nationalizing rights, and extending suffrage. Then the Civil War also caused the new high protective tariff, new taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and certain luxuries, the beginning of the nationwide banking system, Congressional redesign, construction of the transcontinental railroad, aid to higher education (particularly in military colleges), and free western homesteading (Mayhew 477). Therefore, the scientist gives examples of how the war drew attention to broader social problems that resulted from needs, the urgency of which war helped to realize.
The 20th century was equally fruitful in terms of wars and the changes that followed. Noteworthy, the World War I led to progressive taxation, in particular, “the personal income tax rate paid by the highest income bracket rose from 7 percent in 1913 to 77 percent in 1918 and has not fallen below 25 percent since” (Mayhew 477). This war also caused the record high protective tariff documented in the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 and the Fordney McCumbers Tariff of 1922, the appearance of a national budgeting system, the prohibition or the “dry cause,” the women’s suffrage, immigration restriction, domestic intelligence and cartelization of railroads. WWI also led to new issue regimes like the enforcement of prohibition in 1933, cuts in the corporate and individual income taxes established during the war, hydroelectric power, agricultural crop supports, and veteran’s bonuses.
Finally, Word War II brought policy changes, including the mass-based progressive taxation, new fiscal policy, curbs on labor unions, progress in voting rights for southern African Americans, new science policy, atomic energy policy, curbs on the executive branch, new national security structure, and GI Bill of Rights. There were also four significant changes in the federal policy agenda in civil rights, including voting rights, fair employment, and access to public accommodations, general aid to education, national health insurance, public housing, and slum renewal. Therefore, the five most significant wars in US history have caused changes in American Political Development.
It is paradoxical, how can something as terrible as war lead to positive domestic changes. However, the answer to this question is obvious: firstly, war is always an opportunity for the new, more progressive political forces. Secondly, the economic pressures that war exerts on the state expose existing problems and bring the people to the point where they will no longer suppress their discontent. Therefore, in fear of political instability, governments are forced to introduce new policies that could improve the status quo. Hence, war is the engine of progress in the development of the state.
Thus, it was argued that the American wars gave an impetus for developing the fundamental pillars of US statehood. In particular, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the WWI, and WWII brought new issues to the political agenda and introduced new government policies. Therefore, these wars not only brought destruction but also pushed the state in the direction of actual political and economic development.
Race and APD
The race was always a distinct and painful issue for African Americans, and maybe not so painful for other Americans. Anyway, during American history, its twist and turns proved many times that the American democracy was primarily established by the white American people and for the white American people. Even though there were many conversations regarding more rights for African Americans and some official shifts during particular historical milestones, the US is still on its way to true freedom, equality, and brotherhood. Unfortunately, the country has never reached this ethical ideal before in the full scope of its meaning. This paper argues that recent tragic events that led to the Black Lives Matter movement prove that the US has never really found the solution for the ‘race issue.’
To prove this argument, we need to trace how the ‘race issue’ was addressed throughout US history. Whenever the people masses greeted the humane democratic shifts, the situation did not change dramatically. For example, the Civil War brought some significant changes like abolishing slavery, nationalizing civil rights, and accepting suffrage rights for African Americans. However, in reality, these shifts were implemented only partially since the complex bureaucratic procedure made it next to impossible for the African Americans to influence the electoral process and have actual representation in Congress, let alone the White House.
Although the war ended in victory for the Northern states, many political coalitions valued cooperation with Southern partners. They, therefore, were ready to make tacit concessions in terms of rights for the African American people in exchange for funding or other political benefits. The Southern states still tried to preserve, albeit unofficially, the prevalence of white supremacy ideal, which was implemented through the segregation policy. Although they did not openly support these ideas, the Northern states did not provide real opportunities for African Americans in the Northern cities. In these cities, African Americans were forced to live in inhuman conditions, faced unemployment, and could only be paid for low-skilled work. Only a few managed to achieve success, but this was rather an exception to the general rule.
The post-World War I period did not bring any change to African Americans. Many African Americans participated in WWII (as well as in WWI), which shifted public opinion regarding the rights of African Americans. This change was documented in The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 and a Supreme Court ban of the white primary. It meant that African Americans have now gained more influence over the electoral process, but we see no actual representation for the African Americans in Congress to this day. The fundamental changes were achieved only thanks to the Black Power movements of the 1960s, which led to the end of segregation and the first semblance of equality among black and white Americans.
Therefore, the APD brings us to an understanding of the origins of the Black Lives Matter movement. Significantly, the movement began in response to numerous beatings and killings of African Americans by white American police officers. Not only should this degree of racial hatred be considered barbaric in the 21st century, but the police also have not been adequately punished, which should be considered the collapse of the US legal system. Thompson and Thurst (117) note that some demonstrators carried such blatant posters as “I can’t believe I still have to protest this shit!” Despite the rudeness of the statement, this opinion is an exhaustive expression of the current state of the ‘race issue.’
For some reason, what should have happened back in 1789 never met its logical conclusion in 2021. The ‘racial issue’ is particularly absurd given that the Founding Fathers considered it “the self-evident truth that all men were created equal” and that “one nation cannot be half free and half slave” (King, para. 11). Malcolm X was probably catastrophically correct in stating that American democracy was created by white Americans as part of the bloody American Revolution and therefore serves the interests of white Americans, while African Americans are hostages of this just (for whites) and highly humane regime (638). Interestingly, Malcolm X also argued that Black Nationalism is the only philosophy that ensures African Americans can resist White Nationalism, which is at the core of all widely accepted US government ideas (639).
Martin Luther King Jr. also said that the oppressor would never willingly give up the policy of oppression if the oppressed did not oppose such a policy (para. 5). For a long time, African Americans were pacified by claims that their rights were represented and protected, although the issue of racial hatred remains relevant to this day. Knowing and understanding history and the APD is vital to avoid falling into the trap of false ideas about the ‘race issue.’ For example, the moderately aggressive rhetoric of Malcolm X scared off ‘moderate whites’ in the 1960s and still does. However, the essence of this rhetoric boiled down to the fact that African Americans have no choice but to mirror the attitude of whites towards the issue of superiority and must control their communities, including in an economical way, which is still relevant today. No less relevant is the devastating impact of the ‘moderate whites’ criticized by Martin Luther King in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (para. 7).
The BLM movement should not have arisen in the 21st century when everyone likes to believe in the victory of the ideas of freedom, equality, and brotherhood. But this movement arose to point out existing problems when violence flourishes not only as a fact but also in the form of ideal concepts. The idea that some Americans do not believe in the guilt of police officers who shoot or otherwise killed African Americans due to speeding is horrifying. However, it also proves that public opinion and public morality are still based on the ideas of white supremacy, which were officially defeated back in 1865.
Thus, it was argued why the recent tragic events that led to the Black Lives Matter movement prove that the US has never really found the solution for the ‘race issue.’ This issue was always painful for African Americans throughout American history. Even though it received particular attention during the historical milestone periods, the promised freedoms usually turned out to be only speculative. The privileges granted were either not implemented, as in the case with the suffrage right, or immediately taken away, as in the case of the nationalization of civil rights.
Labor, Class, and APD
Class depolarization is a new trend in American society that has mixed the cards for leftist political forces, the Democrats. At the same time, Republicans navigated the situation quickly and capitalized on the increased volatility in political preferences among the working class of white Americans. Unfortunately, the Republicans’ success was due to their manipulation of public opinion through populism since they had no real intentions to improve living and job conditions for the working class. This paper argues that class considerations had an utter impact on election results in 2016 and 2020 and will significantly impact the distribution of electoral sympathy in the future.
Interestingly, class depolarization is a unique phenomenon that arose due to economic progress, when people without higher education, who mainly constitute the working-class group, began to do business and have more or less significant finances. The second factor that influenced the shift in preferences was the urgent need for change when political parties needed to move from words and declarations to concrete actions to protect the rights of the working class (Levitz, para. 12). Therefore, class depolarization led to the emergence of an entirely new political climate.
Experts believe that the Democrats have not paid enough attention to the white working-class group in the past eight years and have not sufficiently understood its motives and aspirations. In particular, Lerer notes that Biden received 23% of support from this group (para. 7). At the same time, Trump, as a representative of the Republicans, retained the advantage and received 31% of support (para. 7). This trend suggests that if the Democrats do not change the party’s political program, they may face serious problems in the next elections.
Levitz (para. 15) proposes to increase the amount of campaigning directed at the working class and not to limit it to traditional Democratic voters, who are white-collar workers with higher education and high income. The expert also insists that democrats must develop actual policies to protect the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they risk losing forever these voters, who demonstrate a constantly decreasing level of trust in democratic rhetoric. In other words, Democrats must analyze their political presence in working-class preferences from an APD perspective, which could lead them to collaboration with labor unions and local communities.
The class was always a part of all common political changes that shaped American Political Development. Moreover, the white working-class did not always favor one party, changing camps from time to time. In particular, Levitz (para. 8) notes that the white working class has recently moved into the Republican camp and that this change was due to specific reasons. The first main reason was the change in popular opinion about liberal political ideology in the mid-1970s. During this time, Democrats began to lose touch with the workers’ electorate, over-relying on voters with higher education.
Stable support from the black working class also contributed to this tendency. Levitz (para. 16) stresses that while the black working class continues to support Democrats, this is not evidence of good leftist policies that protect the interests of the working class but instead speaks of issues with equal opportunities for the black and white working classes. This tendency may be happening because the only rhetoric or concession to the working class from the left is the policy of protection against all kinds of discrimination, which, according to experts, does not provide real equal opportunities.
It is noteworthy that class depolarization is also characterized by an increasing gap between the level of education and the level of earnings. With new business opportunities opening up, more and more working-class people have incomes comparable to white-collar workers. Moreover, more and more working-class people can be called white collars by the sphere of employment. Another interesting trend characteristic of class depolarization is the discrepancy between the partisanship of political preferences between generations. Earlier, sons tended to vote the same way as their fathers, but now more working-class children who go to college tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans.
Class depolarization is the most important factor that influences the preferences of the working class and will have a significant impact on the results of future elections. Given the arguments presented above, the general conclusion is that there is confusion regarding voting preferences for ideology or rhetoric promoted by a party or candidate. Simultaneously, the only way to overcome depolarization is to rely not on slogans but on actual deeds. Moreover, it should be considered that the working class still has an ideological connection with the trade unions and is ready to support politicians who, in turn, support them. When implementing various policies, it is also necessary to consider the APD and the historical context to win the sympathy of voters and convince them that the political force is interested in their problems. For example, Democrats could initiate the removal of curbs for trade unions introduced after World War II.
Experts believe that democratic, progressive forces should consider these trends if they want to have a political advantage in the next elections. At the same time, given the current statistics, it will not be easy for Democrats to win over the sympathies of the white working class, which have been lost for decades. Therefore, this process should be gradual, as already indicated, based on actual policies and cooperation with trade unions and other labor organizations. Historically, Liberal Democrats have had the edge over Conservative Republicans in terms of working-class sympathy.
According to experts, in the 1970s, Republican voters were predominantly white elites, as Republicans defended values close to the owners of large companies, who sought to maintain the status quo. The working-class shift to the right was driven solely by disillusionment with Democratic rhetoric and the assumption that both parties operate exclusively in rhetoric and offer no real help. The subsequent events developed in the ideological plane, and Democrats must reverse this trend by regaining the sympathy of the working class, which constitutes a very significant percentage of the US population.
Thus, it was argued how the class considerations impacted election results in 2016 and 2020. It was also discussed why these considerations would significantly impact the distribution of electoral sympathy in the future. The working class in America has historically favored Democrats, who have always championed liberal values and defended the interests of the oppressed. Recently, however, Democrats have been paying insufficient attention to this category of voters. This situation can have dangerous consequences, given the recent trend of class depolarization, and can be overcome through cooperation with trade unions and altering the traditional rhetoric.
Works Cited
King Jr, Martin Luther. “Letter from a Birmingham jail (1963).” Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 1960s: A Brief History with Documents (1963).
Lerer, Lisa. “Joe From Scranton Didn’t Win Back the Working Class.”New York Times, 2020, Web.
Levitz, Eric. “Why Americans Don’t Vote Their Class Anymore.”New York Magazine, 2020, Web.
Mayhew, David R. “Wars and American politics.” Perspectives on Politics (2005): 473-493.
Thompson, Debra, and Chloe Thurston. “American political development in the era of black lives matter.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 6.1 (2018): 116-119.
X, Malcolm. “The ballot or the bullet.” In Cohen and Fermon, Eds: Princeton Readings in Political Thought. Princeton, 1996: 636-641.