As Donald Trump systematically dismantles the Federal Government, there have been many exhortations the past several weeks asking where the Democrats are and why they are not standing up to his clearly unconstitutional actions. That question does not have one clear answer. But their current absence from the political debates in Washington, and really their rhetoric and conduct over the last decade + of national politics, have roots in an ancient 18th century political dynamic in England and later Great Britain called the “Court/Country” party dynamic. This framing of the nature of representative politics and governance would go on to indelibly shape the American movement for independence and American politics ever since. It is less a set of policies, but rather a rhetorical discourse that the American Democratic party has repeatedly fallen into over the past 50 to 60 years, and that partially explains their lack of sustained success on the national stage— and I believe their failure to seize the political moment over the past two weeks.
The so-called Court/Country party dynamic was popularized in the first several decades of the 1700’s by Viscount Bolingbroke, a member of the British Parliament and leader of the Tory Party, and ultimately came to influence the ideas of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other American patriots on the nature of political opposition in a republic. Bolingbroke helped popularize the idea that “small r” republican politics is generally shaped by a Court Party, or those in charge of administration of the government, and the opposition of a Country Party, or those out of power. This construct has been a central feature of western democracies, particularly the United States and Britain, ever since.
The idea behind the Court/Country dynamic is that one group sets itself up as the defender of the government and its policies, while the other group attacks the actions and policies of that government from the “outside” as those currently out of power. This makes sense as one group or party is always at least nominally, if not functionally, in charge of the national government, while another has no institutional power or control. When we start to analyze the development of the Court/Country political dynamic in practice, however, and the way it has been applied in the United States, we begin to see just how much the way each political party sees its role and relationship to the Federal Government affects both electoral politics and the politics of governance.
Historically speaking, especially since the end of World War II, it is interesting to note the apparent success of those able to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Country, or opposition, Party, especially in the late-20th and early-21st century politics of the United States. The Court Party, or in other words the incumbents or “establishment,” has the burden of governing and implementing ideas as well as defending those policies and any perceived lack of success. If something goes wrong, it’s your fault if you’re the one in charge. If you’re the Country Party, all you need to do is point out what’s wrong and maintain a persistent steady attack on those in power. The Country Party is able to position itself as the agent of change and the best electoral option for those who are unhappy with their current government. For much of American history, particularly the last fifty years, American politics have largely been ordered around this tradition, with the Republicans consistently claiming the mantle of the Country Party and the Democrats accepting the role of the Court Party– whether or not either party is actually in control of the White House and Congress.
In a globalized world where much of what happens with a country’s economy is beyond the power of its government to fully control, it is infinitely easier to position oneself as the outsider always on the attack, rather than the insider always pulling the levers of government and implementing their visions on a wider scale. This next point is key, though: actually being in charge of the government does not automatically make one the Court Party. Political success in the United States is often determined by one party being able to position themselves rhetorically as the outsiders- whether they are actually the governing party or not. And since the end of World War II, the Republicans have consistently positioned themselves to the American public as the Country Party in the United States, as the political outsiders, while they present the Democrats as the establishment or the status quo. And the Democrats have simply let them. Americans have consistently, over the course of decades, supported the “party of change,” the party that promises reform. Republicans, whether or not they actually hold the White House or Congress, continue to outflank Democrats and claim the mantle of the Country Party. The Democrats, by contrast, are always forced to be on the defensive, always needing to justify unpopular positions or actions of the Federal Government.
During the first few weeks of Kamala Harris’ campaign, her poll numbers quickly rose as she was able to paint Donald Trump as the incumbent in the race. He was the establishment, he was the one responsible for the problems the country was facing. He was, quite literally, the former president. Her campaign seemed to be outmaneuvering the Republicans and casting itself as the party of change. That, however, did not last. Harris and her team began to increasingly claim and argue for the successes of the Biden Administration and promised more of the same. At one point in early-September, Harris herself appeared on the talk show The View and, when asked what she would do differently than Biden, actually answered “not a thing.” This was in the face of polls overwhelmingly showing Americans concerned about inflation and feeling the country was headed in the wrong direction. It was political malpractice of the highest degree on the part of the Harris Campaign. In a country where both the left and the right are deeply frustrated with the current state of government and politics, Harris abandoned the role of change agent, and willingly adopted that of the incumbent Court Party.
This brings us to the Democratic Party of early-February 2025. Even though they are out of power, the Democrats continue to act as if they are the ones defending the Federal Government. They continue to act as if they are the forces of stability and the proper representatives of the “Court” or Administration Party. They have been pushing that narrative for nearly a decade and where has it gotten them? Watching Donald Trump elected president TWICE. The Republicans, meanwhile act as if they are on the outside, dismantling a system that has failed the American people. While this may actually be true to some degree, the Republicans are literally the party in charge! If Democrats want to succeed electorally and politically, they need to stop embracing the role of the Court Party. They need to start talking about what is wrong with government, or at least is wrong with what the government is currently doing. Democrats need to position themselves as the agents of change and stop letting Republicans shirk the burdens of incumbency. You can still believe “small g” government has a positive role to play in people’s lives while arguing that those in power are causing government to fail us.
For too long, Democrats have defended all government, all the time. Rather than complaining that Trump and MAGA are destroying America, they need to change their rhetorical tack and start pointing out how the government, led by a certain political party, are failing us. If the Democrats seem absent from the national debate right now, it may be because they don’t know how to criticize the idea that government is currently failing us, that they are still figuring out how to position themselves as the agents of change. They need to claim the mantle of the Country Party, and rhetorically adopt the position that, if the American people do not like what the government is currently doing, “Big Government” is the bad guy, and that the Democrats are now the party of change. This is the rhetoric that wins elections in 2026 and beyond. Only time will tell if the current Democratic Party leadership is capable of recognizing this change in tactics. They may need to open their history books… and take a page from Bolingbroke.
-Peter Porcupine
