AMERICA THEN / AMERICA NOW / AMERICA NEXT

It has become virtually axiomatic to state that America is deeply divided, to the point that we are at the precipice of a constitutional crisis or already involved in a cold civil war. At a surface level, at least, we arrived at this moment in 2024 when a deeply divided population elected Donald J. Trump, by a narrow margin, to a second presidential term. However, our understanding of this moment is better served by examining it in a historical context. That is, we can best understand where we are by where we have been. Outside of moments of national emergency, the United States has never been truly united but rather has been divided in various ways and to varying degrees. Given the current situation, therefore, the more apt questions become have there been persistent sources of our disunity and, if so, how are they connected.

America Then

A useful place to begin addressing this issue is the era of our greatest disunity, the Civil War era. What immediately emerges is the fact that several issues dividing North and South then are strikingly similar to those that divide us now, such as immigration, race, tariffs, religion, and states’ rights. There is a resonance to our disunity.

Immigration is not usually understood to have been a southern problem, but it was. Essentially, the South forcibly immigrated several million people of color and created a captive labor force. Those captured were defined as property and became the labor mainstay of its agricultural economy. That system was sustained through coercion, along with biologically and religiously based assertions of its legitimate and benign nature. Slavery also automatically created a racially based caste-like culture founded on white privilege and slave servitude. Because a shutdown of the international slave trade began prior to the Civil War, a slave-based labor force ultimately could continue only through domestic procreation and would create a permanently indentured class.

Tariffs were another major source of division. The South sought low tariffs as it exchanged its agricultural products (cotton and tobacco) for manufactured products from England’s early industrial economy. By contrast, the North sought higher tariffs to protect its own fledgling industrial base that rapidly became the engine of the American economy. Tariffs therefore shifted with control of the federal government.

At the time of the Civil War, America was overwhelmingly Protestant. Before and during the war, four Protestant denominations (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalian) divided into northern and southern wings over the slavery issue. Indeed, the St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia became known as the Cathedral of the Confederacy where Robert E. Lee and other confederate officers worshiped. While the Episcopalian division was erased quickly, the northern American Baptist and Southern Baptist division persisted.

It is also not surprising that there was ongoing conflict of the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. In the run up to the Civil War there was continuing conflict over acceptance of new states as any new state would change the slave state-free state balance. Every win for one side was a loss for the other. However the states’ rights issue was framed rhetorically, the basis of the debate was slavery.

More broadly, northern and southern culture and social organization were fundamentally incompatible and headed in different directions. The economic future of the North was to expand its developing and diversified industrial base, which required equally rapid growth of a wage-based labor force. Those labor force needs were met primarily through large-scale immigration from various European nations and by newly freed slaves who moved north. This influx produced significant increases in both the population size and diversity of northern industrial centers. By contrast, the South could develop its economy further and maintain a competitive economic advantage only by permanently maintaining and expanding its slave labor force. Thus, while the movement in the North was toward greater size and diversity, the South was locked into a more rigid, hierarchical and coercive system. Indeed, had succession prevailed, the South essentially would have become a colonial nation with imported natives.

From Then Until Now

In the century and a half since the onset of the Civil War, there has been an ongoing struggle between two broad coalitions: Restorationists (a coalition that seeks to restore America to its idealized conception of the nation’s founding purpose) and Progressivists (a coalition that seeks progress toward a vision of founding American ideals that have yet to be fully realized). Both see their goals as representing the “natural order of things,” with the result that often the same words, such as “freedom,” are used to convey very different visions. There is no more dramatic evidence of the division than the now infamous events of January 6, which the Progressivists labeled an “insurrection” and the Restorationists called “patriotic resistance.” In this ongoing struggle, there have been victories and losses on both sides.

One of the most important formulations of the Restorationist vision is represented in the sprawling 900 page Project 2025: The Mandate for Leadership blueprint. Although this document was published in 2023, precursors track back to a document prepared by the venerable Heritage Foundation that served as one basis of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. The positioning of the new document has been updated to fit the current moment, but the echoes of the past are unmistakable. Among the myriad proposals contained in the document are some dominant themes: a multi-pronged campaign to contain and reverse immigration flow, to expand executive power vis a vis legislative and judicial power, reassert the traditional cultural presentation of American exceptionalism across institutions, reaffirm traditional sex/gender categories and family organization, closely regulate the electoral process and access to voting.

While these ongoing conflicts were central to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, they became more decisive in the 2024 election after the Restorationists gained control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, along with a strong voice in the Supreme Court. The two visions of America are now on full public display as aggressive administration initiatives are met with determined resistance. It would be hard to overestimate the future consequences of the outcomes of this moment in American history.

The Restorationist-Progressivist conflict flares across a range of issues that have both domestic and international implications: the structure of government, financial policy, nation-centric versus global-centric national policy, citizenship, and religion/family.

The Restorationist–Progressivist debate over government structure involves both domestic and international elements. The Restorationist agenda by its very nature is nationalistic. America was once a great nation and we need to recover that greatness and promote American exceptionalism. On the domestic front, Restorationists propose to downsize the federal government and limit its impact on everyday life. Some federal departments, such as the Department of Education, would be eliminated and responsibility for education would be placed in the hands of the states. Current government services, such as the postal service, social security, Medicare/Medicaid would be privatized. Internationally, the federal government would focus on promoting national interests. Tariffs would be oriented bilaterally with other nations so that no nation would enjoy a financial advantage in trade relations. Tariffs would be used tactically to ensure this outcome. Military alliances would be assessed and maintained to the extent that there was direct economic and political advantage to the U.S.

The Progressivist agenda likewise has domestic and international components. Progressivists advocate for preserving and strengthening governmental support for services that protect individual and family health and financial security more effectively and economically than private, profit-oriented corporations (health, financial security). Internationally, the Progressivist stance is global-centric. Progressivists propose that many of the most significant challenges confronting the nation are now global in nature a broader and require a broader vision of community. Issues such as crises producing mass migrations, climate change, pandemics, and multi-national trade stability all require national involvement in the global community. As the pre-eminent military force in the world, the world’s largest economy, the manager of the world currency, America has global leadership responsibilities.

In the Restorationist vision, the national economic structure should be organized around free market principles. Both individual citizens and corporate entities create a democratic economy that rests on voluntary individual choices. Consistent with this vision, corporate tax rates should be kept as low as possible to allow corporations maximum flexibility in making expenditure and investment decisions. The tax structure for individuals should favor low taxes for wealthy Americans, who are the real “wealth creators,” and allow them full capacity to retain and pass on the wealth that they accumulate. Taxes for the broad swarth of taxpayers should move away from complicated tax brackets toward a more simple flat tax model combined with less tax on income and greater tax on consumption.

The Progressivist vision is that in a capitalist democracy the federal government should empower corporate economic opportunity while also ensuring that corporations contribute their “fair share” to the larger community that grants them legal standing. This means establishing corporate tax rates that simultaneously protect corporate competitiveness and larger community financial health. Individual taxes should be graduated so as regulate the distance between the top and bottom of the wealth distribution. A strong economy is best created by economic strength in the middle and working classes.

The current conflict over immigration is integral to the larger issue of citizenship. The Restorationist agenda proposes a series of strong control measures on immigration. These include revocation of the constitutional provision for birthright citizenship, mounting of a large-scale government deportation program along with incentives for self-deportation, limited due process rights for immigrants in the country illegally, militarized defense of national borders, and narrowing a path to citizenship. Correspondingly, access to the voting franchise should be closely monitored and regulated (close scrutiny of voter eligibility, more rigorous voter registration procedures, closer monitoring of poling places and election results).

Progressivists propose that national borders must be defended as part of a broadly accepted policy for legitimate entry, immigrants should be recognized as a major asset in the American economy and to America as an “immigrant nation,” there should be a stable and legitimate path to citizenship for those who follow lawful entry regulations, and birthright citizenship needs to be reaffirmed as a symbol of American refuge amid tyranny and persecution around the globe. Correspondingly, access to the voting franchise should be facilitated to ensure free, fair, and inclusive elections. Multiple ways of participating in the voting franchise and voter registration should be clear and simple, and accessible.

Religion has become a battleground on which the clash between Restorationists and Progressivists has been cast in terms of ultimate values. The division now has a sacred component. For Restorationists, Christianity should be accorded religious preference, including a visible presence in the White House, as America was founded as a Christian nation. To do otherwise is to demean America’s founding religious tradition and persecute its practitioners. The boundary between church and state should be loosened to facilitate Christian prominence (permitting prayer in public schools and biblical education), and political leaders should encourage policies that offer families maximum flexibility in choosing how children are educated, such as vouchers to support enrollment in Christian schools. Further, Christian principles should guide daily life, and particularly family life. Traditional monogamous, male headed, religious families that give birth to binary-gendered children is the favored family model. Consistent with Christian morality, books and media to which children have access should be regulated and morally corrupting pornography should be sanctioned harshly. Consistent with a prolife position, access to abortion should closely regulated and should not be considered as healthcare.

From a Progressivist perspective, America has incorporated a variety of religious traditions through its entire history. Successive waves of new Americans have brought their religious traditions with them and integrated into American culture and traditions by identifying as Americans first. Religious diversity has been protected by maintaining a separation of church and state as a founding principle. The ability of America to incorporate religious diversity is one of its hallmark achievements. While the numerical representation of various religious beliefs and practices has and will continue to shift, all traditions remain secure if all remain equal under the law. The injection of religious disputes, such as female pastoral leadership, LGBTQ rights, and abortion access, into the political arena only places religious freedom and equality at risk.

The two coalitions differ sharply on how American history and culture should be presented. The Restorationist coalition pursues a nationalist exceptionalism agenda through eliminating a “woke” cultural influence. From a Restorationist perspective, a range of institutions (educational institutions, museums, mass media) currently present a distorted version of American history that is demeaning and divisive. Both governmental programs that adopt this perspective and institutions that incorporate this philosophy, particularly those that emphasize Diversity Equity, Inclusion (DEI) should be more closely regulated or eliminated.

The Progressivist position is that “woke” refers to an understanding that American history is complex. A full understanding of that history requires a conscious awareness of how established institutions have had a deleterious effect on a range of marginalized populations. DEI programs, many focused on race, gender and sexual orientation offer a more nuanced understanding of marginal populations’ histories as well as restorative practices repairing harm. The willingness of America to build on its strengths while also openly acknowledging and addressing its challenged history are a testament to its greatness.

America Next

The stark differences between the two contested visions and agendas for America could not be clearer or more potentially transformative. While at least some of the issues along the Restorationist-Progressivist divide might be mitigated through negotiation, most have not proven amenable to compromise for a very long time. The divisions are as clear and persistent now as they were 150 years ago. The intensity of the current confrontation indicates that, in everyday parlance, we now have reached a real “fork in the road.” This has become one of those times when we ask ourselves what will historians say in fifty years about this moment, what will we say when our grandchildren ask us what we did in 2025, and when the battle is over what will we tell ourselves about what we did or did not do in 2025 when it mattered most. The armies of both coalitions are gathering at the gates. We have moved beyond alternative visions about who we want to be. The direction we choose now will become who we actually are.