LSU political history expert: Demonizing and ‘otherizing’ election opponents concerning
October 24, 2024
Jonathan Earle, LSU Ogden Honors College dean
As we approach the 2024 election, LSU Ogden Honors College Dean and history professor Jonathan Earle offers his perspective rooted in his expertise in U.S. political history, particularly in the tumultuous period leading up to the Civil War.
Dean Earle's work has extensively covered political antislavery movements, John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry, and the Civil War, giving him a deep understanding of how political and social shifts shape the democratic process. In this Q&A, he reflects on the evolution of populism, the rise of political polarization, and the historical parallels between past contentious elections and today’s climate.
What is your area of expertise?
U.S. Political History, especially in the period leading up to the Civil War. My previous books have covered the rise of political antislavery in the 1840s and 1850s, John Brown’s famous raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, and the Civil War on the Western border.
How has the role of populism in American elections evolved, and what does that mean for this year’s election?
Not every election has featured a populist candidate or populist arguments. Andrew Jackson’s near-miss in 1824 and electoral victories in 1828 and 1832 were a high point of populist American politics, which pitted an insurgent South and West against the more patrician parts of the country, especially New England. There was an actual “Populist” Party in the late 1800s that foreshadowed some of the agricultural and monetary reforms we associate with the Progressive Movement.
Since then, we’ve seen sporadic populist campaigns – think Huey Long here in Louisiana in the 1930s or George Wallace in 1968, catering to parts of the electorate that felt shut out of mainstream politics. Donald Trump, essentially taking over a major U.S. Party on some of these same themes, has been transformational in national politics since 2015, and we’ll see if we’re seeing his movement’s twilight or a major victory in less than two weeks. J.D. Vance isn’t much of a populist, for example, nor are other potential future Republican leaders like Nikki Haley or Doug Burgum.
Explore the LSU Ogden Honors College
Can you provide historical context on how major political shifts in the U.S. have influenced elections, particularly in times of crisis?
Times of great historical change – be they political, social, or economic – absolutely influence elections. In the mid-19th century, which I’m writing about now, the main issue was slavery and its expansion. Would the United States be a nation of free or enslaved labor? Would we live up to our democratic promises? What would happen to the enslaved and their former owners after emancipation? In the 20th century, many of the important political shifts involved an expanding electorate – one that grew to include immigrants and their children, African Americans (who had been kept out of politics through law and violence for 100 years in some places), and women after 1920. We’ve also had elections during the Civil War, World War I and II, Vietnam, and our more recent conflicts in the Middle East, so it’s not hard to see how issues of war and peace affect elections.
What lessons from past elections should voters and candidates keep in mind this year?
Well, the historian in me wants to say, “however catastrophic your non-preferred candidate winning may seem, it probably won’t be that bad.” But some of the rhetoric this election season has me worried that, in fact, 2024 is one of those truly pivotal elections. There are two starkly different visions being offered to an electorate that is clearly unhappy with the way the country is being run now. As someone born in the late 1960s, at the height of Americans’ rights being expanded, it feels more than a little off-putting to see some of my fellow citizens’ rights being limited. Or talking about mass deportations, or jailing journalists, or “enemies within.” Our civic institutions, while I hope are still strong, need constant care and feeding, and I hope we can do some of that work after November 5. We all need to live in this country.
“ Vote, organize, and do your best to persuade others to your side. But we also have to find a way to disagree politically without the vitriol and bad feelings I see now. I’m not arguing just for more “civility,” but a real reassessment of what it means to be citizens in a democracy. ”
How do you see the rise of political polarization affecting the democratic process in this election?
It’s not like political polarization is anything completely new. During the nation’s first contested presidential election in 1796, both sides warned that the republic would fall if the other candidate (John Adams or Thomas Jefferson) were elected. Happily, our nation survived both presidents! The politics of the election I am writing about at the moment – Lincoln’s in 1860 – was far more divisive than even this one. Think about it: before Lincoln even took the oath of office, seven Southern states quit the country rather than be “ruled” by a Republican! And then they and several more Southern states took up arms against the U.S.! After that, it took a great civil war finally to decide some of the political differences of the 1850s, including whether slavery would be perpetuated or it was possible to secede from the Union. We’re still arguing about some of these issues today.
Closer to our own time, FDR’s opponents absolutely hated him, even if a wide swath of Americans believe in New Deal reforms like Social Security, collective bargaining, and aid for families living under the poverty line. What I worry about is now, instead of disagreeing with those on the other side, I hear folks demonizing and “otherizing” people who don’t share their political beliefs. That’s not a great way to perpetuate a democracy. And republics simply cannot survive if only one side is willing to give up political power after they lose an election. I can’t believe that’s where we are, but it is.
What historical parallels do you see between the current election climate and previous contentious elections in U.S. history?
Each election is pretty much unique, but I think the best parallels to 2024 are ones where the electorate was both angry and evenly divided. Again, I would go back to 1796, 1860, and 1968, as the elections were extremely close, and there was a real threat of potential violence or civil conflict. I’m not happy saying that, by the way.
Is there anything else you want to add?
Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” I think that’s right – but if we want to continue to be a democracy, we have to make sure our civic institutions remain strong. So vote, organize, and do your best to persuade others to your side. But we also have to find a way to disagree politically without the vitriol and bad feelings I see now. I’m not arguing just for more “civility,” but a real reassessment of what it means to be citizens in a democracy. We can’t demonize each other the way we are now and expect things to get better.
Next Steps
Let LSU put you on a path to success! With 330+ undergraduate programs, 70 master's programs, and over 50 doctoral programs, we have a degree for you.