The major parties rely on unity, either actual or perceived, to pitch themselves to the voting public. And, for the most part, this works. Most people align themselves with a party, and no matter what that party does or how its positions mutate over time, they stick to it. This tribalism overlooks the proper role of a representative - to represent the people of his or her district, in favor of whatever "the party" seeks to do.
It also overlooks the reality that the parties are comprised of individuals, and no two individuals are entirely alike in motivations, goals, or agendas.
Most of the time, the discord created by that reality is ignored or dismissed as mere "sausage-making," but from time to time it becomes too big to ignore.
Today, we have examples from both sides of the aisle.
On the Right, we have the spectacle of the "Gaetz Eight" having thrown the GOP into chaos by unseating the Speaker of the House.
On the Left, we have the spectacle of "The Squad" loudly and acidly screaming at the Biden administration for choosing the 'wrong side' (i.e. Israel) in the wake of the Hamas attack and atrocities.
Both highlight long-simmering internal disputes within the parties, and remind us that voting for "your" party isn't the same as voting for someone who best represents your views on government and policy.
I expect that the GOP's internecine squabble will mostly fade away once a new Speaker is elected. The "pick a side" duality of the Israel-Hamas matter, on the other hand, may have repercussions through the next election. The Democrats have long relied on the Jewish constituency to support them, financially and vote-wise, but the Left's vociferous support for the Palestinians, the near-total silence on Hamas atrocities, and the ever-more-obvious antipathy to Israel's right to exist may push a significant number of Jewish voters and donors toward the GOP.
Complicating that matter is the Untethered Orange Id, who appears, as is his wont, to put himself and his pettiness at the center of everything. Calling Hamas "smart" serves no useful purpose, but there it was. Not only does it provide propaganda to the terrorists, it casts doubt as to his degree of side-picking and support in the matter. He also berated Netanyahu publicly, apparently over a grudge he's carrying (Netanyahu "betrayed" Trump by acknowledging that Biden won the 2020 election: "I liked Bibi. I still like Bibi. But I also like loyalty. The first person to congratulate Biden was Bibi. And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape."). Subsequent efforts to walk this back aren't going to erase his first id-driven riff, and I'm certain that there will be more than a few traditionally Democrat-voting Israel supporters who will use those criticisms to rationalize voting D again in 2024.
There's also the matter of Trump and the GOP. While traditionalists and the "right wing intelligentsia," for want of a better phrase, are eschewing Trump, and while many in the Republican rank-and-file also see him as the weakest choice for the 2024 election, it remains that he has a massive lead over all the other candidates, buoyed up by his loyalists and idolizers. Indeed, he's his own tribe at this point, with a third of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters supporting Trump himself rather than the Republican Party. That division is also evident in Congress, where Trump die-hards stand against the Never-Trumpers in the GOP's caucus.
Where does this all go? Hard to say.
Biden may be defying the Angry Left by supporting Israel, but he's also sending money to the Gazans. Purportedly for humanitarian relief, but please. Remember Live Aid and Band Aid and the other "help the world’s poor" charitable events? Much, perhaps most, of the money raised reportedly (Bob Geldof et al hotly deny this) ended up in the hands of combatants, not the hungry. Even if America had thousands of workers distributing relief in Gaza (as if...), it'd be hard to ensure that American supplies didn't end up supporting Hamas terrorists. As it is, America would rely on Qatar and other foreign entities to distribute that aid. There's also the "strings" matter. Biden declared the American hostages his first priority, and as I expected, our diplomats are trying to convince Israel to delay its ground assault. Support is rarely unconditional.
Trump's camp is spinning furiously, and they'll point to his pro-Israel record, but Id is bound to say something else disparaging about Bibi along the way.
Besides all that, I still think that Biden won't be the nominee.
Events are unfolding rapidly, and the political landscape has been roiled by the overt support for Hamas by people who should know better.
Party fractures and internecine squabbles, while being chaotic and very contrary to what party leaders want, are opportunities for realignment and for political change. If the Democrats see an opportunity to marginalize the far-Left caucus, we might see some saner policies emerge. As for the GOP? Is there a chance that Haley or DeSantis unseats Trump in the primaries? Only time will tell.
Too true. Trump Savior Syndrome (my coinage, the flip-side of the ever-prevalent TDS), incomprehensible as it may be, is splitting the Republican vote (I am referring the TSS being incomprehensible, not splitting the GOP vote). As for Biden, I believe you are correct - he will *not* be the Democrat nominee in 2024. I wholly expect Newsom and some diversity checkbox-filling failure on the D ballot. Politics in America is a disaster, and factionalism (and tribalism) via parties is largely to blame. But this is nothing new. Parties were already corrupting politics as early at least as the early 1800s. All one need do is read Joseph Story's lament of this issue, published (originally) circa 1834:
§266. There probably is no part of the plan of the framers of the Constitution, which, practically speaking, has so little realized the expectations of its friends, as that which regards the choice of President. They undoubtedly intended, that the Electors should be left free to make the choice according to their own judgement of the relative merits and qualifications of the candidates for this high office; and that they should be under no pledge to any popular favorite, and should be guided by no sectional influences. In both respects, the event has disappointed all these expectations. The Electors are now almost universally pledged to support a particular candidate, before they receive their own appointment; and they do little more than register the previous decrees, made by public and private meetings of the citizens of their own State. The President is in no just sense the unbiased choice of the people, or of the States. He is commonly the representative of a party, and not of the Union; and the danger, therefore is, that the office may hereafter be filled by those, who will gratify the private resentments, or prejudices, or selfish objects of their particular partisans, rather than by those, who will study to fulfill the high destiny contemplated by the Constitution, and be the impartial patrons, supporters, and friends of the great interests of the whole country.
A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution
Great assessment!