Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

The refounding of the American republic in 1787-88 was made possible by major concessions to southern slaveholding interests. The three-fifths rule gave the South artificial advantages in the House and the electoral college.

It was no accident that the presidency and the Supreme Court were bulwarks of the slave power, along with the desire to maintain a free state-slave state balance in the Senate.

Three other early safeguards eventually cracked.

1. The House eventually reflected population growth in the North and the West, allowing free states to control the House.

2. That House free state majority became telling after the Democratic party, long the protector and promoter of slavery's interests, broke apart starting in the 1840s before it shattered altogether in 1860. Northern and Southern Democrats no longer trusted each other.

3. After dominating control of the presidency to 1860, Democrats lost it. The electoral college, which once helped the slave power, now proved critical to securing Lincoln's election.

White southerners understood the long-term consequences. Secession was a preemptive first strike that was a response not to past transgressions, but to what they believed the future held so long as the Republicans were in charge.

The Civil War revealed the counterproductiveness of secession. War made the destruction of slavery a possibility. The course of the conflict made it a reality. No slavery, no war; no war, no emancipation/destruction of slavery.

It was white southern suicide.

Reconstruction revealed the resiliency of white supremacy, which was a national (and not a southern) characteristic. Democrats North and South reunited over their shared commitment to white supremacy. Voter suppression through terrorism was a primary political tactic.

Republicans, many of whom were not deeply committed to black equality (and who in many cases shared white supremacist assumptions), concluded that to defend black rights in the South cost them white votes in the North.

The Electoral College made possible presidential victories without black votes. In 1868, the Democrats won a majority of the white vote, but Grant would have won in the electoral college anyway. Black votes gave him his popular vote margin.

Grant won reelection in 1872 with solid electoral vote and popular majorities, but the American political world was soon reconstituting itself around the revival of white supremacy, as 1876 suggested. The counting of the electoral vote saved Hayes.

Between 1880 and 1944 the Deep South was solidly Democratic. Democratic control of these states was made possible by suppressing black votes. Once in a while Republicans would take an upper South state (like Tennessee). Only once (in 1928) did Republicans crack it.

Ironically, it was Democrats' decision to become the party of civil rights for blacks, supplanting the Republicans, that cracked the Solid South. The 1948 election forecast the future. Eisenhower and Nixon made inroads between 1952 and 1960.

It would be the Democrats' identification as the party of civil rights that ended the foundations of political power once assured by white supremacy. Not all Democrats agreed, of course, and southern Democrats became Republicans.

Democrats were in trouble. Between 1968 and 1988 Republicans dominated presidential contests. This meant that Republican presidents nominated the majority of Supreme Court justices. Things gradually became more conservative.

Looking back, the Clinton years were something of a fluke. Clinton frittered away much of what he might have done, and a Republican-controlled House limited what he could do after 1994.

Bush 43's victories in 2000 and 2004 marked a shift in strategy. Before people believed that presidential elections (and other elections) were won or lost based upon appeals to a growing number of independent voters. Bush's Karl Rove emphasized turnout instead. Turn out the base.

Of course, if you emphasize the importance of turnout, you want to promote your turnout while reducing the other side's turnout. That means voter suppression. Given the greater diversity of the Democratic base, it was easy to see what to do.

Pass legislation that makes it more difficult for the poor, the disadvantaged, and people of color to vote. People who are usually more likely to vote Democratic. Have courts rule in your favor (courts increasingly staffed by Republican nominees).

Both 2000 and 2004 also reminded Republicans of the importance of the Electoral College. They wouldn't have won otherwise. They also kept race-based politics in mind. Willie Horton cast a long shadow. As Democrats embraced diversity, Republicans made it a bad word.

Then came Obama. A post-racial America? Please. What had been lurking beneath the surface now bubbled up.

The birther movement was a subset of the new Republican politics. You can't win on the merits? Fine: disqualify your opponent. Or declare that your opponent should be imprisoned. That way you don't have to defeat them at the polls. Fear of an unbridled electorate!

Trump's triumph in 2016 was the politics of white (and male) resentment come to full fruition (there is also a working class resentment aspect). H. Clinton played into his hands as Dems took for granted states they would lose.

Trump understood that the Electoral College was key. In turn that meant suppressing enough votes in certain states to prevail while getting out the vote. Get the judges, get the courts, suppress the opposition vote, and appeal to white anger and fear.

It worked.

It almost worked again in 2020. By then Democrats had figured out the importance of turnout. Trump bobbled the pandemic and its economic consequences while doing his best to overturn an election again. Disqualify your opponent. Disfranchise your foes.

Both sides turned out the vote in 2020. But the only reason the election was close was the electoral college. Trump used efforts at voter suppression, the courts, and talk of disqualifying foes once more, but it didn't work. But it was the new Republican playbook.

If demography is destiny, then it is a Democratic destiny. Republicans know this. Immigration restrictions look to reduce potential Democratic voters. Voter suppression disproportionately impacts certain populations where Democrats show strength.

Control of the courts might prove useful in litigation. All of these things gain more importance because of the impact of the Electoral College, which once more serves the interests of white supremacy.

No Electoral College, no Trump 2024.

These fundamental structural issues do much to shape American presidential politics. So does an appeal to white fear and insecurity ... even to stirring up notions of armed resistance "to take back our government." Take back (from whom?) ... Our ... who's "we"?

Debate policy all you want. But it's structural issues that empower white supremacy, much as it has in the past. Fear of the other has always held a mighty appeal in American politics. Reform the structure and you deprive fear and hatred of the means to win.

Trump just exploits what's there to be tapped. He preys on the weaknesses of others to overcome his own weaknesses and fears. He's found in mainstream Republican people as weak and fearful as he is. Even when he leaves, someone else will figure out how to exploit that.

White supremacy has always looked to American political structures to survive. The 3/5ths Rule, Jim Crow, and now the Electoral College, voter suppression, and efforts to disqualify opponents serve white anger, fear, resentment, and insecurity.