Four Futures for the American Political Order

Scenes at the recent Munich Security Conference provided a study in contrasts between potential power players in America’s near political future. Secretary of State Marco Rubio received a standing ovation for a speech that was unapologetic in its praise of Western civilization and its many accomplishments. In the wings, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dismissed the speech while simultaneously advancing a wholly different narrative about the sources of American greatness. We could follow the online crowds and nitpick the historical narratives both leaders endeavored to weave, but behind those narratives was something deeper and more substantive: the moral frameworks animating their comments, which came down to their respective views of the natural law.

By “natural law,” I generally mean those moral principles inherent to human nature with the natural rights so dear to America’s Founders as being derived, or downstream, from that “law of Nature and Nature’s God.” C.S. Lewis would later articulate these principles as the Tao in his Abolition of Man.

Rubio’s natural law orientation, grounded in Christian thought and theology specifically, and the classical Western tradition more broadly, is very apparent. He doesn’t just repeatedly reference the Christian character of Western civilization, but explicitly ties Christianity to the highest accomplishments of the West. By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez’s moral orientation is grounded in the post-colonial stream of the Marxist tradition, making repeated references to the Global South and class-based political analysis as the only morally legitimate point of view. Or, to put it more simply, her moral orientation is grounded in a rejection of the West’s natural law tradition as embodied by the American founding.

This is a significant divide that promises to grow wider as the midterms approach, when the jockeying of party leaders for presidential nominations and cabinet positions in 2028 intensifies. Given that Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez undoubtedly speak for significant blocs within their respective parties, it is incumbent upon concerned citizens to consider seriously how these opposing worldviews in America’s main political parties may impact our civic life and institutions in the very near future.

Helpfully, having two dominant political parties with two moral worldviews lends itself well to that most basic of models: the 2×2 contingency table. This helpful device allows us to contemplate the basic interaction of two variables, political parties and their relationship to the natural law, in this case: 

These are obviously broad strokes, yet they are helpful in identifying a difficult to discern trend and contemplate its implications now made visible in Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez’s respective remarks in Munich. 

Essentially, what this table shows us is a moral matrix of four possible futures for American political culture, which I hope will impart a sense of urgency in both parties to strive towards maintaining and/or reorienting their party towards the alignment with the natural law.

Scenario I is Alignment: Both parties broadly ascribe to the natural law tradition and its particular articulations in the American tradition as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of the Founders. In this scenario, the American order characterized by rule of law, respect for democratic institutions, and a system designed for ordered liberty would continue to be upheld. Within this broad agreement on moral order and the good of representative forms of government, policy disagreements can be had without rising to the level of moral existential risk. In such a political culture, compromise is possible, and bipartisanship is seen as a civic virtue in service of broadly shared national interests.

Scenarios II and III bring polarization: In each of these, one of the political parties remains aligned with the natural law and seeks to uphold America’s constitutional order while the other actively opposes it, or even seeks to undermine it. Policy disagreements now become intractable as bipartisanship becomes a political liability rather than a civic virtue, and the gears of legislation grind to a halt prompting ever more expansive uses of executive power to implement policy. Policy action of any kind is read through a partisan lens with the added tint of existential crisis toward every action taken by the opposing party. Public discourse turns toxic as leaders are incentivized to use polarizing rhetoric to appeal to their bases, which has a dehumanizing effect on how one views individuals holding differing political opinions. 

As bad, and as familiar, as that all sounds, it is nothing compared to Scenario IV: Nihilism. In this scenario, both parties reject any kind of natural law and constitutional restraint, leading to a race to the bottom in pursuit of political power, with “morality” becoming a means to the end of achieving power and “norms” become the means through which that power is maintained. When I think about an American political culture characterized by such nihilism, I envision some mashup of scenes of the January 6 riot at the Capitol with recent scenes of anti-ICE demonstrations in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Imagine a political realm where every election is marred by riots, and every effort to implement policy is opposed by violent demonstrators. A government working under such constraints would necessarily become authoritarian if only to get something done… and the people would be thankful. 

That is not a world any of us should want to live in, but it’s a world we will find ourselves in if we don’t respond appropriately to the moment and seek to maintain and/or reorient the alignment of our political leaders and parties with the natural law that forms the foundational moral worldview implicit in our American political culture and system of government. Secretary Rubio and Representative Ocasio-Cortez have done us a great service in clearly staking out the opposing moral worldviews at work in America’s political parties. The question is now put to the American people, which future are we willing to work for?