The Democratic Party’s repositioning as the party of “normalcy” has drawn scrutiny for seemingly contradicting its history of advocating for emancipatory social movements and potentially fostering an antidemocratic ethos.
Governor Tim Walz emerged as the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate by leveraging the concept of “weird,” a term he used to critique Former President Donald Trump’s agenda. During the Democratic National Convention, Walz repeatedly questioned, “Is it weird?” in reference to Trump’s politics, receiving affirmative responses from the audience. This emphasis on “normalcy” is part of a broader Democratic strategy against the MAGA movement, characterized by appeals to patriotism, family values, and neighborliness, areas traditionally dominated by Republicans.
While the emphasis on normalcy has gained favor among many liberals, it poses a dilemma for the party, potentially jeopardizing its fundamental goal of defending democracy. Historically, the democratization of American politics has advanced through movements that challenged conventional norms. The Democratic Party has often acted as a coalition harnessing these movements to foster democratic reforms. However, as an electoral strategy, the current emphasis on normalcy may undermine this tradition and contribute to an antidemocratic ethos.
The use of “normal” dates back to the mid-19th century, originally in medical contexts to describe average health. This term played a significant role in the eugenics movement, which linked “normal” health with racialized ideals of citizenship and a healthy body politic. Over time, “normal” evolved in popular discourse to symbolize both what is natural and what is desirable politically. The 1920 presidential campaign of Warren Harding epitomized this shift, as he called for a return to “normalcy” after World War I, a rhetoric echoed in current Democratic strategies against Trump.
Historically, the American political landscape has often deemed democracy a radical departure from desirable political order, favoring tranquility and stability. Founding figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton viewed democracy with skepticism, advocating for political structures that insulated elite rule from popular pressures to maintain social order.
American democratizing movements have continuously challenged the notion of tranquility and normalcy. From the New Deal onward, the Democratic Party has been an agent of progressive change, aligning with social movements and promoting liberal democracy. Instances such as President Obama’s reference to the Stonewall riots, LBJ’s civil rights advocacy, and FDR’s engagement with labor unions illustrate the party’s historical commitment to challenging the status quo.
The first draft of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech originally titled “Normalcy, Never Again,” highlighted the risks of retreating into the comfort of normal times. King’s vision was that genuine democratic engagement requires direct action and public consciousness, resisting the temptation to settle for a normalized, tranquil political landscape.
The current invocation of normalcy by Democrats aims to restore the post-civil rights era as a settled state of democratic rights, contrasting with the MAGA movement’s nostalgic vision. However, this narrative also risks diminishing the revolutionary aspect of civil rights movements, which sought not to normalize but to radically transform society.
Democrats must navigate this critique of normalcy while addressing the inherent antidemocratic tendencies of key political institutions like the Electoral College, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. These institutions were designed to maintain stability by buffering citizens from direct political power, reinforcing a normalized political order.
As the 2024 election approaches, the Democratic Party faces the challenge of defending democratic procedures and civil rights gains without reinforcing the very normalcy that facilitated the rise of movements like MAGA. The ideological consequences of electoral strategies may ultimately reshape the party’s role from a champion of democratic change to a defender of established norms.
