Gerrymandering In The Current United States Political Climate

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power” - Abraham Lincoln. The House of Representative holds half of all the power of the Legislative Branch of the United States.

Each of the 435 representatives in the House are in control of a district in the state they are representative of. These districts are subject to change in size and shape every ten years. This redrawing of the district lines is carried out by the state legislature who may have a political bias. If the state legislature chooses to, they can draw the district lines so they yield a major advantage for the party of their allegiance. This bias of district line drawing is termed gerrymandering, in reference to the first publicly known instance of it in 1812 by Elbridge Gerry(Neupert 8). While this strategy is considered political foul play by most citizens, both political parties indulge in its use but have different moral reasonings for allowing it to continue. The views of both Republicans and Democrats on utilizing gerrymandering are directly correlated to their position of structural racism in politics as well as their morals, which are based on the Moral Foundations and Strict Father Models.

In order to analyze both parties’ views on gerrymandering, the structural racism in today’s political forum must also be scrutinized. The United States has had a history of having a government dominated by white males. The current House of Representatives shows no differences. The current house of representatives has a fair amount of representation for each race, but the issue comes from the party that those races side with. While the United States has an approximate population that is 72% caucasian, congress has a 77%. While this statistic is not overwhelming, the detail that is important is the fact that Republicans in Congress are 94% caucasian(Morris, Adolphe, & Salam). This means that the Republican party primarily draws its support and power from white voters. This is something that the party keeps in mind when drawing district maps in states they control. Due to this fact, it is federally illegal for state legislature to draw their lines based on race lines. However, this does not restrict their ability from drawing their districts on the basis of party lines.

A major issue that can still occur is that it is still hard for federal legislature to recognize when lines are drawn with the intent to disenfranchise minority voters. In 2017, an instance of racial bias occurred in North Carolina as citizens sued the state legislature for creating unfair districts back in 2011(Warner). These maps prevented people of color from having fair representation by cracking their districts up for the Republican majority to gain an even larger majority. This is just a single example of how Republican utilize gerrymandering due to structural racism. The Democrat party does indulge in gerrymandering to sway their seats in the House, but it typically involves reversing changes made by Republicans in previously gerrymandered district lines.

The political parties in the United States can be analyzed using Elisabeth Wehling and George Lakoff’s Strict Father/Nurturant Parent models on the basis that the Republicans align well with the Strict Father model and the Democrats’ morals correlate more with the Nurturant Parent model. In relation to the model of the Strict Father, Republicans relate with the idea that the Strict Father believes that he is morally right and he must ensure that his morals are protected(Lakoff 14). In fact, the Strict Father would go so far as to say that people who have opposing views to him are directly threatening his existence. This nicely fits with the Republicans’ ideas that they should use whatever tools are at their disposal to aid their power struggle.

Another important correlation from the Strict Father model to the Republican thoughts on gerrymandering is Elisabeth Wehling’s idea that “a moral society needs as much competition as it can get”(Wehling 5). This relates due to the fact that the Republicans and conservatives in general tend to take a very “you versus us” stance on most policies. Gerrymandering is no exception here, as the Republicans would much rather change party lines to gain power and reduce people’s rights than to allow for equal distribution and lose power. The Nurturant Parent model has a couple of aspects that align well for Democrats.

For example, the Nurturant Parent model believes in cooperation rather than in competition(Lakoff 10). This correlates with the Democrats views on racial disparity in gerrymandering issues as they would much rather include minorities into their correct districts than to “crack” or “pack” them into a wrong district. While they do promote cooperation for equality of voters, they still have a desire to gerrymander districts in their favor. This relates to the idea from the Nurturant Parent model that the parent is still the major authority(Lakoff 10). In other words the Democrats will still do everything in their power to keep and gain power, but for more of the purpose to allow equality.

The Moral Foundations model, set forth by Johnathon Haidt, provide the grounds for analyzing where conservatives and liberals gain their stances on different policies based on morals. The different foundations include care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation(Haidt). In contrast to the Strict Father/Nurturant Parents models, both Democrats and Republicans strangely share the same views when it comes to the Moral Foundations model. In terms of the care/harm foundation, this tangles mostly with the conflict empathy versus gaining an advantage(Haidt 155).

For gerrymandering, it can be seen that both parties have this conflict in them and they do not seem to worry about empathy when it comes to gaining power. In terms of the fairness/cheating foundation, this incorporates the moral concerns of whether something is just and fair(Haidt 158). Both parties have a similar understanding that while it may be unfair to voters in gerrymandered districts, it is a necessity for a party to maintain power long enough to generate reform. The loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion foundations do not influence either party too much. However, the sanctity/degradation foundation relates greatly to the premise that gerrymandering is an acceptable method for politicians to use.

This is due to both parties viewing gerrymandering as a method that is almost required to gain power in the American political system. Due to their morals, both parties have generated a desire to be rid of gerrymandering but also do not want to give their opposing party an advantage. The Democratic party supports a system that would generate districts on a grid, where each district had the same amount of people with an equal amount of representation(McAlevey). The Republicans deny this because it aggravates their Strict Father model-based morals of it being their ability in that position of power to weaken those with opposing views to them.

Also this would greatly change the districts, due to residential segregation. In the United States, it is statistically shown that people are segregated based on their race and economic status(Golash-Boza 1456). Due to this fact, the districts could not have equal representation. The Republican party generally would prefer to keep the current system of allowing gerrymandering in place, due to their major advantage at the moment. They gained this advantage by gaining control of state legislatures which draw the maps of congressional districts(Vozzella). This movement, otherwise known as REDMAP(Redistricting Majority Project) is proof of the Republican party’s alignment with the Strict Father’s ideal of competition in society.

In conclusion, the views of both Republicans and Democrats on gerrymandering can be correlated to their role in structural racism and their morals, based on the models of the Strict Father/Nurturant Parent and the model of Moral Foundations. Structural racism can be found in the racial composition of both parties throughout history and in the current legislative branch. This racism can be further analyzed to the fact that the Republican party contains a much larger percentage of white males than the Democrat party. The Strict Father model applies to the Republican party on the topic of gerrymandering due to the fact that the model conveys the ideals that those in the position of power should use it to silence opposing views.

Another idea from the Strict Father model that Republicans use to enforce their views on gerrymandering is that society is competitive. In this mindset, the Republicans view Democrats as weak willed and will do anything in their power to maintain power. The Nurturant Parent model applies to the Democrats view on gerrymandering, as it imposes the ideas of cooperation and in maintaining equal control. However, in terms of the Moral Foundations model the two parties contain the same views on how morally correct gerrymandering is. The morals enforce their desire to be rid of gerrymandering but is limited by their views on the sanctity/degradation of gerrymandering. Overall, the views from Republicans and Democrats on gerrymandering can be traced back to how structural racism affects their parties’ power and their morals, as it pertains to the Strict Father/Nurturant Parent and Moral Foundation models.