In 1964, at the Republican National Convention, Nelson A. Rockefeller warned that factions fueled by hatred, prejudice, and fear could take over a major political party and endanger democracy. By 2026, his fears were validated unexpectedly. Both major parties now show the same patterns he cautioned against, as influential factions in each exploit resentment and division to redefine party identity and direction.

The political strategies later perfected by Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump show how modern coalitions mobilize voters through populism and identity conflict. This replaces the broad governing consensus that Rockefeller believed democracy needed. Each presidency encouraged Americans to see politics through cultural divisions: distrust of government, the politics of identity, or populist revolt. Economic power became less central to public debate. The policies of both political parties show that neither addresses the middle class’s problems.

Rockefeller argued that democracy depends on accountability of economic power and resistance to ideological extremism. The contrast between his vision and the culture-focused strategies that now predominate helps explain why the twentieth-century middle-class consensus has eroded. Reagan, Obama, and Trump each mobilized discontent in different ways but left the concentration of economic power—a core concern for Rockefeller—largely unchanged.

I graduated from high school in 1980. Most of my friends went to college while I tried to find my purpose. That September, I took a temporary job in a textile warehouse. Around this time, Ronald Reagan became President. I soon experienced deindustrialization first-hand. The work stopped in 1981. Six months later, I was rehired, but the company soon closed. Years later, I learned the job was offshored. I did not know millions of Americans were facing this same shock. Its consequences would affect politics for decades. Reagan redirected working-class anger from economic power to government. Deregulation, tax cuts, and attacks on organized labor sold out the American worker. Reagan did not shrink government. He shifted who benefited: away from democratic institutions and public programs, toward corporations and wealthy actors. The Western Electric Kearny Works, near where I grew up, employed 24,000 people after World War II. By 1983, only 4,000 remained. The plant closed in 1984, in large part due to Reagan’s policies. Ironically, many parents of my friends who worked there voted for Reagan and thought he was the savior of the working class.

One Western Electric worker said many co-workers voted for Reagan: “There were a lot of programs we figured Reagan would get rid of—fraud in food stamps, fraud in this, fraud in that, but nobody ever figured he’d knock the block off the blue collar worker.” Reagan’s acting ability, confidence, and optimism—along with his “Government is the problem” message—spoke to workers who felt betrayed by the Democratic Party. The Western Electric story is a microcosm of today. Voters do not always see the effects of the policies their candidates support, are misled by politicians’ promises, and are deceived by rhetoric. Looking back, Reagan’s vision of America as good was admirable. But his legacy was about changing government priorities, not reducing government. Now, the government is a problem for average Americans seeking help, yet a solution for bankers or corporations seeking bailouts or relief from the harm caused by deregulation.

Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency centered on an unclear idea of change. Early in his career, no one really knew what that meant. Like Reagan, the government became the problem, but in a different way. Instead of letting corporations operate without restraint, the Obama years focused on a social vision that prioritized cultural debates over economic issues. For some, the government needed to atone for past sins and address systemic racism. Obama never said America is inherently bad in his speeches or policies. Obamacare, while imperfect, still aimed to expand healthcare coverage for more Americans. Still, his words helped create the environment we see today. Many young Americans and politicians now criticize their own country. Like Reagan, Obama shifted government power by focusing on cultural and identity initiatives rather than economic improvements for average citizens.

Donald J. Trump filled the void created by Reagan and Obama. Trump publicly praised Reagan, but his message was actually a rebuke of Reagan’s policies. Trump said American workers were betrayed by elites who let industries move overseas. This message resonated in communities that lost manufacturing jobs. Even Trump’s biggest supporters must admit the America First promises remain unfulfilled. Deindustrialization has continued for about half a century, starting around 1970. Americans must realize that businessmen start businesses for profit, not to build a middle class. Deindustrialization was driven by big business, with government support. Anyone who believed Trump or any politician would bring back a fully American-made economy was misled by propaganda.

The trajectory of American politics since the 1960s shows why Rockefeller’s warning is urgent: only by focusing on the balance of economic power and resisting partisanship fueled by resentment can democracy endure.

Rockefeller and his contemporaries believed that democracy’s stability relies on balancing economic power through strong public institutions and keeping political parties focused on practical problem-solving rather than resentment. Their vision was one of shared prosperity, accountable corporations, and political moderation—an ideal now challenged by today’s politics.

Over the past half-century, however, American politics has moved in a different direction. Political leaders increasingly discovered that mobilizing voters through cultural grievance, identity conflict, or populist anger was often easier than confronting the structural economic forces reshaping the country. The result has been a political system in which citizens are encouraged to fight one another over cultural disputes while the deeper concentration of economic power continues largely unchecked. If American democracy is to reclaim stability and truly serve its citizens, we must heed Rockefeller’s warning and demand a governing vision grounded in accountability, unity, and a renewed commitment to the public good.

The experiences of the past several decades, from the factories that quietly disappeared in communities like mine to the growing frustration of voters across the country, suggest that Rockefeller’s concerns were not merely theoretical. They were a warning about what happens when political leaders abandon the difficult work of building broad governing coalitions and instead pursue short-term political advantage through division. Rockefeller was a pragmatist who believed government should actively solve practical problems rather than follow strict ideological rules. As governor of New York (1959-1973), he helped create the State University of New York (SUNY) into a major statewide network, and he believed that universal healthcare was a human right and had a plan to make it a reality. He abhorred political labels like “liberal” or “conservative” and favored an Aristotelian middle-of-the-road approach. He asserted we must be “conservative in our loyalty to eternal truths that define the nature, the freedom and dignity of man, liberal in our constant and tireless quest to find ever new ways to meet ever new threats to this freedom and dignity, and progressive in a spirit that rejects escape to yesterdays that perhaps never existed while looking ahaed with optimism and confidence to the tomorrows of ever more secure liberty, more universal justice and more fruitful peace; the middle course pathway of our journey to national unity.”

If American democracy is to regain the stability and shared prosperity that once defined much of the twentieth century, it may require rediscovering the principle that Rockefeller tried to defend: that the purpose of democratic government is not simply to win elections, but to ensure that political power and economic power remain accountable to the citizens they are meant to serve. In a democracy, citizens often blame the system, elites, media, or fate for political outcomes. I believe that if a political system is dysfunctional, the responsibility ultimately lies with the citizens who tolerate it, vote for it, or disengage from it. Over sixty years ago, in words that seem prophetic, Nelson Rockefeller said ‘In times like these, especially, the irrelevance of the ideologist and the extremist to the solutions to the problems we face becomes increasingly clear.” I hope my fellow Americans will heed those wise words. Although the term has become a pejorative, after years of vacillating between liberal and conservative views, I proudly proclaim I am a Rockefeller Republican.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)