The Political Elites Don’t Hate Each Other, They Need Each Other (And They Know It)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of any affiliated organizations or institutions.
It’s easy to think of Democrats and Republicans as sworn enemies, especially when the leaders of these parties spend most of their time reminding us with fiery speeches, relentless finger-pointing, and headline-grabbing showdowns.
But what if I told you that they aren’t actually enemies? In fact, they’re reliant on each other– and they know it. They need each other to thrive and they depend on the competition that they seem to want to eliminate. Let me show you how.
In my Strategic Management class at Rutgers University I teach a famous case on the competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. In this case, students read about the long and bitter rivalry between the two soda companies. At the surface, it appears that they are trying to do everything to eliminate each other– desperately fighting for shelf space and consumer attention and loyalty.
What students come to realize is that deep down, these two competitors need each other. The presence of a direct, intense competitor forces them to innovate, experiment with creative advertising, and continuously improve upon their products. Without Pepsi, Coke would have less motivation to change for the better, and vice versa.
At its core, Coke and Pepsi’s behavior can be explained by game theory — a concept from mathematics and economics that looks at how individuals (or groups) make strategic decisions within a competition. This theory reveals how competitors navigate rivalry to maximize their own success while being acutely aware of their competitor’s actions and potential responses.
In game theory, there are two types of games: finite games and infinite games. In a finite game, there are clear rules, a defined endpoint and a winner and loser. These games are all about short-term strategies to win. In an infinite game, there is no defined endpoint. Thus, the objective of the game for both parties is to just keep the game going. In the case of Coke and Pepsi, they know the mutual benefits they gain from the ongoing game and so they treat their rivalry as an infinite game. And that’s good for the consumer.
Engaging in infinite games has proven widely beneficial in the political realm as well. The Cold War is one such example of this. Neither the Americans or the Soviets wanted the game to end (nuclear war), so they cooperated to dismantle their warheads and avoided escalating the conflict any further.
For the Democratic and Republican party elite, the game is the same but the result is far worse.
Democratic republics, by nature, create the conditions for an infinite game. The primary goal of democracy is not to achieve a definitive end, but to maintain the system’s continuous functioning and adaptation to the people’s will. Thus, for the Democratic and Republican party leaders, their objective isn’t to win a final, decisive victory (the rules of the game prevent this), but to perpetuate and intensify their ideological competition. Why? Because they both benefit from it.
Look no farther than the exorbitant amount of campaign fundraising as a signal of their mutual interest in the infinite game. Back in May, Donald Trump pulled in over $50 million in the 24 hours after the guilty verdict in the “hush money” case by claiming that the Democrats were on an unlawful witch hunt. And with continuous messaging that Donald Trump and the Republicans are an existential threat to democracy, Kamala Harris’ campaign was able to raise $200 million in the first week of her candidacy. By all indications this presidential election cycle will see the highest campaign fundraising numbers, ever.
Having a strong opponent is essential to keeping the base active, motivated, and most importantly, donating.
Intensifying the competition to an existential level has also prevented party factions from forming and jeopardizing their joint grip on the game. An ABC/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found that Harris’ favorability jumped 8 points from before she was the presumptive nominee, with the highest boost coming from her own party. And the story is the same for Trump, who received a 9 point boost following the assassination attempt, mostly from conservative-leading voters.
Each party makes the public case that the other is a defined, fundamental enemy that requires strength in numbers to defeat. This keeps internal divisions at bay and solidifies the party’s coalitions. Even party factions that may have splintered with fundamental disagreements on policy, such as the progressive wing’s disagreement with Democrat leaders’ stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict and libertarians’ disagreement with Republican leaders’ support of Ukraine, have remained loyal to the party.
Together, they intensify this competition as a way to co-reign over the electorate and prevent any new players (parties) from entering the game.
And their collusion in this game leaves the American public as the losers.
With both parties singular focus on staying in the game, the needs and concerns of the populace are overshadowed. This is why when one party gains control of the government, they often focus on reversing the policies and legislation enacted by the previous administration. It’s why we see issues like abortion, healthcare reform, and tax policy oscillate on the debate stage with no progress toward the bipartisan issues that Americans agree on.
In the two decades after the ratification of the constitution was ratified, congress passed 12 constitutional amendments. Yet, in the twenty-two decades since, only 15 have been added — and zero since 1992. This occurs despite Americans widely supporting amendment proposals for things like campaign finance reform (72% support), term limits for congresspeople (87%), and a balanced budget amendment (80%). The parties instead focus on the contentious issues that reinforce and perpetuate the game, versus the systemic issues with bipartisan support.
The solution is simple: we need another player in the game.
Introducing a formidable third party would disrupt these dynamics and create a game not with stagnation and gridlock, but compromise and collaboration. Borrowing from game theory, we can presume that because no single party would be able to secure a majority of its own, the only way to continue in the game is through coalition-building and common ground. Its why many European countries have been able to quickly and flexibly pass responsive legislation despite having upwards of dozens of different political parties.
Until we add another player to this game, be skeptical of the proclaimed hatred coming from the Democratic and Republican elite. They are mutually benefitting from a game that has led you to fiercely debate and fight with loved ones, distrust critical institutions, and lose faith in the democratic process itself. Make no mistake, those sitting at the top of the Democratic and Republican parties are both winning in this game of democracy, and we are the ones who are losing.
If you appreciated the insights in my article, I would greatly appreciate your applause, comments, and sharing to help it reach a wider audience. Also if this type of work interests you, be sure to check out some of my other articles, academic research, and new book.
