The Leftward Shift of American Politics
How We Got Here
Hi friends,
The Democrat Party. How to describe it. I think each generation for the last 30 years would describe it differently. It has not just evolved, but seemingly mutated. What used to be ‘liberal’, then ‘progressive’ has changed so much that little about the party isn’t outright radical. Common sense and logic have been thrown away.
So, using Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example for this shift of values - I too was on board with the values of freedom of speech, civil liberties, and equal treatment under the law. In other words, our Constitution.
You may have heard it said by some that they didn’t leave the Democrat Party; it left them.
While Ginsburg may not seem like a current topic, the trajectory of the Democrat Party is very relevant today.
Really, this post is to show not just one party moving left, but it’s a lesson in how the Overton Window has pulled everyone else left too.
A Party That Left Its Icons Behind
The Democratic Party once held up figures like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as champions of liberal values: equality before the law, civil liberties, due process, and freedom of speech. But over the last three decades, many of those very principles have been rebranded or outright rejected by a party that has marched steadily leftward. What was once mainstream liberalism is now often labeled centrist, or even conservative.
This transformation hasn't been limited to politics. The legal realm has mirrored this ideological migration. Justice Ginsburg offers a case study—not because she changed, but because her surroundings did. By tracing her rulings, her philosophy, her public statements, and her peers, we gain insight into just how dramatically the Democratic Party and progressive legal thought have evolved.
Ginsburg in Context — Then vs. Now
Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg was a trailblazer for gender equality and a voice for civil liberties. She valued precedent and institutional integrity. While clearly a liberal for her time, she was no revolutionary. In fact, she often warned against sweeping judicial activism.
"Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication."
She was known for opposing Roe v. Wade’s sweeping structure—not because she opposed abortion, but because she believed it circumvented the political process and invited backlash. Today, even voicing that procedural concern would be politically risky in mainstream Democratic circles.
She also stood firmly for women’s sex-based rights—well before the mainstream left redefined the terms around gender identity.
The Overton Window and the Democratic Drift
The Overton Window—a concept describing the range of acceptable public discourse—has shifted dramatically leftward, particularly from the 1990s to the 2020s. Here’s how that looks:
Issue Acceptable in 1990s Acceptable in 2025 Resulting Perception Shift
Ginsburg once warned that using the courts to short-circuit difficult democratic debates may backfire, noting in her 1992 Madison Lecture that Roe had "halted a political process" and diverted attention from incremental reform.
From God to No God; Party Platforms — 1990s vs. 2024
Removing “God” from the Platform
In 2012, the Democratic National Convention removed the word “God” from the party platform.
This sparked controversy, and after public backlash, the word was hastily reinstated during the convention via a voice vote—which drew boos from a portion of the crowd.
Since then, references to faith have remained minimal in official documents.
Other Justices in a Shifting Landscape
This drift becomes even clearer when comparing other justices:
Stephen Breyer: Once a liberal pragmatist, now seen as too cautious by progressives.
Anthony Kennedy: Defended gay rights and religious liberty. That nuance now draws criticism from both sides.
Clarence Thomas: Once the outlier, now often seen as the anchor of a Court more aligned with constitutional originalism.
All of them, including Ginsburg, would likely struggle to be confirmed by today’s Democratic Senate given the ideological litmus tests that dominate judicial politics in 2025.
Why It Matters
The modern left often claims the mantle of progress, but with each leap forward, it leaves behind many of its own icons. Figures like Ginsburg, once liberal lions, now find their values dismissed or reframed as antiquated. That shift doesn't just change party platforms—it changes how history is written and how laws are interpreted.
Today, those who still believe in the values of the pre-2010 Democratic Party—freedom of conscience, civil debate, incremental reform, equal protection under the law—may find themselves politically homeless. Or, sometimes, voting Republican.
A Movement That Left Its Base Behind
If your mother, father, or grandparents once voted Democrat out of loyalty to working-class values, civil liberties, and measured governance, they'd be hard-pressed to recognize today’s party.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t change. But the world around her did—profoundly. And if she were nominated today, she might not even pass her own party’s litmus test.
Her judicial legacy, when viewed through the lens of today’s progressive orthodoxy, reveals more than ideological evolution—it reveals a rupture in foundational principles.
The Shifting Overton Window (1990–2025)
God bless you, God bless President Trump and team, and God bless America!
The battle for our God-given freedoms is always just starting.
Subscribe at RationalAmerican.org for more facts, insights, and uncensored commentary.
As always, do your own research; make up your own mind.
This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims are based on publicly available sources and are presented as political analysis, not legal conclusions. No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual or organization unless supported by formal public record.
The views expressed reflect my personal perspective on current events. While I strive for accuracy, readers are encouraged to verify details using the official sources linked above. References to third-party material are included for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to ensure appropriate context and clarity.
(AI may have been used in this article.)
Stay calm - President Trump is a businessman who operates strategically, and not everything will make sense at first. His plan to shrink government and Make America Great Again is a process, not an overnight fix. Trust the long game, not just the headlines.
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!
I agree with your description, but as far as "How we got here" I have a different take. My position is that the focus of raising money by the Democratic Party has led to a party that more reflects its donor base than the average American. The average American is more conservative than the national Democratic Party and it's a shame. Would you be interested in a Democratic Party that returned to its true roots? One that emphasized local control (and local responsibility)?