Texarkana, a unique community straddling the Texas-Arkansas border, experienced notable economic progress during President Joe Biden’s tenure, yet the local electorate’s political choices tell a contrasting story of growing conservatism.
In the 2024 elections, despite unprecedented economic growth under a Democratic administration, Texarkana residents cast an even larger share of votes for Donald Trump than in previous years, underscoring a complex political dynamic.
This region exemplifies the broader struggle faced by the Democratic Party in maintaining and regaining support from working-class voters.
The Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 designated Texarkana as an “energy community,” making it eligible for the Energy Community Tax Credit Bonus and paving the way for a surge in renewable energy projects.
According to recent research by Zikai Li, a University of Chicago Ph.D. candidate, the green energy boom in Texarkana has even influenced local education, with Texarkana College introducing specialized courses in solar panel installation.
In March 2023, the TexAmericas Center announced plans to allocate 400 acres within its 12,000-acre industrial park for green energy data centers, aiming to attract major companies seeking to expand data storage infrastructure.
Further advancing the region’s green economy, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $225 million in September 2024 to TerraVolta Resources LLC to establish a lithium production facility valued at over $1 billion. This initiative, funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is projected to produce at least 25,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate annually—enough to supply batteries for approximately 500,000 electric vehicles per year.
These green industry developments coincided with positive economic indicators for Texarkana.
Between January 2021 and January 2025, the metropolitan unemployment rate dropped from 6.8% to 4.2%, while the region’s gross domestic product surged from $5.8 billion in 2020 to $7.2 billion in 2023, the latest figure available.
However, these economic gains did not translate into increased political support for Democrats in the area.
Political analyst John Sides noted the concept of “deliverism” during Biden’s presidency—the idea that politicians can secure votes by providing tangible benefits to their constituents.
In practice, this strategy fell short nationally and was especially ineffective in Texarkana.
In the 2020 election, Texarkana, comprising Miller County, Arkansas, and Bowie County, Texas, supported Donald Trump by a 44.6-point margin. Four years later, despite economic improvements and green energy investments, Trump expanded his lead to a 50.8-point margin over Kamala Harris in the same counties.
This steadfast support for Trump illustrates the resilience of his core base despite controversies and declining poll numbers, raising concerns about the potential long-term impact on democratic institutions if his party gains further power through redistricting and elections.
Experts on democracy offer varying perspectives on the reasons behind this political shift and broader national discontent.
Common themes include economic stagnation in rural and suburban areas, the interplay of racial tensions and immigration opposition, the left’s failure to address certain communal and spiritual needs, rising elitism within the Democratic Party, and Trump’s ability to channel widespread resentments across diverse groups.
Questions arise about whether a strong commitment to democratic values has become an exclusive ideal for affluent, educated elites, while being neglected or deprioritized by lower-income populations.
There is also debate about whether a significant segment of the population has become dismissive of liberal policies and so deeply loyal to Trump that they overlook his shortcomings.
Susan Stokes, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, highlights inequality as a fundamental factor influencing these trends.
In a recent cross-national study co-authored with Eli G. Rau, Stokes revealed significant correlations between income inequality and democratic erosion in the 21st century.
Harvard scholars Robert Putnam and Michael Sandel emphasize cultural factors in explaining contemporary political developments in the United States.
Putnam argues that increasing social isolation has fueled authoritarian populism and political polarization, with a decline in bridging social capital contributing directly to movements like Trumpism.
He questions how communities can rebuild trust and social bonds in the face of these challenges.
Putnam also acknowledges other elements undermining liberalism and democracy, including economic and cultural shifts.
Michael Sandel, author of 'Democracy’s Discontent,' views Trump’s rise as symptomatic of frayed social ties and a weakened democratic state, worsened by policy failures under both major parties.
He points to the 2008 financial crisis, where government bailouts favored banks while neglecting homeowners, as a catalyst for widespread populist anger.
Sandel also recognizes the legitimacy behind political movements like Brexit and Trump’s election, citing their roots in feelings of community and belonging that social democratic parties have failed to address.
He stresses that right-wing factions have capitalized on patriotism and communal identity, areas often neglected by the left.
These analyses illustrate the complex interplay between economic and cultural factors shaping the challenges facing American democracy.
Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu contends that liberalism is caught in a dilemma of its own making, particularly due to failures of the elite left to address community needs.
Acemoglu attributes much of the current political discontent to this disconnect and critiques the liberal focus on individual autonomy over collective values.
William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explores these tensions in his forthcoming book 'Anger, Fear, Domination: Dark Passions and the Power of Political Speech.'
He argues that human nature’s conflicting impulses shape contemporary politics, making opposition to liberal democracy inevitable in some respects.
Galston outlines several reasons for resistance to liberal democracy: it limits majority rule, requires tolerance of minority views, demands acceptance of opposing opinions, and necessitates compromise—conditions that frustrate those seeking ideological purity.
He also identifies common errors among liberal defenders, including myopia (overemphasis on economic issues while dismissing cultural ones), parochialism (disregard for national attachments in favor of transnational identities), and naivety about human nature and political realities.
These illusions leave liberal democracy vulnerable to populist and autocratic challenges that exploit cultural concerns and identity politics.
The current political environment reveals a fragile democracy facing significant threats to its institutions and values.
Trump’s persistent challenges to constitutional norms, courts, universities, and democratic alliances underscore these vulnerabilities as many institutions bend under pressure.
Despite the bleak outlook, there remains hope as these political trends and movements are not irreversible.
0 Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!