The dangerous new purity tests consuming US politics

PUBLISHED: May 23, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

One of the most revealing transformations in modern American politics is no longer simply the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats. It is the growing intolerance for dissent within both parties themselves.

The recent political targeting of Sen. Bill Cassidy and Rep. Thomas Massie illustrates the reality now consuming the Republican Party under President Donald Trump’s continued dominance. Both men voted with Trump’s broader agenda the overwhelming majority of the time, on taxes, judicial appointments, deregulation, immigration, energy policy and numerous core conservative priorities. Yet because they occasionally broke publicly with Trump on defining moments, they became political targets for removal and punishment.

To Trump’s supporters, this is not unfairness. It is accountability.

Many Republicans believe the party establishment failed conservative voters for decades by promising aggressive reforms during campaigns, only to govern timidly once in office. From their perspective, Trump represents not merely a politician but a correction, a forceful rejection of institutional weakness, globalism, bureaucratic complacency and performative conservatism. In that environment, public opposition to Trump himself becomes symbolic of opposition to the movement voters elected him to lead.

Supporters argue voters delivered Trump a mandate, not a suggestion.

There is truth in that argument. Trump has undeniably reshaped the Republican Party more dramatically than any Republican president since Ronald Reagan. The party today is more populist, nationalist, confrontational and skeptical of institutions than at any point in modern history. Trump’s political strength rests largely on the belief among millions of Americans that he fights while others merely manage decline.

But there is another side to this story that future historians may examine far more critically.

Political movements become dangerous when loyalty to a person begins to outweigh loyalty to principles, institutions or independent judgment. A healthy democracy requires coalitions broad enough to tolerate disagreement without immediate political destruction. When every disagreement becomes betrayal, politics slowly shifts from persuasion toward fear and obedience.

That is why some conservatives quietly worry that Trump’s victories inside the Republican Party may eventually prove Pyrrhic.

A Pyrrhic victory secures immediate dominance while weakening long-term sustainability. Trump’s ability to pressure, isolate or politically threaten Republicans who dissent demonstrates extraordinary power. Few modern political figures have maintained this level of influence over a party after nearly a decade at the center of public life.

Yet there are long-term risks.

If legislators become afraid to disagree publicly even when representing their own states or districts, independent governing begins to erode. Debate narrows. Serious policy disagreements become personal loyalty tests. Over time, parties become less intellectually flexible and more emotionally tribal. Eventually, movements risk revolving entirely around the personality and instincts of one leader rather than around durable governing philosophies.

At the same time, Republicans are not alone in this evolution.

Progressives within the Democratic Party increasingly apply similar purity tests, though with less force and effectiveness, at least for now.

Democratic politicians who deviate from progressive orthodoxy on immigration, policing, gender ideology, climate policy, Israel, race or criminal justice frequently face immediate activist backlash, donor pressure, online outrage campaigns and primary threats. Moderates within the Democratic coalition often walk a political tightrope, fearful that one poorly worded statement or vote could trigger accusations of betrayal or moral failure.

The difference is that Democrats remain more institutionally fragmented. Their coalition includes labor unions, suburban moderates, establishment liberals, minority voters, young progressives, corporate donors, environmental activists and democratic socialists. No single Democratic leader currently commands the same level of centralized authority over the party that Trump commands over Republicans.

But the instinct toward ideological purification exists there as well.

On the left, it often manifests through cultural and activist pressure. On the right, increasingly through personal loyalty to Trump and his political movement. Both trends reveal a larger national problem: Americans are losing the ability to tolerate internal disagreement without demanding political exile.

This is not healthy for a constitutional republic.

The American system was intentionally designed around tension, negotiation, compromise and competing viewpoints. The founders did not envision political parties functioning as ideological churches where deviation becomes heresy. Democracies survive not because everyone agrees, but because citizens and leaders learn how to coexist amid disagreement without viewing opponents or even dissenters within their own coalition as enemies deserving destruction.

Unfortunately, social media, cable news outrage and algorithm-driven politics are accelerating the opposite behavior. Political identity is becoming emotional identity. Public officials are rewarded less for thoughtful governance and more for performative loyalty to their tribe. Nuance is punished. Reflection is viewed as weakness. Compromise is portrayed as surrender.

This creates a dangerous cycle.

The more parties reward absolutism, the more thoughtful and independent voices disappear. The more fear dominates politics, the more governing competence declines. And eventually, both parties risk becoming movements driven less by ideas and more by grievance, emotion, and permanent conflict.

America should be careful before celebrating that transformation.

Trump may indeed view these battles as proof of strength and voter mandate. Progressives may view their own ideological enforcement as a moral necessity. But history often judges movements not by how effectively they silence dissent in the moment, but by whether they leave behind institutions capable of enduring after the passions of a particular era fade.

That is the real question confronting both parties today.

Not whether they can punish dissenters.

But whether they can still govern a divided republic without destroying the very culture of democratic disagreement that allowed the republic to survive in the first place.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2026 Baltimore Sun