The competing faiths of the 2024 election

The Restorationist Roots of Modern Republicanism

The language of restoration has deep antecedents in American Protestantism. In the early nineteenth century, movements led by figures such as Thomas and Alexander Campbell and J.R. Graves sought to recover what they believed were the pristine practices of the early church. These restorationists shared a conviction, as historian Richard Hughes notes, that the "first times" were normative for contemporary belief and behaviour. Crucially, they also viewed America as the chosen vessel for their religious project — Alexander Campbell hoped his version of primitive Christianity would become the nation's civil religion, while Graves proclaimed the United States "the hope of the world."

Ronald Reagan, raised in the Disciples of Christ tradition founded by the Campbells, secularised this restorationist impulse. His 1980 campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised a return to an idealised past of deregulation, union-busting and constitutional originalism. The famous 1984 "Morning in America" advertisement framed Reagan's presidency as a re-experiencing of the nation's beginning. White evangelicals, who had supported fellow believer Jimmy Carter in 1976, switched en masse to Reagan and became the activist base of the Republican Party.

Restorationism as GOP Orthodoxy

By 2012, restorationist language had become obligatory for Republican presidential aspirants. Newt Gingrich called for restoring "America as a nation like no other." Rick Perry urged a restoration of "the nation's principles." Ron Paul's slogan was "Restore America Now." Michele Bachmann wore a pin reading "Restoring constitutional conservative values." Mitt Romney's super PAC was named Restore Our Future — a striking echo given that Mormonism itself emerged from the same antebellum restorationist ferment. The 2012 Republican platform used "restore" and its cognates twenty-one times across sections titled "Restoring the American Dream" and "A Restoration of Constitutional Government."

Donald Trump's 2016 revival of Reagan's original slogan was not an innovation but a continuation. The MAGA takeover of the Republican Party represents the establishment of restorationism as the GOP's defining faith. This has profound implications for policy: a restorationist worldview tends to favour deregulation, originalist jurisprudence, and a scepticism toward international institutions perceived as constraints on national sovereignty.

The Meliorist Counter-Tradition

The Harris campaign's reversal — "We're Not Going Back" — draws on a rival American tradition: meliorism, the belief that society can be improved through human effort. This vision finds expression in the Constitution's preamble commitment to "form a more perfect Union" and in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address resolve that the nation experience "a new birth of freedom."

Barack Obama articulated this faith in his 2008 "A More Perfect Union" speech at the National Constitution Center. Acknowledging the Constitution as "ultimately unfinished" and "stained by this nation's original sin of slavery," he pledged to continue "the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America." The meliorist faith is prospective rather than retrospective: it sees America's greatness not in a recovered past but in an unrealised future.

Commercial and Regulatory Implications

For business leaders and procurement professionals monitoring the US market, the contest between restorationism and meliorism translates into divergent regulatory trajectories. A restorationist administration typically pursues aggressive deregulation, particularly in energy, finance and environmental protection, while appointing originalist judges who may constrain administrative agency authority. This creates opportunities in fossil fuels, traditional manufacturing and sectors benefiting from reduced compliance burdens, but introduces uncertainty for businesses reliant on stable regulatory frameworks or international supply chains.

A meliorist administration, by contrast, tends to favour expanded regulatory oversight — especially on climate, labour standards and consumer protection — and a more expansive view of federal agency powers. This can increase compliance costs in the short term but may offer greater long-term predictability and alignment with global ESG standards. Companies with significant US exposure should scenario-plan for both regimes, paying particular attention to judicial appointments that will shape the administrative state for decades.

Global Resonance and Market Signals

The restorationist-versus-meliorist dynamic is not confined to the United States. Similar tensions appear in European debates over national sovereignty versus supranational integration, in Latin American contests between traditionalist and progressive coalitions, and in African discussions about post-colonial development models. Multinational enterprises should recognise that the 2024 US election is a bellwether for a broader ideological realignment affecting trade policy, technology regulation and climate finance.

Early market signals suggest investors are pricing in regulatory divergence. Sectors perceived as restorationist beneficiaries — domestic energy, defence, certain financial services — have shown resilience amid policy uncertainty. Meanwhile, clean energy, electric vehicles and companies with strong diversity and governance profiles remain sensitive to polling shifts. Procurement teams should assess supply-chain vulnerability to potential tariff escalations, immigration restrictions and changes in federal procurement preferences under either administration.

What this means

The 2024 election presents American voters with a choice between two deeply rooted faiths: one that looks backward to a restored past, and one that looks forward to a more perfect union. For the global business community, the outcome will determine not merely the next four years of US policy but the trajectory of the regulatory, judicial and trade environment for a generation. Understanding the theological genealogy of these competing visions — restorationism versus meliorism — provides a more reliable analytical framework than polling averages or policy position papers alone. Whatever the result, the underlying cultural cleavage will persist, shaping commercial opportunities and risks across markets from Lagos to London. Prudent leaders will prepare for both futures.