This is an opinion piece, not a news piece, and is properly presented as such. So it will be by definition biased, in this case towards a pro-Democratic view. The arguments are presented without obvious logical errors and in good faith, even if someone with opposing views will be unlikely to agree with its arguments after reading it.

I'm not totally sure how to respond to this because it's not really "news." It's analysis, certainly with a liberal bend. I think it's a reasonable interpretation of what's happening, but when Serwer starts talking about the Republican Party, I wish he used a bit more attribution. For example, he says: "As the parties have become more racially polarized, and the Republican Party has become more exclusively white and Christian, Republicans have begun to think of themselves as the only genuinely legitimate actors in the polity." I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but Serwer doesn't really use any evidence to directly support that. This is a longer op-ed, and readers should treat it as such.

A hackneyed, hyperbolic, and caterwauling piece of word-salad. Not an example of journalism by any stretch of the imagination, but more a hastily constructed combination of political screeds. The author's bias is shot-through this incoherent affront to the intellect of the inquisitive reader seeking unbiased commentary. Not a worthwhile read. Your humble critic had to practically flog himself to get through it.