Where We Stand 2 — The Republican Party

 What Shall We Do with the Republican Party – Part 2

David Hilfiker

On January 6, 2021, while the reverberations from the Capitol insurrection were still bouncing off the walls, 70% of the Republican members of the House of Representatives voted against the certification of the 2021 presidential election results, part of a months-long unsuccessful effort to overturn the results of the election and re-elect Donald Trump president.  As I began to document in this previous post, this is neither the first nor will it be the last attempt by the Republican Party to subvert our Constitution.  The damage inflicted on our democracy will take years, perhaps decades, to heal.

Does the Republican Party have a place in the American liberal democracy*?  

Last March, I argued that it did not.  Since then much has happened that supports the argument.  Numerous pundits, for instance, Zaheed Fakaria, have come to the same conclusion.  In this post I will not repeat the reasons for condemning the Republicans that I made back then but expand them and add new ones.

If we are going to consider the future of our democracy, we must understand the Republican Party and what has happened to it.

Refusal to Disavow Trump’s Claims to Election Fraud

Since the 2020 presidential election, well over half of the Republicans in Congress have participated in an effort to overturn its results, claiming electoral fraud.  In fact, however, Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security declared that the election “was the most secure in American history.” There is no evidence for fraud.

Most Republicans initially defended themselves by saying that they supported Trump’s taking all legal remedies afforded him, which he did, filing over sixty suits claiming illegal voting.  He lost all of them.  Even after offering financial rewards for evidence,

Mr Trump and his allies … failed to prove definitively any case of illegal voting on behalf of their opponent in court — not a single case of an undocumented immigrant casting a ballot, a citizen double voting, nor any credible evidence that legions of the voting dead gave Mr Biden a victory that wasn’t his.

Did Mr Trump have the legal right to file all those suits?  Of course he did.  But did the Republican Party have the moral right to support Trump’s argument.  The election results were incontrovertible within days.  Several courts ruled Trump’s suits were “without merit.”  There were no innocent motives for other Republicans to support his efforts.  The only plausible motives were to discredit the 2020 election, cast doubt on the electoral process itself, or, most likely, simply show fealty to the President for fear of alienating his supporters.  These efforts culminated on January 6 with the Republican refusal to certify the vote, an extreme dereliction of duty.

The Republican attempt was, as all the lawmakers knew it would be, ultimately unsuccessful.  That does not, however, mitigate the seriousness of their action.  Unlike the support for Trump’s previous legal suits, it would have been unconstitutional at that point to overturn the results of the election by decertifying them.  Their effort alone disqualifies the national Republican Party as a legitimate political institution, even without the mounds of other evidence.

Several weeks later in Trump’s impeachment trial, most Republican Senators compounded the sin by not holding him responsible for the insurrection that he clearly incited.

Does It Matter?

There were Republican voices claiming that supporting Trump’s suits didn’t really matter.

Without clear Republican leadership, however, three in four Republican voters did not believe that Joe Biden won the election, even after the insurrection.

As the violent invasion of the Capitol vividly demonstrated, there are real-world consequences to millions of Americans’ belief that Biden is not (or may not be) our legitimate president.  The insurrection is only the most obvious; even more serious is the millions who have lost faith in the electoral process — the lynchpin of democracy.

History of Republican Party Racism

Missing from my original indictment last March was the 50-year history of blatant racism within the Republican Party.  The party was originally formed as an anti-slavery party prior to the Civil War.  It was re-formed, however, in the 1970s around President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” designed to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to their racism.  Democrat Lyndon Johnson had strongly supported the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965), both of which passed with a minimum of Southern votes.  (Only one Southern Senator from Texas voted for it.)  Johnson knew his actions would deeply alienate large numbers of southern Democrats, even saying at the time, “There goes the South …”  He was right; the Southern Democrats were ripe for picking.  Nixon and other Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.  The Southern Strategy (see Kevin Phillips The Emerging Republican Majority) is almost certainly the primary force that transformed the South into a Republican bastion.  Since then, Republicans have counted on often-unspoken racism, eg Ronald Reagan’s anti-welfare campaign used only Black images (despite the fact that Blacks were a minority of welfare recipients) or George HW Bush’s notorious Willie Horton ad.  A long and continuing history of voter suppression (see below) and anti-drug laws are other examples.

Trump’s use of racism, then, is not new to the Republican Party, only cruder.  It has no place in a modern American political party.

Voter Suppression

Despite zero-evidence of significant modern individual electoral fraud, the Republican Party has made voter suppression targeting Blacks and minorities, an essential part of its political strategy.  (See my post from June 2019 and the next post in this series.)  According to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, lawmakers in 33 states have crafted more than 165 bills to restrict voting so far this year.  Absent evidence for significant historical or modern voter fraud (despite President Trumps 65+ lawsuits trying to find it in the recent election), the original argument that measures to prevent voter fraud were necessary has largely fizzled.  The new argument is that these laws are necessary to reassure voters that the electoral system is secure, a doubt that has taken root only because of Republican (especially Trump’s) lies.  President Trump acknowledged the real purpose of the attempts at voter suppression when he argued against expanding vote-by-mail provisions: They would mean “you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Refusal to Convict

Despite the overwhelming evidence of then-President Trump’s responsibility for the January 6 insurrection, forty-three Republican senators voted not to convict him of the impeachment charges brought by the House.  Their fig leaf was that it was not constitutional to impeach an ex-president**,  a contention rejected by a bipartisan group of 150 legal scholars.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had it both ways, voting against conviction and then delivering a scorching diatribe accusing Trump of “a disgraceful dereliction of duty ….  [He] was] practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of [January 6]."

Tolerance for Extremists Within the Party

In their book How Democracies Die, Steven Levitzky and Daniel Ziblatt analyze the democratic countries that have fallen into autocracy over the last century (eg Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland).  They have done so not primarily by violent revolution but because the legitimate political parties were unable to control the extremists within until it was too late.  Finland, on the other hand, prevented right-wing takeover by the far-right Lapua parties in the 1930s because the legitimate Finnish conservative parties prevented their take-over before they became too powerful.  Others (eg Belgium and England) did the same.  The United States similarly stopped Father Coughlin and George Wallace.  

But the Republican Party did not act early on against Trump and has clearly been captured by the far right.  It is almost certainly impossible for the moderate Republican lawmakers to re-take control of the Party.  The voices of the few sane Republican lawmakers (eg Romney, Collins, Sasse) have been ignored.  The far right is firmly in control.  It’s too late for rehab.  Dismantling is the only option.

_____________
* The term “liberal democracy” has traditionally been used to refer to governments with freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and so on.  In this context, the term “liberal” refers not to the current “liberal” vs “conservative” political divide but to the 18th and 19th century English philosophical systems based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.  Democracies that do not guarantee these rights are called “illiberal democracies.”
** Trump was no longer president in part because then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had delayed bringing the House impeachment papers to the Senate until Trump was no longer president.

Where We Stand 1 – Partisanship

David Hilfiker

This post will deal with current American political partisanship and polarization, the first of six issues I mentioned in my last post.  

Partisanship has become a disabling condition in our American politics.

• We have not had a well-functioning government for many years because “winning” has taken precedence over what’s good for the country.   
• Political affiliation has become more important than the health of the country (eg wearing masks).   
• Half of the Americans in one party are afraid of the other party.  Similar conditions in other countries have frequently led to the failure of democracy.
  

Partisanship Is Not Necessarily Bad

Often lost in our disgust with the polarization, however, is the fact that that political parties and the partisan conflict that follows are healthy and necessary aspects of any democracy; they are its lifeblood:  

• Parties bind disparate citizens together in a common purpose, providing a shared sense of collective energy necessary for a functioning democracy. 
• Competition gives parties incentives to respond to voters. 
• Losing parties keep the winning parties accountable by threatening to take away their supporters.  
• Parties mobilize and engage citizens to win elections, in the process bringing many otherwise apathetic citizens into politics.  

As E.E. Schattschneider observed in 1942, 

“Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.” It is unthinkable, because without competing parties, voters lack meaningful choices. Partisan conflict is necessary for democracy, because one-party politics is not democracy. It’s totalitarianism.

At the end of the day, citizens in a functioning democracy understand that there are no permanent winners or losers — just temporary electoral swings.  As the editors of the Washington Post write:

Democracy can work if citizens can view the opposition as patriots such as themselves who happen to disagree, perhaps fervently, about the issues of the day. It cannot work if citizens view one another as enemies … Democracies die when they can no longer distinguish between honest opponents of another ideological kind and toxic enemies who come from far outside all normal values.

Extreme Polarization

Our democracy is, however, under deep threat.  But it is not partisanship in itself that is the problem but rather the degree of polarization.  As we seek to repair our country, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  We must find our way back to a healthy partisanship rather than this deep hostility.   

In the United States, the core problem is that the fundamental disagreement in our politics is now not over policy but over what it means to be an American; it’s over what our nation’s core values are.  When division involves purity and impurity, when it devolves into an unadulterated contest between “us” and “them,” then there can be no bargaining, because there are no negotiable principles, just team loyalties.  “We” are good and pure, while “they” are evil and corrupt. And, of course, you cannot compromise with evil and corruption.  

According to a recent CBS News poll most (almost 60%) of Republicans view Democrats as enemies rather than political opponents.  A little over 40% of Democrats view Republicans as enemies.  The hostility toward the other (not just policy differences with the other) is even encouraging Democrats and Republicans to reside in separate geographic areas creating echo chambers that then reinforce the hostile feeling toward “the other.”  Research indicates that identity (as part of a group) drives polarization more than do policies.

This is the kind of politics that leads to democratic breakdown and violence, and it’s where we appear to be headed, if we are not already there.  

This Is Not New

We should not imagine, however, that this degree of partisanship is new to our country.  According to the Institute of American History:

The presidential election of 1800 was an angry, dirty, crisis-ridden contest that seemed to threaten the nation’s very survival.

The unfolding of this crisis tested the new nation’s durability. Nasty political mud-slinging. Campaign attacks and counterattacks. Personal insults. Outrageous newspaper invective. Dire predictions of warfare and national collapse.

Presidential candidates Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the Electoral College throwing the election into the House of Representatives where each state had one vote.  That vote was also tied.  It took six days and 36 votes before the only delegate from Delaware switched votes, making Jefferson president.  It wasn’t until twelve years later that the unity inspired by the War of 1812 began a process reconciliation, ultimately ushering in the “Era of Good Feelings.”

Not all periods of partisanship ended so happily, of course.  Certainly, the worst polarization in the nation’s history developed in the mid-19th Century after the Era of Good Feelings degenerated over the issue of slavery.  That, too, was a bitter, ugly time, ultimately precipitating the Civil War.  Regrettably racial animus infects us still.

So, today’s polarization is not new, but its history should not inspire an easy confidence.  Healing will take effort and, undoubtedly, sacrifice and compromise.

Local Non-Partisanship

What might make reconciliation possible is that the most extreme of American partisanship is about national politics.  At least some writers suggest that the country is far less partisan than it seems.  After a several-year-long set of trips around the country, James Fallows writes in the Atlantic, that although people are quite pessimistic about the nation, they are very hopeful about their own town, even in those Rust Belt places that are so negatively described in the national media.  (They are all, as Garrison Keillor might say ironically, above average places to live.)  Civic engagement; civic governance; positive attitudes about the local immigrant community (although worse since Trump); enthusiasm about schools and libraries, and other signs of vibrance are commonplace.  Similarly, in a 2016 Atlantic poll,

only 36 percent of Americans thought the country as a whole was headed in the right direction. But in the same poll, two-thirds of Americans said they were satisfied with their own financial situation, and 85 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with their general position in life and their ability to pursue the American dream.

 Even after the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, governors of sixteen states plus the territory of Puerto Rico and nearly four hundred mayors announced that they would continue to observe the Paris climate goals.

If the partisans described above were asked about members of the opposite party who live in their town, the animus would be much less.  This might give us a starting place for healing.

This Is Where We Stand and Where We Might Go

We stand in a time of sharp political partisanship and increasing social and geographic polarization.  The 2020 election was far closer than we like to admit.  Despite the huge popular vote victory and the seemingly large Electoral College victory, a swing of only 90,000 votes over three states would have given not only the presidency, but also the House and the Senate to the Republicans.  The election of Joe Biden and his desire to move toward reconciliation are important, but they do not change the underlying hostility and separation.    

In his inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke to a nation facing civil war:  

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

At an intellectual level, many in the country recognize that our democracy is threatened by our current extreme polarization.  These people, however, seem to be able to ignore their partisanship when it comes to local issues.  What matters is what’s best for their community not their party affiliation.  Local communities not only view the national partisanship negatively, but, despite it, they also get stuff done.  Perhaps dispersing more power to localized political and regional institutions might give us an avenue toward less polarization.  Although there are obvious policy differences between the parties, it’s not the issues that separate us; it’s the tribal loyalty.

Without being facile or pollyannish about the chances for ultimate success, is it possible to enlarge our tribe to include all of us?  Is there a way out that does not involve more violence?

 David Hilfiker

So … Where Do We Stand?

David Hilfiker 

The passing of President Donald Trump from the presidency into some form of political limbo is a good time to examine the damage that has been done to our democracy.  The problem has not been just Trump or even mostly Trump.  He’s been a symptom of a much deeper illness.  We’ve been fortunate that our first presidential demagogue has been so incompetent.  Democrats have responsibility for some of the damage.  Republican politicians as a party, however, have done the most harm.  

The election of Joe Biden, as important as it is, will not in itself stop our slide into autocracy.  Rather, we must consider what it will mean to prepare ourselves for a long struggle.  Over the next several posts, I hope to periodically interrupt my regular postings with a series essays entitled “Where We Stand,” an examination of some of what we and President Joe Biden will have to work with as we go forward.  

I intend to look in more detail at the following issues.  I have at one point or another written in this blog about each of them but each deserves a revisit, and, more importantly, an examination of how they interlock to endanger us. 

1. Our country has been left with a brand of ugly partisan politics that makes intelligent debate about critical national issues almost impossible.  Our partisanship has moved beyond politics and now infects many other aspects of our continuing experiment with democracy.  According to a Nielsen survey,   
   

   Nearly 60 percent of Republicans and more than 60 percent of Democrats agree … that the opposing party is a serious threat to the United States and its people.     
   

   Not only can we not agree on what the facts are, we can’t even agree on the concept there is such as a thing as absolute, verifiable truth.  “Alternative fact” is a nonsense concept that nevertheless seems to have acquired a reality of its own.  Well over half of Trump voters believe that Biden lost and is not our legitimate president.   
   
2. The Republican Party has corrupted itself and become a danger to democracy.  With a few important exceptions, the Republican Party (both its congressional leaders and, to a large extent, its base) has aligned itself with Trump and Trumpism, colluding with his ongoing assault on democracy.*  With its increasingly successful voter suppression, attacks on the 2020 presidential election results, refusal to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to reign in a corrupt President, tacit support for far-tight violent groups, and others, the Party has ceased to act within the bounds of politics and must be completely reformed or dismantled.
3. Voter suppression is rampant across the country.  Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, removal of voting booths in minority areas, culling of voter lists, and so on are widespread across the country.  We have made a mockery of one-person-one-vote.  To date, the Supreme Court has not interfered.
4. The acceptability of political violence grows.  America has, since its beginning, been militaristic, but in its current manifestations, its threats to our democracy have grown.  Openly carried assault weapons are legal and frequently visible, militia, threats of violence against political “enemies” are not unusual.  Then-candidate Trump suggested violence against protesters at campaign rallies.**   A peaceful demonstration across from the White House was violently suppressed.  Our political language is ever-more violent.  Incredibly, some members of Congress fear violence from their congressional colleagues.  With such violence comes fear, and fear inhibits democracy.
5. Racism and white supremacy are endemic in the culture.  It is clear that minorities are not full participants in our democracy, which has, in fact, been built upon their oppression, suppression and enslavement.  We cannot hope to be a democracy with the degree of racial injustice that has plagued our country since its inception.
6. Almost half (46%) of Americans indicate a preference for a more authoritarian form of government.  This is not just an objection to our version of democracy, it’s an objection to democracy itself.
   

President Trump has left office.  His explicit attempts to overturn the election were thwarted.  For the time being, the center holds.  President Biden’s inauguration — from Lady Gaga’s “Star Spangled Banner” to Amanda Gorman’s powerful poem, to Biden’s low-key address — acknowledged the precariousness of our democracy yet left us with hope.  It returned the presidency to normalcy.  But can we really recover?  I certainly hope so, but I have serious doubts.  The next two years of the Biden Administration and Democrats’ control of Congress gives us a chance to take a deep breath, evaluate the state of our democracy, and make our plans to preserve it. But our success is contingent upon our willingness to see clearly exactly where we stand.

_____________

* In the last few days Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered a ray of hope by denouncing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and her “loony it's conspiracy theories.”  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, on the other hand refuses to discipline Marjorie Taylor Greene for her belief in those same "loony conspiracy theories.”
** At a campaign rally in 2016, when protesters interrupted, Trump responded, “Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”