#850 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday February 5)
Good morning,
In a democratic system, there are two ways to retain power and influence policy. The first is to win elections, implement policies that are appealing to a majority of voters, pass legislation and win again. The second is to abandon the notion that one must appeal to a majority of voters and take the volatility and uncertainty of elections out of the equation. Under this second formulation, in order to retain power, one must make it nearly impossible for the other team to ascend to power. The best way to do this is to use the system in any manner that will result in the retention of power, even bending that system, unfairly if necessary.
We will be celebrating our semiquincentennial in two years—yes, I believe that’s the word. Over the course of that 250 year period elections were held (well, actually, since elections for president began), victors took the reins of power and the defeated worked with the victors for the benefit of the populace, while at the same time refining their policy prescriptions and messages so that they would have a better chance to win in the upcoming election(s). That meant appealing to a broad base of constituents in what hopefully would be a high turnout election.
MOTIVATING THE BASE—NOT APPEALING TO THE CENTER
Contrary to the desire of the Founders, “factions” (their word) arose in the form of political parties. These parties have become gatekeepers to the system. In that capacity, they historically have identified and nurtured qualified candidates, developed platforms of reasonably broad appeal, and ran primaries that would allow the most worthy candidates to rise from the pack. The system was imperfect and did not always lead to the best candidates (how, after all, did Henry Clay not emerge as the Whig candidate for president, while Millard Fillmore did?). Parties also governed behaviors and managed expectations. Back in the “old days,” party leaders could advise Lyndon Johnson on the difficulty of running for a second term or advise Richard Nixon that the jig was up and his support in Congress had evaporated.
Parties would attempt to craft platforms that moved toward capturing the “middle ground” of undecided voters. Then came McCain Feingold campaign reform, which limited contributions to the parties and individual candidates. As the result of this well-intentioned yet damaging legislation, together with the Citizens United case, money flowed primarily to one-issue Super PACs, where contributions are not limited. These PACs typically engage in single “issues” and negative campaigning. With the weakening of the party system, elections have shifted to be about both negative campaigning and “bringing out the base” of the party’s most ardent supporters. We all know well by now that the best way to get people to act as one is to confront a common enemy. That worked pretty well for the Allies in fighting World War II. But a system where the goal is to vilify the enemy—to suggest, as both parties do, that the other will destroy “America as we know it”—cannot maintain a civil society and, ultimately, our democratic institutions are put at risk. The Republican party today seems at following these twin, ultimately destructive, goals.
TURNING OUT THE VOTE
The first step employed in generating permanent minority rule, besides relying on the structural inequities of the Electoral College, has been to continue vilifying all “non-believers,” in order to maximize turnout of the most ardent supporters. Beyond ensuring no attempt to appeal to the middle or to compromise on policy, a byproduct of appealing only to the base is to create a permanent state of war against others.
The second way to win through means other than political persuasion is to reduce turnout by the other party. The current Republican policy works to ensure lower voter turnout. The Democrats do this as well, but less successfully and to a far lesser degree. Reducing the likelihood of voting takes many forms. It includes intimidation at polling places, including photographing voters, denying water to those standing in line, and questioning people dropping off ballots. It continues with limiting the hours for voting (making it particularly difficult for lower wage earners to take time off to vote) and limiting voting by mail and the dropping off of ballots. How is one to interpret the strange Texas law that allows only one drop off location for each county, regardless of population? That means the sparsely populated counties get a drop off location and Harris County, home to many democrats and voters of color, with a population of over 8 million, also gets only drop-off spot.
NEXT, SKEW THE SYSTEM
If the first step on the road to the destruction of an orderly society is to concentrate on turnout versus conversion of the middle, and the second is to vilify your adversary and make it difficult for him to vote, the third is to manipulate districting, such that majorities in the House and in state legislatures can be locked-in through gerrymandering. Both parties do it to one degree or another. But the Republicans are far better at it. A few examples:
Before the last election cycle, the Ohio Supreme Court threw out a redistricting map and ordered the parties to work together on a new map. An agreement was reached and then, close to the election cycle, the Republicans ignored the previously negotiated deal and put in place their own gerrymandered map. Defying court orders apparently has become part of the game.
In Alabama late last year, the court threw out a Republican redistricting map, pointed out that, in creating only one district that barely had a Black majority, the Republican-controlled legislature would have to return a more fair district and allow the Black voters the opportunity to be represented by a second district. The Republicans ignored the court’s order and now a court-managed process is in place. But there is no assurance this legislature won’t choose similarly to ignore the court. There will be claims of foul play in the right wing media, and it will conveniently fail to note that two of the three judges on the panel were Trump-appointees.
In Wisconsin, a liberal justice was elected to the State Supreme Court, tilting the majority 4-3 in the left’s favor. This justice has been outspoken in her resistance to Wisconsin’s laughable electoral maps, created by Republican majorities in the state legislature. These maps, biased toward Republican friendly districting, provide a majority to a party that routinely fails to garner a majority of the votes. But now, the Republican legislature is preparing to impeach Justice Protasiewicz, even before she hears a single case. They claim this is necessary because the Justice refuses to recuse herself from redistricting cases. Never mind that any number of jurists quite openly state their views quite publicly (including, most notably the justices of the Supreme Court). Here’s what former Wisconsin right wing radio host Charlie Sykes notes that: “Republicans feel deeply entitled to their gerrymandered majority.” Of note in Wisconsin, impeachment immediately suspends that justice from hearing cases, even if not ultimately removed by the State Senate. So, this justice, who won by an 11% landslide, was at risk of being denied her ability to act as the people who elected her to office would want. This is not democracy. It is gamesmanship.
Finally, make sure that representation is denied to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Proclaim from the rooftops that this is a Democratic power grab, despite the structural advantages of the Republicans in the Electoral College. Rather than fight for those votes, ensure they aren’t allowed.
THERE IS A FOURTH, MORE TROUBLING, WAY TO DISMANTLE DEMOCRACY
If you don’t like the system of checks and balances, then declare the system invalid or change the system.
The first way to change the system is to try to overturn elections post hoc. This is what Mr. Trump and his sycophants attempted in 2020. To the objective observer (including many Republicans), that election was demonstrated to be the fairest in history, the claims of voter fraud were disproven, and the many recounts supported the conclusion that the election was invalid. Attempts to overthrow the election results were disingenuous and intended to thwart the people. Yet people still maintain that the election was fraudulent. Why? Because in the current tribal mentality, elections are not binary choices between two sets of policies, but battles of good and evil. Secondarily, no amount of facts will convince someone who “knows” the facts based upon their instinct.
Changing the system before the election is held, such that a desirable result is likely, is another way to manipulate the system. It is standard operating procedure in many state legislatures throughout the country. This dismantling is not always the out-and-out change in systems, but includes ignoring time-tested accepted patterns of behavior and cooperation. Some states are laying the groundwork for partisan state legislatures to overturn the decision of the voters (presumably with some flimsy argument that shenanigans may have occurred). Both law and civil order are victims in this process.
THE PRESIDENT CAN CRUSH THE SYSTEM EVEN MORE
Most insidious, however, is the notion of the independent executive and the view that the very instrumentalities of government must be overturned for the “common good,” as articulated by the iconic leader of the MAGA movement. Mr. Trump and his acolytes, including the Heritage Foundation, make no secret of their agenda if there is a second Trump administration.
Most high level civil service positions will be changed to political appointments, enabling the president (presumably in the future always a Republican of the Trump variety) to control every aspect of the federal government.
The Justice Department and the FBI will be brought to heel and converted, as well, to instrumentalities of the executive.
There will be a massive influx of Trump-loyal, often ill-qualified judges appointed to the federal courts. One need only look to the bizarre behaviors of the very young and partison Judge Aileen Cannon in bending over backward to help out Mr. Trump.
They will remake the military leadership of this nation. Through the abuse of the system that allows Senators to hold up nominations, Tommy Tuberville, that accomplished political philosopher and erstwhile University of Auburn football coach, continues to hold up many promotions. The goal, of course, is to deny Biden of the presidential prerogative of granting promotions (these are in the ordinary course, mind you), so that a Republican president can fill these slots.
Have a good day and consider how precarious democracy has become,
Glenn