Here’s some numbers for you: According to a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll, 31% of all Americans believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, including two-thirds of all Republicans. Furthermore, 30% of all Republicans believe things have gotten so off track that true patriots may need to resort to violence to save the country.
It shouldn’t have to be said, but the idea of Republicans resorting to violence to save the country is neither a hypothetical nor a distant memory. Neither are efforts by the leadership of the Republican Party to placate the delusions of the insurrectionists or whitewash the events of 1/6. The reason responsible GOP leadership is in short supply is basic mathematics: Alienate 30% of your party’s base and it becomes impossible in many states and congressional districts around the country to assemble the electoral majorities needed to gain power. In constituencies with high concentrations of that insurrectionary 30%, a responsible Republican would struggle to win a primary; where those forces can be blunted in a primary, they still need to be courted in a general election.
That’s how you end up with someone like Chuck Grassley, the Senate’s most senior Republican, declaring at a rally with Dear Leader a few weeks ago, “I was born at night, but not last night. So if I didn’t accept the endorsement of a person who has 91% of the Republican voters in Iowa, I wouldn’t be too smart. I’m smart enough to accept that endorsement.” That guy’s spent the past forty years of his life representing Iowa in the United States Senate, and after all that time he doesn’t have the political clout or rhetorical skill to stand up to a con artist among his own people or in the halls of Congress. Grassley can mow his own lawn, but faced with an autocrat, he can’t stand on his own two feet.
It’s also how you end up with Representatives Ann Wagner of Missouri and Michael McCaul of Texas. The same day the two of them voted against holding right-wing political strategist/Harvard grad/Goldman Sachs alum/Hollywood producer Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating 1/6, a Politico reporter overheard them conversing with one another at a Capitol Hill event. McCaul told Wagner he hoped she got a more conservative district in Missouri following redistricting. Wagner replied, “Then you get those wacko birds.” To which McCaul responded, “That’s why we had to vote the way we did today!” Actually, no, if you’ve got a problem with the wacko birds, you could start fixing that by finally taking an honest look at 1/6.
It’s also how you end up with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropping in on The View (I know) and basically agreeing with Mitch McConnell’s assertion that it was time to move on from the events of 2020. McConnell is trying to get Republicans to stop claiming the 2020 election was stolen and focus instead on critiquing Biden’s record as president. That would be fine if McConnell was also interested in holding Trump and his minions accountable for spreading lies about the integrity of the 2020 election and instigating the insurrection, but he wants all that swept under the rug so the American public looks at Republicans primarily as opponents of Biden rather than democracy in general. For her part, Rice made it clear 1/6 was wrong and that law enforcement should prosecute the rioters to the full extent of the law (she didn’t say anything about the instigators; the rioters are such chumps.) But she also wants to move on to the “kitchen table” issues American voters are more concerned about (i.e., “the price of gasoline, inflation, what’s happening to their kids in school.”)
Which, yes, that stuff’s important. But so is democracy. Rice said she cried watching the events of 1/6 because she believed stuff like that only happened in other nations and not in the country she grew up in, but that only makes the events of that day that much more remarkable, right? If political life in the United States suddenly resembles political life in all those countries she looked down upon while serving as Secretary of State, maybe we just shouldn’t move on from that. She also said she was heartened when she saw Congress return to its work after the insurrection, but there were a lot of members of Congress who tried to do legally that night what the rioters tried to do illegally that day, which was overturn an election. If Republican legislators can’t be convinced their fun and games have gone too far when a raging mob shows up in their chambers looking to usurp their own constitutional authority, what will?
I get you’re a respectable Republican and all that, Condi, but when it comes down to it, don’t you have to admit the problem isn’t just Trump or the insurrectionists but the Republican Party itself? Regardless the merits of conservatism, isn’t it true the only way Republicans can come close to being a governing majority in this country is not only by entertaining but empowering a demonstrably dangerous and antidemocratic faction of right-wing (not my words) wacko birds? Yes, if you respectable Republicans broke with Trump, both you and the insurrectionists would be shut out of power, but political exile’s the logical consequence of playing with that sort of fire, right?
Then again, maybe I’ve seen too many Aaron Sorkin productions or am just too naïve when it comes to politics and human nature, but maybe I’m a fool to think Americans are all that invested in democracy in the first place. I’m not just thinking about Republicans here, either. If American democracy was under siege, which I’d say it is today, how many Democrats and unaffiliated voters would come to its rescue?
Just consider the gubernatorial election underway today in Virginia, where Democrat Terry McAuliffe is running against Republican Glenn Youngkin. Over the past twenty years, Virginia has flipped from a predominantly Republican state to a predominantly Democratic state. In 2020, it voted for Biden by 10 points. Recent polls have the governor’s race a toss-up that ever-so-slightly favors Youngkin.
Youngkin seems like an affable guy but there’s no way he should be given the keys to the governor’s mansion. In the Republican primary, he couldn’t give a straight answer when asked if Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election or if he would have certified Biden the victor had he been governor at the time. Once Youngkin had the nomination, he called Biden’s victory “certifiably fair” but made “election integrity” his number one issue for some time. He’s indicated he believes Virginia’s election machines should be audited even though they already are and have never been found defective. Asked by voters about the prospects of the courts reinstalling Trump as president and the possibility that dead people vote, Youngkin shot neither down but suggested each was possible. Even though the two have kept their distance from one another, Trump has endorsed Youngkin, while Youngkin has never disavowed Trump. If McAuliffe does eke out a victory the (again, not my words) wacko birds in Virginia won’t rest until they’ve delegitimized the state’s electoral process. If Youngkin wins, who knows if he’d have the spine to stand up to Trump in 2024 if Trump demanded the governor disqualify a Democratic victory in the state. Youngkin, after all, has sown the ground for such a move.
But why is the election even close to begin with? Yes, it is a midterm election and those tend not to favor the party in the White House, and it’s not as though it’s inconceivable for a Republican to win in Virginia. But I would just think voters would be eager to reject a party that’s taken as undemocratic a turn as the Republican Party has over the past year, particularly when its candidates cozy up to those undemocratic elements. Isn’t that supposed to be the main lesson of the first and last days of high school civics?
It turns out while enthusiasm among Republicans is through the roof, enthusiasm among Democrats is way down. Democratic voters are disappointed Biden hasn’t gotten more done. (I understand the frustration, but are they familiar with one Joe Manchin?) Independents meanwhile are frustrated there hasn’t been more progress with the pandemic and are worried about inflation and job growth. I get that, I really do, but have they really weighed the alternative and the consequences of sitting this election out? Isn’t “This party stands for democracy; the other not so much (here’s the video footage)” enough to get someone to the polls these days?
Again, maybe it’s the naïve civics teacher in me, but I would like to think Americans believe democracy is not only a good in-and-of itself but the paramount political good that ought to be defended above all else. I don’t know if that’s the case anymore for most Americans. Maybe it never was. For me at least, democracy possesses obvious ethical content that is both conceptual and practical in nature: It’s about the sovereignty of the people, the consent of the governed, the right to vote, free and fair elections, open debate, toleration of difference, majority rule/minority rights, rule of law, the non-violent resolution of political disputes, and the peaceful transfer of power. And not only would most Americans probably nod their head and agree that, yes, that is more or less what democracy is, but I’d wager that’s also their experience of what democracy is and ought to be.
Lately, though, I’ve sort of come to realize (most? a lot of? some?) Americans’ appreciation for the ethical content of democracy is pretty thin. In some cases, it seems Americans take democracy for granted: Democracy is the American Way, the thing America does, so whatever America is doing, that’s democracy. Someone who thinks that way probably needs to reflect more on the deeper, substantive meaning of democracy.
That doesn’t seem to be the main issue today, though. I think the bigger concern is that a lot of Americans regard democracy as a delivery system. Democracy is how someone gets their way, how they or their tribe ends up in charge, how the government provides for some sort of personal or social good (i.e., security, economic prosperity, certain standards of living, etc.) If those things aren’t met—if someone is on the losing end of a political dispute, if their allies aren’t operating the levers of power, if those personal and social goods are in short supply—then it’s not just the fault of the people running the government, but more and more, it seems people are faulting democracy for that failure. That to me seems like a lot to hang on democracy. I get that democracy is supposed to be responsive to the people and deliver for the people. If it’s not, maybe that means the problem is a suboptimal democratic system that needs reform or a regime that needs to be replaced. But that doesn’t mean you give up on democracy or conclude there’s no substantive difference between a regime that honors democratic norms and one that would trample all over them (especially when there’s footprints.) Democracy remains a paramount value that deserves defense in its own right.
With that, I’ll admit Condoleezza Rice kind of does have a practical point to make when she argues the country needs to move past 1/6 and get back to talking about kitchen table issues. The reason she said that, of course, is she believes talk of 1/6 hurts Republicans while talk of kitchen table issues—issues like inflation, jobs, and wages—will help Republicans and hurt Joe Biden and the Democrats. But in another light, if there’s a big chunk of voters who regard democracy more as a delivery system that is either succeeding or failing at its job of providing personal or social goods to the people than as a normative system that is a good in-and-of itself, then those like me interested in preserving democracy can’t expect to win elections by imploring voters to stand up for democracy. If you want to preserve democracy, you’ve got to deal with the kitchen table issues. You’ve got to connect with the voters who at this point could take democracy or leave it.
Bernie Sanders put it better last week while advocating for Biden’s Build Back Better plan. Outside the Capitol, Sanders said, “If we fail [to enact a progressive agenda with the reconciliation bill] - in my view, if the American people do not believe that government can work for them and is dominated by powerful special interests, the very fabric of American democracy is in danger. People will no longer believe, have faith that their government represents them. That’s what this issue is about.” In other words, democracy needs to deliver for the American people, or the American people won’t deliver for democracy. And if Joe Manchin cares deeply about democracy, then that’s a pretty good reason to finally make himself the hero of the movie he’s made himself the star of. Say all he wants about the price of the reconciliation bill; talk to me instead about the price of democracy.
The main thesis of Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book On Revolution is that the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution (and the reason the American Revolution succeeded while the French Revolution failed) is that unlike the French Revolution, which came to revolve around the social question of alleviating poverty, the American Revolution focused on the so-called political question, which was how to create a space to interact with others politically. According to Arendt, the United States at the time of its founding was not caught up in a quarrel with Britain or with itself over matters of economic deprivation and could therefore train its attention on creating a public sphere that allowed for political activity and the flourishing of democracy. The new French republic, on the other hand, could not avoid the problems associated with mass poverty. That meant political debates became matters of life and starvation, and it became easy for a problem-solving man-of-the-people like Robespierre to appeal to the masses with demagoguery and authoritarianism. Hence the Terror. Arendt’s conclusion then is that in order to avoid a devolution into authoritarianism, nation’s ought to focus on building robust political spaces where citizens can engage one another over matters of public concern rather than have the government obsessed with the delivery of economic goods.
It’s a powerful argument, albeit a circular one. It suggests democracy flourishes when the people are not constantly preoccupied by and demanding the relief of their material concerns, which in turn suggests the way to lay the groundwork for a flourishing democracy is by addressing the people’s material concerns. If I have to choose, I think I’ve made it pretty clear I’d prioritize the political over the material; I’d rather suffer a bad democratic leader than a good authoritarian one. Perhaps that stance comes from a point of privilege since I’ve always had the relative luxury of observing and participating in politics without my material well-being on the line. (As a side note, a point Arendt doesn’t make powerfully enough in her work, presumably because she had seen how economic desperation had contributed to the rise of totalitarian dictators in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, is that unfettered capitalism and consumerism are also ways in which the economic can undermine the political.) Still, I guess it’s frustrating to me that more voters wouldn’t rally to democracy’s defense in a time of peril (we’ll find out if I’m wrong or right tonight) although it’s also easy for me to understand why someone who’s seen good-paying jobs leave their town, or who got laid-off and had to take a new job with less pay, or who’s behind in their student loan payments and can’t find affordable child care, or is afraid to take a day off work because they don’t have sick leave, or is helping a parent with their prescription drug bills…yes, it’s easy for me to understand why people like that would get disillusioned with American democracy. So for those of us who do consider the preservation of democracy today’s most pressing political issue, let’s not disillusion ourselves about what it’s going to take to save democracy.
Thanks for reading.
Photo credit: Fragment of Flags II by Jasper Johns (1970)
Exit music: “The Killing Moon” by Echo and the Bunnymen (1984, Ocean Rain)