I hate to break to you but . . . 2024 is going to be tough.
From the New Republic round table last April:
MICHAEL TOMASKY: My first question is a really simple one. Is the Republican Party as currently constituted salvageable?
NICOLLE WALLACE: For what?
(general laughter)
Misconceptions about voting are widely held. Some are easily refuted . . . with science! Political science, to be exact. I’m talking about the recurrent enthusiasm for organized spoilers (e.g., “Third Way,” “No Labels”) and vanity candidates (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, H. Ross Perot).
The idea of a third-party option may be popular—but it is also insidious.1 The US Constitution established an electoral system that favors political competition between two parties. (There are technical, Poli Sci explanations for this. See Duverger’s Law.) Do you want a third (or fourth) choice? Great! Change our first-past-the-post (single-member district plurality) system to a proportional representation system. Good luck organizing a new Constitutional Convention! All the best.
In the Before Times, other countries envied the US constitutional system. Emerging democracies adopted our two-party electoral system because it was associated with stable political competition and incremental change. (As opposed to those nations’ previous experience of volatile politics and revolutionary change.)
Political economist (and former Labor secretary) Robert Reich:
The fact is, America has a two-party system. You may not like it, but that’s our reality. The founders did not opt for a parliamentary system, where citizens have more options of whom to vote for.
So one of the nominees from one of the two major parties is going to win. And if you don’t vote, or you vote for a third-party candidate, you’re inevitably hurting the candidate from one of the major parties who’s closest to you in values — and helping the one farthest from you. [Emphasis in original—m.o.]
How many times have you heard someone justify support for a candidate—support they subsequently lamented—by saying, “I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils”? Be wary if you hear this in 2024: the choice is between democracy (good) and autocracy (evil).
How did we get here?
That the Republican Party has drifted away from its democratic moorings is, among scholars, not in dispute. I can summarize the academic consensus on this issue if you bear with me.2
Over the last four decades, America’s two political parties developed in opposite ways. The Democratic Party became more demographically and ideologically diverse; the set of issues that Democrats wanted to address legislatively also grew. Numerically, the Democratic Party is, with its 49 million voters, the majority party. (The Republicans have 38.8. million adherents.)
As it evolved into a regional, ethno-nationalist-oriented political organization, the Republican Party contracted. The policies that Republicans wanted to enact legislatively similarly dwindled to a handful of wedge issues. Despite (or because of) its declining numbers, the party grew more homogenous and partisan identification more intense.
The parties’ dissimilar demographic and internal developments were also reflected in their changed commitments. As it expanded, the Democratic Party’s dedication to government institutions, norms, and regular order strengthened. But the increased size of the Democratic coalition was both a blessing and a curse. In theory, Democrats have the numbers to consistently win elections. In reality, keeping an increasingly diverse coalition sufficiently unified to achieve electoral success proved a challenge.
The Republican Party went in a different direction. As their numbers decreased, Republicans’ fidelity to democracy attenuated. Attaining power nationally became more difficult, so Republicans concentrated at the state level. Since secretaries of state administer elections, Republicans focused on these races and on dominating state government, more generally.
Republican state officeholders—and especially governors—wield many levers of power. These state officials took control over voter administration and tilted the electoral playing field in their favor. This was done through: gerrymandering congressional districts (so that politicians could choose their voters and not the other way around); restricting voting (messing with voting rolls, times, and places); legal challenges (lawsuits), and intimidation/dirty tricks (harassment of voters by “poll watchers” and spreading voting misinformation via robocalls).
If voters elect a Democratic governor despite the mischief, Republicans seek ways to restrict the power of the incoming (Democratic) administration. This occurred in North Carolina (2016), Wisconsin (2018) and Michigan (2018). And if that doesn’t succeed, Republican lawmakers find workarounds to enact policies the governor opposes.
Anti-democratic efforts by Republicans on the federal level range from the blatantly obvious (Ted Cruz’s objection to certifying Biden’s election win) to the devilishly opaque (Mitch McConnell’s innumerous corruptions).3 So, although the Democratic Party has 10 million more supporters than its competitor, actual political power is split 50/50 in Congress. Only in a handful of “swing states” is there actual political competition. Nineteen state legislatures are controlled by Republican supermajorities; nine states have Democratic supermajorities. That right there tells you something about the declining health of our democratic republic.
Democratic devolution intensified and accelerated under former President Trump. There are many data points and copious evidence to support this assertion. Since we all lived through it, I will omit the tedious catalog. Among scholars of democracy (in comparative politics, history, sociology, and political economy), two questions are still under discussion. First, how close is the Republican Party to becoming fully anti-democratic? The second concerns an endpoint: What will we call a Republican Party that refuses to honor election results and “does what it takes” to remain permanently in power? Autocratic? Illiberal? Neofascist? Populist? Christian Nationalist? Does it matter? None of these are good.
Robert Reich describes the GOP’s death cycle:
The degeneration of the GOP has occurred over many years. I witnessed the first major purge of so-called moderate Republicans in 1994, when Newt Gingrich took over the House. The Senate still contained a few moderate Republicans: I worked with Senators Mark Hatfield, Arlen Specter, John Chafee, Jim Jeffords, William Cohen [etc.]. I found them all to be thoughtful and reasonable.
But moderate Republicans are gone from Congress. . . .
The Republican Party is in an integrity death cycle. As the GOP is taken over by Trump’s enablers and sycophants, the few remaining principled Republican lawmakers want out. As they depart, the Trump rot spreads. Republican lawmakers who remain are the most self-aggrandizing and least principled. Which in turn causes the GOP to degenerate further. [Emphasis in original—m.o.]
Awareness of the Republican Party’s imminent demise (as a small-d democratic party) has not spread to the general public. Citizens don’t realize that zombies have taken over “the party of Lincoln.” Why is that?
News mixed with misinformation passes through multiple channels, every day. Information flows depend on patterns of consumption. Individuals who engage with social media get a different view of events than those who receive information via cable TV or print sources. Mass media fragmentation prevents the “general public” from developing a common understanding. As a result, different, cognitively distinct, social realities coexist. I recognize three.
First, there is an actual day-to-day reality where individuals interact with each other at the store, school, and work. Second, there is a collaborative reality where people are involved in the public business, interacting with government institutions, rules, employment, and civil service. And finally, there is this:
A fantasy reality created by online influencers containing improbable assumptions that believers act on in their real lives.
I’ll take a crack at explaining these next week.
And now, your moment of . . . mid-flight kindness.
Writing—and reading—about serious subjects can be fairly depressing. Grounded will conclude each week with an upbeat piece so that you may leave with a bit of joy in your heart.
Here’s a story about a Pilates instructor who taught herself to crochet during the pandemic and how she surprised her fellow passengers on a plane.
‘Okay, it’s done!’ Stranger floors parents, crochets their baby a hat mid-flight.
Related Grounded articles:
The F Word (August 30, 2022)
Keep scrolling down (below Notes) to reach the comments, share, and like buttons.
Dear Readers, could you please hit the “like” button? It helps improve the visibility of Grounded in search results. Thanks.
Follow me on social media:
Notes:
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, The Tyranny of the Minority.
Manus I. Midlarsky, Political stability of two-party and multiparty systems.
Pew Research Center, Demographic profiles of Republican and Democratic voters, 2016-2022
Michael Tomasky, The (Republican) Party’s over: Rest in pieces
World Population Review, Registered Voters by Party 2024.
I confess: I voted for John Anderson in 1980. And I have regretted that decision ever since.
A selection of sources are listed in the Notes. If you want my full bibliography, send me an email and I’ll forward you a copy.
If you ask the internet, “Is Mitch McConnell evil?” You get a lot of results. Here are some: “Mitch McConnell is an evil genius,” “The banal, evil, all-destructive reign of Mitch McConnell,” “Mitch McConnell is a political genius—an evil one,” “With his unique blend of detached cruelty, self-conscious vileness, and fully-acknowledged evil, which movie character would Mitch McConnell be?”
I don't usually read the feel good note, but I needed it today - after New Hampshire. So glad I did - thank you.
We NEED 2 viable parties for democracy to continue. A "third party" seems to be the only VIABLE beginning of a viable second party. They will not win elections (at first) but will be necessary as the curret Republican Party implodes. If there is no alternative for people to turn to, the choice will always be good vs. evil and that is not sustainable IMO.