Now hold on a second; while yes, everyone wants to win (and keep winning), there's a huge difference between wanting to win in a free and fair election and pursuing measures to win even when the will of the majority is that you don't. When I see the GOP as a party leaning towards authoritarianism, that's the kind of behavior that I'm seeing. There's a difference between wanting to win and being willing to break the rules (and the entire game) to circumvent a fair contest.
I think the point isn't the parties, but the candidates. Challenging elections within the process is fine. Saying the elections is rigged without evidence is not. We've see some of that in times passed (rumors of dead people in Illinois voting for Kennedy for instance), but the were not espoused by the candidates (In this case Richard Nixon!). Trump has a distorted view about how things *should* work as president (which mirrors his experience as a CEO of a family owned business). That view is fundamentally autocratic.
Those candidates that espouse Trumps view of leadership are the ones that can push us to autocracy. I don't see a DeSantis not conceding an election after the court challenges, for instance. He knows when to cut his losses. DeSantis may be a risk to a liberal (or even center-left) agenda, but not a risk to democracy. That was Josh's point. Democracy was on the ballot and it won. It didn't mean that Democrats won everywhere because not all elections where risks to Democracy. That's why Kemp won handedly. He proved himself to be a defender of democracy even in the face of Trump disapproval.
Besides Stacy Abrams, who is very much sidelined within the party, can you give us all one example of a Democrat who called elections in his or her state rigged or unfair? This is despite Republicans perusing voting suppression strategies in nearly every state they control and Dems almost never doing so? I think I somewhat agree with Josh that constantly harping on this is bad politics, but I definitely don’t think Josh is telling us to embrace this kindabothsidesism.
I agree with almost all of this analysis, but I have to quarrel with the use of "autocratic" and "authoritarian" to describe the political tendency that voters rejected here.
Trump has never had an "autocratic agenda." Of the four men to hold the presidency this century, Trump has been the least assertive, the least innovative in expanding the powers of the Executive. Faced with an unprecedented, served-up-on-a-platter opportunity to carve out a de facto federal police power for the President in the face of Covid, Trump ran away screaming, begging, imploring the spirit of Our Federalism to take that cup from his lips.
Trump's abuses of power have centered on (a) using the presidency as a shield for personal corruption, petty and gross, and (b) trying with insane desperation to hang onto that shield despite losing re-election. Both of those are bad, and it's humiliating to watch a great democracy devolve into this sort of clownish opportunism. But none of it has anything to do with authoritarianism or autocracy.
I sincerely hope that the Republicans keep the pressure up and take this opportunity to excise Trump. This being successful isn't even necessarily bad for Democrats in the short term because Trump will try to burn the house down on his way out the door if he loses. But marginalizing him should be the priority of all right-thinking persons. Trump losing influence will not be a cure-all and it won't be immediate, but it is the first step in fixing our current political climate.
I've been appealing constantly to my Republican friends since the election that the Trump coalition is a loser-minority coalition and that it is in their best interests to abandon him immediately.
One small point on abortion. DeWine was the opposite of Zeldin - abortion wasn’t really “on the ballot” because a veto-proof legislative majority makes the governor irrelevant on the topic.
Yes, DeWine signed the bill. But Nan Whaley couldn’t have done anything to stop it if she’d been in office.
The major confounding factor, as Josh alluded to in the footnote, is that the prominent election-denier candidates were also generally weirdos who said dumb things and had never held elected office. It is natural that these things would correlate, but it makes it hard to know why they did badly. Laxalt stands out as an active election denier (helped Trump fight Nevada's outcome in 2020, personally spread lots of nonsense) but otherwise normal guy with normal politician resume. He had an intermediate performance relative to fundamentals, better than Masters/Bolduc/Walker/Oz but worse than De Wine/Santis/Kemp.
If made Speaker and NRCC Chair, I promise to run a correctly randomized study in which 25% of Republican candidates fall in each of the possible weirdo and/or election denier quadrants. #science
This piece feels similar to Andrew Sullivan's most recent piece.
I was surprised by your pre election takes, TBH. I thought you were going to be much more "the conventional wisdom is really getting away from the polls" like you were with Biden in the primaries.
Why would anyone think that Joe Biden's over-the-top claims about the party he does not belong to swayed independent voters, let alone his political opponents? All it did was serve as a reminder that he would sell his soul for a vote or two.
My reasoning was probably used by many. Q1: Does the candidate claim that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen? If no, perhaps the candidate is worth a vote. If yes, this candidate is a fruitcake whose insanity will prevent them from adequately representing me. Move to Q2. Q2: Will the candidate from the other major party win without my vote, or is it mandatory that I vote for them?
Democracy was not on the ballot. Sane representation was.
It continues to baffle me to no end how only the republicans are painted with the goal of authoritarianism.
Both parties would love to be the only party.
Both thinks the other is insane.
I read something recently that that is the one thing they agree on.
I had to chuckle.
It's so close to being true.
If you could just step back and be objective, democrats are as guilty as republicans in their longing for authoritian control.
Now hold on a second; while yes, everyone wants to win (and keep winning), there's a huge difference between wanting to win in a free and fair election and pursuing measures to win even when the will of the majority is that you don't. When I see the GOP as a party leaning towards authoritarianism, that's the kind of behavior that I'm seeing. There's a difference between wanting to win and being willing to break the rules (and the entire game) to circumvent a fair contest.
"Both parties are exactly the same. I am very smart."
I think the point isn't the parties, but the candidates. Challenging elections within the process is fine. Saying the elections is rigged without evidence is not. We've see some of that in times passed (rumors of dead people in Illinois voting for Kennedy for instance), but the were not espoused by the candidates (In this case Richard Nixon!). Trump has a distorted view about how things *should* work as president (which mirrors his experience as a CEO of a family owned business). That view is fundamentally autocratic.
Those candidates that espouse Trumps view of leadership are the ones that can push us to autocracy. I don't see a DeSantis not conceding an election after the court challenges, for instance. He knows when to cut his losses. DeSantis may be a risk to a liberal (or even center-left) agenda, but not a risk to democracy. That was Josh's point. Democracy was on the ballot and it won. It didn't mean that Democrats won everywhere because not all elections where risks to Democracy. That's why Kemp won handedly. He proved himself to be a defender of democracy even in the face of Trump disapproval.
Besides Stacy Abrams, who is very much sidelined within the party, can you give us all one example of a Democrat who called elections in his or her state rigged or unfair? This is despite Republicans perusing voting suppression strategies in nearly every state they control and Dems almost never doing so? I think I somewhat agree with Josh that constantly harping on this is bad politics, but I definitely don’t think Josh is telling us to embrace this kindabothsidesism.
Jay what tips can you give me to view things objectively?
Interested to hear your thoughts on DeSantis's weaknesses!I
I agree with almost all of this analysis, but I have to quarrel with the use of "autocratic" and "authoritarian" to describe the political tendency that voters rejected here.
Trump has never had an "autocratic agenda." Of the four men to hold the presidency this century, Trump has been the least assertive, the least innovative in expanding the powers of the Executive. Faced with an unprecedented, served-up-on-a-platter opportunity to carve out a de facto federal police power for the President in the face of Covid, Trump ran away screaming, begging, imploring the spirit of Our Federalism to take that cup from his lips.
Trump's abuses of power have centered on (a) using the presidency as a shield for personal corruption, petty and gross, and (b) trying with insane desperation to hang onto that shield despite losing re-election. Both of those are bad, and it's humiliating to watch a great democracy devolve into this sort of clownish opportunism. But none of it has anything to do with authoritarianism or autocracy.
I sincerely hope that the Republicans keep the pressure up and take this opportunity to excise Trump. This being successful isn't even necessarily bad for Democrats in the short term because Trump will try to burn the house down on his way out the door if he loses. But marginalizing him should be the priority of all right-thinking persons. Trump losing influence will not be a cure-all and it won't be immediate, but it is the first step in fixing our current political climate.
I've been appealing constantly to my Republican friends since the election that the Trump coalition is a loser-minority coalition and that it is in their best interests to abandon him immediately.
One small point on abortion. DeWine was the opposite of Zeldin - abortion wasn’t really “on the ballot” because a veto-proof legislative majority makes the governor irrelevant on the topic.
Yes, DeWine signed the bill. But Nan Whaley couldn’t have done anything to stop it if she’d been in office.
The major confounding factor, as Josh alluded to in the footnote, is that the prominent election-denier candidates were also generally weirdos who said dumb things and had never held elected office. It is natural that these things would correlate, but it makes it hard to know why they did badly. Laxalt stands out as an active election denier (helped Trump fight Nevada's outcome in 2020, personally spread lots of nonsense) but otherwise normal guy with normal politician resume. He had an intermediate performance relative to fundamentals, better than Masters/Bolduc/Walker/Oz but worse than De Wine/Santis/Kemp.
If made Speaker and NRCC Chair, I promise to run a correctly randomized study in which 25% of Republican candidates fall in each of the possible weirdo and/or election denier quadrants. #science
Notably, GOP house candidates in Nevada outran Laxalt. If he'd run as strongly as they did, he'd have won the election.
This piece feels similar to Andrew Sullivan's most recent piece.
I was surprised by your pre election takes, TBH. I thought you were going to be much more "the conventional wisdom is really getting away from the polls" like you were with Biden in the primaries.
Your first article was the better of the two.
Why would anyone think that Joe Biden's over-the-top claims about the party he does not belong to swayed independent voters, let alone his political opponents? All it did was serve as a reminder that he would sell his soul for a vote or two.
My reasoning was probably used by many. Q1: Does the candidate claim that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen? If no, perhaps the candidate is worth a vote. If yes, this candidate is a fruitcake whose insanity will prevent them from adequately representing me. Move to Q2. Q2: Will the candidate from the other major party win without my vote, or is it mandatory that I vote for them?
Democracy was not on the ballot. Sane representation was.
I appreciate the thoughtful introspection about your prior piece, Josh.
From my perspective.
If it's not OK for one party, it's not OK for the other.
The topic is authoritarianism.
I'm calling out both parties.
Stay on topic please.
Then don't say republicans.
Say Trump and his wingnut enablers.
I still maintain both sides have a strong authoritarian bent if you let them loose.
Great read, Josh. Your take on Scott had me laughing out load. Thanks!
So your only measure of authoritarianism is how some in the party want voting to work?