As the noxious dust settles from this week’s GOP primaries, some big storylines are coming into view: The Trumpists are ascendant, and in their hands, the threat of Trumpism will far outlast Donald Trump himself.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The Trumpists in question are Republicans who won nominations for positions such as governor and secretary of state in critical swing states. The alarming truth is this: Many of them deny the legitimacy of President Biden’s 2020 victory, even as they are seeking positions of control over the certification of future presidential elections.
But the reality of the threat this poses keeps getting lost in euphemisms. There’s an unwillingness in the media to state the true nature of their project in plain, blunt, clear terms.
These Republicans include the following:
1
These candidates are often described with mealy-mouthed language, such as “election denier” or even “election skeptic.” The implication is that they genuinely believe Trump won, or harbor sincere suspicions about our elections and can’t accept “reality,” as if they’re hostage to delusions about some mythic event rapidly receding into the past.
ADVERTISING
But that soft rendering won’t do. Let’s be clearer: They are essentially running on an implicit vow that, as long as they are in power, no Democratic presidential candidate will ever win their state again. No Democratic victory in their state will ever again be treated as legitimate.
Megan McArdle: In boosting Trump acolytes, Democrats become what they once condemned
Can it be conclusively proved that this is their intention? Perhaps not, but many are running on the explicit claim that they would not have certified Biden’s win, or that the certification process could legitimately disregard the popular vote, based on fictions about the voting.
Given that they are simultaneously running for positions of control over that same process, their meaning is plain: They would use that control to ensure that Democratic victories aren’t binding and are subject to nullification.
Former GOP operative Tim Miller recently suggested some GOP candidates pledge “fealty to Trump’s delusions” without believing them. That’s undoubtedly true. But it’s also a reason to be clearer that their implicit promise is to nullify future losses. If these candidates are willing to nourish those delusions, why wouldn’t they act on those delusions next time? They’re telling us they will.
2
Sarah Longwell, who runs focus groups of Republican voters, recently tweeted:
These GOP primary outcomes illuminate the true nature of this development. Loyalty to the “big lie” isn’t some eccentric obsession that these candidates inexplicably won’t relinquish. Nor is it merely a cynical trick designed to gin up turnout among angry Trump voters. Instead, it seems to be morphing into a clear, forward-looking political project.
One way to understand this is with writer John Ganz’s formulation: Like other political myths, the myth of the stolen 2020 election is a statement of intent to act. Here, the intended future act would be to refuse to acknowledge future Democratic victories as legitimate. We don’t know whether this will happen, but these candidates are declaring this intent, and it has taken on a life of its own.
3
When the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be returning abortion to democratic control in states. But as Adam Serwer argues, conservatives who gerrymander state governments and suppress votes are simultaneously working to constrain democracy from allowing the majority pro-choice position to prevail, revealing the hollowness of that claim.
Something similar can be discerned in these gubernatorial candidates.
Notably, they have far-outside-the-mainstream positions on abortion. Mastriano and Dixon favor a ban with no exceptions. Mastriano is a Christian nationalist who believes God wants him elected governor to serve as an instrument of God’s will. Lake saw the demise of Roe as a providential sign of God’s will that women are “meant to be” mothers.
In a forthcoming essay, political theorist Matt McManus argues that politicians who take their cues in this fashion from a transcendent order sometimes treat that order as the only necessary source of their rule’s “legitimacy.” That leads to authoritarianism.
If you believe such things, it’s a short step to telling yourself that subverting elections is not only justified, but also affirmatively good. You can’t disentangle such positions on abortion from these candidates’ declaration that democratic outcomes should be nonbinding when the “wrong” side loses.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The Trumpists in question are Republicans who won nominations for positions such as governor and secretary of state in critical swing states. The alarming truth is this: Many of them deny the legitimacy of President Biden’s 2020 victory, even as they are seeking positions of control over the certification of future presidential elections.
But the reality of the threat this poses keeps getting lost in euphemisms. There’s an unwillingness in the media to state the true nature of their project in plain, blunt, clear terms.
These Republicans include the following:
- In Arizona, Kari Lake, who’s closing in on the gubernatorial nomination, has said she wouldn’t have certified Biden’s 2020 victory in the state. Mark Finchem, the nominee for secretary of state, was involved in Trump’s fake-electors scheme and has pushed for the state legislature to have the authority to reject election outcomes.
- In Nevada, secretary of state nominee Jim Marchant participated in the fake-electors scheme and has said he wouldn’t have certified Biden’s victory.
- In Pennsylvania, gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano is a full-blown insurrectionist who helped lead Trump’s effort to overturn his loss and endorsed the appointment of presidential electors regardless of the popular vote, based on lies about fraud.
- In Michigan, gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon has flatly declared Trump won the state, though she has sometimes moderated that position. Kristina Karamo, the GOP candidate for secretary of state, has spread all kinds of lies suggesting Trump won the state in 2020.
1
They are running on a promise to nullify future election losses.
Return to menuThese candidates are often described with mealy-mouthed language, such as “election denier” or even “election skeptic.” The implication is that they genuinely believe Trump won, or harbor sincere suspicions about our elections and can’t accept “reality,” as if they’re hostage to delusions about some mythic event rapidly receding into the past.
ADVERTISING
But that soft rendering won’t do. Let’s be clearer: They are essentially running on an implicit vow that, as long as they are in power, no Democratic presidential candidate will ever win their state again. No Democratic victory in their state will ever again be treated as legitimate.
Megan McArdle: In boosting Trump acolytes, Democrats become what they once condemned
Can it be conclusively proved that this is their intention? Perhaps not, but many are running on the explicit claim that they would not have certified Biden’s win, or that the certification process could legitimately disregard the popular vote, based on fictions about the voting.
Given that they are simultaneously running for positions of control over that same process, their meaning is plain: They would use that control to ensure that Democratic victories aren’t binding and are subject to nullification.
Former GOP operative Tim Miller recently suggested some GOP candidates pledge “fealty to Trump’s delusions” without believing them. That’s undoubtedly true. But it’s also a reason to be clearer that their implicit promise is to nullify future losses. If these candidates are willing to nourish those delusions, why wouldn’t they act on those delusions next time? They’re telling us they will.
2
Trump’s grip on the GOP might be slipping, but that’s beside the point.
Return to menuSarah Longwell, who runs focus groups of Republican voters, recently tweeted:
These GOP primary outcomes illuminate the true nature of this development. Loyalty to the “big lie” isn’t some eccentric obsession that these candidates inexplicably won’t relinquish. Nor is it merely a cynical trick designed to gin up turnout among angry Trump voters. Instead, it seems to be morphing into a clear, forward-looking political project.
One way to understand this is with writer John Ganz’s formulation: Like other political myths, the myth of the stolen 2020 election is a statement of intent to act. Here, the intended future act would be to refuse to acknowledge future Democratic victories as legitimate. We don’t know whether this will happen, but these candidates are declaring this intent, and it has taken on a life of its own.
3
The promise of future election sabotage is linked to the abortion wars.
Return to menuWhen the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be returning abortion to democratic control in states. But as Adam Serwer argues, conservatives who gerrymander state governments and suppress votes are simultaneously working to constrain democracy from allowing the majority pro-choice position to prevail, revealing the hollowness of that claim.
Something similar can be discerned in these gubernatorial candidates.
Notably, they have far-outside-the-mainstream positions on abortion. Mastriano and Dixon favor a ban with no exceptions. Mastriano is a Christian nationalist who believes God wants him elected governor to serve as an instrument of God’s will. Lake saw the demise of Roe as a providential sign of God’s will that women are “meant to be” mothers.
In a forthcoming essay, political theorist Matt McManus argues that politicians who take their cues in this fashion from a transcendent order sometimes treat that order as the only necessary source of their rule’s “legitimacy.” That leads to authoritarianism.
If you believe such things, it’s a short step to telling yourself that subverting elections is not only justified, but also affirmatively good. You can’t disentangle such positions on abortion from these candidates’ declaration that democratic outcomes should be nonbinding when the “wrong” side loses.
