Is Democracy on the Ballot Today?

Not exactly . . . but people who could take it from you are

Photo by Tom Arthur.

This will not be the 5,000+ word rant that some of my posts have been lately. I wanted to get something out today while you still have time to consider it.

In recent days, there has been a running debate about whether “democracy is on the ballot” today.

Jonah Goldberg says don’t worry about it. I’m going to quote the same passages Allahpundit quoted because they were the passages that struck me too:

Sure, Americans like to complain about democracy, but they don’t want to get rid of it. Indeed, besides a handful of fringe dorks and radical fantasists, there is literally no significant constituency on the American right or left for getting rid of democracy. There are significant constituencies for bending the rules, working the refs, even rigging the system, and these constituencies should be fought relentlessly. But while often in error, most of these people believe they are on the side of democracy. The people who wildly exaggerate both voter suppression and voter fraud believe what they’re saying. They’re just wrong.

. . . .

What is most offensive about all of this “this is our last chance” hysteria is its fundamental anti-Americanism. I don’t mean ideological anti-Americanism, which is a real thing with a long pedigree on the left and the right. I mean it is anti-Americans. It is premised on the idea that if our team loses the election, we cannot count on normal Americans not to blindly and obediently go along with tyranny, authoritarianism, communism, fascism, or whatever brand name these faux Martin Niemöllers assign to their political opponents.

Nick “Allahpundit” Catoggio responds to Jonah, saying:

I wouldn’t say “this is our last chance” but otherwise I’m guilty as charged. I do not in fact trust Republicans after 2020 not to blindly and obediently go along with attempts to overturn an election won by Democrats. All it would take to bring the bulk of the party along in a new coup attempt, I think, is some patina of legal legitimacy of the sort Mike Lee was desperate to find in November 2020. If Trump had contrived a quasi-legal way to flip electoral votes that year, like by having swing states send dual slates of electors to Congress, I see little reason to doubt that a majority of conservatives would have talked themselves into blessing the ploy as fair because it was, after all, technically within the law. Rules were followed, the people’s representatives acted to correct “fraud,” the right outcome was reached. The “soft” coup was the proper democratic result.

It will surprise none of my long-time readers that I am in the Allahpundit camp.

Jonah is not alone. Chris Stirewalt describes a New York Times article talking about “Republican candidates for Congress, governor, secretary of state, and attorney general” and complains that the paper lumps in people “who made bland expressions of concern about claims of election irregularities prior to January 6, 2021, with full-blown cranks and evident swindlers” who deny the 2020 election results. Stirewalt concludes:

You have to make it two-thirds of the way through the story before the writers give up the game: “Fewer than one-third have staked out the most extreme position—stating, without any evidence, that the election was stolen or rigged.”

Here’s the thing: that fact hardly “gives up the game.” It does not reassure me one bit. Here’s why: Trump does not steal the next election mainly with votes in Congress cast only by people who have staked out the most extreme position on the 2020 election. He steals it by getting Congress to repudiate the will of the people in a congressional vote cast by 1) a vocal minority that has staked out that extreme position, together with 2) a gutless majority scared to push back. It is that latter percentage that worries me—and based on the 2020 House vote on objections to the election, it’s about 2/3 of GOP House members. It will probably be worse in 2024.

I think we’re looking at a potential crisis here.

I would encourage everyone considering this question to watch this video by Timothy Snyder. He is an expert on the rise of fascism and the danger signs that precede it. He certainly thinks the election tomorrow is important for democracy.

In a separate lecture of his, on the genocide in Ukraine, Snyder makes a very good point: when someone lies about a past atrocity, they are signaling that they would like to see it happen again. Why does Holocaust denialism bother us so much? Because those who deny the Holocaust are really saying they would like to see another one. As Snyder says, the victims of atrocities understand this only too well.

In the video I linked above, Snyder extrapolates that principle to election trutherism. When Kari Lake and her ilk say they would not have certified the election in 2020, they are saying that they will not certify an election for a Democrat in 2024. It looks like she will win today. Lake may not have the authority to reject the voters’ will on her own as governor—but as I understand it, the governor in Arizona has the power to call the legislature into special session. For example, after the election, she could ask the legislature to send a new slate of electors to Congress if she doesn't like the slate the public chose (i.e. if voters chose a Democrat). I personally don’t think that would be a constitutional act, but it’s potentially enough to create a constitutional crisis. What happens then? Are you ready to find out?

To the crowd that says hey, don’t worry about it, I have some quotes for y’all. In Snyder’s book On Tyranny, he quotes a German Jewish newspaper editorial in 1933 telling German Jews to relax, everything will be fine, stop being so hysterical. Of the Nazis, the editorial said:

They will not suddenly deprive German Jews of their constitutional rights, nor enclose them in ghettos, nor subject them to the jealous and murderous impulses of the mob. They cannot do this, because a number of crucial factors hold powers in check, and they clearly do not want to go down that road. When one acts as a European power, the whole atmosphere tends towards ethical reflection upon one’s better self, and away from revisiting one’s earlier oppositional posture.

Sad, isn’t it? Snyder explains the problem:

The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions, even when that is exactly what they have announced that they will do.

As they say: when a fascist tells you that they intend to act like a fascist, believe them. Kari Lake is telling you she will ignore any election results where a Democrat wins. She is telling you that she intends to destroy the institution of voting in her state.

Believe her.

Allahpundit says:

My rule of thumb for whether a Republican candidate is worth supporting is this: What would they have done in Mike Pence’s shoes on January 6?

If in my judgment they would have done their duty as Pence did, they’re worth electing. And there are Republicans who would have. I’d happily vote for Brian Kemp in Georgia, a solid conservative who drew a line at aiding and abetting a coup in deciding what duty he owed his party. I’d vote for Doug Ducey for the same reason, although he’s not on a ballot. (Thanks to Trump.) I’d vote for Joe O’Dea in Colorado, a newbie who’s cultivated an image as a moderate to appeal to voters in his very blue state.

There are others—obviously, I’d vote for all of the impeachers if not for the fact that most of them have been excommunicated from politics by the cult for their sins. But I suspect we’re reaching the point, if we haven’t reached it already, where the average Republican in elected office wouldn’t follow Pence’s lead if forced to decide.

I will apply a slightly different rule of thumb, following Snyder’s advice. I will not just reject any candidate who says 2020 was stolen. I will reject any candidate who has not demonstrated the gumption to explicitly say Biden won fair and square. There are far too few such people. And that is a matter for real concern

I recognize that the issue has not always come up in congressional campaigns. It’s difficult for me to determine whether any particular candidate has opined on the issue. But if I can’t make that determination, that means they don’t get my vote. It’s that simple.

Some dangers are very real, and I think the prospect of Trump stealing the 2024 election is one of them. Could I be wrong? Of course! I hope I am! But I’d rather worry too much about a fascist takeover of our country than not worry enough.

Everyone has their own decisionmaking process when they go to vote. I hope I have given you something to think about as you make yours. Democracy is the responsibility of every voter. Take it seriously.