Nobody can deny that the election of Donald Trump has shaken up democracy in the United States. His authoritarian tendencies are cause for concern, both for the Republican Party and for the country as a whole. The question posed in Alison Gerzina’s “How the Republican Party has Failed American Democracy” is whether or not the party itself is a threat to democracy equal to Trump. Her answer is yes, but the situation appears to be more complicated than that.
There are three cases of successful Democratic Party gate-keeping explored in Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die: Henry Ford, Huey Long, and George Wallace. The third, Wallace, eventually ran as an Independent in the election of 1968 and lost; he is the most recent case cited. All three men, then, were successfully blocked through gate-keeping policies prior to the primary reforms that followed the tumultuous 1968 election. The riots at the Democratic National Convention that year suggest that average voters did not feel like their party upheld the democratic ideal, regardless of whether or not gate-keeping occurred. The peak of gate-keeping processes in the United States came at the expense of voter autonomy, leaving rank-and-file party members feeling excluded from the process.
That is not to say that gate-keeping is no longer important. On the contrary, it is a critical part of ensuring that authoritarians are kept out of office, which is why the election of Trump was disheartening. However, the will of the people is what controls the delegates, so when Trump won primaries, party leaders could not tell the delegates to nominate someone else instead. That ended poorly when the Democratic Party did so with Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Though Trump secured the nomination with 1441 delegates, the three runner-ups combined (Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich) won 885. Further, while Trump won the party’s popular vote with 14,015,993 votes, the three runner-ups had a combined total of 15,628,124 votes. This suggests that over half of the party members who voted in the primaries preferred a more moderate alternative to Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.
Yes, the Republican Party’s lack of gate-keeping led to a questionable leader. But it seems hasty to declare that the party itself is an equal threat to democracy. Voices within the party such as Senator Jeff Flake are not afraid to question Trump and his decisions. Take, for example, Trump’s decision to invoke emergency powers to get funding for the border wall. In Jeffrey Toobin’s article, “Can Donald Trump Invoke Emergency Powers to Get His Wall?”, he points out that the ambiguity surrounding the definition of “emergency” in the National Emergencies Act of 1976 leaves an opening for him to do this, regardless of whether it infringes on the norms of democracy. The majority of Congressional Republicans, however, do not support the decision, acknowledging that it is an inappropriate side-stepping of Congressional oversight. Many of his less enthusiastic supporters are also critical of the move, which diverts funding from FEMA and the Department of Defense among other areas of government. The fact that members of the party are questioning the President’s more authoritarian actions means that there is still hope for the party, that there is not, as Gerzina writes, “no sign that the Republican Party will change course anytime soon.”
Robert C. Lieberman of Johns Hopkins University and his co-authors point out in “Trumpism and American Democracy” that Trump is the most widely disliked president in American history, with the worst approval ratings and “unprecendented levels of enmity and scorn from across the political spectrum.” To have the lowest approval ratings at this point in his term out of any president in the Gallup era means that Republicans as well as Democrats must be voicing strong disapproval. Parties have a tendency to self-correct. Barry Goldwater disseminated ultra-conservatism, but he fell out of the good graces of his party much like Senator McCarthy did. Neither man was ever the President of the United States. After a peaceful transition of power from the hands of Trump to whoever the next president is, whether it is the result of the 2020 or 2024 election, it seems unlikely that another potential authoritarian will have the means to do what Trump successfully did. Media will not be likely to give any new demagogues free airtime as they did with Trump, and Republican voters are showing signs of wariness with respect to his actions. The public is learning its lesson.
It seems harsh to say, as Gerzina does, “Built on the foundations of exclusion, intolerance, vilification, and domination, the Republican Party has always been ambivalent to the American democratic ideal.” It may have lost its way, but the party of the Great Emancipator still shows signs of respect for the Constitution, the written guardian of values which are critical to democracy. Constituents have a responsibility to publicly hold their representatives accountable, and once the Republicans who disapprove of Trump’s job in office encourage their representatives to stand up to him, they might just have the strength to fight for a return to the Party’s democratic roots.
Using historical examples, you provided great context on the Trump phenomenon within the republican party specifically and America generally. Your emphasis on the importance of republican officeholders and voters holding Trump to account is a solution I would agree with. However your assertion that “Republican voters are showing signs of wariness with respect to his actions” is questionable: his approval rating has hardly moved among Republicans (it is around 90%!) Additionally, the one republican that you mentioned standing up to Trump, Jeff Flake, was forced out of office in 2018. Thus, I think that Trumpism as an ideology is much more ingrained and prone to duplication in the future than perhaps we would hope. I thought your ideas and presentation were thought-provoking and appreciate this being a discussion point for the future.
Party gate-keeping is an interesting topic and I believe that it will have increased relevance in the future when deciding political candidates. One of the main points of the article was that the republican party failed by not excluding Donald Trump from their party and therefore allowed an authoritarian to run for president. I think that gatekeeping is essential to keeping extremists from obtaining power from both sides of the political spectrum. As extremists are accepted on either side, political parties parties will increase in polarization and move further and further from each other. In my opinion, political polarization is much more dangerous than failed gatekeeping but I think that bad gatekeeping assists with polarization. I find it difficult to think that the republican party is the only danger to democracy because 1) the source is very biased against republicans 2) the democratic party has also elected political outsiders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 3) there are no specifics that show Donald Trump is authoritarian because the legality of the national emergency at the border is still under debate. I think it is important to identify whether Trump is a real threat to democratic institutions or if he is a threat to the policies from the democratic party. It doesn’t matter whether its a member of congress or the president, affective political gatekeeping needs to happen at all levels of government, regardless of party.Overall, I thought that the article was very interesting and brought attention to a topic that will become an important issue in future politics.
There is a strong point to be made here about Trump’s popularity in the republican primaries. You are certainly correct in saying that Trump’s large margin of victory is more of a sign of shifts in voter ideals than an effort by the republican party to undermine democracy. Likewise, your examples of Jeff Flake and trepidation over declaration of emergency powers show that the party is not an active threat to democratic values. However, an important part of gate-keeping is parties ‘taking the hit’ as it were to defend against a degradation of political norms. I think your claim that “The public is learning its lesson” is perhaps a bit too hopeful, as rather than steadily decreasing, Trumps approval rating has inched up from its 36% low back in 2018. The greatest danger I think we are faced with is Trump’s disregard for the rules of the game, with his attacks on the media, the democratic party, and his resistance to congressional and court orders. There seems to not be nearly enough outcry among republicans at the President’s flippancy to the expectations of his office, which I feel may open the gates for future presidents to act in a similar manner.