America Explained is a newsletter about American politics, foreign policy and history - and how they all tie together. Subscribe to make sure you never miss a post and to support America Explained.
Last week, some of the leading figures from an extremist organization gathered for a debate. Although the event was nominally aimed at picking the organization’s leader, its actual head - who shows no sign of stepping down - was absent. Most of the participants were jockeying for scraps of media attention and future career opportunities within either the organization itself or its media wings. As a result, they focused on messages that they knew would appeal to the its hardcore supporters, such as invading America’s largest trading partner or calling for the FBI - which is currently investigating many of the group’s leading figures and supporters - to be disbanded. They denied that humans cause climate change, and they also for the most part agreed that they would stick by their current leader, who is awaiting trial on multiple charges of conspiring to steal an election and suspend the constitution.
I have to admit that I nearly didn’t even bother watching the Republican Party debate. With Trump absent, the actual electoral stakes were essentially zero - absent a lightning strike, none of the people who were on the stage that night stand much chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. Yet the debate was ultimately revealing for what it tells us about today’s GOP, an extremist organization which is experiencing diminishing electoral returns and so turning to undemocratic methods to get its way.
The extremism tax
The word “extremism” gets bandied around a lot in political debate, so I want to be careful about how I define it. By extreme I mean that a party advocates positions which are way outside of the political mainstream, which might be defined either in terms of public opinion or historic mainstream norms. A federal abortion ban is “extreme” because the public opposes it. But invading Mexico or overthrowing the constitution would still be “extreme” even if the public supported them, because these actions go against tenets of domestic or international law which have long governed how mainstream American political figures act. This might seem like a slippery definition, but it approximates how the word “extreme” is commonly used in public debate and also how I’ll use it here.
One reason that the modern GOP became so extreme is because it can. And the reason it can is because of America’s electoral system, which gives a structural advantage to the party whose base lies in the rural, less densely-populated parts of the country. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College mean that Democrats have to win not just 0.1% more votes to win the presidency or a Congressional majority, but usually more like 3 - 4% more. As a result, Republicans have won the presidency without winning the popular vote twice in as many decades. Meanwhile, the Senate gives the same number of votes to tiny rural states like Wyoming as it does to California, almost guaranteeing outsized conservative influence. The upper house is also the gatekeeper of the judiciary, which in turn has the power to decide whether whatever laws Democrats manage to pass will be enforced or not.
Their support for extreme positions means that Republicans pay an “extremism tax” at the polls, but these structural buffers generally insulate them from suffering commensurate electoral punishment. Political Darwinism - the survival of the fittest - operates less strongly on the Republican Party than it does on the Democrats. This is one way to understand why Democrats are currently led by a pragmatist who most rank-and-file members uneasily accept because he wins elections while Republicans are led by a maniac who panders to their most extreme base and media outlets. Democrats can’t afford the extremism tax; Republicans can.
The Trump democracy doom loop
Or, at least, they once could.
The Republican debate showcased some of the traditional ways that the party has suffered from an extremism problem on issues like abortion, government spending, and military intervention. A Republican candidate with extreme positions on these issues could still handily win presidential elections, particularly when so many people are skeptical of the incumbent president. In fact, if only Republicans could find a way to moderate some of their more extreme tendencies just a little while still exciting enough of the rural base, their structural advantages would make them an unstoppable electoral force.
But Trump - and the party’s inability or unwillingness to reject him - has ruined their ability to do that. By doing so he has created what I call the “democracy doom loop”.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to America Explained to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.