| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Three points on the question of whether Republican fear of former President Donald Trump is motivating their various efforts right now: First: As Greg Sargent points out in the Washington Post, Republicans need no excuse to attempt to make it harder for people to vote. Republicans have been trying to make it harder to vote since well before Trump's first presidential campaign, whether it was requiring ID cards, purging voting rolls, fighting against early voting or opposing easier voter registration. Not all Republicans were on board, and there are some counterexamples in which Republicans advocated making it easier to vote, but the overwhelming bulk of their efforts were in the other direction. All of that, too, went along with a lot of loose talk about supposed voter fraud. Not, of course, as loose as Trump made it, but just as absent of evidence, let alone proof. Second: As I've been arguing for awhile, it's probably most accurate to think about fear of Trump in hostage terms. Republicans are no doubt worried about primary challenges that Trump could inspire. But that concern is overrated. Trump is still popular among Republicans, but there's really very limited evidence of his ability to determine primary results. What should really be scary for Republicans, however, is that Trump could turn against the party in general elections, where he wouldn't need to convince very many voters to stay home to deal a devastating blow to the party. It's a problem that no recent party has had with a former president or former nominee. Third, and most important: Whatever the motives, what Republicans are up to is a huge threat to the republic. I'm mostly not talking about making it harder to vote, although that certainly weakens democracy. The real threat is that Trump, joined by many other elected Republicans, attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election result. And that since then, those in the party who stood up for the rule of law have been marginalized. That's why the Georgia election law is a big deal; that's why purging Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney from the Republican House leadership is a big deal. That's why the joke of an "audit" of election counts in Arizona is a big deal. It's the single most important story in U.S. politics right now. What we know is that when Trump attempted to subvert the election, a number of Republicans in key positions refused to go along. We know that, for the most part, those individuals won't be able to stop a similar effort in 2024, and that the party has sent clear signals that standing up for the constitution and the rule of law was unacceptable. What we don't know is whether other individuals in key positions will go along in 2024 (or 2028 or whenever Republicans next lose a presidential election — or in other elections, for that matter). After all, those who stood up to Trump when it mattered looked pretty much identical to the rest of the party until push came to shove and they really had to choose Trump or the constitution. Perhaps, next time around, others who seem to be true believers now will act responsibly. But if so, they'll be even more clearly defying not just Trump, but their political party. And it's just as likely that next time will, unfortunately, have a very different outcome. 1. A must-read: Hakeem Jefferson and Koji Takahashi on white identity politics. 2. Casey Burgat at Mischiefs of Faction on dumping Liz Cheney. 3. Amy Erica Smith and Shana Gadarian talk about clergy influence on such things as vaccination. 4. Sara Mitchell at the Monkey Cage on the Channel Islands dispute. 5. Kevin Drum on the upcoming consumer price index report. 6. And Ian Prasad Philbrick on mortality rates of sitting members of Congress. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment