The most pronounced assault on American democracy is a consortium of three erosive acts proceeding President Trump’s defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election; First, Trump’s disregard for the established peaceful transfer of power and his conjuration and delineation of false claims challenging the validity and integrity of said election results. Second, the violent insurrection at the U.S. capitol on January 6th, 2021, a culmination of incitement on behalf of Trump and his staunch political allies, interrupting the constitutional certification of said election results and ending with desecration and death. “Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace,” (Snyder, pg. 1). Finally, the conception of “MAGA” or “America-First” political candidacies. Prominent installations of a post-Trump GOP, these candidacies earn and employ the former president’s influence and political capital over conservative electorates through propagating election denialism, e.g., the “Big Lie,” determined to administer undemocratic electoral reform.
This third component of the consortium is most concerning. Without question, the violent sacrilege of the U.S. capitol is the most visibly appalling offense on our democracy. However, it is the popularity and success captured by political candidates engaging in election denialism posing a greater risk to our democracy.
This analysis will concentrate on nationally recognized figures utilizing Trump’s influence and brandishing election denialism with the opportunity of securing statewide office. Prominently featured within this genus is Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, former television news reporter Kari Lake and former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, all Republican candidates for statewide office in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada.
As a Pennsylvania State Senator, Mastriano exhausted numerous legislative efforts, among them introducing an alternative slate of electors, in an attempt to overturn Trump’s defeat in Pennsylvania. His presence at the Jan. 6th insurrection is well-established, having been subpoenaed by the congressional committee investigating the incident. The Philadelphia Inquirer described Mastriano as having established himself as a “MAGA favorite and leading election denier” saying that as governor of Pennsylvania, “he would decertify ‘compromised’ voting machines, eliminate no excuse absentee voting, and impose stricter voter ID rules.”
Lake, Republican nominee for Arizona Governor, said of 2020’s election results, “considering how much already at the time information we had about serious irregularities and problems with the election, I would not have certified it right then.” She showcases “election integrity” as a prominent platform issue of her campaign; her website claiming, “Arizona’s audit revealed numerous deficiencies and issues with our elections, on a scope and scale sufficient to have changed the outcome of 2020.”
Laxalt, Republican nominee for Nevada’s Senate seat, served as the state’s co-chairman for Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. In an effort to overturn Trump’s defeat in Nevada, he unsuccessfully filed lawsuits against the state’s mail-in voting system, attempted to stop the counting of votes in Clark County and falsely claimed tens of thousands of illegal votes had been cast. NBC News reported that upon announcing his campaign, Laxalt said, “There’s no question they rigged the election,” and suggested filing preemptive legal challenges against Democratic opponent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto prior to votes being cast.
This strategy is exercised throughout the country. A Washington Post analysis has identified approximately 108 Republican primary winners seeking statewide or congressional office having engaged in election denialism.
Why is this movement pervading conservative politics in the U.S.? How is it a mechanism of democratic erosion? As demonstrated, election denialism is pervasive, attaining prominence not exclusively among swing states rich with electoral votes, but finding hosts throughout the nation. “Election integrity” and denialist rhetoric has infiltrated the playbook of conservative politics, effective in securing elected office for election denialists. Republican lawmakers and hopefuls have recognized the incentive of espousing election denialism and casting election integrity as an issue of necessity. Historian Timothy Snyder divides national Republican lawmakers into two distinct categories: the “breakers” and the “gamers.” Election denialists, identified as breakers, view the big lie as a treasure rather than a “danger to be avoided,” (Snyder, Pg. 10). The treasure is increased political capital, extensive media visibility and coverage and expanded support and popularity from considerably far-right, more extreme constituencies, helping candidates seize party nominations. While no political party nor figure has necessarily been above the exploitation of a particular event or cause to improve one’s acclaim or scope of support, most fail to fundamentally erode democracy and its institutions.
Election denialists have not only the opportunity to create and direct policy, but control and deconstruct our democratic processes and institutions, including elections. In illustrating how a constitutional democracy can be lost, scholars Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg assert that within a constitutional liberal democracy, democratic electoral systems “require a bureaucratic machinery capable of applying rules in a neutral and consistent fashion over an extended territory,” (Huq & Ginsburg, Pg. 10). Applying Schumpter’s Dictum, they argued, “meaningful elections with a genuine possibility of alteration in power is necessary to democracy,” (Huq & Ginsburg, Pg. 9). Thus, Trump and election denialists have demonstrated performances antithetic to democracy, employing elements of constitutional retrogression. Identified as an enemy to democratic elections, constitutional retrogression consists of a more “incremental decay in three basic predicates of democracy,” (Huq & Ginsburg, Pg. 6), including rule of law, liberal rights to speech and association, and competitive elections. This is particularly troubling considering the institutional vulnerability of our elections and their protective measures, exposed and exploited by Trump and election denialists. The constitution’s text “is otherwise silent as to disruptions of the presidential or congressional election process,” (Huq & Ginsburg, Pg. 30), and “gives no indication of how either derailing disruptions to voting or ex post evidence of outcome-determinative fraud would be addressed,” (Huq & Ginsburg, Pg. 30).
Election denialism can diminish a citizenry’s confidence in their democracy and discourage their participation within it. It composes and amplifies a pre-facist, post-truth society. “Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth,” (Snyder, Pg. 3). Election denialism redesigns electoral politics in that “no fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith…To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself,” (Snyder, Pg. 11).
Let us not mistake election denialism as a mere product of disinformation, nor its champions as disillusioned couriers. They are deliberate, calculated game-breakers; political actors utilizing democracy to dismantle it. To yield authority and oversight of our democratic institutions to those without respect for them is a surrender of democracy itself.
Works Cited
- Caputo, Marc. “A GOP Senate Candidate Walks ‘Rigged Election’ Tightrope in Nevada.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/adam-laxalt-walks-rigged-election-tightrope-nevada-senate-campaign-rcna14609
- Gardner, Amy, and Isaac Arnsdorf. “More than 100 GOP Primary Winners Back Trump’s False Fraud Claims.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 June 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/14/more-than-100-gop-primary-winners-back-trumps-false-fraud-claims/
- Huq, Aziz Z., and Tom Ginsburg. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901776
- “Official Kari Lake Campaign Website – Kari Lake for Arizona Governor.” Official Kari Lake Campaign Website – Kari Lake For Arizona Governor, https://www.karilake.com/.
- Marnin, Julia. “Adam Laxalt, Trump Ally Who Filed Suits to Overturn Nevada Election, Running for Senate.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 16 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/adam-laxalt-trump-ally-who-filed-suits-overturn-nevada-election-running-senate-1619872
- Seidman, Chris Brennan and Andrew. “A Look at Doug Mastriano’s Ties to Jan. 6 and His Efforts to Throw out Pa.’s 2020 Election.” Https://Www.inquirer.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 9 June 2022, https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/inq2/doug-mastriano-pennsylvania-2020-election-denial-timeline-20220609.html
- Snyder, Timothy. “The American Abyss.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Jan. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/magazine/trump-coup.html
I am in agreement with the idea that election denialism is a method of democratic erosion that has been utilized recently. This is likely a first step of many towards disenfranchising the election system and ultimately rendering it as ineffective in the eyes of the public. By first discrediting the election system in the eyes of many with claims of fraud or election manipulation is election manipulation in and of itself- it creates a false awareness that the winner of that election manipulated the votes in some way, planting insecurity and doubt into people, polarizing the nation further.
It’s also clear that there are many in the political structure that are complacent or supportive of this election denialism, meaning that with the right push, democratic erosion would be furthered. As discussed in the post, republican lawmakers sometimes see this election denialism as a treasure of sorts that garners more support, showing that this is merely a method of power gain by diminishing election integrity in the eyes of the voters. As such, it is apparent that this denialism is a form of election manipulation itself, which is one method of slow democratic erosion.
In the future, while unlikely, this election denialism could lead to a promissory coup where the party forcefully takes power in the promise of returning elections to being like they were before 2020, despite that election having been free and fair. This is partially seen in the January 6th insurrection- where many people went to storm the US Capitol after the election. While not quite a coup, it shows that there is clearly some force and willingness in people to fight at request to this extreme degree, meaning that it is very possible for a full coup to take place.
This post does such a good job of portraying election denialism as much more than, like you said, “a mere product of disinformation.” I really liked how you compared election denialism to a parasitical virus and how candidates use it as a tool to garner support from an already very loyal and established base – Trump Republicans. While voter fraud has always been a prominent concern within the Republican Party, this past election has only made the whole situation so much worse because Trump, an idolized figure among the right, was wronged by the system. And these “patriots”, as they like to call themselves, have taken it upon themselves to fix a system that has wronged one of their own. Thus, we start to see campaigns all around the country advocating for stricter voter ID laws, cutting back available times for early voting, and even going as far as abolishing no excuse absentee ballots, as you mentioned. Moreover, it’s important to note that election denialism isn’t just a symptom of democracy erosion because it undermines the election process, but also because it restricts and decreases accessibility to vote, which is just as harmful of a threat to democracy.
What I am curious now is how these policies will play out in the long run because not only will this disadvantage those who already have a very difficult time voting but it may also discourage those from participating in the system, as you have also mentioned. I wonder if this will lead to a sizable decrease in voter participation and possibly the unseating of many left candidates who advocate for the opposite.
I both agree and disagree with this post’s claims surrounding so-called “denialism” being a form of democratic erosion. Firstly, I do not see the January 6th “insurrection” to be a sign of democratic erosion at all. It was protest of election fraud–which we know to be a real issue. If anything it shows that democracy–people are willing to speak their minds. Perhaps a concern could be about Trump’s ability to brainwash a large percentage of the population, however as this post mentions the protest is really the least damaging effect of Trump’s influence.
On the other hand, I absolutely agree that Trump’s behavior post election loss and refusal to accept the results was very undemocratic. Although I would not say it was particularly concerning considering he never took real action–he is no longer sitting president, so in the end the election took it’s course. I would also agree that the biggest issue is the still elected officials, or candidates, still pressing this issue. The majority has made their decision and that decision standing is the most important aspect of any democracy.
This is all being said assuming the election was not actually rigged. I personally do not believe it was (I’m sure there was some election fraud), but a rigged election is the first step towards an authoritarian system. If it was rigged, that would be a far larger attack on our democracy than “denialism.” Fortunately there still two sides to this argument and they are both outspoken, which means I do not seriously believe that this “denialism” or rigged election has had a large impact on our democracy. It could however be a sign of a more serious event, like an election genuinely being overturned because someone claims fraud with little evidence.
Election denialism is certainly a very real and dangerous threat to democracy in the United States today. Such a widespread choice to question election results and take violent action against a democratically elected leadership has drastic implications for the democratic process in the United States.
I’m an American history student, and specialize in American legal history. I have talked in many classes about the key foundational principles of American democracy at the nation’s founding. One of the key moments in early American democracy which had the potential to make or break the new system was the first peaceful transition of power from a president of one party to a new president of a different one. After losing the election of 1800, John Adams set the precedent for a peaceful transition of power that has, until recently, been upheld by following presidents.
While contemporary election deniers in the United States often call themselves patriots, they are taking part in a process that rejects a precedent of peace hundreds of years old. If large numbers of Americans, including, as in this case, the president himself, refuse to accept the results of the election and allow a peaceful transition of power, a fundamental principle of the American democratic system is in danger. Not only does election based violence like the January 6th insurrection threaten this foundational principle, but it threatens to scare voters from the polls. American democracy relies on the consent of the voters to be governed. If this trend of election result based violence continues in the upcoming elections, it could become harder to convince enough of those who vote for leaders who speak out against election denialism to come to the polls. The risks of widespread election denialism are many, and they are deeply threatening to American democracy.