Preparing for this year’s midterms, Democrats have been releasing ads in support of far-right candidates with the belief that these more extreme candidates will be easier to defeat than moderate Republicans. The Democratic Party released ads during the California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Republican primaries. This tactic has the potential to undermine democracy by lending legitimacy to fringe actors and normalizing their platforms, and by potentially depriving independent voters of more preferred candidates. However, Democrats can use this strategy as an opportunity to publicly engage with such candidates through televised debates.
In their book How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss how populists come to power through established political leaders. According to them, in order to maintain democracy, political elites must form alliances with their own rivals to support democratic candidates, keep potential authoritarians’ names off mainstream party tickets, and refuse to endorse these extreme politicians. Democrats are doing just the opposite – but with far-right figures. Many of the candidates Democrats boosted are election-deniers endorsed by Trump; such candidates threaten Americans’ trust in the democratic process.
Although Levitsky and Ziblatt’s piece is concerned with established political leaders aligning themselves with rising populist figures in hopes of building their own popularity, many of their arguments can be applied to this phenomenon as well. In both cases, existing political leaders seek to use outsider candidates to bolster their own careers, and in both cases, these leaders risk offering legitimacy to once-fringe platforms. In both cases, current leaders mistakenly believe that the extreme figures can be easily disposed of after they’re no longer of use. The key difference – whether established politicians are running with or against the fringe actors – only informs how high the risk/reward incentives are for the party that employs this strategy. This difference, as well as the distinction between populist and far-right, may make Democrats feel exempt from this fateful path, but the reality is much less certain.
Democrats have successfully used this tactic in the past, but rising polarization means Republicans are more likely to accept extreme views rather than exclude and/or denounce them from their party. The 2016 presidential election is a prime example of this changing environment. Clinton falsely assumed Trump would be an easy candidate to defeat, so during the Republican primary, she spent money to elevate Trump’s. Clinton’s plan backfired, and Trump went on to become the 45th president.
By supporting these far-right politicians, Democrats risk handing legitimacy and power over to political actors that alienate the majority of voters. Plus, regardless of general election outcomes, Democrats normalize far-right ideology within the Republican party, which could have long-term consequences for following elections, especially intensified polarization. In addition, Democrats’ actions exacerbate growing feelings among partisan leaners that no candidates represent their views well. In fact, the percent of Republican-leaning independents that hold unfavorable views of the Republican party recently surpassed the percent that held the GOP favorably. This can pose an additional challenge to Democracy, as disillusioned voters may turn to authoritarian leaders or true populists when they feel their voices are not heard.
In boosting far-right candidates, Democrats also undermine their more legitimate rivals. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has emphasized the need for a “strong Republican Party” over a “cult of personality.” However, campaigns smearing moderate Republican candidates only create more barriers to that goal. Because the success of far-right actors in the GOP normalizes a party to shift towards more extreme beliefs, Democrats are helping to further push the Republican party into the arms of the Trump-backed “cult of personality” they wanted to avoid in the first place. This movement means Democrats will more likely face these types of candidates in future elections, and be forced to work with them if and when some of them ultimately succeed.
Taking a step backwards and looking at this year’s elections, Democrats must stick to some key principles if they want to win their midterms against the far-right candidates who they lifted up. In debates, their arguments must heavily rely on research and cold, hard facts. They must listen to concerns brought up by their opponent and meaningfully address them. Muller warns in What is Populism? that political moderates must engage with populist outsiders in order to successfully fight them; Democrats must heed Muller’s words and engage with these far-right candidates as well. Doing so will show the far-right base that Democrats understand their grievances, and are willing to find solutions rather than dismiss them.
If far-right Republicans win, the responsibility to contain them falls on the GOP. The Republican party may celebrate its victory, but it must not blindly align with these extreme candidates. The GOP must hold members accountable for following democratic norms, spreading true information, and creating policies that reflect the majority’s stance. Otherwise, the Republican party risks falling further into a spiral of polarization and alienation from the moderate voter.
I agree that the Democrats’ tactic in supporting extremist Republican candidates could backfire and harm democracy in the long-term. This tactic, as the post discusses, can increase the legitimacy of these candidates. It also allows extremist candidates and views to gain support and momentum instead of being stopped by the pro-democracy parties and candidates.
Another important element of this tactic is that it could increase distrust in political elites. A main element of populism is vilifying and distrusting elites (Muller). It creates a division between “the people” and “the elites” who only act in their own self-interest (Muller). Instead of counteracting this idea, this tactic exemplifies it. It demonstrates the Democratic party acting in their own interest to gain power without reflecting on the harm to “the people” and the democratic process. This tactic not only legitimizes populist extremists but fuels their ideology.
The tactic of supporting extremist candidates in order to have an advantage in the general election, is a dangerous, undemocratic tactic. It helps legitimize extremists while validating populists ideas of a corrupt, self-interested elite. I agree with this post’s suggestion that in order to respond to extremists candidates, Democratic candidates must engage with them and address underlying issues such as inequality while not legitimizing and leveraging these candidates.
Sources:
Muller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
I think you are very correct when you predict the bolstering of far-right Republicans could be damaging to the GOP later on, however, I think you may be slightly incorrect in how you suggest addressing the problem of far-right political actors. The key to discussing this issue revolves around populism and how one might define populism and its key aspects.
In his book, Muller often refers to the “people.” The people being discussed are those who are called “the people” by populist actors and represent a portion of people, not people as a whole. This is to say that people who follow populist ideology are more prone to accept information that benefits themselves whether true or false information. While I agree that we should engage far-right actors, I disagree with the use of “research, and cold hard facts.” As was discussed in class, fact-checking is not usually trusted by those on the right because they see it as a threat to their ideology, and the fact-checkers are run by “democrat elites” (my quotations). We can see this represented in the way former President Trump talks. Many times when statistics are involved, Trump dramatically inflates the numbers. His supporters don’t care about the actual number, but rather care about the principle behind the topic being discussed.
Democrats are notorious for having bad messaging and I believe it is because they are already using “research, and cold hard facts.” While Democrats shouldn’t abandon facts, they need to fight the illogical ideology of populists with popular ideas rather than numbers.
Throughout my life, ever since I was of the age where I barely understood politics, I never understood why the United States would not simply implement ranked choice voting. The problems you discussed, such as Democrats popularizing extremists in a gamble to win seats, independent voters feeling unrepresented by a lack of middle-road candidates, and other issues pertaining to electoral politics, could all be eradicated by the implementation of a more egalitarian voting system. Though, this would go against the interest of the two ruling parties, who could then face real challenges from third parties, but that’s an entirely separate, but very interesting discussion.
Where my opinion diverges from yours though, would be your ideal approach to how Democrats should counter the far-right. As much as I would like to believe that “cold hard facts” would win elections, I’m not at all convinced of that. In an era of unprecedented misinformation, people believe what they want to believe, and cannot have their minds changed easily. A concerning statistic that reflects this idea is that, even two years on, around 70% of Republican voters believe that the 2020 Presidential election was illegitimate! (https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/) No amount of empirical data, investigations, court rulings, or committee hearings can convince these people to abandon their leader. In some cases, it is necessary to appeal to emotion to even have the slightest chance of convincing someone to admit that they were wrong. Like what Bruce commented, I don’t think Democrats should abandon promoting true claims, that’s great, but facts alone do not swing elections. On the whole, your writing is articulate and effective. It sheds light on an issue not many are talking about: centrists enabling far-right actors, which is something I am very passionate about myself.