In the United States’ hyper-polarized political environment, endorsements that cross party lines are relatively rare. Yet in 2024, several high-profile Republicans urged their own party members to vote for Kamala Harris, a Democrat, rather than support Donald Trump’s reelection bid.

Many prominent Republicans, including former Trump administration officials, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, over 200 individuals who had served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as Sen. Mitt Romney and the late Sen. John McCain, signed a letter endorsing Harris. Former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, an outspoken critic of Trump, actively campaigned with Harris across swing states, urging fellow Republicans to cast a “country over party” vote. Even her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, a longstanding figure in Republican politics, endorsed Harris. 

The “Republicans for Harris” movement was not just a strategic, though ultimately unsuccessful, tool used by the Harris campaign – it also serves as a significant marker in the broader narrative of democratic health, particularly when viewed through the lens of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die.”

Democratic Gatekeeping

Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that democracies are not exclusively undone by coups or revolutions; instead, they may deteriorate gradually as norms erode under the influence of anti-democratic authoritarian leaders. They highlight autocratic leaders throughout history whose rise to power was enabled by establishment politicians, many of whom underestimated these outsiders’ ability to dismantle their country’s democracy. Conversely, they also point to democracies that have successfully resisted such demagogues, such as Finland and Belgium, emphasizing that their success was not simply the result of smart voters, but of the proactive efforts of political parties and their elites. 

Central to their argument is the concept of democratic gatekeeping, where mainstream political parties act as guardians of democracy, often forming alliances – even with an ideologically opposing party – to isolate and defeat an extremist. 

In the deeply polarized U.S., it’s hard to imagine mainstream parties uniting with their opponents over almost anything; Levitsky and Ziblatt offer the theoretical example of Senator Edward Kennedy and other liberal Democrats campaigning for Ronald Reagan to illustrate this point. However, the endorsements of Harris by figures like the Cheneys arguably mirror this very scenario.

The Republicans who endorsed Harris made it clear that their opposition to Trump was not about policy differences but about their perception of him as a threat to democracy. For instance, Dick Cheney explicitly cited the dangers Trump poses to the Constitution as his motivation, reinforcing that his endorsement is a call to preserve democratic norms. Many Republican figures and former Trump administration officials within the “Republicans for Harris” movement used similar language, further supporting the notion that they intended to counteract a perceived authoritarian threat, which aligns with Levitsky and Ziblatt’s theory.

When Reaching Across the Aisle Fails

Simply put, the strategy didn’t work.

In 2024, conservatives voted for Trump by even larger percentages than in 2020. There was a red shift across most of the country, among nearly every possible demographic group.

Even locations where Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney remained red. In Ripon, Wisconsin, where a rally with Cheney gained national attention, Trump won by an even greater margin than in 2020. 

There are numerous reasons that these efforts might have failed. First, the Republicans who backed Harris may not have been popular enough with conservative voters to sway them. Dick Cheney, for example, hasn’t held office in over 15 years and ended his VP term with staggeringly low approval ratings; likewise, Liz Cheney isn’t particularly well-liked among conservatives. If different, more current conservative figures had joined this effort, there might have been more success.

Moreover, by spending significant time and resources campaigning with Liz Cheney and promoting the endorsements from other Republicans, Harris may have neglected members of her Democratic voter base whose support was more crucial. 

Could Political Parties Still Block Authoritarian Leaders?

The efficacy of democratic gatekeeping depends on major political parties’ ability to deter voters from an authoritarian candidate, even one with populist appeal. However, the current state of party strength in the U.S. lowers the chance that parties could successfully fulfill this role, even if they intended to.

To put it mildly, Americans are dissatisfied with national politics. This frustration applies to all three branches of government, political leaders and candidates, and both major political parties. In fact, since the mid-1990s, the percentage of Americans with negative views of both parties has more than quadrupled; research even shows that dislike for the opposing party now surpasses the affection people feel for their own party, pointing to a decline in party identification.

Parties used to wield significantly more power in American politics. It wasn’t until reforms following the 1868 presidential election that the nomination process was altered, giving voters more power in deciding who would represent the party in the general election.

While many argue that shifting power to ordinary party members instead of elites makes the process more democratic, it also reduces parties’ ability to act as gatekeepers against authoritarian candidates. With reduced control over who can run under their party label, especially as outside groups can provide a candidate with financial support, parties now have less leverage to discourage the rise of an extremist.  In an era of weakened party influence, even a high-profile bipartisan effort may be unable to sway voters.

Ultimately, the “Republicans for Harris” initiative highlights democratic gatekeeping – and its limitations – in American politics. Though the high-profile endorsements from conservatives attracted significant media attention, they failed to effectively persuade the electorate and may have been unsuccessful even under more favorable conditions. In the years ahead, deep political polarization and weak party strength may hinder even the most concerted efforts to isolate figures who threaten democratic norms.