In not-so-surprising turn of events, on February 4th, the Republican National Committee (RNC) voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) for their role in investigating last year’s January 6th Capitol riot investigating last year’s January 6th Capitol riot. While the Republicans have felt no qualms about attacking Democrats on a variety of issues, both legitimate, and illegitimate, this censure marks a significant departure from business-as-usual politics. Their ire has now been turned loose within their own ranks. In the RNC’s resolution they stated that they, “immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party“. For all intents and purposes, the Republican Party has disowned Cheney and Kinzinger.
This move by the Republican leadership, however, is right on-par with what we have come to expect from the party that has become Donald Trump’s personal task-master. There is no doubt that Trump exhibits the behavior of an aspiring autocrat. He has sought to undermine respectful discourse, smash democratic norms, and diminish pluralism at every turn. This censure is just another episode of his autocratic behavior. In order to achieve his goals of aggrandizement (or weakening institutional checks in order to bolster his own power) [1], he must ensure that he keeps firm control of his base of support and his allies and he must eliminate any threat to that control. He has worked to co-opt the Republican Party and turned it into the Trump Party. While Trump himself did not hand down the censure, it was done by proxies within the Republican Party, intent on protecting him from the fallout of the Capitol riot. The incidence of this censure perfectly illustrates the tactics he has employed to seize power, both within the party and on a national level.
Step one in the wanna-be autocrat’s handbook is the demonization of opponents. While attacking one’s political rivals goes part and parcel with political competition, the manner in which it is done is significant. While politicians will often criticize a rival’s competence or policies, it is usually done with some level of mutual respect, recognizing that the other person is genuinely trying to do what is best for the country. Where these attacks become indicative of erosion and nefarious ambitions is when the rhetoric takes on a Manichaean bent. Studies have shown that aspiring autocrats across a variety of countries attempt to demonize their opponents to a far greater and more visceral degree than “normal” politicians [2]. Trump’s penchant for these kinds of vicious, personal attacks were exemplified when he said that Cheney was a “smug fool” and that “to look at her is to despise her”. This criticism is not based on any legitimate, ideological differences, but about Cheney as an individual.
Along with changing the nature of political discourse, throughout his presidency, Trump broke just about every norm in the book, so why shouldn’t his behavior extend to his interactions with his own party? This norm-breaking (another calling card of erosive behavior [3]) has manifested itself in the Republican Party as the abandoning of traditional Republican positions. For example, in foreign policy alone, Trump has single-handedly caused the party to move from positions of interventionism and international participation established by Republican leaders like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney, to ones of deep isolationism and the abandoning of the US’s allies. If he can illicit a complete reversal of policy, why can’t he kick fellow party members who pose a threat to his control to the curb?
Perhaps the strongest indicator that this censure is more than politics as usual and indicative of a more sinister agenda, is how Trump is attempting to all but eliminate pluralism within the Republican Party. Pluralism, or in this case the inclusion of many differing voices and stances within a political framework, is often considered a barometer of a successful democratic institution. It is also incredibly pesky when one is trying to consolidate power. In the same study that linked demonization to autocratic behavior, it was also found that aspiring autocrats try to eliminate pluralism within their countries [2], [4]. If the Republican Party is the structure upon which Trump’s support rests, it stands to reason that he would want to minimize pluralism within the party, as well as the country in general.
In any other scenario, it would behoove the Party to encompass a range of stances, from moderate to staunch Republicans, as a means of appealing to as many potential voters as possible. Furthermore, both Cheney and Kinzinger were well-liked. Cheney is essentially Republican royalty, being the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Kinzinger, a lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force, is regarded as a nice moderate candidate from a nice moderate district. So why risk upsetting your base of support?
In a calculated risk, the Republicans (or perhaps more accurately Trump) recognized that Cheney and Kinzinger’s moderation and voices of reason were a liability when it came to securing Trump’s power. Thus, Trump and his cronies took an ax to Cheney and Kinzinger’s ties to the Republican Party. After all, the easiest way to silence a dissenter within your ranks is to label them as a traitor.
[1] Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy 27, no. 1 (January 2016): 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012. [2] Stokes, Susan. “Ideology, Populism, and Democratic Erosion.” Lecture, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, February 23, 2002. [3] Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. “5: The Guardrails of Democracy.” Essay. In How Democracies Die, 97–117. London: Penguin Books, 2019. [4] Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Z. Huq. “4: When Democracies Decay.” Essay. In How to Save a
Great post, Anna! You take a deep look into the implications of this historic excommunication of two Republican Party stalwarts. Although I agree with your analysis, I’m curious to know what the the future holds for the party. Has it been irrevocably changed by Trump? It seems to be headed down a path that is increasingly right, with no hope of return to reconciliation and pluralism.
Anna Katz’s post alludes to 2 great questions surrounding the Republican party, and Trump’s role in the loss of two representatives. Will the Republican party be steered away from pluralism forever? Has Trump’s presidency created problems that can no longer be undone? These threats go beyond the importance of stability within the party and instead threaten the United States as a democratic institution. Trump’s ability to gain such support within the party, so much so to censure Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, shall impose greater fear for the future.
Labeled a populist, this is expected action for Trump to take- his inability to claim responsibility for any negative actions whatsoever displays this. But again, for other politicians and party members to stand by and support him, this is where the real problem begins. Considering what is happening in the world currently between Russia and Ukraine, this post reminds me of a current situation. As of Monday, February 28th, Switzerland has “broken neutrality” for the first time in over 200 years. In move to sanction Russia, Switzerland breaks from long tradition and takes actions to restore peace. By freezing Russian assets and blocking Russian air travel, Switzerland is gatekeeping Russia. The Swiss President, Ignazio Cassis, has given his reasonings for doing so; he claims that Putin’s actions go beyond their declaration of neutrality, and to remain indifferent in such a situation would be appeasing an authoritarian [1].
In an analogous way, Republicans could have taken the same stand against Trump by officially supporting Hilary Clinton back in 2016. It may have meant a loss and toll for their party, but it could have tamed the bigger threat of populism’s entrance to presidency. By gatekeeping Donald Trump, republicans could have prevented serious polarization, a threat well described by Robert Lieberman in his historical analysis of Trump. In the United States, the establishment of two polarized political parties provides a bridge that divides the institutions (executive and legislature). This influences candidates of either party to lean more moderately, in attempts to cater to more voters. This balance is essential for stability, and a lack thereof is causing the institutions to become manipulated by the parties. When the institutions become more focused on a partisan advantage, pluralism depletes [2].
Today we see the long-term effects Trump has had, as his reign continues to withhold influence over the party. Being that the two representatives recently censured were also among those who voted for Trump’s impeachment in 2021 is no coincidence. Can Trump’s impeachment now be considered a cleavage within the Republican party? As stated by Lipset, the inability for political institutions to resolve conflicts such as deep cleavages can contribute to their erosion [4]. Trump holding a “grudge” against those who have vehemently opposed him is a prime example of the forthcoming inability to resolve conflict. His wrath imposes fear among the party and gave him the ability to do exactly as he pleased. Like Anna Katz stated, he went against the party’s typical policies and precedent with little consequence.
Trump’s impeachment along with the incident under investigation that occurred on January 6th are two evident examples of Trump avoiding consequences. Trump’s exact role in the Capitol riot, with direct evidence, has not yet been concluded. However, this does not mean he is innocent. Like theorized by Levitsky and Ziblatt, Trump consolidated his executive power as an individual [3]. His ability as a populist to gain the people’s support was conducted in such a way that they worshiped him. He was a god-like figure in their eyes, and to this day he still has millions of supporters. His supporters’ attendance at the riot on January 6th is evidence enough that they will do anything to defend him. In fact, they were defending his loss in the election, one which he deemed fraudulent.
If a demagogue figure can still morale supporters after such events, the answer to my above questions can be predictably answered. Trump steered so far from political norms and was able to win the election as a populist. His road to victory, time as president, and actions after are proving to have everlasting effects. The republican party still backs him, his supporters will go beyond for him, and he is even favored to win as a candidate in the 2024 election. These actions can no longer be undone and are unmistakable evidence of the United States democracy backsliding. The Republican party is heading on a downward trajectory away from pluralism and towards populism, therefore worsening polarization.
References:
[1] Noack, R., & Westfall, S. (2022, February 28). In move to sanction Russia, Switzerland breaks from long tradition. Washington Post.
[2] Lieberman, R. C. (2018). The Trump Presidency and American Democracy: A Historical and Comparative Analysis | Perspectives on Politics.
[3] Levitsky, S. & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown publishing.
[4] Lipset, S. M. (2013). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is supposed to be a unified organization, but the passage of this recent censure is emphasizing the deep divisions and intergroup conflict within the Republican Party. Katz mentions that Trump’s behavior undoubtedly reflects an aspiring autocrat. I agree with this argument, but inevitably the entire RNC is following in the same authoritative direction as Donald Trump. The January 6th insurrection turned into a highly polarized event and became a turning point for the Republican Party. Republican politicians, such as Kinzinger and Cheney, have been punished by a censure for condemning the insurrection. The GOP will do anything to preserve Trump’s credibility. Levitsky and Ziblatt’s idea of a Fateful Alliance describes the Republican Party’s relationship with Donald Trump (Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die Chapter 1). Overall, the recent censure by the Republican National Committee reveals the internal turmoil and intensifying authoritarian culture happening within the republican party.
Levitsky and Ziblatt believe the guardrails of democracy rely on two core norms, institutional forbearance and mutual tolerance. Institutional forbearance is a politician’s commitment to a degree of restraint from using all their legal powers. Mutual tolerance is when a politician acknowledges their opponent as political equals. Mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance are closely related and reinforce each other. The failing of one eventually leads to the failing of the other. The erosion of mutual tolerance motivates politicians to deploy their institutional powers. The majority of the republican party has alienated and punished Cheney and Kinzinger for their involvement in the investigation of the insurrection. As a result, they have been punished with a rare and authoritative disciplinary measure. The RNC has decided to utilize this mechanism as a way to deney and blacklist the minority opposition within their own party. This completely denies pluralism, which is vital to a healthy democratic institution, as Katz stresses. Republicans have found that it is to their advantage to abandon these norms. Furthermore, the decay of these two norms, emphasizes the authoritative direction of the entire Republican Party (Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die Chapter 5).
As Katz mentions, the recent censure is an example of autocratic behavior. I invite you to consider Levitsky and Ziblatt’s four warning signs of autocracy: rejection of democratic rules, denying the legitimacy of opponents, toleration or encouragement of violence, and supporting laws that curtail civil liberties (Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die Chapter 3). I especially want to focus on the toleration and encouragement of violence. The majority of the republican party never denounced the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Moreover, the RNC has punished those who have condemned the violence, Cheney and Kinzinger, which is a telltale symptom of autocracy.
Katz raised important points, however I would like to take into account Ziblatt’s theory of maintaining a highly professional center right party. Center right parties ensure a stable democracy, since they advocate for incremental change. However, the Republican Party is experiencing a pull towards the radical right. This is because of their lack of compromise for anything other than their agenda. The radical right is less committed to the system as a whole and instead is loyal to their own radical ideologies. Cheney and Kinzinger, who act in a bipartisan manner, are a testament of this purge. The censure also emphasizes the diminishing moderate-ground and reasoning that was once present in the Republican Party. The loss of a center-right party, further exacerbates the polarization between democrats and republicans which poses major threats to the health of American democracy. This extreme polarization is the underlying condition that has enabled the deterioration of democratic norms (Ziblatt). It is also worth noting that the censure invokes fear among other GOP politicians to speak out, so they adhere to the radical right agenda. Ultimately, this promotes an authoritarian culture of self censorship and terror. However it is worth noting, not all Republican politicians agree with the censure. For example, Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell are appalled by the recent censure of Kinzinger and Cheney. This further reveals the growing divide within the Republican party.
Some may justify the censure because they believe Cheney and Kinizinger deserve to be punished for participating in the insurrection investigation. On the other hand, some may condemn the censure but might disagree with my stance that the censure supports a path towards authoritarianism. The censure may seem minor to some, but it is symbolic of internal turmoil through the loss of bi-paritsanship, pluralism, democratic norms, and center-right wing parties. Furthermore, if we consider Huq and Ginsburg’s theory about Congressional Retrogression, the erosion of democracy is incremental and stealthy rather than an abrupt collapse into authoritarianism (Huq and Ginsburg). The censure is one of many subtle mechanisms that is intensifying the authoritative culture within the republican party.
Works Cited
Huq, Aziz Z., and Tom Ginsburg. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901776.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Penguin, 2018, p. Chapter 5.
—. How Democracies Die. Penguin, 2018, p. Chapter 3.
—. How Democracies Die. Penguin, 2018, p. Chapter 1.
Ziblatt, Daniel. Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2017.