In the not-so-distant past, prominent American politicians were never asked whether they were prepared to accept their country's election results. Our political system was stable and healthy enough to reveal answers to such questions.
But as the radicalization of Republican politics intensifies, the party's top leaders are not only confronting the issue, but also responding to it while avoiding risk.
This also applies to Republican officials and candidates who are (a) conspiracy theorists; (b) Desperate to stay on the good side of Donald Trump and his party's base; (c) Both, but what I am particularly interested in right now is the Republican candidate for vice president.
Last week, for example, Sen. Tim Scott appeared on NBC's “Meet the Press” and asked host Kristen Welker if he was ready to accept the results of the 2024 presidential election, simply asking, “Yes? I kept asking him to answer “no”. election. Scott refused.
Seven days later, it was Sen. J.D. Vance's turn. NBC News reported:
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a potential vice presidential candidate, said Sunday that he “fully plans” to accept the results of the presidential election if the election is “free and fair.” . … “I fully intend to accept the outcome of 2024,” Vance told CNN anchor Dana Bash, adding that he believed Trump would win.
Admittedly, this is a pretty clunky shell game.
- Republicans have “plans” to accept the 2024 results as long as the elections are “free and fair.”
- Republicans will decide for themselves whether the election was “free and fair” based on amorphous, undefined criteria they do not share.
- If the Democrats win the election, the result will inevitably raise questions about the “free and fair” nature of the election — because the Republicans say so — and the Republicans will accept the result at that point. 's 'plans' are ignored.
Obviously, it's difficult to take Vance's position seriously. But what makes this partisan dynamic even more alarming is the fact that he and Tim Scott are not alone in avoiding answers and warnings about this fundamental question.
President Trump has clearly refused to respect the election results (the same stance he took four years ago), but his vice presidents, including Vance, Scott, and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, The same goes for people hoping to become candidates. It's no wonder those hoping to curry favor with Mar-a-Lago will respond similarly in the coming days and weeks.
If you adopt this posture, you may want to shrug your shoulders. To be sure, it can be argued that these Republicans are risk-averse and have added qualifications, but that is because their expression of unconditional support for democracy could doom national aspirations. It's just because I know it's expensive. They're all just playing an unfortunate game.
But viewing developments this way overlooks broader dangers. For major political parties to tell their most ambitious members that they can expect them to be skeptical of the election results reflects a dangerous degree of radicalism.
Rachel's A block from last week is true. “The loss of democracy is the loss of the expectation that we are participating in an election, because all sides in that election plan to accept the result. If you lose, you go home; if you win, you lose I'm going to be in power.” she said. “If we can no longer expect that, we will no longer be a democratic system of governance in many important respects.
“When one of the two major ruling parties no longer believes that elections are binding, in many important ways the ship of democracy has sailed, because they can no longer compete on democratic grounds. If either of the two major parties no longer pledges to abide by election results, win or lose, democratic governance systems are not under threat of harm, they are already being harmed. .”