This is the kind of thing people say to me often on Twitter:
Fact: Republicans use hardball tactics. Remember when Mitch McConnell, then-Senate Majority Leder, refused to consider Obama’s nomination for the Supreme Court because it was March in an election year. But when Trump was president, he jammed a Supreme Court appointment through in a few weeks in October, after the voting started?
Another example would be lies. Lies are also a hardball tactic. The lie that the election was stolen is a provable lie. So is the lie that there is widespread voter fraud.
Hardball tactics are technically allowable under the constitution. They don’t violate the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t say “don’t lie.” That would be hard to enforce.
But they put stress on institutions. They weaken democracy by destroying norms and making politics not work.
If both parties engage in democracy-destroying behavior, both sides will be damaging the institutions, and democracy will be destroyed. One side has to defend the institutions.
Now that they’ve become a full-on white grievance party, their numbers are shrinking even more.
That’s why they’re trying to make voting harder.
Democrats, on the other hand, have better long term prospects because the Democrat’s base is expanding. So it’s in the best interest of the Democrats to preserve institutions while the Republican’s only hope is to smash them. If Democrats also play hardball, they’re helping the Republicans
Put another way: If you fight fire with fire, you burn the place down.
For democracy to survive at least one of the two major political parties has to uphold and defend institutions. You can’t defend institutions while you’re battering them.
What makes this hard is that norm and rule breakers have advantages. It’s harder to play by the rules. So how do you fight back while protecting and defending democratic institutions?
One way is what legal scholars calls anti-hardball tactics. Not fighting back with fire doesn’t mean you’re meek and roll over. It means you respond to in a way that mitigates the damage to the institutions without engaging in hardball.
For example, take voter suppression, which is based on the lie that there’s widespread fraud.
When Republicans enacts laws making it harder for minority communities to vote, an anti-hardball tactic is to mobilize the population to work around the barriers by mobilizing to get people to the polls. Later, after winning election by large enough majorities, the unfair laws can be changed.
I understand that rule breakers have advantages. It’s easier to win if you cheat. It’s easier to win elections if you shamelessly lie.
But the truth tellers also have an advantage.
Being on the side of truth is powerful. Standing on the side of democracy is powerful. So is standing on the side of making voting easier rather than harder for eligible voters. So is trying to enact fairness instead of maintaining a hierarchy. It’s hard to feel noble when you’re knowingly spreading lies because you think the ends justifies the means.
Moreover, there are more of us, which is why the Republicans are trying so hard to suppress the vote.
Some well respected political commentators advise Democrats to fight like Republicans.
It seems to me, why would we try to imitate people we don’t admire?
If Democrats start breaking norms, they prove true that both sides are the same. If they act like Republicans, who can see the difference? They prove that neither side cares about democracy.
If both parties are guilty, what’s a person (voter) to do?
If we want to save democracy, someone has to take the high road.
One of my followers on Twitter responded with this:
I also put this one on my youtube channel, here:
