Equal and Opposite Reaction
Institutional reform is the only way out of this
On last Wednesday’s podcast, I talked about some of the extreme events taking place as an offshoot of MAGA Republican efforts to undermine democracy. The Republican House conference collapsing under the weight of a public leadership struggle. A presidential candidate facing trial, potential conviction, and even disqualification from the ballot.
As we slog through this difficult and unprecedented time, we should be thinking ahead to a moment in the future—perhaps the relatively near future—when those invested in protecting democracy could have the ability to put in place real guardrails against future democratic backsliding.
That means giving serious consideration to institutional reforms, including measures that were politically impossible in the era just past.
In politics, as in the physical world, when you push hard in one direction you invite an equally strong reaction to come back at you. It’s political physics.
So when one political party emboldens its extremes and normalizes fringe projects, reactions by the other side which would have raised eyebrows in more staid moments became easier to justify in response.
It is noteworthy that Democrats have not responded to the rise of MAGA by indulging their leftmost impulses. But the party has moved to the left. I contend that this movement is smart, because it positions Democrats close to the center of public opinion outside Trumpworld.
This shift, which may be best illustrated by an incumbent president walking the picket lines alongside striking auto workers for the first time in history, should convince progressives they have a closer friend in the White House than they thought they were getting during the 2020 primaries.
Joe Biden’s support will be important in the years ahead, because a byproduct of the chaos we’re living through is the potential for it to open space for reformers to advance an agenda that was impossible as recently as last year—a leftward reaction to the Republican’s push to the hard right. As I said in the podcast, once we make it through this threatening, unstable period,
Political objectives that were out of bounds in the 90s and 2000s will be possible. This is just what political realignment looks like.
Although this shift could open a window for progressive policies, institutional reform needs to come first.
One of the lessons of the Trump era is that a determined minority can unilaterally bend, break, or discard the rules to achieve its ends. Reformers can make this much harder to do.
I’d like to expand on this point to make the case for why shoring up our institutions is essential and what it’s going to take to make it happen.
Then, on Friday, I’ll offer an agenda of specific reforms that should be debated now so reformers can move as soon as the opportunity arises.
Minority rights vs. minority rule
Institutional arrangements designed to protect minority rights are the soft underbelly of our political system, and they have been exploited effectively by Republicans for many years.
The Constitution’s framers were concerned with preventing tyranny, or the denial of liberty to any group by any other group.
Any federal institution that is anti-majoritarian by design was developed to protect minority interests, the most vocal of which at the Constitutional Convention were small states and slaveholders. The Senate and Electoral College were developed in response. The Senate represents territory. The Electoral College permits candidates who come in second to win the presidency.
One of the lessons of the Trump era is that a determined minority can unilaterally bend, break, or discard the rules to achieve its ends. Reformers can make this much harder to do.
It’s pretty easy to see how a majority could tyrannize a minority by abusing its power. But it is also possible for a passionate and organized minority to tyrannize everyone else. This is the essence of Trumpism, which is and has always been a minority faction.
Republicans—even before MAGA—skillfully used institutions designed to prevent them from being tyrannized to tyrannize others. Some of this was the strategic exploitation of a geographic accident—the sorting of the country into a small number of densely populated blue states and a large number of sparsely populated red states.
Without this geographic sorting, Republicans would not have been able to lose the popular vote in all but one election since 1988 and still elect two presidents. They would not have been able to lose the aggregate Senate vote year after year and still hold majorities or put control of the chamber in play every cycle.
These inequities have given Republicans the institutional base to function as if they had a majority—to engage in minority rule without winning majority support. It has allowed them to shape the ideological character of the Supreme Court, violating their responsibility to advise and consent when they had no other way to achieve their ends.
Their ability to dominate governments in red states has enabled them to radically gerrymander House districts, amplifying their representation in the lower chamber beyond what a level playing field would produce.
They have abused Senate procedures like the filibuster and “blue slip” tradition of being able to nix home-state judicial nominees to stifle Democrats when they are in the majority.
The resulting minority rule is a far cry from protecting minority rights. Any serious attempt to prevent the rise of a future anti-democratic movement has to address these institutional inequities.
What happens next?
The nature of our politics and the complex constitutional amendment process put the largest institutional reforms out of reach. We’re not going to change the Senate. We’re not going to eliminate the Electoral College.
But there are a host of reforms that can happen with the simple consent of Congress and the president’s signature.
That means there has to be a reformist majority in Congress and a reform-minded president in the White House. Which means Democrats have to clear a high threshold in next year’s elections.
They have to hold the White House, reclaim the House, and hold their Senate majority despite a highly unfavorable electoral map while replacing Kyrsten Sinema with Ruben Gallego.
Why Gallego? Because no meaningful reform is possible without modifying the filibuster. Gallego is the Democrat looking to replace Sinema, the erstwhile Arizona Democrat running as an independent. Sinema opposed modifying the filibuster. Gallego will do it—and he would be the 50th vote.
This feels like a lot. It is a lot. But it is what the moment requires. And Democrats are going to get help from Republicans to achieve it. Every election since 2016 has motivated the anti-MAGA majority to turn out in large numbers once they understood what was at stake.
Then what?
Then it’s all about political courage. About a new majority meeting the moment.
Because we can’t change how representation works in the Senate, and because of the geographic divisions in the country, any potential Democratic majority is going to be slender. In the Senate it could be 50-50.
But the chaos we’re experiencing this year and will most definitely witness next year will provide the impetus for reformers to make the case that big changes need to be made to secure democracy for the longterm and make sure another threat doesn’t arise.
It may fall to a small majority to get it done, but it would be a majority—and a large share of the public will be supportive of the effort.
Most of the time, our government is wracked by gridlock. That’s by design. Dramatic changes are rare, but when they happen they tend to happen quickly in response to events. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs following Kennedy’s assassination. FDR’s New Deal during the depths of the Great Depression.
If next year’s election returns a positive verdict on democracy, a moment will present itself. Reformers should be ready.
On Friday, I’ll offer some ideas about what a reform agenda might look like.
