The Constitution Is Not Enough
The United States is approaching the midterm elections with its Constitution, its ideals and its rules mocked and disregarded by its most powerful citizen. That same Constitution, invoked as a precious safeguard during the first Trump administration, now seems to waver under the political weight of the judges appointed during that very period. Each day offers a new example of how rules and laws, even those traditionally held in the highest regard, are essential but effective only when supported by a political culture, political will, and a shared commitment to defend and enforce them.
When Power Meets Resistance
It seemed that political decency and respect had become relics of the past, replaced by the law of the strongest. And yet something shifted, precisely when the triumph of cynicism and brute force appeared complete. The overwhelming power of the United States government met resistance. At home, in Minneapolis. Abroad, in the authoritarian government of Iran. To be sure, that power remained overwhelming in principle: protesters in Minneapolis could have continued to be killed, and the threat of wiping out an entire civilization could have been carried out, at least in principle. Yet in the first case courage, and in the second, the sense of having nothing left to lose, were enough to call the bluff of the most powerful country in the world. America discovered that politics remains a subtle game of alliances and credible threats. It is still, to some extent, a world of taboos, even if the boundary between what is acceptable and what is not has shifted considerably in recent years. We have not yet reached the moment when the world's oldest modern democracy can kill its citizens with impunity or level an entire country to the ground.
A growing unease is becoming visible among supporters of this administration. There is the disappointment of those who hoped for relief from the extraordinary cost of living in the United States, and those who expected renewed international prestige, but are instead witnessing a capitulation born of reckless and unfounded arrogance. After months in which electoral promises have largely gone unfulfilled, the reality in the wallets of those who voted for this administration is beginning to replace their faith that things will improve.
Midterm Elections and Checks and Balances
Many on the left are already celebrating a possible Democratic victory in the midterm elections. In the House of Representatives, which is renewed in its entirety every two years, every seat will theoretically be up for grabs. In the Senate, only one-third of the seats will be contested, and although a majority of those seats are currently held by Republicans, the prospects for Democratic control of the Senate remain slim. Gaining control of even one chamber of Congress could help revitalize the system of checks and balances envisioned by the American Constitution.
The Issue of Gerrymandering
There are, however, two deeply undemocratic practices that may stand in the way of the outcome Democrats hope for. The first is the extraordinary economic and technological power concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals who may choose to wield it, as has already happened, in support of this administration. The second is the practice of redrawing electoral districts in order to engineer desired political outcomes, the process known as gerrymandering.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have reinvigorated this practice, which has been used and abused by both parties for more than two centuries. In particular, less than two months ago, Louisiana v. Callais determined that it is unconstitutional to take racial composition into account in certain districts for the purpose of guaranteeing representation for African Americans. This is allowing many Southern states to redraw their districts in ways that dilute the electoral power of these minorities or concentrate it into fewer districts, a practice known as “cracking” or “packing.” Many commentators have seen in these developments an attempt to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the landmark legislation for which Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X fought in radically different ways, and which sought to bring an end to a century of barriers preventing African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
Some traditionally Democratic states, such as California, are responding with similar tactics in an effort to counter what they see as an undemocratic path to Republican victory. But the method remains undemocratic, regardless of which party chooses to employ it.
The Dignity of Politics as a Response
And so we return to the dignity of politics, the care of institutions and resistance against the cynicism of those who break the rules with which we began. For a long time, those who defended these values were dismissed as naive idealists. Today we can see the destruction, but also the ineffectiveness, that cynics and “realists” have brought to the world. Perhaps it is worth giving rules and dignity another go.
