Mediaboss Marketing

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. (MarketWatch) Holding a Yesli Vega for Congress sign for his lawn that he just picked up from one of the Virginia Republicans campaign offices, Clinton Melson says he and his wife plan to vote for her because of their concerns about schools, inflation and defense.

Were all about education because we have grandchildren, and we just think that the Republican Party in general and Vega in particular are better for education, said Melson, a retired resident of Virginias Stafford County, which lies just north of Fredericksburg.

Theyve figured out that the schools are drifting into subjects that really dont benefit the kids in the long run, he told MarketWatch, making a similar point as other GOP-leaning voters have amid a national debate over how much K-12 schools should teach about race and sex. They need to stick with the basics in education.

Related: Youngkin says his win in Virginia governors race shows going on the offensive on schools works for Republicans

Melson, who worked for the Defense Department before retiring, said hes also supporting the GOP challenger rather than incumbent Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger because he thinks Republicans are traditionally better on defense ITA, -1.14% issues and because the U.S. cant stay on its current path with inflation through the roof and hurting retirees.

Read MarketWatchs coverage of U.S. inflation.

The battle between Spanberger and Vega to represent Virginias newly redrawn Seventh Congressional District is among the competitive midterm contests that analysts are watching closely.

Republicans are aiming to take back control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate from Democrats in Novembers midterm elections, and betting market PredictIt gives a 74% chance for a House flip, but just 40% odds for the Senate changing hands. The outcomes for the midterms will determine the extent to which the GOP can shake up President Joe Bidens agenda, such as by providing aggressive oversight of the Biden administrations regulators or taking action on issues such as the child tax credit or crime. A first-term presidents party tends to lose congressional ground in the midterms.

The Seventh Congressional District sits in northern Virginia, not far from Washington, D.C. After a redistricting last year by court-appointed special masters, it consists of the city of Fredericksburg and nearby counties, such as Stafford, Spotsylvania, Culpeper and Orange, as well as a chunk of Prince William County, while no longer including parts of the Richmond area where Spanberger lives.

Its rated as leaning Democratic by both theUniversity of Virginias Center for Politicsand theCook Political Report, though Cook had ranked it as a toss-up until Sept. 1. In switching its rating, Cook cited a post-Dobbs spike in Democratic voter enthusiasm, referring to the Supreme Courts June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a constitutional right to an abortion.

As our Leans Democratic rating implies, wed choose Spanberger if we had to pick a winner, but shes not out of the woods yet. There are still about two months left until Election Day, said J. Miles Coleman, associate editor for Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginias Center for Politics. Things have seemed on the upswing for Democrats, with their party jumping ahead in a key indicator thats known as the generic ballot, but there may be time for things to shift back to the GOP, he told MarketWatch.

If Republicans beat Spanberger, theyve probably won a relatively comfortable House majority, Coleman said, adding that means a majority perhaps in the range of 230 to 240 seats. He noted that Biden carried the new district by a 7-point margin in 2020, but then Republican Glenn Youngkin won it by a 5-point margin in the 2021 governors race.

Cliff Heinzer, who chairs the Stafford County Democratic Committee, said hes been knocking on voters doors and gets the sense that fuel prices were an issue for a while, but they dont seem to be much of an issue now. Gasoline prices RB00, -0.52% have dropped by well over $1 after the U.S. average peaked in June above $5 a gallon.

Instead, women voters often want to confirm that Spanberger supports abortion rights, and some residents talk about theFBIs search last month of Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago home as part of an investigation into whether the former president tookclassified records, according to Heinzer. He has worked for the federal government, including on Defense Department contracts, and noted that many other locals have that type of experience, given the areas proximity to Washington.

A lot of folks, myself included, spent lots of time meticulously making sure that we secured classified information, so that resonates a little more loudly in Stafford than it might in another community, he said of the Mar-a-Lago search. Heinzer added that transportation issues, such as congestion on I-95, are crucial for the district, but achieving solutions is often challenging and requires a regional effort.

Tonya James, who chairs the Prince William County Democrats, said shes also often finding voters are concerned about abortion rights, including men because their kids and their grandkids and possibly their spouses could be impacted.

A lot of what Im hearing at the doors as I talk to voters is about the right to choose, said James, who is helping to campaign for Spanberger but lives in part of Prince William County thats not in the Seventh Congressional District.

Meanwhile, Steve Mouring, who chairs the Culpeper County Republican Committee, said hes seen the Mar-a-Lago search affecting voters, but in a different way. On the night that news broke about the FBIs move, part of the GOP committee tried to start a meeting at their headquarters building, but got delayed as locals who support Trump showed up after hearing the news.

We had to wait like 45 minutes to start a meeting, because so many people were coming up wanting to sign up, wanting to get signs and things like that, Mouring told MarketWatch. He also said: People cannot believe that a former president was being treated that way.

When asked about issues in the race, Spanberger said in a statement that lowering prescription-drug costs often comes up with voters, and thats why she supported the Inflation Reduction Act, which gives Medicare the power to negotiate drug PJP, -0.39% prices.

She also said shes been ringing the alarm bell about inflation for nearly a year and has aimed to fix U.S. supply chains by introducing a bipartisan bill that would provide a new tax incentive to attract and retain truck drivers.

Related: Lobbyist for truckers on the driver shortage: If the job that youre offering sucks, is the solution really go find more suckers, or should you improve the job?

Regarding the Supreme Courts overturning of Roe and the aftermath, the two-term congresswoman said West Virginia has become the second U.S. state to pass stringent abortion restrictions, so Virginians can feel these bans coming closer to home, which is why I have voted with majorities in the U.S. House to codify a womans right to choose, defend access to contraception and ensure interstate travel for reproductive care.

Vegas campaign didnt respond to multiple requests for comment. In an interview last month with Fox News at a Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC) event in Texas, she said a survey of Prince William County residents found that the top issue for residents was having a safe and secure community.

So for me personally, ensuring that we provide that to our constituents is paramount, she said, adding that other priorities for her are getting a handle on the chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, the historic inflation thats hitting the country and wasteful spending.

Vega has an uplifting personal biography, said Coleman from the University of Virginias Center for Politics.

Shes the daughter of Salvadoran immigrants who became a police officer, then a sheriffs deputy, and currently serves on Prince William Countys Board of Supervisors.

One challenge for Vega, Coleman said, is she had a sort of Todd Akin moment, referring to the Missouri politician criticized in 2012 for saying that victims of legitimate rapetypically dont get pregnant.

In Vegas case, she played down the likelihood of becoming pregnant as a result of rape. As her comment drew media attention in June, she said: Liberals are desperate to distract from their failed agenda of record high gas and grocery prices and skyrocketing crime.

Spanberger also has law-enforcement experience, having worked on narcotics and money-laundering cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service before becoming a CIA officer. And she has perhaps apopulisty, bipartisan image, according to Coleman, thanks in part to efforts such as her work with Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy on a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading stocks.

Related: Its crunch time for the push to ban Congress from trading stocks

The national environment may be Spanbergers biggest challenge Bidens approval ratings are generally not positive, and inflation is still a leading issue, the University of Virginia expert said.

Rosalyn Cooperman, a political science professor and department chair at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, said Vega is a very compelling candidate, in many regards, who has captivated the attention of national Republicans in part because of her background as a Latina and law-enforcement officer.

At the same time, Cooperman reckons that Spanberger has positioned herself perhaps better than other candidates defending seats in either swing districts or lean districts, as shes generally viewed as pretty moderate on issues and didnt vote for California Democrat Nancy Pelosi to be House speaker.

Having more money doesnt ensure a victory in congressional contests, but there is a tremendous gap in fundraising that favors Spanberger, said the University of Mary Washingtons Cooperman.

The Democratic incumbent reported raising $5.6 million in the current election cycle as of June 30, while Vega disclosed bringing in about $750,000.

Vega might not get help as much help from other GOP organizations, as some may be drawn instead to the race in Virginias Second Congressional District, which is rated as a toss-up, Cooperman said.

If Im a party, if I am an organized interest that wants to throw money into a race in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where am I going to put it? Im probably going to put it in Virginia 2 as opposed to Virginia 7. Thats great news for Rep. Spanberger, but for the Republican challenger, Yesli Vega, that becomes another challenge to overcome, the professor said.

Steve Thomas, a former chair of the Spotsylvania County Republican Committee who does fundraising and consulting for campaigns, said he thinks GOP donors have lots of interest in both Virginia races.

Vega has a great story, but not a lot of money to tell it, starting out at least. So how that balances out is going to be the question, Thomas said. He argued that Spanberger has a terrible story, as she doesnt live in the district and is a member of an unpopular incumbent party but shes got 5 million bucks.

Thomas currently doesnt live in the seventh district but worked for one of Vegas opponents in the GOP primary. He said he had concerns that Vega hadnt been in her county-level elected office for long and lived just outside the Seventh Congressional District. But he said now he expects shell be a solid representative.

When asked about moving into the new district, Spanberger stressed that her job at the moment doesnt involve representing the people living within the districts new borders, as the prior boundaries are still in effect through years end.

I serve the people of the current 7th District until January 2nd, said Spanberger, who took office after her 2018 win over Rep. Dave Brat, a Republican known for ousting Eric Cantor, then the No. 2 House Republican, in their 2014 primary.

She said the new seventh district is 75% new terrain, and 25% the current district, so she is always meeting new people and, fortunately, getting to see old friends. Spanberger said she will make my plans to move to the new 7th District after January 2023.

Read more here:
Midterm elections: If this seat flips red, Republicans will have 'probably won a relatively comfortable House majority' - MarketWatch

Today, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra released the following statement on House Republicans introducing legislation to deny women essential medications:

Denying women the care they need is un-American in fact, its dangerous. That sums up the latest move in Congress to try to take away womens access to prescription medication for reproductive health. Under federal law, patients have the right to access the health care they need, free of discrimination. The Biden-Harris Administration will vigorously advance and protect women's rights to essential health care. We wont hesitate to enforce the law.

Below is a summary of the actions HHS has taken to ensure access to reproductive health care following the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization Supreme Court decision:

Protecting Emergency Medical Care: HHSissued guidanceand aletter from Secretary Becerrato reaffirm that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, also known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) protects providers when offering legally-mandated, life- or health-saving abortion services as stabilizing care for emergency medical conditions.

Safeguarding Information on Health and Rights for Patients and Providers: HHSlaunched the ReproductiveRights.govpublic awareness website, which includes accurate information about reproductive health, including a Know-Your-Rights patient fact sheet to help patients and providers.

Protecting Patients and Providers from Discrimination:

Protecting Patient Privacy:HHSissued guidancethat clarifies to patients and providers the extent to which federal law and regulations protect individuals private medical information when seeking abortion and other forms of reproductive health care, as well as when using apps on smartphones.

Supporting Quality Reproductive Health Care:HHSannounced nearly $3 millionin new funding to bolster training and technical assistance for the nationwide network of Title X family planning providers.

Protecting Access to Birth Control:

HHS has also released a report that the agency prepared for the President on HHS actions taken to-date to ensure access to reproductive health care following the Supreme Courts ruling, with further details on future actions and commitments. Read the report Secretarys Report: Health Care Under Attack: An Action Plan to Protect and Strengthen Reproductive Care.

View post:
Statement by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra on House Republicans Introducing Legislation to Rip Away Women's Access to Contraception and Abortion...

Democrats and public education advocates are urging Gov. Doug Ducey and his fellow Republicans in the state Legislature to keep their promise to lift the states annual school spending cap.

Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature together passed a budget in June that dedicated more than $600 million to new, permanent funding for K-12 education. However, if two-thirds of the legislature doesnt vote to lift the states Aggregate Expenditure Limit, or AEL, districts across the state wont be able to spend around $1.3 billion already allocated to them.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Many Democrats in the Legislature say they only voted in favor of the budget because Ducey and the Republican legislators promised they would later call a special session to lift the limit.

If Democrats can prove they have the votes to override the AEL, Ducey will call a special session, said C.J. Karamargin, communications director for the governors office.

What is the point of giving our public schools money but not allowing them to spend it? asked Sen. Christine Marsh during a press conference Thursday. Its a betrayal of our students and our schools. Its also a betrayal of the legislators who voted for a less-than-ideal budget under the promise that there would be a special session to address the AEL.

Voters added the AEL to the Arizona Constitution in 1980. It implemented a shared monetary limit based on the spending and enrollment at all public school districts in the state, according to the Arizona Education Association. Once districts reach their shared limit, they can do no more spending in that fiscal year.

Advocates pointed out on Thursday that the AEL predates laws requiring sometimes costly accommodations for special education students as well as expensive technology that is now used in many classrooms.

A small group of legislators and education advocates gathered for the press conference on the state Capitol grounds in Phoenix on Thursday morning to call out Ducey and legislative Republicans for their failure to schedule a special session.

If the AEL isnt lifted for 2023, school funding will drop off April 1 and districts will be unable to spend more than $1 billion in money they were given.

According to Marsh, who is a teacher at Scottsdale Unified School District, her district stands to lose around $28.4 million if the limit isnt lifted. Chandler Unified School District stands to lose $62.4 million, Phoenix Union High School District would lose $52.6 million and Tucson Unified School District would lose $66.1 million

This comes down to kids, and they deserve to know that their state cares about their education, Marsh said. And right now, they dont know this.

Failure to lift the limit will result in teacher layoffs, larger classroom sizes and poor learning outcomes, Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman said during the press conference.

Sierra Vista Unified School District, located southeast of Tucson, would have to reduce its average teacher salary from $50,000 to $35,200 if the limit stays in place, Hoffman said.

How are schools supposed to obtain highly qualified teachers for only $35,000 a year? Hoffman said.

The spending cap might also mean fewer paraprofessionals to assist special education students, and fewer counselors, behavioral coaches and school nurses, she said.

Democrats said they agreed to approve the state budget in June without addressing the AEL as a concession to Republicans who wanted to wait for a judgment in a court case challenging Proposition 208, also known as the Invest in Education Act. The voter-approved measure would have provided millions in funding for schools through a 3.5% surcharge on all income greater than $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for joint filers.

But the judgment calling the act unconstitutional and the following appeal period are now long passed, and Democrats say its time for Ducey to call the promised special session.

Democrats are confident that, if Ducey does call for a special session, they have the votes to lift the spending limit. The state education budget passed in June with 48 votes in the House and 21 in the Senate, more than the votes needed to lift the limit, said House Democratic Leader Reginald Bolding.

But Karamargin countered that Democrats havent supplied the governor with a list of Legislators who are on board.

Well consider it as we said we would, he said.

Those who supported that budget should support lifting the limit so that money can be spent, Bolding said on Thursday. He believes that anyone who changes their vote was playing political games or being dishonest.

Karamargin believes Bolding was making assumptions when he said that those who voted for the budget should support lifting the AEL.

The Legislature voted in February to lift the AEL for the 2022 fiscal year, which ended June 30. The proposed vote would be to lift it for 2023.

***This story has been updated to include comments from the governors office.

Read this article:
Democrats urge Republicans to keep promise, lift cap that will stop schools from spending $1 billion - Arizona Mirror

This week has been difficult for those of us who want to see a fully democratised, 21st-century polity that doesnt have a hereditary billionaire as its head of state. Everything from the gratuitous wall-to-wall media coverage to the arrest of anti-monarchy protestors and the state-sanctioned cancel culture of those who dissent has laid bare the fact that this transition is as much about coercion as consent.

But, strangely, these acts have not been the most difficult thing to reconcile in this tumultuous week. Instead, it has been watching the livestream of tens of thousands of fellow citizens from all walks of life, quietly queueing for up to nine hours to file past a coffin while bowing and curtsying. My initial response was one of bemusement followed by a touch of despair. Why, I asked, would so many people, often with so little, show such deference to an institution that is the very embodiment of the inequalities of wealth and power that permeate our country? Because until republicans can fully understand this sentiment, we will struggle to win the argument for transition from constitutional monarchy to constitutional democracy.

To gain that insight you need only listen to the same people interviewed, almost continuously, on television and the radio about why theyve attended. People are clearly moved, with some in the queue talking about their parents deaths or, more commonly, about wanting to be a part of history. Thus, many are not there to honour the institution of monarchy or a royal individual; what is prevalent is the expressed need to feel part of something more than themselves.

So how can democratic politics fulfil that function instead? If we think about our current political class replacing monarchy, that is clearly not the answer. How many prime ministers in the past 50 years would you queue up to pay final respects to? Probably not that many. But therein lies a fundamental truth about the institution of monarchy it is a distraction. It is a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest of which the monarchy is an integral part.

For half of Queen Elizabeth IIs reign, our common life was destroyed by the privatisation of water, energy, public transport and council housing, by the desecration of our land through fracking and sewage in rivers, and by the despoliation of our common wealth in the selling off of childrens and elderly care homes to private equity groups. This all took place without so much as a royal murmur of disapproval.

Yet, at the same time, the royal family managed to exempt itself from more than 160 different pieces of legislation for its own economic advantage, such as the waiving of the 40% inheritance tax on the crown estates estimated 15.2bn of royal assets.

So while republicans should respect the language of duty and sacrifice monarchists have so forcefully claimed that the royal family makes on our behalf, we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. That is not what monarchy is. It may provide a symbolic way for us to recognise other peoples sacrifice and commitment to society but the monarchy itself risks nothing and does not suffer, save for having the lives of the royal family become the stuff of celebrity gossip. Through it all, it remains the backbone of a power structure that traces its roots back to feudalism.

The idea of divine and indivisible sovereignty embodied in the monarch has been passed on to parliament. There it continues to legitimise the power of a close-knit elite community resistant to the fact that in a complex modern society all of us have a stake, and all should have a voice.

If you doubt this cultural trickle-down and its replication in the fabric of our social, political and economic life then simply look at the schools our King, his sons and the leaders of industry and finance attended. Eton, Harrow, Westminster the training camps for the next generation of generals, captains of industry and prime ministers. Perhaps in a genuine democracy, our legislature could offer real checks and balances against such hereditary power. Yet more than half our legislature remains not just unelected, but increasingly distinguished only by having helped to fund the party of hereditary privilege the Conservative party. Another 92 directly inherited their exalted positions.

If we as a country are to move away from the constant democratic gaslighting of this political class, we must make constitutional, democratic reform a political priority. It isnt a sideshow to be relegated behind the NHS, the energy crisis or climate issues. Discussion of the monarchy, our politics, our constitution, is something to be vigorously aired, not shut down or even temporarily suppressed.

In a UK that needs such deliberation, my own party would be wise to give expression to such democratic sentiment.

But as weve seen this week, republicans must also offer something that goes beyond the material technicalities of politics and governance. Sacrifice, timelessness and ritual need not be bound up in ermine and gold. We glimpsed that most recently during the pandemic. The sense of belonging, of something shared, the clapping for those who risked their lives who sacrificed for all of us. This is good politics; politics that demands of people that they sometimes act and feel in a way that goes beyond themselves and which is connected with the past and future of our society and community.

Perhaps a republican head of state could be regularly chosen from those who display these qualities. People who put their lives on the line such as the military and firefighters, but also people who commit in other ways like nurses and teachers, who give up their time to kids whose successes they may never live to see.

The British people have never, through democratic means, been given the chance to try something different and approve or reject constitutional monarchy. Instead, those who have exercised their so-called democratic rights have been shut down, intimidated or arrested.

Observing this I was reminded of a Chinese media student who shadowed me while I was a BBC reporter. During one conversation, I mentioned the massacre of Tiananmen Square. She hadnt heard of it, so I showed her John Simpsons now famous report on the tragedy. She watched it. Then she said: Yes, this is probably true. But then Im fully aware of the nature of the regime I live under. But you? You delude yourself you live in a democracy. So whos the bigger fool? She was right. It really is time for us to wake up and understand the flawed reality of the very limited democracy we inhabit.

Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Go here to see the original:
Amid the mourning, we republicans should look and learn but we must not be silenced - The Guardian

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in late August found that 67 percent of U.S. adults think the nations democracy is in danger of collapse. That is what President Biden said in Philadelphia, many of you would respond, when he called out MAGA Republicans for an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

But in the Quinnipiac poll, Republicans were as likely as Democrats to say that democracy is in trouble (69 percent of each party, and 66 percent of independents). In fact, large majorities of every demographic groupno matter the age, gender, race or education levelagreed with this dire assessment. Does this mean we have achieved a consensus without realizing it?

Unfortunately, no. The more convincing explanation is that Americans are so divided in how they define democracy that they can reach the same conclusion for radically different reasons. So after Mr. Biden said that supporters of Donald Trump promote authoritarian leaders and fan the flames of political violence, many Republicans countered that it was Mr. Bidens speech that was a threat to freedom (as if Mussolini and Hitler got together, as Donald Trump Jr. put it).

[Related: Why Bidens speech on MAGA Republicans failed.]

Based on how different candidates in this years midterm elections talk about our political system, I can see four distinct definitions of American democracy. All of them will still have adherents after November, but the election results may give one or more of them momentum toward the next presidential election.

1. Democratic Party democracy. The Democrats are now pretty much united on what makes a functioning democracy, which was not always the case for the political party that was once strongest in the Deep South. Todays Democrats want to make voting as easy as possible, and they support the one person, one vote principle that says each vote in an election should be of equal worth, and each citizen should have equal representation in government. They generally want government to be quicker in responding to the demands of voters and responding to crises like gun violence and climate change.

And, as of now, they also support the principle of majority rule. This principle became more popular among Democrats after they lost two presidential elections despite winning the most votes, but there has been ambivalence about it. Many civil rights leaders opposed run-off primaries when they had the effect of knocking out Black candidates who could only win pluralities, and many supporters of Bernie Sanders were fine with the idea that he could get the Democratic nomination in 2020 by getting only a plurality of primary votes in a crowded field.

2. Traditional Republican Party democracy. Think of people like Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol here. Republicans have traditionally favored democracy with guardrails; that is, they dont want government acting too hastily in response to public opinion, and they worry about mob rule and a tyranny of the majority eroding individual rights. They dont always support the strict application of one person, one vote, and they defend the rules of the U.S. Senate, including the filibuster, as preventing more urban and populous states from dominating national government (though there is no equal mechanism to prevent a rural majority from dominating national government).

In normal times, Republicans would oppose Democratic Party attempts to maximize the power of the majority through such reforms as abolishing the Electoral College, expanding mail-in voting, and giving statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. But this year many never-Trump Republicans are allied with the Democratic Party because, as Mr. Kristol puts it,

If we dont have two reasonably healthy parties, the unhealthy party has to be defeated.

The results of Republican Party primaries over the past six years, including the defeat of Ms. Cheney in her congressional primary in August, make it clear that traditional Republican champions of democracy are on the defensive within their own party.

[Related: Liz Cheneys ouster from Republican leadership is bigger than politics. Its a fundamental attack on truth.]

3. Stop the steal democracy. Most Trump Republicans do not agree that the Democrats are defenders of democracy. Mr. Trump himself, along with hundreds of Republicans running for statewide office this fall, claim without proof that President Bidens victory in 2020 was stolen or rigged. On the surface, they support the small-d democratic process in the United States, but their insistence that certain election results cannot be trusted inevitably erodes confidence in the legitimacy of all elections. (Some Democrats say that certain election laws, such as purging people from voter rolls when they miss elections, have led to unfair election outcomes, but very few have questioned the counting of ballots or the validity of official election results.)

The stop the steal movement does have various remedies for what it sees as a corrupt system. One is to give state governments the power to accept or reject election results (the thinking behind the attempt on Jan. 6, 2021, to nullify Mr. Bidens victory); similarly, there is an effort to get the Supreme Court to rule that state legislatures should have the sole authority to set election rules. Another strategy is to more tightly control voter participation by imposing ID requirements and registration deadlines, limiting the times and places where one can vote, and challenging the validity of individual votes as they are cast. Along with the prosecution of rare voter fraud cases even when fraud does not seem intended, these efforts could have a chilling effect on voter participation, but maximum voter turnout is not a goal of stop the steal partisans. Tellingly, 67 percent of Republicans in a Pew Research Center poll from 2021 said that voting is a privilege that comes with responsibilities and can be limited; only 21 percent of Democrats agreed, with most saying instead that voting is a fundamental right for every citizen and should not be restricted.

4. A republic, not a democracy (with an emphasis on the second part of the phrase). A smaller number of Republican and independent candidates say outright that democracy is not always a good thing, at least at the national level. (They may think it is OK at the local levelas in neighborhoods deciding what kind of housing is permitted, or parents deciding on a school districts curriculum. Call it subsidiarity without solidarity.)

Some think the problem is that voters ask too much from the government, and thus give the government too much power to tax citizens and regulate behavior. Democracy is a soft form of communism that basically assures bad and dangerous people will be in power, said Jeremy Kauffman, a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate from New Hampshire, in an email interview with the Boston Globe.

But some voters in both parties seem to be disenchanted with democracy because it results in a government that is too weak. In an Axios/Ipsos Poll conducted in early September, 33 percent of U.S. adults (including 42 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats) agreed that strong, unelected leaders are better than weak elected ones. For years, Mr. Trump has echoed this sentiment by praising and even seeming to envy anti-democratic leaders like Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and this year he seemed to get carried away in a conference-call rally with the Republican nominee for governor of Massachusetts. Geoff Diehl will rule your state with an iron fist, Mr. Trump told residents of the state that brought us the Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Bunker Hill, and hell do what has to be done.

Attacking democracy is a dicey strategy for winning elections, so most Trump allies running for office this year maintain that, yes, democracy is a good thing (even if they think it is easily corrupted). But there are occasional statements to the contrary.

Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, controversially tweeted that were not a democracy in 2020, adding We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that. A spokesperson for Mr. Lee said that the senator was merely advocating republican checks on democratic passion, but the tech mogul Peter Thiel, a major donor to Republican candidates, has been more blunt, once writing for the libertarian Cato Institute that I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.

There is a big difference between grousing about democracy and actively trying to replace it with another form of government. Its also uncertain that there can be a lasting alliance between those who think democratic government is too strong and those who find it too weak. But the lack of consensus on what democracy is, and on what it should be, could end up doing away with democracy altogether.

[Read next: Abortion, student loans and the Republican weakness for nostalgia.]

See original here:
Republicans and Democrats agree that democracy is in trouble. They just don't agree on its definition. - America Magazine