Post #50852 by wzambon on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 6

Maximum Political Warfare
Deeply hypocritical. Profoundly necessary.
CHARLIE SYKES
AUG 6

READ IN APP

Gavin and Donald.
“We are entitled to five more seats.” — Donald J. Trump, August 4, 2025

And thus the president cried havoc and loosed the wars of endless gerrymandering — a new front in what one Trump aide calls: “Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

Happy Wednesday.

If you think this work has value, please consider joining our band of brothers and sisters. To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. (And I’m extarordinarily grateful for your generosity.)

Upgrade to paid
By now you know the story: Fearful of a midterm shellacking, Trump ordered Texas Republicans to rig their maps to give the GOP somewhere between three and six new congressional seats; and Democrats, for once, have chosen full-frontal retaliation.ą The result is likely to be a hurricane of redistricting in both blue and red states, where maps will be rejiggered and tortured to provide maximum partisan advantage.

To be sure, there are voices of reason, even at this late date, because gerrymandering is such an obvious chancre on democracy. But if history is any guide, they will be ignored. Among Democrats, voices of caution are not silent as much as irrelevant, because the logic of the moment is inexorable and the response inevitable.

Renouncing their usual pearl-clutching and virtue-signaling, Democrats across the country “are vowing to ‘fight fire with fire’ and even to embrace some of the very gerrymandering tactics they have long decried as anti-democratic.”

“This is a war,” declared New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul. “We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off, and I say bring it on.”

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias is calling for the nuclear option:

Dems should fight on every front.

If Texas steals 5 seats, Dem states should redistrict 30 GOP members out of their districts.

We should insist DOJ release the entire Epstein File.

Not only shouldn't we bring knives to a gun fight, if they bring pistols, we should bring machine guns.

Indeed, California’s Gavin Newsom is moving to scrap the state’s independent redistricting commission, to clear the way for a tit-for-tat Democratic map. Meanwhile, Trump is increasing pressure on Republicans in Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and Missouri to tinker with their maps. In response, Democrats in Illinois and Maryland — where partisan gerrymandering has long been a way of life — may join the fray.˛

The result of all of this? A political map even more polarized and extreme, and democratic norms badly bruised and battered, as the parties engage in an endless cycle of escalation.

This, of course, is the inherent flaw in the concept of mutual assured destruction as a deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, then what you’re left with is destruction.

The immediate losers in this race to the bottom, notes the NYT, will be the voters, “reduced almost to bystanders as Republicans essentially admit to trying to determine the outcome of Texas races long before the elections are held.

The result is a democracy determined less by public opinion than by raw political might…

**

So even if the outcome is clear, let’s not pretend that this is an easy question, or without ethical dilemmas. We shouldn’t pretend that we know all of the downstream consequences of this non-virtuous cycle.

By definition, the counter-gerrymandering undermines democracy and opens Democrats to charges of hypocrisy on the issue. The question comes down to something like this: “Can you save the village by destroying it? Can you save democracy by undermining democratic norms?”

But this is also the question:

“Is holding the moral high ground on gerrymandering worth handing absolute control of the levers of government to Trump and his confederates?”

Mona Charen reminds us what is at stake:

This president has just elevated to a Court of Appeals a lawyer who presided over a purge of FBI agents who investigated Trump for January 6th and instructed his underlings at the Justice Department to “F— the courts.”

He has opened a criminal investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith on the specious charge of violating the Hatch Act.

His attorney general has opened a disciplinary investigation of Judge James Boasberg because Boasberg privately expressed concerns that the Trump administration might, to borrow a phrase, “F— the courts.”

Trump has solicited the gift of a jet from a foreign potentate.

He has prostituted his office to the highest bidder by floating meme coins.

He has pardoned more than 1,500 rioters who attempted to steal the 2020 election for him.

He has shaken down leading law firms, media companies, and universities by threatening their livelihoods with government action.

He has removed protection from recent immigrants, like Afghans, who risked their lives to ally with us.

He has cut off humanitarian aid to millions of the world’s poor without so much as a fig leaf by way of explanation.

He has appointed conspiracy nuts and kooks to key government posts like the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Counterterrorism Center, and as Director of National Intelligence.

He has deported innocent people to torture chambers in foreign countries.

And always and everywhere, he has annihilated truth, most recently by firing the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because her agency produced honest numbers rather than the ones the president preferred.

As the NYT notes, the fight over redistricting is not happening in a political vacuum.

The redistricting push is only one element. Mr. Trump has targeted Democratic law firms with executive actions. He has threatened prosecutions of and ordered investigations into his political enemies, while the Justice Department has dropped lawsuits aimed at protecting voting rights. And his congressional allies are investigating ActBlue, the organization that processes an overwhelming share of online donations for Democrats.

**

So let’s admit that this is a morally ambiguous moment.

But as Reinhold Niebuhr argued, sometimes necessary lesser evils are justified to prevent or combat greater evils. He was not endorsing unethical behavior, but simply recognizing the tragic realities of a world dominated by malign actors. Realism meant that we often have to confront difficult choices and moral compromises in the fight against tyranny and brutality.

As Niebuhr constantly reminded us, we can’t blind ourselves to the moral perils of our choices. Retaliation may be necessary; and escalating tactics justified; but we should always keep asking ourselves how far we are willing to go.

But for Democrats now, the choice is between trying to hold the moral high ground and defend “democratic norms”; or being annihilated in what they believe is an existential fight for the future. In other words: the counter-gerrymandering is both deeply hypocritical and profoundly necessary.

Writes Julian Zelizer: “Sometimes an aggressive response is necessary — not just for the good of the party, but for the good of democracy. “

The GOP’s current redistricting decision calls for Democrats to step up and fight fire with fire, as California Governor Gavin Newsom recently said. Newsom and California Democrats are developing a plan to counteract the Texans if they proceed with their current plan.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the 2026 midterms will be among the most consequential in recent American history. Retaking control of Congress, or at least the House, is the only realistic path forward for Democrats to push back against Trump’s imperial presidency.

Should Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, there will be nothing to stop Trump’s imperial presidency. The situation is dire. In the past few months, Democrats have learned that the federal courts have limited enforcement power and that a majority of the Supreme Court supports a grandiose understanding of executive power that provides Trump with immense leeway to do whatever he wants.

Exit take: This is not the fight we wanted or even the fight we deserved. But this is the fight we have

https://open.substack.com/pub/charliesykes/p/maxim...

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.