John G. RUSSELL
“I don’t care about the midterms.”
“We’re not gonna lose an election for a hundred years.”
As the midterm elections draw near, many believe the Democrats have a near-certain path to victory. The prevailing narrative suggests that voters, disenchanted by Trump’s unsuccessful “concept of a plan” economic strategies and ego-driven projects, and irritated by the GOP’s inability to fulfill promises of financial security and restore national moral integrity, will propel Democrats back into office. Once empowered, Democrats are expected to undo the harm and international humiliation caused by Trump and his supporters. The anticipation includes a third impeachment of Trump—with some led to believe conviction is likely though the 67-vote Senate threshold renders this doubtful—along with accountability for other members of the so-called griftocracy. Construction on the White House ballroom and similar vanity projects would halt, with their destruction forthcoming. The full Epstein files are predicted to be unveiled, enabling criminal charges and removal of conspirators involved, including those who concealed facts. Oversight committees under Democratic control would initiate hearings into corruption. Collectively, if these objectives are reached, they are supposed to pave the way for success in 2028. The rule of law would be reinstated, “the Wicked Witch of the West melted,” and her loyalists disarmed. A happily-ever-after scenario awaits.
However, let’s discard the idealistic lens. This vision presumes that midterm elections will indeed take place. It assumes an electorate exhausted by needless economic hardship and unpredictable wars, worried over fraying social safety nets, and outraged by rampant corruption, will vote out the offenders. It also presumes voters have finally recognized Republican policies benefit their party and affluent corporate donors rather than the public.
Republican leaders are well aware of the threats they face. They have watched the decline in Trump’s approval ratings, endured public taunts, and witnessed vocal dissatisfaction at Republican town halls when they occur. Some GOP members have distanced themselves from certain Trump policies. Former MAGA commentators have expressed disappointment with Trump, MAGA, and the GOP. Yet, for every touted MAGA “rebellion,” there exists a timid, opportunistic retreat. Despite this apparent internal conflict, the Republican leadership stays composed, along with their loyalty to Trump and his Project 2025-related agenda, suggesting they do not anticipate a massive Democratic surge.
The simplest explanation is that Republicans are wagering that midterms might not happen—or that if they do, the process will be manipulated to their advantage.
Although the Trump-backed SAVE America Act seems unlikely to pass (and one hopes it doesn’t), it’s clear Republican lawmakers are prepared to deploy gerrymandering, voter intimidation, and suppression methods to undermine free and fair elections—or prevent them entirely. Their leader’s boast of a century-long reign with Americans “never having to vote again” hints at this strategy. If elections do occur, results favoring Democrats would likely be contested, resembling a state-by-state replay of 2020.
So what then? What is the Democratic fallback plan?
Assuming, optimistically, the midterms proceed and Democrats gain control of both chambers of Congress (current predictions indicate only a House win is likely, promising the usual stalemate), what assurances exist that they will act decisively to reverse course? Given their track record, why expect earnest commitment to uphold the rule of law, champion social justice, end endless wars, and restore the nation’s global stature from a laughingstock to a flawed but respected republic?
When not penning “very strong letters” or engaging in manual semaphore, Democratic leaders pragmatically calculate that regaining power requires courting Independents and disaffected Republicans rather than energizing their center-left and progressive factions, fearing a loss of support from entrenched figures like James Carville and Rahm Emanuel. This is despite the fact that most Americans favor progressive economic policies over establishment views.
It’s ironic, given Carville’s famous phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” His cohort should recognize this progressive momentum as an asset, not a threat. However, that relies on Democrats prioritizing repairing the lasting economic damage caused by the Trump era rather than merely campaigning on it, and trusting that soaring costs of essentials like gas and electricity will bolster their chances. Emphasizing these issues would certainly align with their voters’ interests. Still, will they also endeavor to mend democracy itself? Will they recommit to a national ethos grounded not in aggressive militarism but in accountability, equity, minority rights, diversity, and the checks and balances essential to a successful multicultural democracy?
Put simply, what prevents the Democratic establishment from lapsing into the familiar bipartisan pattern of forgiving and forgetting? A history marked by Ford’s pardon of Nixon, George H.W. Bush’s clemency for Iran-Contra participants, and Obama’s refusal to prosecute the architects of illegal surveillance, waterboarding, and the Iraq War despite an initial Democratic majority. Even Trump, relentless in his criticism of Obama, refrained from challenging his predecessor’s illegal drone strikes and in fact expanded them. So, while Democrats may tackle affordability issues vigorously, is it realistic to expect them to hold Trump and his allies accountable for election interference, Emoluments Clause violations, and numerous other offences? Or will calls for justice be dismissed as partisan “dirty politics” rather than necessary reforms?
Trump’s repeated falsehoods have ensnared our political system in a trap of mistrust. The problem isn’t just that lies repeated often enough become accepted as truth, but that they warp our connection to reality. Claims of widespread voter fraud without evidence have sown doubt and cynicism about electoral integrity. Trump and his supporters continue to decry “stolen elections” even as evidence grows that they’re scheming to undermine future elections. Who is truthful? Does truth even matter anymore? Though the facts are important, they are obscured by engineered uncertainty fostering apathy, disgust, and cynicism—the very cynicism that may discourage voter turnout, exactly the intended result.
Republicans frame their politically motivated inquiries into opponents as rightful oversight, yet when Democrats propose investigations into GOP misconduct, the latter decry such efforts as “weaponized lawfare,” though Democratic probes tend to adhere to legal evidentiary standards unlike their adversaries.
The trap extends beyond psychology. What of the taxpayer dollars squandered on Trump’s mismanaged vanity endeavors? If Democrats regain power and act on their fervent rhetoric, will they demolish these projects, risking accusations of petty, vindictive politics that could deepen national division?
How many more public funds must be wasted on dismantling a $600 million ballroom-bunker and a $100 million Independence Arch? This excludes repairs needed for the damaged Reflecting Pool. (Is it realistic to expect successful restoration by the same no-bid contractors?)
Additionally, the German-American Friendship Garden fountain and other historic sites require further restoration to undo the impact of “repairs” that included gluing gilded Home Depot embellishments and Shelley Script signage onto the White House. How can Democrats justify spending on such projects when funds would be better used to replenish social and international aid programs that truly serve the public?
What mechanisms exist to ensure Democrats rise to this challenge, assuming there is consensus on priorities? And how can we prevent their corporate mega-donors from steering them away from these goals?
Meanwhile, Republicans have preemptively positioned themselves to delegitimize any Democratic reforms by labeling them “weaponized lawfare,” co-opting Trump’s strategy of projecting their own tactics onto political foes. They brand the Democratic progressive wing as “communists” to intimidate the public into passivity and acceptance of Republican dominance. This is compounded by timid Democratic centrists who echo these attacks—not out of fear of Republican rule, but concern for their own political survival. They worry the Republican machine will use Democratic Socialists to frighten voters away from moderates, a fear that persists only because centrists refuse to advocate for and mobilize public support effectively.
Ironically, apprehensive that pushing for justice will fracture the country or their party, Democrats often opt to “move on,” signaling moral high ground while repeating cycle after cycle of inaction. Like Cronus devouring his own children to protect his reign, ask any Democrat such as Al Franken, Eric Swalwell, or Graham Platner, whose political careers have been abruptly ended or disrupted by party housekeeping.
By contrast, the Republican establishment routinely delays accountability, dragging out ethics inquiries and protecting figures like Matt Gaetz, Chuck Edwards, Cory Mills, and Max Miller from prompt sanction, often ignoring or even elevating their own party’s wrongdoers. Notably, despite allegations of sexual assault and a financial settlement, Pete Hegseth was confirmed Secretary of Defense. Likewise, investigations into Gaetz’s misconduct failed to hinder his nomination as Attorney General. The lone exception is Tony Gonzales, the party’s only prominent person of color, who resigned under pressure, highlighting a stark racial double standard. While both parties face internal corruption, only one tends to act decisively. This is the Paxton phenomenon.
What then is our Plan C if Democrats fail to deliver? Growing weary of routine politics, will citizens resort to general strikes, tax boycotts, and sustained civil disobedience? A coordinated boycott of ABC’s parent company brought Jimmy Kimmel back to television, though Stephen Colbert wasn’t as fortunate. What collective efforts can revive our democracy if elected leaders fail to protect it? Will we simply accept Trump’s defeat and move on? What alternatives exist to these disheartening political tales? Or is contemplating persistent resistance, taxing though it may be, just another forlorn story?
Original article: counterpunch.org
About the Author
