By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Voting Rights Act enforcement, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that Democrats must reciprocate Republican efforts in partisan gerrymandering. She argued that while Democrats have long advocated for nonpartisan redistricting reform, they must now “provide balance” to Republican actions. This response is intended to be a temporary measure until federal nonpartisan gerrymandering can be enacted.
Read the original article here
The call for Democrats to mirror Republican tactics in the realm of gerrymandering is gaining traction, suggesting a significant shift in political strategy. This perspective argues that if one party consistently manipulates electoral maps to its advantage, the opposing party must respond in kind to remain competitive and, crucially, to defend democracy itself. The sentiment is that the current political landscape is not one where adherence to traditional norms guarantees fair play; rather, it rewards those who are willing to exploit every available advantage.
The urgency behind this call stems from a perception that Republican actions, particularly concerning gerrymandering, are not just strategic but fundamentally anti-democratic. Concerns are raised that Republicans are operating outside the spirit of fair elections, prioritizing partisan gain over the will of the voters. This is framed not as a simple political disagreement, but as a battle against what some describe as “evil” or “fascist” forces that disregard laws and values beyond their own pursuit of power.
From this viewpoint, the core issue is that Republicans are not playing by the established rules, or at least not by rules that are perceived as fair and just. Therefore, the argument follows, Democrats should abandon a strategy of “going high” when Republicans “go low” and instead meet them on their own terms. This is presented as a necessary adaptation for survival, akin to adopting aggressive tactics when facing an opponent who is unwilling to adhere to more conventional methods of engagement.
The practical implication of this shift in strategy involves actively engaging in gerrymandering in states where Democrats have the power to do so. States like New York and California are specifically mentioned as potential starting points, where Democratic control could be leveraged to redraw congressional maps in a way that benefits their party. This is seen as a direct response to Republican actions and a means to level the playing field that has been tilted against them.
Furthermore, there’s a belief that by engaging in aggressive gerrymandering, Democrats could, paradoxically, push for a more universal ban on the practice in the future. The idea is that if both parties engage in it so thoroughly, the negative consequences and the public outcry might eventually lead to bipartisan agreement that it’s a system that needs to be eliminated entirely. However, there’s also a pragmatic concern that Republicans, if they stand to lose from a ban, might prefer to stick with gerrymandering and continue to hone their skills in manipulating the maps.
The concept of “democracy being lost” is a recurring theme, suggesting that the stakes are incredibly high. The actions taken by states to manipulate elections, such as Louisiana’s attempts to redraw maps to its advantage, are cited as evidence of a system in breakdown. In this context, playing by the established, albeit manipulated, rules is seen as the only viable path to prevent further erosion of democratic principles and to regain lost ground.
This approach is not without its ethical considerations, as some acknowledge that gerrymandering is inherently problematic and “screws the voter.” However, the overwhelming sentiment from this perspective is that the current political reality necessitates a departure from idealistic norms. The argument is that waiting for Republicans to change their tactics or to adhere to a higher moral standard is a losing strategy, and that Democrats must adapt to the prevailing conditions to have any hope of achieving their political goals and preserving a semblance of democratic representation. The notion of “nice guys finish last” encapsulates this pragmatic, and some might say cynical, outlook.