By Matt Underwood The current political landscape presents a stark choice for Democrats: engage in the same electoral strategies as their opponents, or risk democratic erosion. While the ideal scenario involves fair and unbiased redistricting, the reality of decades of Republican gerrymandering has created a system where playing by traditional “good government” rules has proven detrimental. This has led many to believe that Democrats must now gerrymander to save democracy, effectively fighting fire with fire.
The argument for Democrats to gerrymander stems from the observation that Republicans have consistently exploited redistricting to solidify their power. This has been done without shame, leading to a situation where Democratic attempts to pass legislation like the For the People Act have been repeatedly blocked. The perceived lack of reciprocity in upholding democratic norms has created a sense of urgency, where unilateral disarmament in the face of an opponent who consistently packs courts and manipulates maps is seen as a path to perpetual minority rule.
This strategy is not about a desire to cheat, but rather a pragmatic response to a system that has been rigged against fair representation. When one side actively works to suppress votes and disenfranchise large segments of the population, the other side feels compelled to adapt. The historical context reveals that Republicans have benefited significantly from gerrymandering for decades, often by controlling state legislatures and drawing maps that dilute the impact of Democratic votes. This aggressive approach, especially in the aftermath of events like January 6th, has further entrenched the idea that electoral subversion is a key Republican tactic.
The concept of “unilateral disarmament” in politics is seen as a recipe for disaster. If Republicans are relentlessly pursuing strategies to consolidate power, including challenging voting rights protections and sowing distrust in elections, Democrats cannot afford to remain passive. The notion that Democrats are too passive and adhere to outdated notions of fairness while Republicans operate with a different set of rules is a recurring theme. This perspective suggests that Democrats must shed their “imaginary high road” and adopt a more assertive stance.
Furthermore, the argument is made that if gerrymandering is permissible for one party, it should be permissible for the other. The current situation is viewed as a consequence of Republican actions, making Democratic counter-strategies a necessary response rather than an offensive maneuver. This “scorched earth” approach is considered by some as the only way to prevent a complete Republican takeover and to steer the country away from what is perceived as a fascist regime.
The push for Democrats to gerrymander is also tied to a broader critique of the Republican party’s approach to governance. Accusations of anti-democratic behavior, voter suppression tactics disguised as election integrity measures, and a consistent effort to undermine democratic processes are central to this argument. The belief is that these actions necessitate a forceful response to protect what remains of democratic institutions.
However, there are counterarguments that caution against this path. Some argue that gerrymandering itself is inherently anti-democratic, regardless of who is doing it. They propose that focusing on non-partisan redistricting or developing new legal grounds to challenge Republican gerrymandering would be more constructive. There’s also a concern that if all parties gerrymander, the overall impact might not benefit Democrats in the long run, and that the “self-defeating logic” of needing to cheat to save democracy means the underlying principles have already been lost.
Despite these reservations, the prevailing sentiment among those advocating for Democrats to gerrymander is that the current circumstances leave them with little choice. The perceived threat to democracy posed by Republican actions is so significant that traditional political courtesies and adherence to established norms are viewed as liabilities. The quote “Never play fair in a game where others cheat” by Niccolò Machiavelli encapsulates this viewpoint, suggesting that in a high-stakes battle for the future of democracy, Democrats must be willing to use the tools of their opponents to defend themselves.
In essence, the call for Democrats to gerrymander is a reflection of a deep-seated frustration with the current state of American politics. It’s a belief that the existing system has been so corrupted by one party’s tactics that the other party must resort to similar, albeit defensive, measures to preserve democratic representation and prevent a descent into authoritarianism. The hope is that by leveling the playing field, even through controversial means, Democrats can create an environment where genuine democratic principles can eventually be restored.