The bounds of elected speech and the danger of unaccountable parties.

What type of speech is unacceptable from our elected representatives? This was the question facing House Republicans this week as they held a private meeting to discuss the speech of two or their members. On one side, House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (WY), the third highest ranking member of the caucus. On the other side, freshman member Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14). Cheney stood accused of disloyalty to the party. Following the January 6th storming of the Capitol by pro-Trump forces, Cheney pinned blame on then-president Donald Trump, thereafter voting for his impeachment over his role. Taylor Greene stood accused of support for conspiracy theory and falsehood. Prior to being seated, Taylor Greene had expressed support for violence against Democratic house members (including support for the execution of Speaker Nancy Pelosi), a belief in the ‘Qanon’ conspiracy and its predecessor ‘Pizzagate,’ and postulated that 2019 California wildfires may have been caused by Jewish space lasers.

The meeting House Republicans resulted in a clear answer to the question: all speech is acceptable, as long as our voters accept it. Cheney maintained her role in Republican house leadership and Taylor Greene remained on her recently assigned committee seats. It is notable that the vote for Cheney’s fate was far more contentious than the vote for Taylor Greene’s. A clear message was sent from House Republicans that their voters will be respected, regardless of what reality they inhabit. Cheney dared to speak out against their deposed leader and was very nearly punished for it. Taylor Greene's wild conspiratorializing and calls for violence exemplifies the epistemological center of the median party voter. Therefore, reality be damned.

This episode draws a stark example of the dangers of democracy, particularly in the 21st century. If only voter sentiment can judge an elected official, what role does a party even play? When a party exists purely to win power and is unwilling to confront dangerous elements of their constituency or even elected members, what constraints are there to democratic decay? House Democrats, following the inability of House Republicans to act on Taylor Greene, voted to strip Taylor Greene of her committee assignments. This was an extra-ordinary move. Not only did it establish a new precedent, but Republicans used it to bolster their argument that no Democrat will be safe from retribution once they take power in the chamber again. 

Part and parcel with American polarization, Republican representatives were willing to forgive the extremist conspiratorializing of one of their members, while threatening retribution against Democratic members in the future. This fits a long term trend of affective polarization, in which partisans view their opponents with contempt, more so than they view their own party with attachment or pride. Taylor Greene represents the affective Republican, she is no more a Republican than she is an anti-Democrat. 

The move to strip Taylor Greene of her committee assignments also serves to build more partisan rancor. While 11 Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in voting affirmatively, the rest of the vote was along party lines. While Republicans had the opportunity to distance themselves from her extremism and send signals to their voters that this sort of online activity will not be allowed, they instead allow her to play the role of partisan martyr. Republicans can now go on Fox News and complain about the tyranny of the Democratic majority and the subversion of minority rights in Congress. Moving the questions away from the heart of the matter: party responsibility for the actions of their members. 

The modern Republican party is the embodiment of how not to run a political party. A party built on nothing but gaining and keeping power is detrimental to the system in which it lives. Parties are a means of organizing like-minded individuals and offering up a platform and vision on how to govern. In order to enact these goals, a party does look to compete for gaining and keeping power. But when the means become the ends in partisan competition, the party no longer stands as a form of useful representation. If a party exists purely to grasp power, it runs the risk inherent in all democracies: totalitarianism. 

We would do well to remember that the most destructive forms of political movements of the 20th century emerged not from monarchy or authoritarianism but from democracy itself. Hitler’s Nazi party gained hold of Germany by first getting elected and operating towards one singular goal: power. The example is notably because, in order to maintain power, the party superseded the state. In Hitler’s Germany, the Nazi party was the operative government. They were not constrained by rules established by previous governments because there was no rule outside the party bureaucracy. The state was the party and the party was the state. 

I don’t write a comparison to Hitler’s party and the Republican party with a faint hand. I fear that the Trump presidency and the innumerable takes that it spawned have lessened the impact of such comparison’s. However, there is value in looking at how party power superseded all other checks in the Nazi’s way to being the only source of rules, laws, values, and truth. The Republican party, in choosing to side with members who create their own realities, is sliding down a slope towards a party built to win and keep power and nothing else. This is extremely dangerous territory. When accountability for their own member’s actions have to be foisted upon their political opponents it only allows them to pour gas on the polarized fire. When attempts at accountability from within are greeted with scorn and calls to purge, the party is headed towards religiosity not representation. When no misdeed can be punished, unless by the voters, then misdeeds can quickly become opportunities for greater support. 

The Republican party is captured by extremist forces. The epistemological bubble created by right-wing media outlets allows voters to never hear a valid opposition. Social media spheres pump partisan voters with the content most likely to raise their anger and fears. Elected Republicans support all forms of misinformation and distruth as long as they think it will allow them to keep their seat. Republican leaders defend extremist members of their party, as long as those members have popular support from their constituencies. And the cycle continues wherein misinformed voters support more extremist candidates and elected officials defend their new colleagues because only the voters should decide. 

If the speech of elected officials can only be judged by their electors, then it removes the restraining role of political parties and incentivizes the creation of alternate realities. Parties fulfill multiple roles in a health democracy. When they abandon those roles in the pure pursuit of power, it won’t be long before they abandon democracy either.