Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

News Analysis

What if Republicans Win the Midterms?

Credit...Doug Chayka

WASHINGTON — A sizable portion of the American population has been convulsing with outrage at President Trump for more than a year. Millions of people who previously took only mild interest in politics have participated in protests, fumed as they stayed riveted to news out of Washington and filled social media accounts once devoted to family updates and funny videos with furious political commentary.

Yet public life on the whole has remained surprisingly calm. A significant factor in keeping the peace has surely been anticipatory catharsis: The widespread expectations of a big Democratic wave in the coming midterm elections are containing and channeling that indignation, helping to maintain order.

What will happen if no such wave materializes and that pressure-relief valve jams shut?

The country was already badly polarized before the plot twist of election night in 2016, of course, but since then liberals and much of what remains of America’s moderate center have been seething in a way that dwarfs the usual disgruntlement of whichever faction is out of power. While nobody can know for sure whether Mr. Trump would have lost but for Russia’s meddling, many of his critics clearly choose to believe he is in the White House because Vladimir Putin tricked the United States into making him its leader.

For Mr. Trump’s opposition, this premise — to say nothing of the question of whether his campaign conspired with Russia or merely benefited from its manipulations — has thickened the faint stink of illegitimacy that would hover over any president who lost the popular vote, supercharging policy disagreements into nearly existential threats to democracy. The regular cycles of consternation spun up by Mr. Trump’s unconventional approach to the job of being president help keep that wound raw.

Despite simmering unrest, there have been only a few extraordinary moments that broke the mold of public stability. Those include peaceful demonstrations, like the post-inaugural women’s march and the airport protests against Mr. Trump’s initial ban on travelers from seven Muslim countries. Far more disturbing, they also include the near-fatal shooting of a Republican congressman and several other people at a baseball practice by a man who was furious at Mr. Trump and Republicans, and the spectacle of throngs of white supremacists emboldened by the era to march in Charlottesville, Va. — culminating in an apparent neo-Nazi sympathizer plowing his car into anti-racist counterprotesters, injuring dozens of people and killing a woman. Fortunately, those two moments of extreme political violence have been exceptions.

For a counterexample of how a time of intense political bitterness can start to tear this country apart, look back exactly half a century to 1968. In that chaotic year, America slashed and clawed at itself amid the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the riots that followed; the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as he ran for president; swelling antiwar demonstrations on college campuses amid growing recognition that the government had been lying about the course of the Vietnam War; and the police beatings of protesters in Chicago outside the Democratic National Convention.

Factors like the draft and the race relations of the period made that tumultuous year a particular historical moment. But one difference between then and now is salient: Arguably, there was little reason to believe that the November 1968 election was likely to provide immediate relief.

We are lucky that so far 2018 does not look like a new 1968. But the relative calm may be like an unexploded bomb, its volatility not so much defused as contained by the thought that Trump Republicans will be punished in the Nov. 6 midterm elections. These expectations are widespread. After the big Democratic special election victories in places handily carried by Mr. Trump in 2016, from Virginia and Alabama to Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers in purple districts are retiring to avoid ending their careers in humiliating defeats.

Democrats, meanwhile, relish visions of a new congressional majority wielding its subpoena power to flay the Trump administration with oversight investigations. They can see it now: Making public Mr. Trump’s hidden tax returns and otherwise laying bare any financial dealings between foreign governments and his businesses. Inviting the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct to testify at a televised hearing. Unearthing what his appointees have been doing in places like the Environmental Protection Agency, where collection of fines from polluters has plummeted.

Almost taking a House flip for granted, Democrats whisper that a tsunami-level wave would also flip the Senate and stop Mr. Trump’s assembly line for turning conservative lawyers into life-tenured federal judges. Some even fantasize about impeachment.

Such vivid anticipation steers those sputtering at Mr. Trump's presidency to take deep breaths and bide their time until Nov. 6, which draws closer every day: The 2018 campaign cycle formally starts this week with primary voting in Texas.

But a significant Democratic wave may not materialize. Good economic news, for example, tends to blunt anti-incumbent sentiments. The country is still mostly using House districts that were redrawn after the 2010 census, just as Republicans’ big 2010 midterm wave victory gave them an unusual degree of control over state legislatures. Beyond deliberate partisan gerrymandering, the impact of a Democratic turnout surge would be partly diluted by their voters’ disproportionate concentration in cities, piling up extra votes in districts Republicans would have lost anyway.

But inevitably, many eyes would turn to Russia. It appears to still be covertly spreading disinformation and amplifying tensions on American social media with the intention of having “an impact on the next election cycle,” Mike Pompeo, the Central Intelligence Agency director, told Congress last month.

Another poll-defying election night surprise, like 2016’s, would further fuel suspicions of unseen manipulation. After all, the public only later found out — apparently thanks to the National Security Agency contractor Reality Winner, whom the Justice Department is prosecuting for leaking — that shortly before the 2016 election, Russian hackers infiltrated the servers of an elections systems software supplier and tried to trick 122 state elections officials into downloading malware. While there is no evidence that Russian hackers tampered with Election Day results last time, the government has disclosed that it thinks they probed elections systems in 21 states and penetrated several.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, recently testified. “Throughout the entire community, we have not seen any evidence of any significant change from last year.”

Against that backdrop, disappointed Trump opponents will be primed to believe the worst: that Russia rigged two elections in a row for Republicans. And if their anticipatory catharsis and faith in the democratic process evaporates, the anger could seek a different outlet — in turn risking a backlash from Trump supporters and a downward spiral.

The White House’s approach to issues raised by Russian election meddling has been backward-looking, minimizing the problem in a way that seems to preclude focusing on protecting the country from future threats. Preoccupied with defending the legitimacy of the 2016 results, Mr. Trump repeatedly insists not only that his campaign did not collude with Moscow, but also that Russia’s effort to torque that election was either “a made-up story” or had no impact on the outcome. Asked recently whether Mr. Trump has specifically directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the N.S.A. to take actions to confront and blunt continuing Russian influence operations, their respective directors testified that the president has not done so.

Intelligence community leaders say their agencies are nevertheless trying to mitigate the risk, helping states strengthen cyberdefenses and hinting at other, classified steps. Such efforts to bolster the credibility of the election system are crucial, but may prove insufficient if there is another expectation-defying result.

Three days after the directors’ testimony, the Justice Department announced that a grand jury had indicted a group of Russians accused of running the social media manipulation operation. The unsealed indictment quoted internal Russian documents obtained by Robert Mueller, the special counsel. In them, the Russians were said to have described the original stated goal of what they called “information warfare against the United States of America,” before it morphed into helping Mr. Trump win, as spreading mistrust toward “the American political system in general.”

This November, if the wave turns out to be a mere trickle, we could see the accomplishment of that goal take hold.

Charlie Savage is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times and the author, most recently, of “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.”

Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter: @charlie_savage.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section SR, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Danger of Waiting for a Wave. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT