We must defend our institutions against extremism
Why President Biden was right to call out MAGA Republicans
By Jeremy Potter
Guest Writer
President Biden gave a controversial speech at Independence Hall last month. In it, he labeled the MAGA movement led by former President Trump as, “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”
The controversy surrounding the speech was immediate. A poll conducted by Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies found that 56% of voters opposed Biden giving it, and 60% said it will only divide the country further.
The speech has also been met with sharp disapproval from right-wing critics, who argue that the rhetoric President Biden used escalated political tensions. Michael Goodwin wrote for the New York Post that:
“Biden delivered a 24-minute screed that was disjointed, rancidly partisan and, at heart, a declaration of war against those Americans who do not support him…This time, there was talk only of defeating the other side.”
This focus on the effects of the President’s speech is important. However, what many miss is why the President makes this judgment. Critics demonstrate a failure to address President Biden’s chief concern, despite it being clearly laid out in the speech itself.
The influence of election denial upon the image of the Republican Party (and especially upon MAGA Republicans) cannot be overstated. In the 2022 midterms, 201 of the 552 Republican candidates up for election completely deny the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential Election.
President Biden made it extremely clear in his speech that this refusal to abide by the results of the 2020 Election was a key reason why he views the MAGA movement as a threat:
“MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election.”
President Biden’s speech was not motivated not by hatred or disgust, but instead motivated by justified concern for the sanctity of democracy. After all, if attempting to storm the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election isn’t worthy of concern, then what type of political activity is?
It is still important to consider the polarizing effects of labeling a movement as dangerous extremism. Critics are right to raise questions about what labeling opposing political viewpoints as “threats to democracy” means for our future.
Indeed, if this issue were generalized to all political viewpoints, then this practice could indeed lead down a slippery slope. After all, if presidents felt free to label the ideas held by their political rivals as “dangerous,” it could quickly lead to less competition, debate, and choice for the American voter.
But some ideologies, even according to right-wing critics, must be labeled as dangerous. Conservatives might point to anarchism or Marxism, while liberals might point to theocracy or fascism. Both sides would probably agree that a serious monarchist movement (as unlikely as that seems today) would pose an imminent threat to democracy. This means that there is indeed a “line in the sand,” in which the acceptable practice of “labeling of dangerous ideologies” risks crossing into the unacceptable practice of “accusing opponents of political extremism.”
President Biden’s statements on September 1st were not only acceptable, but necessary. The political view he referred to repeatedly is the incorrect belief that Donald Trump won in 2020. That belief is diametrically opposed to the facts.
The false beliefs that Republican extremists hold are being spread by Republican election deniers, including former President Trump himself. These false beliefs have led to dire consequences for our democracy, including the January 6 Insurrection. They represent a rebuttal against democratic elections and, more generally, the societal norms upon which our country is built.
If there is anyone pitting Americans against each other in this situation, we have these propagandists to blame. But by framing election denial and refusal of democratic norms as “differing political views,” right-wing critics conveniently shift accountability away from those responsible for such divisiveness.
This deflection of blame is a common theme in right-wing criticism, and can even be found in how Republican commentators describe the division in our country. According to right-wing critics, Democrats didn’t oppose President Trump so firmly because they foresaw harm to vulnerable Americans as a result of his politics. They did so because they hate Trump and because they hate the people who voted for him.
Sowing division has been baked into the Republican Party agenda for decades. Extremist Republicans have mobilized voters by declaring a “culture war” against any organization, policy, or person that doesn’t conform to their beliefs. According to MAGA Republicans, acceptable targets for political ire now include schools that teach children about racism and libraries that house books about LGBTQ+ issues.
And this sentiment isn’t just expressed through political opposition — it is also accompanied by threats of violence. When discussing the issue of masking in schools, GOP candidate for Northampton County executive Steve Lynch said:
“You go into these school boards to remove them. I’m going in with 20 strong men and I’m gonna give them an option — they can leave or they can be removed.”
The same rhetoric has been used for years on the issue of abortion. Between 1977 and 2015, anti-abortion extremists committed more than 7,200 incidents of criminal political violence against abortion providers. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, armed right-wing militias were present at protests which surrounded clinics. This violence has only increased in intensity, due in part to the spreading of disinformation by anti-abortion groups and advocates.
President Biden campaigned on a promise of compromise between the political left and right, and spent much of the first two years of his presidency trying to bridge the political enmity between the mainstream and extremist camps.
Then-candidate Biden consistently discussed bridging the divide between Democrats and Republicans. He criticized both Democrats and Republicans who he saw to be driving the country apart through appeals to anger. And once he took office, he delivered an Inaugural Address calling for unity.
But the most telling insight into President Biden’s persistence for unity comes from a November 4, 2020 tweet:
“To make progress, we have to stop treating our opponents as enemies. We are not enemies.”
It is a wholesome sentiment — but the judgment is not President Biden’s to make. This distinction between “opponent” and “enemy” should be entirely left up to the targets of MAGA rhetoric. This is because it is extremely dangerous to seek unity with an opponent who has declared you an enemy. It is even more dangerous for the most vulnerable Americans, such as racial and ethnic minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Trump’s 2016 win was associated with a significant spike in reported hate crimes with a racial or ethnic bias. Trump was also instrumental in spurring anti-Asian violence in the early months of the pandemic, referring to COVID as the “Chinese virus” despite warnings that doing so would result in xenophobic attacks. As a result of this bigoted rhetoric, anti-Asian hate crimes nearly doubled in 2020.
Because of dehumanizing right-wing rhetoric, 2021 was the deadliest year on record for transgender and nonbinary people. It was also the year with the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation passed in state legislatures. The right-wing propensity to anti-trans violence and political supression is why only 2% of transgender Americans identify as Republicans.
Dehumanizing, hateful rhetoric has been clearly and firmly established to legitimize this type of violence. This does not stop right-wing extremists from continuing its proliferation. As Zachary Mueller writes for the lobbying organization America’s Voice:
“They know they are inspiring more political violence from their supporters, and Republicans still continue to escalate their rhetoric…Republicans’ rhetoric will continue to inspire more political violence from their supporters and put us all at risk.”
Assuming that unity is possible presupposes that MAGA Republicans do not identify vast swaths of the American population as their enemies rather than their political rivals. They make no such distinction, as evidenced by their record of violence.
Dissent has always been bound within the norms of democracy. Failure to recognize this fact leads to the destruction of democracy. Karl Popper, a 19th century political philosopher, famously wrote:
“If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
MAGA Republicans have threatened the peaceful transition of power. They have refused to abide by democratic norms. They have escalated political divisions into acts of violence and terror. This ideology has drawn the lines that divide our nation. This is the intolerance that democracy must rebut.
The question that President Biden raised still remains, however: How do we move forward?
I cannot answer this question. However, we can rule out one option. Allowing undemocratic political movements into the sphere of acceptable discourse will only serve to undermine our democracy and our nation.
We have to ask ourselves what a political system which accepts the MAGA movement’s actions as valid political behavior would look like. This would be a political system in which violence is a tool used to overthrow elections, to intimidate opponents, and to hunt down “acceptable targets.” If we accept this system, the stability of our country’s democracy and the health of our nation will undoubtedly be weakened.
We far too often take our democracy for granted. Indeed, if democracy could not be uprooted from this country, if elections could not be denied and invalidated, if our institutions were impenetrable, then we would have no cause to point fingers at any one political movement.
But we do not live in such a world. The United States recently joined a growing list of “backsliding democracies,” countries whose norms and institutions are under pressure, mainly from far-right extremism.
In such an environment, we must raise serious questions about what actions are tolerable within our country. Election denial cannot be. As President Biden said:
“Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election — either they win or they were cheated.”
As difficult as the decision to “name-and-shame” the MAGA movement is, it is the correct one. Democracy does not always require passivity. We must defend our institutions against extremism.
Jeremy Potter is a sophomore majoring in Political Communication.
