Gerrymandering and Total Politics

Gerrymandering is the new front opening up in the total war that is American politics.

One of my predictions for the year was that there was going to be a split between Republican and Democratic states in the US. I wrote in January that: “It is difficult to know what will be the specific issue next year, but I think another policy split on the same magnitude as abortion access will emerge in the coming year.” That issue seems to be redistricting, or Gerrymandering. It is not really a split in the sense that both parties agree to make elections less fair and to undemocratically benefit incumbents, but it is a split in the sense that the sides disagree on who should be favoured. It’s a dangerous escalation in American politics.

Gerrymandering has a long and sordid history in the US, but the country had in the past two decades started to move towards mechanisms to combat the practice. In short, the term Gerrymandering is a reference to a law signed in 1812 when governor Elbridge Gerry redistricted Massachusetts to benefit the Republican party which created a district the press thought resembled a salamander. The point of Gerrymandering is to create a few districts in which you try to cram all your opponent’s voters so that you have a better chance of winning a larger number of districts and by extension seats.

The return of Gerrymandering was triggered by Donald Trump who pressured his party colleagues in Texas to Gerrymander their state so that the Republicans will have a better chance of preserving their majority in the house of representatives after the mid-term elections coming up next year. In response, Democratic politicians floated the idea of counter-Gerrymandering in an effort to neutralise the possible advantage Gerrymandering might bring the Republicans. California governor Gavin Newsom is now fighting a campaign to repeal California’s law which places the power of redistricting in the hands of a neutral third party instead of politicians to counter-Gerrymander Trump’s proposed Gerrymander of Texas.

I find it deeply sad that Democrats are so stuck in the here and now and their all-consuming hatred of Donald Trump to be unable to take the moral high ground. As I’ve argued before on the blog, the reason why American politics are so toxic is that anti-democratic sentiment is a bi-partisan issue. Instead of trying to win on the merits both sides immediately jump to match the underhanded tactics of their opponents. America is rapidly approaching a state of ‘total politics’.

Total war was the world war era mobilisation of all of society in the war effort, making it so that there was no area of life free from war and no lever the state would not pull if it helped the war effort in any way. American politics is similar. There is almost no policy, action, tactic, or rhetoric which is beyond the pale in the battle against team red or team blue. Gerrymandering is controversial today, but if the current redistricting push is successful then whichever side loses the midterms will enthusiastically adopt it to stop future electoral failures.

The cycle of escalation present in the Gerrymandering debate is reminiscent of other recent changes in American politics. The multi-decade project of electing conservative judges to the supreme court to revoke abortion rights triggered a response of accepting that the law is now a political arena instead of calling foul and trying to use normal legislative processes to restore the previous status quo. Last time it was the supreme court and abortion, this time it is Gerrymandering, next time it might be policing or the military.

Total politics is a self-reinforcing and radicalising mode of politics which through gradual ratcheting creates distinct groups which have very little in common, in stark contrast to the consensus finding which is inherent to a well-functioning democracy. By trusting in your fellow men and women contentious issues can become utterly undramatic through the legislative process and time the way welfare programmes have. But American politicians lack the most fundamental ingredient in a democracy: the belief that their rivals are acting in good faith.

To be clear, it is easy to see why. Donald Trump and JD Vance are disagreeable types prone to lashing out and using bullying rhetoric, and I am not arguing that they should be given a pass for their behaviour. Rather, it is critical to see that voters can and do vote for them and people like them even if they disagree with their style of politics. And this is not a problem unique to the right, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were both dismissive of Republican voters and thought that they knew better than the working class about what the working class wants and needs.

The only way to get out of the mode of total politics and towards a more productive version is to turn the other cheek and listen instead of trying to overmatch the other side’s screaming. Gerrymandering is not some sort of point of no return which invariably condemns the nation to a perpetual state of total politics, but it is an important barrier not to cross. It is explicitly using the power of the state for your own political and economic interests, the exact opposite result to what democracies are designed to create. Only time will tell if American politicians are able to break the tragic cycle of escalation which they have set the country on, but just as no one is fighting total wars today it is possible to return to a mode of politics without life and death stakes.

If you liked this post you can read a previous post about AI here or the rest of my writings here. I also have a section for longer reads I call essays here, I particularly recommend my essay on Silicon Valley and AI called 'No Acoustic Guitars in Silicon Valley'. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!

---

I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.

Written by Karl Johansson

---

Cover photo by Valentin Riess from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson