James Talarico's Victory Speech: A Politics of "Love Thy Neighbor" Versus Trump's "Hate Thy Neighbor"
Over the weekend just before the election, I was in Texas for the University of Texas-Mississippi State football game in Austin. I was shocked to see Talarico signs everywhere and almost no Paxton signs and to hear people talking about their enthusiasm for overthrowing the Republican political establishment in Texas. I was born in Texas, and most of my childhood (beginning in 1962) was spent in Texas. So I saw the amazing political transformation of Texas from being a dominantly Democrat state to being dominantly Republican. Now, I have seen the stunning electoral rebuke of the Texas Trump Republicans.
Seeing this defeat of the Trump Republicans, not only in Texas but across the country, reminds me of what Francis Fukuyama has written in his new book In the Realm of the Last Man: A Memoir in defense of his 1989 proclamation of the triumph of liberal democracy at the "End of History." He says that a few times every week, he is asked whether he wants to retract that claim because obviously liberal democracy is retreating, and illiberal authoritarianism is on the rise.
Fukuyama has admitted that there are two serious alternatives to liberal democracy in the world today. The first--and the single most serious challenge--is China. In a future post, I will argue that although China looks like a serious challenge, the "China Model" is not a plausible alternative to liberal democracy.
The other possible alternative identified by Fukuyama is the illiberal or patrimonial populism of Donald Trump and others (like Viktor Orban). Last month, I predicted that Trump's patrimonial populism would go down in defeat in the midterm elections, as we have just seen last week.
THE GLOBAL ELECTORAL REVOLT AGAINST ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY
This is part of a global pattern of electoral losses for illiberal populism over the past year. I have written about Orban's fall in Hungary in April. More recently, Aleksandar Vucic, Serbia's longtime nationalist strongman, and ally of Trump, was voted out of power. Similarly, in Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defeated Flavio Bosonaro, whose father, the former president Jair Bolsonaro was jailed for attempting a coup after he lost the last election to Lula. Flavio secretly fled Brazil and ended up in Miami, where Trump promised to protect him.
All of these elections show the same three features. First, there were record-breaking high voter turnouts. When voter turnout is low, and an authoritarian ruler has lost the election, it's easy for his party to engage in tricks that alter the election results in his favor. But when turnout is high, and he has lost by a large margin, it's hard to overturn the election.
The second common feature is that young people played a major part in the election. In Serbia, the opposition to Vucic was led by a student protest movement ("the Student List"). In Brazil, young protestors took to the streets when Lula came in second in the first round of voting, and voters under 35 powered Lula to victory in the second round. Young people worry about their future under an illiberal authoritarian ruler.
The third common feature of these elections was the prominence of corruption as an issue. Voters become angry when they perceive that they are not doing well economically, but they see that their authoritarian rulers and their family and friends have grown rich from corruption. Such corruption is intrinsic to patrimonial authoritarianism, because the whole point of patrimonial rule is that rulers use their power to benefit themselves, their families, and their friends at the expense of the public. Fukuyama has noted that patrimonialism is rooted in human biological nature as shaped by kin selection and reciprocal altruism: human beings are naturally inclined to cooperate with their family members and with their friends with whom they have reciprocal relations. Those outside the circle of family and friends we treat as strangers or even enemies.
CHECKS FROM CONGRESS
The success of American liberal democracy depends critically on Congress checking the power of the President. The first and longest article of the Constitution is the legislative Article I, which suggests that Congress should be the center of the federal government. But the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress during Trump's second term have refused to check Trump's authoritarian rule. Trump has become the chief lawmaker by making laws through executive orders. And so, for example, Trump has taken over for himself the congressional powers for legislating tariffs and declaring war. The midterm elections have shown that a big majority of the electorate want to have a Democrat-controlled Congress that will exercise its constitutional duty to check the authoritarian power of the President.
The massive scale of this midterm defeat for Trump and the Trump Republicans shows that it's a realigning election that shifts the balance of power away from Trump's illiberal authoritarianism and backs towards the liberal democracy of the Constitution. But I would argue that while this was a realigning election in favor of liberal democracy, and thus a vindication of Fukuyama's end-of-history thesis, the voters were not showing a great preference for the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. In exit polling, 60% of the voters said they had an "unfavorable opinion" of the Republican Party. But 52% of the voters said they also had an "unfavorable opinion" of the Democratic Party. One-third of the voters identified as "independents" who reject both major parties. The great majority of the voters voted for Democratic candidates only because that was their way of rejecting the illiberal authoritarian rule of Trump as supported by the Trump Republicans.
Of course, the Trump Republicans--such as the election analysts at Fox News--have said that this was just a "normal" midterm election punishing the party of the President. That is not true. These midterm results were hardly normal. Consider the Senate races. The Republicans have lost at least seven Senate races and probably nine (if we include Mississippi and Alaska). They got blown out in normally red states like South Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Kansas. Kansas last had a Democratic Senator in 1932! That's not a "normal" midterm election.
Jeffrey Anderson has noted: "Of the 47 Senate seats that changed parties in midterm elections between 1990 and 2022, only five were won by candidates whose party had lost by at least ten points during the prior presidential election in that state--in other words, deep in enemy territory. In only one election over that span [in 2010] had a party lost more than one such seat. . . . On Tuesday, Republicans managed to lose at least five such seats, and probably seven, in just one election--at least matching, and likely surpassing, the combined total lost by both parties in all midterm elections from 1990 through 2022."
The same three factors--high voter turnout, young voters, and corruption--manifest in the recent elections in Hungary, Serbia, and Brazil were crucial for the American midterm elections. Although the numbers are still being calculated, it appears that the voter turnout was unusually high for this midterm election, and the turnout for young voters was also unusually high.
Moreover, in the exit polling, the number one concern of voters was "government corruption." An amazing 91% of the voters said that this was either a "crucial" or "major" factor for them. And those 91% of the voters went with the Democrats by 16 points (57-41%). So J.D. Vance was wrong when he said that "the reason we lost is the war." The war in Iran was only the third most important factor for the voters. 74% said that it was a "crucial" or "major" factor. The majority of these voters backed the Democrats by 30 points (64-34%). This put the Iran war close to "immigration enforcement" as an influence on voters, because 73% of the voters said this was a "crucial" or "major" factor.
The second most important issue was "cost of living." 89% said it was either a "crucial" or "major" factors. This group voted for the Democrats by 20 points (59-39%). Now while the cost of living was certainly affected by the Iran War (gas prices), voters pointed to other factors as well. 66% of the voters said that "Trump's tariff policies" have hurt the national economy, and those voters backed Democrats by a huge margin of 63 points (81-18%). 63% of the voters blame "Trump's policies" generally for "higher than usual prices."
"Government corruption" as the number one issue for voters was connected with voters recognizing that Trump's illiberal patrimonialism was responsible for much of the corruption in government. Asked "which does Donald Trump prioritize more?," 62% said "his own personal interests," while 38% said "the country's interests." Asked "would you say Donald Trump fights for people like you?," 63% said No. Asked "do you think the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy?," 70% of the voters said Yes. And of these, 76% were Democratic voters.
Notice how this refutes the intellectual defenders of Trumpism--like those at the Claremont Institute--who say that Trump's populist appeal comes from voters recognizing that he is fighting for the People against the Ruling Class. On the contrary, most voters see Trump as a corrupt politician fighting for his interests and the interests of his family and friends in the Ruling Class.
All of this leads me to identify this election not only as a "Realignment Election," but also as a "Reconstruction Election," because after two years of Trump trying to destroy constitutional liberal democracy in America, this election is the first step in reconstructing that constitutional regime. This echoes the Reconstruction that came after the Civil War, when the Confederacy tried to overturn liberal democracy in America. As I have noted previously, George Fitzhugh, the great apologist for slavery and the Confederacy, said in 1866 that the Union victory in the Civil War was the victory of John Locke's liberalism over Sir Robert Filmer's conservatism. As I have indicated in some previous posts, some of the Trumpist intellectuals--such as Curtis Yarvin--have explicitly argued for Filmer's monarchism and against Locke's liberalism.
In this midterm election, we have been reminded of Reconstruction by the Mississippi Senate race. With over 97% of the votes counted, Scott Colon, the Democratic challenger, leads Republican incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith by a little over 2,500. If Colon wins, he will be the first Black Senator from Mississippi since Reconstruction. Hiram Revels, the nation's first Black Senator was elected in Mississippi in 1870. The last Black Senator from Mississippi was Blanche K. Bruce, who served during the final days of Reconstruction from 1875 to 1881.
This midterm election begins the Reconstruction not only of the Congress but also other institutional checks on President Trump.
CHECKS FROM FEDERAL COURTS
The federal court system has been a major check on Trump's power. Grand juries have often refused to return indictments sought by the Justice Department to prosecute cases against Trump's opponents. The Trump administration has lost most of its cases in the federal courts.
As I have written in some previous posts, the record of the Supreme Court has been mixed. The Court has rendered some bad decisions favoring Trump's authoritarianism. The worst is the 6-3 decision ruling that the President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his "core constitutional powers"--that is, powers that belong exclusively to the President. And he has at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for any of his "official acts." But the Court has also rendered some good decisions such as denying the President's power to arbitrarily impose tariffs, and the power to deny birthright citizenship.
The midterm election creates the prospect of making the Supreme Court a more effective check on the President. Since Clarence Thomas is 77 years old, and Samuel Alito is 76, they are likely to retire within the next few years. Presumably, a Democratic controlled Senate will not confirm any Supreme Court nominations from Trump. And if a Democrat is elected President in 2028, that President could appoint two justices, which would change the Court from having 6 Republican appointees to having 5 Democratic appointees, thus a 5-4 Democratic majority.
CHECKS FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS
American federalism makes state governments a check on the power of the President. The midterm elections have strengthened that check on Trump and any Trump successor by giving massive gains to the Democrats in the state governments. In 2027, at least 28 governors will be Democrats. The Democrats have also made gains in the state legislatures. For example, the Texas House of Representatives will have a Democratic majority for the first time since 2002. In Arizona, the Democrats will control the governorship and both houses of the legislature for the first time since 1966.
THE RULE OF LAW AND MILITARY POWER
Why hasn't Trump declared himself a military dictator so that he can overturn the midterm elections with military force? In 2021, I argued that Trump didn't do this when he lost the 2020 election because he did not have the guns or the guts for becoming a military dictator. He did not have the guns because military leaders such as General Mark Milley (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) made it clear that they would not allow the military to support a presidential dictatorship. And he did not have the guts because he lacked the courage to assert his dictatorial will in violation of the Constitution.
I would make the same argument now. In a liberal democracy, the chief executive might be commander in chief, but that does not allow him to establish a military dictatorship over his country contrary to the rule of law. In the U.S., military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which means they have a duty to disobey any unconstitutional order from the President. That's why Trump became so angry when Senator Mark Kelly and other veterans in Congress publicly declared that the military must disobey any illegal orders. Trump said this was a treasonous offense punishable by death! But Trump knows that they were right.
The midterm elections strengthen this check on Trump's power because a Democratic controlled Congress would resist any declaration of military dictatorship.
THE CHRISTIAN AND LOCKEAN CULTURE OF CIVILITY: "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR" OR "HATE THY NEIGHBOR"?
The Reconstruction of liberal democracy in America will require not just strengthening the institutional checks on Trump's power but also reviving the moral and religious culture of civility necessary for overcoming the politics of divisiveness--of friends and enemies--that divides the American people and thus makes it easier for Trump to rule over them.
This point has been well made by James Talarico in his victory speech in Texas, which includes most of the major themes in his stump speech for his winning campaign for the U.S. Senate. A seminarian who hopes to become a Christian minister, Talarico has employed a Biblical rhetoric with emphasis on Jesus' teaching "Love Thy Neighbor." We must love our neighbor because our neighbors--our fellow human beings--are all created in God's image with sacred value. This means that despite our differences--in race, sex, religion, classes, or politics--we should respect and even love one another as equal in our human dignity.
But those rich and powerful people who want exploitative dominance over us, Talarico warns, want to divide us into warring political factions, who see politics as us against them, because this is the strategy of divide and conquer: it's easier to conquer us if we are divided against one another.
But Talarico argues that we need to see American politics not as left versus right or Democrat versus Republican but as top versus bottom. Those at the top--the billionaires or even trillionaires--want to divide us so that they can rule over us. It was easy for Talarico to identify some examples of those at the top who were involved in the Texas Senate race. Elon Musk spent over 300 million dollars in the Texas race, which was the biggest political donation in a Senate race in American history. And yet all that money was wasted because Talarico won the support of ordinary Texans with diverse political orientations--Democrats, Republicans, and independents--who refused to be divided by partisan differences.
Similarly, Talarico could point to the egregious corruption of his opponent--Attorney General Ken Paxton--whose corruption was so blatant that his own staff people reported him to the FBI for his corruption, and whose own party impeached him. As Attorney General, his government salary was about $140,000 a year. And yet during his ten years as Attorney General, he amassed great wealth that he could not explain. Paxton owned 11 houses, Talarico often observed, while many Texans couldn't afford even one house.
Trump and Paxton promoted a politics of hate through personal attacks on Talarico and his supporters as "freaks." Trump and Paxton said Talarico's real name was "Talafreako." Talarico responded by selling shirts that said "I'm a Talafreako," and this raised a million dollars for his campaign. He responded to hateful attacks with humor.
So preaching "love thy neighbor" was Talarico's way of persuading people with very different backgrounds and beliefs to join a coalition of ordinary Texans fighting and defeating the ruling political establishment in Texas.
To argue for "love thy neighbor" in social and political life corresponds to John Locke's argument for the importance of "civility," which he defined as "respect and good will to all people." A culture of civility is crucial for liberal democracy, where people need to accept the peaceful transfer of political power through elections without demonizing those who disagree with them politically.
By contrast, Trump has been emphatic in rejecting the Christian teaching of "love thy neighbor" because he believes that politics requires that he hate his enemies. Remarkably, in his interview with Ross Douthat for CBS's "60 Minutes," Trump even said that he would never ask God for forgiveness for this sin of hating his enemies. This raises the question of whether Trump will make it to Heaven--a question that I'll take up in the next post.
