EDITORIAL

After one of the most contentious presidential elections in American history, and arguably the least peaceful transfer of power between presidencies in American history, it comes as no surprise that the 2022 midterm elections are reflecting that animosity and divisiveness. There are many Republican candidates running for office in state government and for positions in the legislative branch of the Federal Government who stand by the false notion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and that Donald Trump is the true president, despite Biden having been inaugurated. The candidates that deny the results of the 2020 election are all far-right Republicans. This of course means that the Democrats they are running against do not support their policies or statements regarding the election being stolen. Despite this, in nine states, Democrats have spent a total of $19 million funding far right Republican candidates' campaigns. This funding and support not only gives dangerous candidates a voice, but is also a misuse of funds principally raised by Democratic voters.  

         The idea of Democrats funding candidates who oppose their intents so strongly seems counterproductive, but there is a strategy behind it that has proven to be effective in past elections. In the 2012 Missouri Senate election, Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat incumbent senator, enlisted a similar approach during her campaign. She endorsed the most conservative candidate running against her, Todd Akin. Democrats in Missouri funded advertisements that illustrated him as being “too conservative.” Democrats knew that this line of dialogue would win Akin votes in the Republican primaries, while also pushing independent and moderate voters to vote for McCaskill. McCaskill’s approach was successful in getting her re-elected. Many people respected McCaskill for using this unorthodox political strategy. The Republican party is often thought of as being better at playing the game of politics. Republicans are often better at campaigning and manipulating information to suit their goals. The Democrats in this case were able to contrive an election to suit their desired narrative and ended up winning the office. Although the strategy worked in the Democrats’ favor, it must be asked: does the Democratic win justify the means by which they arrived at this result.   

         More center-leaning Republicans—who have spoken out against the former president of their own party’s actions—realize that they may be losing the loyalty of Republican voters who lean further right while appealing more to independent voters and Democrats who have accepted Biden’s win. For example, in Western Michigan Peter Meijer, a Republican member of the House voted to impeach Trump following the January 6th Insurrection, making him the first freshman Republican to vote to impeach the president of his own party. Meijer understood that this vote would alienate loyal Republican voters. However, it may have also endeared more center-leaning voters to him, while gaining him the respect of many Democratic officials who would have seen him as a voice of reason amongst a party of people who chose to encourage Trump’s treasonous and unlawful activity. Meijer’s main opponent in the Republican primaries was John Gibbs. Gibbs is a Trump supporter and a fierce advocate of the idea that the election was stolen from Trump. This primary election became a faceoff between a more traditional Republican and a right-leaning extremist. Although Michigan Democrats disagree with Meijer on many fundamental issues, one would likely expect that Democrats would be more supportive of Meijer than of Gibbs, simply because Gibbs is representative of the type of candidate that Democrats disagree with the most, particularly regarding the 2020 presidential election. Surprisingly, the Democratic party in Michigan made a large donation of $435,000 to Gibbs’ campaign. The motivation behind this donation—and other donations made by Democrats under similar circumstances across the country—was clear. The Democrats wanted to eliminate Republicans who they thought would be more difficult to beat. They wanted more extremist Republicans to win in the primaries because they feel that these extremist candidates are more likely to be beat in the final election. A candidate like Meijer seems more threatening to the Democratic party because he is able to appeal to some members of his own party, while also appealing to independent voters who would otherwise support Democratic candidates in this election. Democrats are supporting less agreeable Republican candidates in order to make themselves seem like the more rational choice during the final election.

         This strategy is undoubtedly a great risk for Democratic candidates to be taking. If the more extremist Republicans win in the primaries, and then go on to beat the Democrat candidates in the final election, crucial positions would be taken over by officials who in many cases stand for the exact opposite of what Democratic candidates do. If leaders who support Trump and promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen are elected, the country would be at a greater risk of falling into the control of people who are disrupting the democratic process that is so essential to American democracy. If people in power support Trump’s unconstitutional actions, he would be given more freedom to run in 2024 and a voice to amplify his lies about the 2020 election. However, the Democrats’ strategy may work. Perhaps they will be able to beat out the extremist candidates on the grounds that the majority of Americans disagree with Trump’s agenda. In Michigan, Gibbs did beat Meijer in the primary elections. Gibbs is now running against Democratic candidate Hillary Scholten, one of the Democrats who was behind the donation to Gibbs' campaign only months ago. After gaining support for Gibbs leading up to the primaries, Scholten is now campaigning against him. Scholten is expected to win the election, by a 22 % margin. At first glance, this reflects well on the Democrats. This case looks to reflect the Democrats’ earlier success with this strategy in the 2012 elections in Missouri. 

Even if this strategy is effective, and the Democrats win these important positions in the Senate and House, the strategy is dishonest and it unethically manipulates voters. Democrats funding candidates whose words and actions are condemnable, both by law, and by the opinion of the vast majority of Democrats, is dishonest. While some may regard this strategy as politically cunning, it is an abuse of the power and funds that the Democratic party is able to administer. Much of the money that has gone to donations comes from average American voters who wish to support Democratic candidates who represent their own beliefs. For the money and power that comes from Democratic voters to be poured into supporting far-right extremists is purely unfair. Not only was the Democratic party abusing its power over voters, it was also placing voters in danger of becoming represented by people who they find to be utterly unsuitable for office.