The Cajun authoritarian

Interesting interview with the historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez, who summarizes the attitude of the consensus Republican choice for speaker toward democratic rule (he’s against it):

But he is very much of this political moment in terms of his level of commitment to democracy. He spearheaded the congressional efforts to overturn the election. He is on the record as an election denier. Some have suggested that’s why he got the votes to be elected speaker. He’s a Trump supporter and Trump supporter in this regard, specifically: election denial.

I’ve noticed also in listening to his speeches that he is explicit about describing this country as a republic and not as a democracy. Inside these conservative Christian nationalist spaces, that is par for the course: that this is a republic, and it is a republic, again, founded in this biblical worldview, and that it’s not a democratic free-for-all. And so again, this is Christian supremacy.

If you align with this value system, then yes, you have the authority to shape our laws. If you do not, you have no business shaping our laws. He once said: “We don’t live in a democracy, because democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.” Meaning, the country is not just majority rule; it’s a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.

I think that’s really important here: His commitment is not to democracy. He’s not committed to majority rule; he seems to be saying he’s committed to minority rule, if that’s what it takes to ensure that we stay on the Christian foundation that the founders have set up.

Trump is both symptom and cause, but much more the former.

Incidentally, when he was still an obscure backbencher he did a Chotiner about his election theft efforts:

It seems like one upshot of what you are saying is that if the election had been stolen for Trump, not Biden, everyone should acknowledge that, too. It shouldn’t be about party. And so the point Trump should be making is that he would be standing up for the Constitution, no matter who the election was being stolen from.

That’s exactly right. I have gone to great lengths to say, “We have to be intellectually consistent about this.” It’s not just about the support of Donald Trump in 2020. It’s about the institutions themselves. And if people doubt the veracity of the election system, that is the foundation of the maintenance of the Republic. We can’t keep a republic if people don’t think their vote counts.

Right, in a weird way, Trump is an institutionalist because—

Right! Precisely. He doesn’t articulate it in the same way that some old constitutional-law nerds would, but that’s what he is. That’s exactly right.

[…]

I think this interview made one thing clear, which is that you present a picture of your colleagues and a President who are not just fighting for this because Republicans lost. Trump is doing this for the principle, not just for power.

I genuinely believe that.

In retrospect, it should have been obvious all along that this guy was a contender — the combination of contempt for majority rule and smarmy, intelligence insulting ass-kissing is how you get ahead in Republican politics.