> They’re not part of democracy

Donating money, enabling more free speech on X, DOGE (an efficiency exercise at least in its goals), etc all seem like a part of democracy to me.

> Similarly, look at the various ways that people who, yes, were democratically elected are trying to restrict voting and gerrymander districts. Again, that’s Republicans using the fact that they were at one point able to win fair elections to make future elections less fair so they can stay in power.

Do you think these actions taken to stay in power are limited to one party?

> Donating money, enabling more free speech on X, DOGE (an efficiency exercise at least in its goals), etc all seem like a part of democracy to me.

Now think about the goals: is this strengthening democracy or trying to avoid it? All of that effort is being dedicated to preventing the outcomes favored by a majority of even those politicians’ voters.

> Do you think these actions taken to stay in power are limited to one party?

No party is blameless but restricting democracy has been strongly Republican for decades. Trying to prevent people from voting is a signature move. Gerrymandering has more bipartisanship but still strongly skews red. Trying to focus power in the presidency away from the more representative Congress is a Republican goal. Having unelected judges chip away at protections like the Voting Rights Act is again a Republican activity.

I’m not saying that Democrats can do no wrong, of course, but simply recognizing that as the Republican Party has embraced positions favored by a minority of the country their support for democracy has notably diminished. In the 90s the guys saying “both sides” sounded a little smug and naive but had a somewhat defensible case, but in this century that position has become untenable. It’s been decades since I voted for a Republican over basic issues like “do you support the rule of law?” I really hope that changes for the sake of the country.