A Different 2016
Aryan Deorah, Staff Writer
Both the US and Austria had intense 2016 presidential elections. The two 2016 Austrian presidential candidates, top-row left-to-right, are Alexander Van der Bellen and Norbert Hofer and the two 2016 US presidential candidates, bottom-row left-to-right, are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Surya Punjabi
The year is 2016, and a left-wing candidate is battling a far right-wing candidate who demonizes immigrants, has authoritarian tendencies, and doesn’t show much care for democratic norms. The election is occurring in a modern western democracy that has become increasingly fraught and polarized and has had past flirtations with right-wing extremists. Institutions, parties, and families are divided over the main candidates and many look to election day with a mixture of hope and fear for their future. You may think you know this story all too well as the painful memories of the democratic horror show that was the 2016 US Presidential Election flood in. But in this case, the story takes a turn and has a very different ending.
Similar to the US, Austria was at a political and societal crossroad in 2016. Increasing unemployment and economic stagnation plagued the Austrian economy and had major political ramifications. General dissatisfaction with the political system led to a weakening of the center left (SPO) and center right (OVP) parties as well as a flight of people away from the political center. This became apparent in the first round of the 2016 Austrian Presidential Election, when outsiders Alexander Van der Bellen, a left-wing Green Party candidate, and Norbert Hofer, a right-wing Freedom Party (FPO) candidate, were the two most popular candidates and advanced to the second round. OVP conservative politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they had to choose between endorsing Hofer, an immigrant-hating wannabe authoritarian with conservative values, or Van der Bellen, an ideological rival as left as they come that happened to be committed to democracy like most Austrian politicians.
The Austrian OVP was placed in a very similar position to the Republican Party in 2016. By this point in the US presidential election, mainstream Republicans had already made their choice; though many despised Trump and what he stood for, they decided to endorse him anyways for their own political and ideological gains. However, many Austrian conservatives chose differently than their American counterparts. As a former chairman of the OVP famously stated,“we don’t want congratulations from Le Pen, Jobbik, Wilders and the AfD [and other extremists] after our presidential elections.” This brave choice by Austrian conservatives who resisted the temptation to ideologically collude and instead chose their country over their ideology allowed for Van der Bellen to narrowly win and maintain Austria’s status as one of the premier democracies in the world.
Democracy collapsed quickly across Europe following the end of World War I, the onset of the Great Depression, and rise of fascism. However, some democracies like Belgium and Finland were able to survive this thanks to their political parties.
Quora/Johan Louis De Jong
The case study of Austria’s 2016 election is far from the only example of an established democracy working to keep out authoritarianism. The Great Depression, the destruction wrought by World War I, and growing populism made 1930s Europe particularly susceptible to authoritarian takeovers. However, several European nations, through their political parties, managed to sustain their democracy. Belgium’s democracy constitutes one such example: when Belgium’s right-wing Catholic Party was faced with the challenge of addressing a growing fascist movement within their ranks, they decided to expel members with radical beliefs and publicly oppose the fascist movement. Comparably, when a similar fascist movement took hold in Finland around the same time, Finland’s center right parties allied themselves with their rivals on the left to prevent the fascists from winning major elections. These examples demonstrate that political parties have both immense powers and responsibilities to maintain their country’s democracies through gatekeeping. When political parties take an active role in rooting out and publicly opposing extremism within their ranks, they are incredibly effective at protecting their respective democracies from threats, even during dire times.
Given the historical context of political gatekeeping in established democracies, it’s worth begging the question, why did the Republicans (and America as a whole) have a moral and political failing in 2016 and what can we learn from it? I am certain many of you breathed a sigh of relief as Trump stepped out of the White House for the last time a few months ago, but the underlying causes that led to his rise are still there, and if we as a nation don’t address them and learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat our past mistakes. American democracy survived Donald Trump, his undemocratic tendencies, and his attempt to steal a legitimate election, but we can’t guarantee it will survive the next authoritarian that comes around.
One explanation for why the Republicans failed while other conservative parties didn’t is the American electoral system. The first-past-the-post system of voting in the US, where whoever has the most votes in a given constituency wins, lends itself to a two-party system. These two parties have to cover the vast range of political ideologies in America. For example, Republicans can vary from fascists to centrists, while Democrats can vary from centrists to communists. Donald Trump was chosen by the radical wing of the Republican party, so moderates in the same party felt compelled to support him, whereas in the case of Austria, the authoritarian candidate was part of a far-right party, so moderates in a center-right party did not feel as compelled by their party to support him. For this along with various other reasons, many are calling for an overhaul of our elections system to encourage a multiparty system to take hold, better allowing our political system to deal with extremist views.
Another reason why Republicans failed to check Donald Trump is growing ideological polarization, both in policy and rhetoric. America’s political parties are moving further and further away from the center, making it challenging for even moderate members of each party to reach across the aisle. In the last 30 years, all metrics of political polarization have skyrocketed, and attempts to engage in bipartisanship are met with harsh rebuke from each party’s base. When Al Gore conceded to Bush in 2000 and Bush gave his acceptance speech, he requested to be introduced by a Democrat to show his intention to unite the country. Congressional Republican leader Tom DeLay stated in response, “We don’t work with Democrats. There’ll be none of that uniter-divider stuff.” When members of each party view each other with contempt and disgust, and believe the other party is trying to destroy the country, they are more willing to do whatever it takes to win. This includes endorsing Donald Trump, because Republicans believed that supporting a wannabe authoritarian was better than the alternative of endorsing ideological rival Hillary Clinton. Even if they wanted to endorse Hillary Clinton, many Republicans stayed silent out of fear of retribution from their own party. Though Austria had dealt with considerable polarization, they were not nearly as polarized as America, and it was still fathomable to support an ideological rival without being ostracized from your own party. If we are to address the causes of Trump’s rise, we must address the growing polarization in America and work to bridge partisan divides.
America’s two-party system and recent political hyper-polarization both help explain why America, not Austria, had a moral failing in 2016. However, at the end of the day, Republicans made a fundamental choice that the OVP didn’t: They chose to put party and ideology over country, and in doing so jeopardized American democracy like never before. They supported Donald Trump despite knowing that he was a bigoted, fear-mongering, inexperienced, and incompetent leader. We the Democratic Party and we the American people must continue wholeheartedly rebuke the Republicans who enabled Donald Trump like we did in the 2020 elections and send a message to all who wish to undermine American democracy that we won’t let it happen again: not today, not tomorrow, not ever.