Protesters attends a rally for "Fair Maps" on March 26, 2019 in Washington, DC. The rally was part of the Supreme Court hearings in landmark redistricting cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.
The GOP Is Waging a War on Democracy
Gerrymandering is just one piece of a much larger democratic breakdown.
A few days before the Charlie Kirk murder, I was invited on the radio show Heroes and Patriots to discuss gerrymandering. It’s still a timely topic. Kirk’s killing has led to a frontal assault on speech and democracy by Trump, Vance, and the MAGA right. While this is a newer phenomenon, however, other assaults on democracy have been underway for quite some time. These fights can’t be won individually. They need to be seen as part of a greater whole.
Gerrymandering, as most people know, is the process of altering electoral maps to favor one party, most visibly in congressional race. a Republicans have been the most aggressive practitioners of this dark art in recent years, although Democrats have certainly also engaged in it. It’s newsworthy today because Trump, fearful of a midterm congressional loss, directed the Texas GOP to redraw that state’s already-contested map to find him five more seats—and because Gavin Newsom, with the help of Nancy Pelosi, is openly attempting to counter-gerrymander the California map in response.
In this rancid historical moment, Newsom’s move makes sense. It’s tilting at windmills to oppose gerrymandering on principle while your opponent openly defies even the pretense of democracy. But it’s also important to point out that Newsom’s response will remain little more than theater, or partisan positioning, as long as our political system fails to respond more effectively to public interest and public pressure.
In a tactical sense, what Newsom is doing makes sense. But all of this is still playing out at the level of theater, rather than values, as long as neither party chooses to confront the real challenges to democracy—along with economic inequality, genocide, climate change, racism, and structural violence—in anything but the most superficial terms.
Things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles.
We haven’t had a functioning democracy for a long time. It’s broken, and gerrymandering is one piece of that brokenness.
A few examples out of many:
- 80 percent of voters want Congress to raise the national minimum wage, which hasn’t happened since 2009.
- 60 percent of voters oppose further aid to Israel, something both parties support, and half of voters believe (correctly, according to experts) that Israel is committing genocide.
- Two-thirds of all voters support unions, but Congress has passed no major pro-union legislation since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
- More than 60 percent of those polled agree that “reducing the influence of money in politics should be a top goal for the president and Congress.” As Pew Research reports, “While there are wide partisan differences on most policy goals, 65 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans rate this as a top priority.”
Despite all of this, there are no plans to make this a top priority.
This is not to argue that there are no differences between the two political parties. Rather, the system itself limits political possibility. Gerrymandering is just one piece of a much larger democratic breakdown, alongside systemic issues such as the Electoral College and Senate, media monopolization, the hijacking of the judicial system, and the overall influence of big money (dark, light, and everything in between).
The hosts mentioned several reform proposals, such as Hendrik Smith’s advocacy for AI-assisted independent commissions, which in my opinion could fuel “next-generation” gerrymandering. Newsom and others have expressed interest in commissions or referendums to explore the issue, which they typically describe as “bi-partisan.” I prefer the “non-partisan” approach, since both parties depend on big-money donors.
In any case, things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles. The fight against gerrymandering must be part of a larger vision—a truly representative democracy that works for everyone. Until then, I fear that the fight against gerrymandering—important as it is—will remain little more than a tactical skirmish within a broken system.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Richard (RJ) Eskow is a journalist who has written for a number of major publications. His weekly program, The Zero Hour, can be found on cable television, radio, Spotify, and podcast media.
A few days before the Charlie Kirk murder, I was invited on the radio show Heroes and Patriots to discuss gerrymandering. It’s still a timely topic. Kirk’s killing has led to a frontal assault on speech and democracy by Trump, Vance, and the MAGA right. While this is a newer phenomenon, however, other assaults on democracy have been underway for quite some time. These fights can’t be won individually. They need to be seen as part of a greater whole.
Gerrymandering, as most people know, is the process of altering electoral maps to favor one party, most visibly in congressional race. a Republicans have been the most aggressive practitioners of this dark art in recent years, although Democrats have certainly also engaged in it. It’s newsworthy today because Trump, fearful of a midterm congressional loss, directed the Texas GOP to redraw that state’s already-contested map to find him five more seats—and because Gavin Newsom, with the help of Nancy Pelosi, is openly attempting to counter-gerrymander the California map in response.
In this rancid historical moment, Newsom’s move makes sense. It’s tilting at windmills to oppose gerrymandering on principle while your opponent openly defies even the pretense of democracy. But it’s also important to point out that Newsom’s response will remain little more than theater, or partisan positioning, as long as our political system fails to respond more effectively to public interest and public pressure.
In a tactical sense, what Newsom is doing makes sense. But all of this is still playing out at the level of theater, rather than values, as long as neither party chooses to confront the real challenges to democracy—along with economic inequality, genocide, climate change, racism, and structural violence—in anything but the most superficial terms.
Things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles.
We haven’t had a functioning democracy for a long time. It’s broken, and gerrymandering is one piece of that brokenness.
A few examples out of many:
- 80 percent of voters want Congress to raise the national minimum wage, which hasn’t happened since 2009.
- 60 percent of voters oppose further aid to Israel, something both parties support, and half of voters believe (correctly, according to experts) that Israel is committing genocide.
- Two-thirds of all voters support unions, but Congress has passed no major pro-union legislation since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
- More than 60 percent of those polled agree that “reducing the influence of money in politics should be a top goal for the president and Congress.” As Pew Research reports, “While there are wide partisan differences on most policy goals, 65 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans rate this as a top priority.”
Despite all of this, there are no plans to make this a top priority.
This is not to argue that there are no differences between the two political parties. Rather, the system itself limits political possibility. Gerrymandering is just one piece of a much larger democratic breakdown, alongside systemic issues such as the Electoral College and Senate, media monopolization, the hijacking of the judicial system, and the overall influence of big money (dark, light, and everything in between).
The hosts mentioned several reform proposals, such as Hendrik Smith’s advocacy for AI-assisted independent commissions, which in my opinion could fuel “next-generation” gerrymandering. Newsom and others have expressed interest in commissions or referendums to explore the issue, which they typically describe as “bi-partisan.” I prefer the “non-partisan” approach, since both parties depend on big-money donors.
In any case, things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles. The fight against gerrymandering must be part of a larger vision—a truly representative democracy that works for everyone. Until then, I fear that the fight against gerrymandering—important as it is—will remain little more than a tactical skirmish within a broken system.
Richard (RJ) Eskow is a journalist who has written for a number of major publications. His weekly program, The Zero Hour, can be found on cable television, radio, Spotify, and podcast media.
A few days before the Charlie Kirk murder, I was invited on the radio show Heroes and Patriots to discuss gerrymandering. It’s still a timely topic. Kirk’s killing has led to a frontal assault on speech and democracy by Trump, Vance, and the MAGA right. While this is a newer phenomenon, however, other assaults on democracy have been underway for quite some time. These fights can’t be won individually. They need to be seen as part of a greater whole.
Gerrymandering, as most people know, is the process of altering electoral maps to favor one party, most visibly in congressional race. a Republicans have been the most aggressive practitioners of this dark art in recent years, although Democrats have certainly also engaged in it. It’s newsworthy today because Trump, fearful of a midterm congressional loss, directed the Texas GOP to redraw that state’s already-contested map to find him five more seats—and because Gavin Newsom, with the help of Nancy Pelosi, is openly attempting to counter-gerrymander the California map in response.
In this rancid historical moment, Newsom’s move makes sense. It’s tilting at windmills to oppose gerrymandering on principle while your opponent openly defies even the pretense of democracy. But it’s also important to point out that Newsom’s response will remain little more than theater, or partisan positioning, as long as our political system fails to respond more effectively to public interest and public pressure.
In a tactical sense, what Newsom is doing makes sense. But all of this is still playing out at the level of theater, rather than values, as long as neither party chooses to confront the real challenges to democracy—along with economic inequality, genocide, climate change, racism, and structural violence—in anything but the most superficial terms.
Things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles.
We haven’t had a functioning democracy for a long time. It’s broken, and gerrymandering is one piece of that brokenness.
A few examples out of many:
- 80 percent of voters want Congress to raise the national minimum wage, which hasn’t happened since 2009.
- 60 percent of voters oppose further aid to Israel, something both parties support, and half of voters believe (correctly, according to experts) that Israel is committing genocide.
- Two-thirds of all voters support unions, but Congress has passed no major pro-union legislation since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
- More than 60 percent of those polled agree that “reducing the influence of money in politics should be a top goal for the president and Congress.” As Pew Research reports, “While there are wide partisan differences on most policy goals, 65 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans rate this as a top priority.”
Despite all of this, there are no plans to make this a top priority.
This is not to argue that there are no differences between the two political parties. Rather, the system itself limits political possibility. Gerrymandering is just one piece of a much larger democratic breakdown, alongside systemic issues such as the Electoral College and Senate, media monopolization, the hijacking of the judicial system, and the overall influence of big money (dark, light, and everything in between).
The hosts mentioned several reform proposals, such as Hendrik Smith’s advocacy for AI-assisted independent commissions, which in my opinion could fuel “next-generation” gerrymandering. Newsom and others have expressed interest in commissions or referendums to explore the issue, which they typically describe as “bi-partisan.” I prefer the “non-partisan” approach, since both parties depend on big-money donors.
In any case, things won’t change without major political pressure. That won’t happen until advocates link democratic principles to people’s everyday struggles. The fight against gerrymandering must be part of a larger vision—a truly representative democracy that works for everyone. Until then, I fear that the fight against gerrymandering—important as it is—will remain little more than a tactical skirmish within a broken system.