“If the United States is to deter a nuclear attack,” then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said in a 1967 speech in San Francisco, “it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.”
McNamara was elucidating a long-established defense concept known as “mutually assured destruction,” meaning that if one side has the ability to destroy its enemy but knows that it cannot do so without being destroyed itself, and that its enemy can and will act to do precisely that, stability is the result.
Something like that argument is being applied to gerrymandering, which is applying nuclear-level destruction to American democracy at both state and federal levels. And it is proliferating.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom used the phrase “fight fire with fire” when he said he planned to work with the California legislature and congressional representatives on a plan that would temporarily set aside California’s independent redistricting commission. The aim is to draw a map that would offset any gains the GOP makes in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott are trying to force a gerrymandered, mid-decade congressional map through the Texas legislature with the aim of maintaining Republican control of the U.S. House.
That action in Texas, of course, explains why Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was holding a news conference this month with Texas Democrats who had fled the Lone Star State to try to prevent, well, their own mutually assured destruction. After other Texans in exile made their way to New York City for a separate news conference, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said that “if Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they’re leaving us no choice, we must do the same.”
Closer to home, Pritzker assailed what was happening in Texas as a “corrupt” act, likely to “silence millions of voters,” with nary a sense of irony, as if his own party was squeaky clean on the matter in Illinois, which is hardly the case.
Illinois Republicans, or what is left of them, roared at the hypocrisy, given that the Illinois version of gerrymandering, as egregiously implemented in 2021, has effectively disempowered Republicans, and thus Republican voters, to the point that very few of them even see a point in running for office in Illinois districts anymore, beyond the safe Republican islands. That’s despite 44% of Illinoisans voting for Trump in 2024.
The problem with applying the language of assured mutual destruction is that democracy does not die in a nuclear flash, to be avoided at all costs. It dies progressively, eaten away by incremental loss of trust.
We’ve railed against gerrymandering on both state and federal levels before, of course, and not just to lament the cowardice on gerrymandering displayed by the Illinois Supreme Court, as well the U.S. Supreme Court’s lamentable 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that removed federal courts as a crucial check on partisan gerrymandering. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts clearly recognized the threat gerrymandering posed to democracy, but the 5-4 court majority he led ruled that the only lawful remedies were political, as distinct from federal judicial intervention.
Related Articles
Erwin Chemerinsky: Trump isn’t the main villain in Texas’ gerrymander scheme
Solomon D. Stevens: Just railing against Trump won’t do it, Democrats. What are you for?
Bret Stephens: A half-baked Alaska summit
Lisa Jarvis: A Jump in colon cancer cases could actually be hopeful
Marc Champion: In Alaska, Putin is about to outplay Trump again
Already that decision has not aged well.
We’re back on the topic today to say that the events of the last few days only have deepened our conviction that gerrymandering is a real and present threat to American democracy that must be stopped before yet more damage is done. We also are here to say that phrases like “fire with fire” and “all’s fair in love and war” are nothing more than lazy, partisan thinking, tempting as they may be to utter.
This isn’t about one side laying down its arms, or refusing to do so. It’s about building a structure with bipartisan buy-in so both are able to do so at once. We like to believe that could still be done in America.
— The Chicago Tribune