Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has tested boundaries and gauged public reactions. When Republican voters approved of one of his ideas, Trump took their support as proof of its merit. When the GOP base balked, he backed down.
The problem, of course, is that Republican voters have shown a remarkable tolerance for radicalism throughout the Trump era.
A year ago this week, for example, ahead of the Republican Party’s presidential caucuses in Iowa, a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom poll found that many likely Republican caucusgoers in the state actually approved of Trump saying that immigrants ” poison blood” of the state. country and targets Americans he disagrees with as “vermin.” (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
A CBS News national poll released a month later found that 82% of Republicans supported Trump’s anti-immigrant language, with the then-candidate repeating similar language used by Adolf Hitler. (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
Why did Trump rely so heavily on crude anti-immigration rhetoric? Because the voters he cared about most gave him the green light to continue.
However, the broader phenomenon is not limited to “blood poisoning” screeds. The president-elect has also talked about “terminating” parts of the Constitution that hinder his ambitions and creating a temporary American “dictatorship.”
There are new indications that his supporters are not really concerned about this either. Monmouth University this week released the results of its latest national survey:
Most Democrats and independents would be angry if President-elect Donald Trump were to suspend laws and constitutional provisions to go after his political enemies. However, few Republicans say this would bother them much.
As is often the case, the exact wording of the questions was important. In this case, Monmouth initially asked respondents: “Donald Trump has made statements suggesting that he might suspend a number of laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies if he is re-elected president. Do you view these statements as something he will seriously do if elected, or is it more of an exaggeration?”
Overall, the public was closely divided, although the partisan divide was stark: 77% of Democrats said they viewed the president-elect’s rhetoric as serious, while 71% of Republicans said he was exaggerating.
But it was the follow-up question that mattered more: “If Donald Trump were to suspend certain laws and constitutional provisions, would that bother you a lot, a little, or not at all?”
A large number of Republicans in the survey (36%) said they would not be bothered at all if Trump suspended some laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies, while another 34% said it would bother them only “a little bit.” ” would be bothered if the incoming president took such a step.
Fewer than 1 in 4 Republicans — just 23% — said they would be bothered “a lot” if Trump were to suspend some laws and constitutional provisions to go after political opponents.
If it were just one national poll, it would be tempting to see it as an outlier, but The Washington Post published an analysis noting how often we’ve seen related data – just this year. For example, one poll found that 57% of Republicans said it would be a good thing if Trump could act “without waiting for Congress and the courts.” (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
Another survey found that 52% of Republicans agreed that Americans “need a strong president who can govern without too much interference from the courts and Congress.” (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
I’m also reminded of a Fox News poll exactly a year ago that found that 30% of self-identified Trump voters—nearly a third—agreed with a “breakthrough” from the president.[ing] some laws to put things right.” (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
That was followed by an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll asking respondents whether they agreed that conditions in the United States have deteriorated so much that “we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to keep things moving.” to put right.” Among Republicans, a 56% majority supported the idea. (Click this link for more information about the survey’s margin of error and methodology.)
There has been a lot of discussion lately about Trump’s hostility to democracy and embrace of an authoritarian vision. What is less appreciated is the extent to which mainstream Republican voters have embraced similar views.
I’m reminded of something again Rachel told viewers in an A-block which aired a year ago this week, about aspiring leaders telling voters that some threats “justify ending the Constitution.”
“It’s meant to make you believe that a democratic system with checks and balances, and the limitations of the rule of law, and elections that sometimes vote people out, and divided power within the government, these things are not capable of preventing these terrible practices. to stop. The evil that threatens us – the terrible threat that some of us pose to the rest of us,” Rachel explained.
“This stuff is tactically efficient. It’s meant to make us think we need a strong man. We need a tough man. We don’t need a legal system with all its limitations. We don’t need a legal system. We don’t really need a political process. We don’t need politicians. We don’t need Congress. We need strength, willpower, action, revenge, broken rules and maybe even violence.
“These statements are not just meant to shock you, they are also meant to impact you, to make you believe that we need something new and extreme to tackle our terrible problems, even if only for a short time – maybe just a temporary dictatorship. And these tactics have a terrible history and work very well.”
The Monmouth poll suggests the tactic is still works well – at least among members of one of the country’s largest political parties.
(According to the polling institute’s press release, the Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from Dec. 5 to 10 with a probability-based national random sample of 1,006 adults ages 18 and older. Interviews were conducted. English and included 208 live interviews via landline, 540 live interviews via mobile phones and 258 online surveys via SMS invitation via mobile phone a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points for the full sample.)
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
