The EconomistJuly 21 st 2018 United States 23A
MONG the Republicans cowering before President Donald
Trump the presence of Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan has been
especially disheartening. Yet both threatened to regrow spines
this week. âRussia is an adversaryâ declared Senator Rubio in re-
sponse to the presidentâs fraternising in Helsinki. âRussia is a
menacinggovernment that doesnotshare ourinterestsâ said the
Speaker ofthe House ofRepresentatives. These were if not sting-
ing rebukes better than Mr Rubioâs usual habit ofkeeping shtum
and tweeting Bible verses whenever Mr Trump does something
horrid or Mr Ryanâs of offering a wry half-smile and a comment
on tax reform. Yet both men formerly known as principled con-
servatives sullied their moment of revertebration. Both claimed
the Russian election-hacking effort on Mr Trumpâs behalf had
been a failure. âIt is also clearâ said Mr Ryan that âit didnât have a
material effect on ourelections.â
Not so. The margin of Mr Trumpâs victory in the electoral col-
lege was tiny a matter of just under 80 000 voters in three rust-
belt states. Any one of Hillary Clintonâs unforeseen troubles
could account for that: including her late fainting fit James Co-
meyâs blundering or an illicit Russian social-media campaign
that suggested she was in league with the devil. And a bigger Rus-
sian intervention the cyberwaron behalfofMrTrump described
in Robert Muellerâs indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence
officers could have hurt her more than all the rest combined. It
appears to have been better-resourced longer-runningand more
extensive and ingenious than almost anyone imagined.
The special counselâs indictment describes a global network
ofanonymousserversand bitcoin miners rampant identity theft
and money-laundering all focused on the Russian objective of
gettingMr Trump elected. The Russian spies whose identities re-
sponsibilities and individual activities the indictment meticu-
lously identifies had a free run of Mrs Clintonâs party and cam-
paign computer files until a few weeks before the election. The
indictment suggests that they may additionally have stolen the
Clinton teamâs voter-targetingdata which in the hands of herop-
ponent could have been a devastatingweapon.
Even if those numbers were pinched (and Mrs Clintonâs data
people claim to have seen other proof to that effect) it would be
impossible to know whether Russia swung the election for MrTrump. Yet giventhe extentofits effortand given that itneed only
have shifted 0. 03 % of the total number of votes from the Demo-
crats to the Republicans itmight well have done. There iscertain-
ly no basis on which to conclude thatit did not.
The Democratsâ grousing over this possible election theft will
get them nowhere of course. Yet the grousing is inevitable and a
mark of Mr Putinâs indisputable achievement: a serious jolt in
Americansâ confidence in the integrity of their elections. Half of
AmericansthinkthatMrTrump colluded with the Russians to en-
gineer his election. In the court of public opinion that arguably
makes his presidency illegitimate which would be corrosive to
American democracy even under a much less divisive leader. A
governing party mindful of majority sentiment and ambitious
to win it would respond to that carefully. By treating reasonable
concerns about Mr Trumpâs election as just another partisan
fight Mr Ryan and his colleagues are instead underlining the ex-
tent to which theyhave abandoned that ambition.
Their complacency towards Mr Trumpâs financial conflicts a
second source of doubt about Mr Trumpâs presidency provides
another illustration of this. Among innumerable examples Chi-
na is reported to have granted trademarks to at least 3 9 Trump-
branded products since his inauguration including some the
president had previously been denied. Mr Trump and his retinue
spent almost a third of last year staying at public expense at
Trump properties. A working weekend at one of the presidentâs
golfcourses in Scotland during which he managed to squeeze in
18 holesin between plottingthe downfall ofthe West cost Ameri-
can taxpayers almost $ 70 000. There are laws against such self-
enrichment. Yet even as legal challenges to Mr Trumpâs behav-
iourcreep through the courts the Republicansdare not criticise it.
To do so might cost them an invitation to Mar-a-Lago.
It might also invite a primary challenge given the way Mr
Trump has weaponised his unpopularity rallying his supporters
against any critic. No doubt right-minded Republicans among
the many who privately abhor Mr Trump would otherwise
speakup. Yet it also seems notable that their unwillingness to do
so is consistent with their partyâs acceptance of a different sort of
illegitimacy. That is the tyranny of minority rule enabled by the
quirks ofan electoral system that gives its white rural supporters
more power for fewer votes than the more diverse clustered
Democratsâalmost 3 m fewer in the case of Mr Trumpâs victory
over Mrs Clinton. The adoption of white identity politics repre-
sents an embrace of minoritarianism as a core strategy. That led
Republicans to MrTrump. Furthercompromises with democratic
legitimacy have followed.The Russia House
It is hard to see any happy end to this. The question is to whom
the unhappiness might befall: the Republicans or America. In
one scenario which might take an election cycle or two the
Democratsâ superior numbers will eventually prevail and the
minoritarianswill be overwhelmed bythe aggrieved majority. In
the other the Republicansâ continued disdain for the majority
even as they cling to power will cause an explosion. Perhaps the
likeliest spark for that would be if Mr Putin is again suspected of
fixing an election on theirbehalf. So itisalso notable that despite
theirbriefflashofpique with the presidentthisweek Republican
congressmen such as Mr Ryan and Mr Rubio have not yet done
anything to make that less likely. Until they do every American
election will come with a riskattached. 7A legitimacy problem
Donald Trumpâs defensiveness aboutthe effectofRussian hacking is highlyrevealingLexington