The air in this country has been easier to breathe since Tuesday’s election results started coming in. With majorities in both chambers of Congress, Democrats can now place limits on the Trump administration’s destructive powers. It would be foolhardy, however, to conclude that the Trump era is therefore necessarily coming to an end.
In midterm elections, voters express their dissatisfaction with the present. In presidential elections, on the other hand, people vote their hopes and fears for the future. The experience of other countries shows that autocratic leaders are peculiarly difficult to unseat, and not just because they have a tendency to undermine the voting process itself. The more instability voters live with — the higher the gas prices, the more tenuous their access to health care, the more palpable the threat of war — the stronger the autocrats’ appeal, even when it was their policies that caused the instability.
I have just returned from Israel, where an unpopular autocrat’s party won the largest number of votes even though the worst security failure in the nation’s history took place on his watch, even though he has dragged his country into one forever war and started several others, even though he is under investigation for corruption. How did this happen?
Fact is, it happens all the time. Viktor Orban, who led Hungary for a total of 20 years, enriched his family and his cronies while his country grew poorer than its European neighbors and many of its citizens lost access to decent health care and education. As successive elections approached, his party’s popularity seemed to falter. And yet, he kept winning — in 2014, 2018, 2022.
Even Vladimir Putin fits this pattern. These days criticizing him can be deadly, but back when Russians could still express their opinions, they consistently gave Putin poor marks for several aspects of his job performance. They said he had not improved their economic well-being or done a good job ending the very long war in Chechnya, and they held him responsible for the self-dealing and corruption among the Kremlin elite. And yet, even when they had a semblance of choice, most Russians voted for him.
This is a pattern, not a coincidence. Many people — generally speaking, majorities — vote for ineffective, corrupt, warmongering autocrats not in spite of the hardships and dangers that their governments impose but because of them.
Autocrats rise to power in times of fear and dislocation. They get elected on promises of stability and security. Most of the time, they also promise a return to a glorious imaginary past, when the world felt safe and you didn’t feel poor. They never deliver. Instead of stability, they bring chaos, confusion and often war.
Rather than expose the autocrat as a liar, however, the instability affirms the worldview that brought him to power in the first place. The world, it seems, really is terrifying. Life really is hard and getting harder. We really are on the verge of catastrophe. Just weeks before the Israeli election, an apparent terrorist came within seconds of crashing an airplane full of Israelis — another catastrophic security failure on Netanyahu’s watch. Two days ahead of the vote, he shared an artificial-intelligence-generated image of a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv, warning that “the State of Israel is in real and tangible existential danger.” You’d think the airplane incident and the danger warning would work against the sitting prime minister, one who has instigated two wars with Iran, but Netanyahu’s message is I alone stand between you and annihilation. A critical number of people appear to believe this.
I don’t know if every language in the world has this expression, but English, Russian and Hungarian have an identical idiom: “Don’t change horses midstream.” The Hebrew equivalent is “Don’t change horses while climbing a hill.” The harder life gets, the more this message resonates. And the autocrat continues feeding the people the same old promise: We just need to cross the waters and climb the hill, and then we will reach stability. Hunker down and vote for me again.
The classic mistake the opposition to such leaders makes is to affirm the terrifying worldview but argue for a more measured, reasonable solution. This is what much of the anti-Netanyahu opposition did, what the Hungarian opposition used to do. Democratic politicians in the United States do it too, when they agree with Trump that immigration is a gigantic security problem — and merely offer less extreme solutions. Or when they agree with Republicans that “wokeness,” of all things, is an urgent problem America needs to address. But if the autocrat is essentially right in his analysis, what is the argument for voting for someone else?
By now, we know what does work. We saw it in Hungary. We saw it in New York when Zohran Mamdani came out of nowhere to wipe the floor with the sitting mayor and the former governor. We saw it in midterm campaigns across the country, but perhaps nowhere more clearly than in Texas, in James Talarico’s winning campaign for the Senate and Gina Hinojosa’s for the governorship. What works is opposing the autocratic worldview itself. It’s asserting that while life really is hard and the world really can be scary, we need not live in fear and isolation. Rather than conjuring an imaginary past, it’s promising an achievable future. Rather than setting people against one another, it’s helping them to find common ground. Rather than asking voters to hunker down and trust the leader to guide us toward stability that will never arrive, it’s inviting them to create a better world right now, together.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post The Most Dangerous Way to Misread the Midterm Results appeared first on New York Times.
