Published Sept. 8, 2022
BY EMMA BROWN
In recent primary elections in several states, Democratic groups have run advertisement campaigns to boost the popularity of Republican candidates, particularly those with extreme beliefs, in hopes of selecting the candidate that the Democratic nominee will run against in the midterm elections. Theoretically, the strategy would put the weaker opponent on the ballot in the hope of securing a victory for Democrats.
Most notably, the strategy was employed in Michigan’s third district primary congressional election, in which the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee donated $435,000 to candidate John Gibbs’ campaign, according to the Washington Post. Gibbs, a Donald Trump-endorsed candidate, has promoted unfounded conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 presidential election results and prominent Democrats participating in occult rituals. The district’s incumbent, Peter Meijer, lost in the primary to Gibbs and had voted to impeach former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 insurrection. Seemingly, Meijer is the sort of candidate that Democrats would seek a bipartisan union with.
The campaigns of Republican midterm candidates, like Peter Meijer, have suffered as a result of Democrat-funded inter-party opposition. (photo by TOM CAPRARA)
Now the Democrats’ congressional candidate in the district, Hillary Scholten, will face Gibbs in the upcoming midterm election. The party got what they wanted, but were their actions ethical?
To a utilitarian, the morality of a choice is determined by its outcome. If a decision leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, it’s considered ethical. In the case of Michigan’s third district, Gibbs’ selection as the Republican candidate will cause more harm than happiness. His focus on fraudulent claims and conspiracy theories makes him a dangerous person to be in power, and as a result, the Democrats’ decision to boost his platform is unethical.
If more Democratically boosted conservative candidates were to win seats in Congress, the ramifications of their strategy would have further moral implications. Many of the G.O.P. candidates who were selected to run against Democrats have expressed extreme views on social issues, and others, like Doug Mastriano, a state governor candidate in Pennsylvania, were present at the Jan. 6 insurrection and continue to promote conspiracies about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. Electing such candidates poses a threat to the rights of marginalized communities, as well as the sanctity of the democratic process in America. This adds to the immorality of Democrats’ actions.
Russian philosopher Immanuel Kant and his subscribers, the Kantians, take a different approach to morality. Rather than weighing the ethics of a decision by its result, Kantians have a strict moral code that they abide by and refuse to act in ways that do not align with their predetermined beliefs, no matter the scenario.
When examining the morality of Democrats boosting extreme conservative candidates, Kantians would unequivocally find their actions to be unethical. If Democrats truly detest the beliefs of the extreme G.O.P. politicians, as they claim to, it is wrong for them to give their opponents money and a platform to share those opinions. On top of that, the act of lying is inherently unethical to Kantians, making the candidates’ false rhetoric about stolen elections and other conspiracies immoral. This adds to the severity of Democrats’ unprincipled actions.
No matter the philosophical lens, the Democratic Party’s midterm strategy is misguided and unethical.
