Engaging with Rural America on the Mueller Investigation
After 9/11, President George W. Bush famously called upon the American citizen to go shopping while sending American servicemembers to bear the burden of our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. Putin’s attack on American democracy in 2016 was every bit as serious as 9/11, but this time, troops can’t fight back. American citizens do not have the luxury of going to the mall and calling it patriotism — instead, we must work with our fellow citizens to fight against foreign interference in our democracy.
While the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation are months away, we as a nation must begin preparing for the possibility of the ultimate stress test: If (and this remains a very big “if”) Mueller finds evidence that President Trump knowingly coordinated with Putin’s attack on the American democratic process, Congress will sit at the center of one of the most explosive, divisive debates in American history.
Most legal scholars agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore, if Mueller finds grounds for a criminal conviction against the president, the consequences for Trump — and for the Presidency itself — will depend upon impeachment proceedings in Congress. In other words, the future of the free world may depend upon a political process that, in turn, depends on at least 19 GOP senators who will look to public opinion in their home states, which, by and large, are red states.
Therefore, it is critical that patriots across the country begin thinking seriously about how to productively engage with red state voters about the Mueller investigation. My experience running for a seat in the Montana State House in a predominantly rural, Republican-leaning legislative seat in 2014 and 2016 offers a few clues on what citizens can do now to help ensure that any debate over Mueller’s findings doesn’t devolve into a divisive, partisan disaster.
In Montana, each legislative district includes roughly 10,000 Montanans, so campaigns are predominantly waged by the candidates themselves, house by house, voter by voter, over the course of nearly a year. I had hundreds of conversations with people who would be described as “red state voters.” It was obvious to me that among these voters, the level of voter cynicism, reflexive partisanship, withdrawal/disengagement, and “slam the door” level anger was significantly higher in 2016 than in 2014 — particularly near the end of the campaign. However, throughout both campaigns, I also noticed two circumstances that tended to mitigate these negative trends.
First, when a voter learned I was a veteran, it triggered an instinctual — almost primal — pivot away from the petty, partisan, and angry and towards the engaged, serious, and collective.
Having established a common set of values and mutual respect, we would transcend partisan politics and have a real conversation about real issues that could be solved by working together. Even when we disagreed, the connection was real and the exchange tended to be positive.
I’m convinced veterans across the country can build the same connection with red state voters about the Mueller investigation. Veterans can and should speak about their own personal experiences fighting for our country and what they believe the implications of Putin’s attack — and any collaboration from the White House — are for America’s national security. For instance, they can point to findings from our nation’s intelligence agencies to convey what is at stake here. This past January, the Director of National Intelligence issued an Intelligence Community Assessment that found Putin ordered an interference campaign in the U.S. presidential election in order to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process,” and that such efforts constituted the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order.
Military veterans can also talk about how Putin’s campaign against the U.S.-led liberal democratic order threatens to undermine some of the values they fought for overseas. Between 2000 and 2015, democracy broke down in 27 countries, including in Kenya, Thailand, Turkey, and Russia itself. Meanwhile, Americans’ confidence in our own political system is at historic lows. According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans expressed trust in political leaders in 1974 (the year Nixon resigned), while only 42 percent expressed such trust in 2016. The nation will listen to its military veterans when we talk about Putin’s attack — and any known collaboration with that attack — as a desecration of what we believe to be sacred.
Another trend I noticed while talking with conservative voters in my district was if a person had personally engaged in the political process in any way — had known a candidate, testified before a legislative committee, worked with a campaign, or volunteered their time at the polling booth — the voter was almost always far less reflexively partisan, hostile, cynical, or angry as we discussed the issues of the day. And that was true even when that voter’s political viewpoints diverged sharply from mine. Conversely, when the political process was foreign to the voter — an abstract concept heard about on the radio or TV — the voter was far more likely to exhibit high levels of cynicism and partisanship.
The implication I draw from this observation is that the more red state voters are personally engaged in the substance and process of the Mueller investigation and everything that follows, the less their reactions will be reflexively partisan, skeptical, and hostile. There are a few ways to foster this engagement. Those patriots outraged by Putin’s attack should take action now to demand town hall meetings with their congressional delegation specifically on the topic of Putin’s attack and Congress’ response. Having a face-to-face conversation with a member of Congress nurtures the kind of trust and informed dialogue that a functional representative democracy depends upon. Local officials responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process can also invite members of the public to face-to-face meetings to discuss election integrity and what steps they are taking to prepare for foreign interference in 2018. Such pragmatic engagement is a sure antidote to the toxic misinformation that many voters are subjected to from cable news to talk radio.
Though my approach to campaigning yielded mixed success — a win in 2014, and a loss in 2016 — I am convinced that the trends I observed, if understood, could assist in defeating the most robust national security challenge of this young century: Putin’s efforts to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process. Unlike after 9/11, it is now the responsibility of every citizen to answer the call to arms. Let’s get to work.
Andrew Person is a Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and is a former Montana State Representative. He lives in Missoula, Montana. Views expressed are his own.
