B , Capítulo IV , columna VII ).

Although this study is primarily focused on the Republican senatorial response to the Charlottesville rally, and ultimately a sitting Republican president, it is notable that the time frame during which it occurred coincided with a time of self-reflection and change for the Republican Party. Following eight years of President Obama, Republicans saturated the primary field with a slew of well-known, elite Republicans, armed and ready to enact the changes the RNC deemed necessary for Republicans following Mitt Romney’s loss in the 2012 presidential election6. As is well known, however, the eventual Republican nominee and president turned out to be a Washington outsider—Donald Trump.

While breaking with mainstream Republicans on a number of issues either with regard to the actual policy or the rhetoric surrounding the issue, Trump gained enough support to win the nomination and presidency. Precisely when the RNC was instructing Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, Trump said he wanted to “build the wall.” This kind of juxtaposition garnered the applause of political actors like the alt-right, who felt Donald Trump would advance broad themes of isolationism and anti-immigration while revolting against the establishment. In other words, Donald Trump was the “populist outsider” Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) describe as a threat to democratic values.

Indeed, the Charlottesville rally was more than a one-off event: it was a chance for Republican leaders to explicitly critique the President for his antidemocratic rhetoric and behavior. It was a chance for establishment Republicans to unequivocally call out the leader of their own party for bad behavior. And yet, when the opportunity was clear, only 13 out of 52

senators took that opportunity—an overall failure for Senate Republicans to carry out their duty of acting as democracy’s gatekeepers.

Furthermore, the Charlottesville rally exposes the unfortunate, troubling truth about the establishment of democratic norms in America: that they rest on systematic racial exclusion. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, mutual toleration was only established on the grounds that racial equality be removed from consideration. Since then, America has had to grapple with its democratic norms without this as a foundation. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives America the chance to form a truly multiethnic democracy, but still deem it “America’s greatest challenge” (p. 227).

In this way, the Charlottesville rally could have sparked a nationwide conversation about race, particularly from the Republican Party, which has grappled with it throughout modern history. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) argue that handling deepening partisan polarization should be based in an effort “to genuinely address the bread-and-butter concerns of long-neglected segments of the population—no matter their ethnicity” (p. 228). Instead, the Charlottesville rally unfortunately resulted in tactics that avoided this very conversation. Furthermore, it seems the President has sought to move in an even more opposite direction—trying to find new ways in which to appeal to his base through problematic strategies, such as refusing to denounce white supremacist groups following the Charlottesville rally.

This is absolutely the wrong direction the President should take. However, instead of simply focusing my words to the administration, I will direct them toward the larger Republican Party as well. It is imperative the Republican Party confront its historic grappling with race and strive to preserve democratic ideals and norms in this critical, historical moment. The Republican Party must take a more unambiguous stance toward the President when he violates democratic

norms and espouses antidemocratic rhetoric. It is crucial so that all Americans, no matter race, religion, or creed, can equally enjoy America’s democratic ideals and norms.

This is the first study in the literature that analyzes Republican response to the Charlottesville rally through the lens of the theoretical framework in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) How Democracies Die. However, there are parameters to this study and as such, there are ripe opportunities for future research. If I had more time in this study, I would have liked to take a deeper dive into a wider range of Republicans, as Senate Republicans obviously do not capture the entire scope of the Republican Party. Because of this, it would be useful to study other Republican coalitions as well in order to understand a broader scope of the GOP. This includes, but is not limited to: House Republicans, Republicans in administrative agencies, conservative and/or Republican opinion writers, Republican personalities in talk radio, Republicans on television, judges, etc. Generally, more groups of Republicans that fall both in and out of government. Furthermore, I only analyzed Republican response to the President based on one instance. If I had more time, it would be valuable to track Republican “checks” to the President over time to see how the Republican Party continues to affirm or stops affirming Trump’s antidemocratic behavior. It would be fascinating to see how these senators get louder or quieter based on his actions that are blatantly authoritarian and/or antidemocratic. Instead, I only track their responses to one encounter with Trump. This could certainly be taken much further.