It’s official: Democrat Hillary Scholten will represent Michigan’s third congressional district. The Grand Rapids area seat was held by Peter Meijer, the freshman Republican who defeated Scholten in 2020 and soon thereafter voted to impeach Donald Trump for his role in instigating the Capitol riot.
As a result, Trump had a vendetta against Meijer. He found a willing challenger for him in John Gibbs, a conspiracy-mongering former Trump administration employee. With a cynical strategic assist from Democrats, who boosted him in the primary with ‘attack’ ads that functionally bolstered his conservative credentials, Gibbs narrowly prevailed over Meijer in August’s primary.
Trump’s theory in promoting Gibbs was that the man could oust someone who had ‘betrayed’ Trump. Democrats’ theory in promoting Gibbs was that it could set Scholten up for an easier opponent in a district made a bit bluer by redistricting. Gibbs benefited from this toxic mélange of some of the worst civic instincts in public life right now — right up until he lost his race. It turns out the Democrats’ theory was correct, as morally reprehensible as their strategem remains.
Regardless: Are the Republicans who promoted Gibbs and picked him over Meijer happy? Earlier this year, Meijer told NR that “what Donald Trump is in the party right now is he’s kind of — to a large constituency — he is the only institution that some folks trust.” As a result of elevating fealty to Trump as their primary criterion, Republican voters in a district that had been represented by a center-right Republican with a respectable — if imperfect — record will now be represented by a Democrat. Don’t say, “Peter Meijer wouldn’t have won, either”; wimpy counterfactuals are an unsound foundation for supposed electoral potency.
Here are some questions worth asking. Is this scenario an improvement? Does Trump’s decision — prioritizing personal vengeance over electoral success — make him more politically viable? Or does it make him a loser? Does any of this make him a more worthy object of Republican voters’ support and trust? Or does it provide yet more evidence that Trump has failed the very voters he claims to represent by pretending that his grievances are equivalent to their interests?