Political scientist on midterms: “The election campaign feels like a journey through time”

taz: Mr. Müller, what significance do these midterms have for US democracy?

Jan-Werner Müller: These midterm elections are of existential importance. If so, it doesn't seem very likely at the moment, but if the Republicans take the message from the election results that everything they have done in the USA since January 2025 is welcomed by the population or at least not rejected outright, then not only will things continue in the same style, but they will become much more brutal.

taz: How would you describe the political situation before the elections?

Müller: The polls show quite clearly that Donald Trump is a very, very unpopular president. Of course, you ask yourself who are the almost 30 percent who still think that everything is going fantastically at the moment. This unpopular president also constantly puts himself in the foreground and claims that he is actually on the ballot. This makes things difficult for his party and shows that he ultimately doesn't really care about them.

is a professor of social sciences and political science at Princeton University.

Müller: Yes, Trump has no interest in implementing his party's program or certain political ideals in the long term. Someone who wanted that would behave differently than the narcissistic president who only thinks about himself. Ultimately, the fact that the party allowed this kind of personality cult takes revenge here too. This isn't the first time she's paid the price. It's a highly dangerous situation.

Müller: We don't know how the Republicans will react to an election defeat. But we have known since January 2021 and the attack on the Capitol that there are basically no borders. The Republican side may be willing to do anything to overturn an election outcome one way or another. That's speculation at the moment. But it would be negligent not to expect it. Everyone around Donald Trump also knows that as long as they do what he wants, he will probably pardon them sooner or later.

This text first appeared in wochentaz, our weekly newspaper from the left!

Every week, wochentaz is about the world as it is – and as it could be. A left-wing weekly newspaper with a voice, attitude and the special taz view of the world. New every Saturday at the kiosk and of course by subscription.

taz: Let's look at the Democrats. How are things with her?

Müller: You actually have a chance, but nobody seems to be taking advantage of it. You might say that it's not just about sending a signal to this unpopular president. And not just about focusing on issues like the cost of living, gas prices, housing and so on - even though all of this is right and important - but about taking a bigger and more fundamental approach.

Müller: To this day, the Republicans benefit from the image that they are particularly good in economic and security issues, i.e. foreign policy, military, etc. The Republicans under Trump have really failed disastrously in both areas. And none of them have openly expressed criticism along the lines of, "Wait a minute, we're losing this war with Iran. It was strategically idiotic." Nobody dares to say: “The tariff thing is an older man’s obsession.” Even though everyone around him knows the damage they are causing.

taz: What does that mean for the Democrats now?

Müller: If you think about the current failure of the Republicans together with their policies of the past decades, you could look at: Who actually started these wars, which were all ultimately lost? The second Iraq war, the Afghanistan war. The economic figures also show that things are generally getting worse under Republican presidents. Democratic presidents have also consistently performed better when it comes to economic growth and debt. With exceptions: Jimmy Carter was not a success story, although he introduced changes such as deregulation and anti-inflation that then benefited Reagan. Democrats would now have a chance to address a fundamental shift in cultural hegemony if they didn't just limit themselves to the kitchen table issues, but instead defunded the Republicans with a larger narrative.

We analyze the US midterm elections on November 3rd: What does the result mean for US politics, the Democrats, Donald Trump and the 2028 presidential election?

Register here or watch live in the stream

taz: But if questions like the cost of living are currently so central, wouldn't that be an opportunity for a more left-wing democratic party like Zohran Mamdani?

Müller: Yes, I see a certain amount of political leeway for that. It's just that no national program is being chosen at the moment. Only individuals in sometimes very different regional contexts are chosen. The decisive factor will be: What happens to the candidates who have really positioned themselves more clearly to the left? If they win, it will certainly be a signal that a more ambitious program could work in the 2028 presidential election. Then of course - as always in the USA - there is the question: What do the big donors actually say about it? Would they be happy with such visions? But if the progressive candidates all lose in the midterms, then the Democrats will probably send someone with a much more centrist program into the race.

taz: Are there any issues that particularly mobilize Republican voters?

Müller: The bizarre thing is that the election campaign feels like a journey back in time to the 1950s. So the Republicans claim: If you vote for the others, then communism will come. This feels so out of time. As if they couldn't do anything better than to fall back into McCarthyism in a primitive way or to agitate against minorities such as trans people. I can't imagine this actually working. And there are also absurd distortions in the arguments.

Müller: When Vice President J. D. Vance is asked: What actually is socialism? He who supposedly wants to care about workers and be a completely different type of Republican. Then Vance says: Socialism is when you want to replace American workers with foreign workers. Or socialism is when men are allowed to take part in sports with women. This probably still resonates with some people because hate is more important than anything else. But it's hard to imagine this succeeding outside of a manageable bubble of people with entrenched beliefs.

taz: You have lived in the USA for a very long time. How have you experienced the past two years of the Trump presidency?

Müller: What was shocking was that things continued as normal for very, very many people. This was not completely different in other contexts where future autocrats acted. But even as a relatively privileged person, sooner or later you realize how close the whole thing is to you. You are not yourself affected by raids by the deportation agency ICE, but you know people who are affected. At the same time, I was also surprised that there was no major countermovement. Of course it is important and good that millions of people take to the streets every few months. But ultimately, even compared to other countries, there is still relatively little protest. What was also shocking was how quickly elites threw in the towel. Many universities, several of the large law firms. But this is also known from history.

taz: How would Trump's presidency change if the Democrats took control of Congress? So far he hasn't shown much consideration for Parliament.

Müller: He would probably continue in the same way as he is at the moment. He's issuing some decrees. The decrees are sometimes misunderstood even by very respectable journalists, as if they were laws that would now be automatically implemented. Decrees are initially just special instructions to the administration, not parliamentary decisions that are binding for all citizens; Nor can the president spend money with them on his own authority. However, it is Trump's typical approach: I'll just do something now, even if I know it's illegal; I create facts. And then I continue to dominate the debate. There is no indication that this will change.

Müller: You can put a lot of pressure on the government with a democratic majority in the House of Representatives and possibly also in the Senate. The Democrats could launch all sorts of impeachment proceedings. Even if they ultimately failed, that would make sense. There would be public proceedings; Even a party that does not hold the levers of power can initiate a public pedagogy. The population could be told again: Look, these are the corrupt and cruel machinations of this executive branch.

taz: Would Trump then be a “lame duck” who couldn’t do much anymore?

Müller: There are of course still many areas - the classic example of foreign policy - in which he would have a lot of power as president. And one thing that Trump has learned in contrast to his first term in office is that you can do a lot within the administration - and, I emphasize once again, the Trumpists are demonstrably prepared to act without the law at times. For example, you cannot simply not pay out money that Congress has earmarked for something specific or spend it on something else. This affects research institutions very much. That's why you can be sued, there will be a case, and you might lose it. But first a fact has been established. Laboratories have to close, postdocs become unemployed while they wait for federal funding to be denied. Trump could still destroy an incredible amount.