Although the intent is admirable, this article is sorely lacking in rigor. In the first paragraph Sheri Berman calls the iconic expression of democracy - electing your guy - a “threat to democracy.” In the second paragraph she calls the equally iconic expression of democracy - elected representatives representing their constituents' interests - a threat to democracy because those representatives “prioritized the advancement of favored policies.” A sentence later she condemns what most people would consider a fine example of democracy working as it needs to because the elected people “delivered on [those] priorities.” That’s how democracy is supposed to work, even when you personally disagree with the priorities in question.
Obviously the author, a professor of political science at Barnard, doesn’t really object to those basic expressions of a functioning democratic political system. What she does object to is the weakening of popular and widespread support for the “norms and institutions” which make functioning democratic political system possible. Her prime example is the Weimar Republic, an authentically democratic system which collapsed in 1933 because it lacked the norms and institutions to defend itself. Its own people - including many of its leaders - considered it illegitimate.
We don’t want that happening here. We are not going to keep our constitutional democracy if its prime actors steadily undermine its legitimacy. I admire Ms. Berman for the even handed criticism of her own party. Ill-advised modifications to our institutions for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals (packing the courts, firing the Senate parliamentarian, ending the filibuster) will absolutely reduce the essential legitimacy on which our system depends. I would admire Ms. Berman even more if she would specify rather than simply insinuate the institutional modifications which she claims her opponents have made. “They elected a jerk” doesn’t count. Healthy democracies - including ours - can elect and unelect “disrespectful” people. Maybe we even need one now and then, but that’s not the same as reordering the system itself. A case may be made that both sides of the aisle are up to the same thing, but the author has not made it.
Hi thanks for the comment. It isn't, of course, problematic to support a politicians because s/he implements your preferred policies. The point was that as important as this is, you should not continue to support a politician who, alongside this, trashes the democratic rules of the game. That is what Trump did and so no matter how much you approved of his specific policies, if you don't put the preservation of democracy above partisan interests, democracy can not survive.
Hi Sheri, thank you for your response. Stable democratic governance of open societies, historically speaking, is more the exception than the rule. We don't really know which of the many complex social factors at play are necessary for its continuance and which are more contingent. I certainly don't! It does seem perfectly legitimate to claim - as you imply in your essay - that Trump lacked respect for the traditional norms of conduct, speech, manners and temperament which traditionally we had come to expect in the elected leader of the United States. I agree that he lacked this respect. I agree that this lack of respect has a corrosive effect.
My complaint is that you conflate "norm breaking" in what many people see as essentially matters of style, character and morals with "trashing" the institutional structures of our democracy. It is not at all clear to me that Trump actually behaved in this way. There are some exceptions, including the constitutionally odious funding of border wall construction using money not actually appropriated by Congress for that purpose. But I don't see many others, and I believe the Trump administration consistently deferred to court rulings and other institutional checks on presidential authority. I don't think he disturbed the institutional structure of our democracy in the way that his opponents are now seriously considering.
When you're writing for people with a visceral contempt for Trump's character and his policies you don't need to make these distinctions. People will agree with almost any criticism. But when your audience is people who supported Trump's policies and share your contempt for his character you do. It isn't self-evident to them that Trump "trashe[d] the democratic rules of the game." You actually have to make the case rather than assuming it.
You could contend that the preservation of democracy requires leaders who exhibit in their speech and conduct a reverence for "normal" manners and morals. However it is precisely his lack of deference for those norms which accounts for much of Trump's popularity. The social, religious, moral and cultural sensibilities of our elites have pushed the definition of "normal" further and further away from the "normal" of middle America. In a democracy this doesn't work. The Democratic party acknowledged this implicitly by nominating Joe Biden, and the election results validated it. My response to your article, which rather breezily condemns Trump for being undemocratic is, in a nutshell: show us your case rather than assuming it.
I think if you really look you will see that in terms of actual governance Trump was more or less mainstream and the current proposals from the left to upend institutional structures are anything but. At least I hope that's the case. We need at least one party that respects the institutional rules. If our "conservative" party can't hold the line we really are in trouble.
They didn't just elect a jerk, they elected a person who was openly contemptuous of basic democratic norms and encouraged his followers to behave in the same way. We had the strange spectacle of the President of the United States insisting that he won the election in a landslide, although we know very well that he lost it. Trump endangered American democracy through his recklessness and through his vile conduct as a leader. He made America a laughing stock of the world and gave comfort and joy to America's enemies.
Republicans went along with Trump because they liked his lowering of environmental standards? This is probably partly true, but we can also be a bit more thoughtful/less partisan. The kind of environmental standards that the Left wants is resisted by many because they believe it would cost jobs in their communities and threaten their economic future. Can we acknowledge that people on the other side have some legitimate concerns, even as we disagree with their proposed policies?
Of course, but the point is that even when politicians and parties do what you like policy-wise, if that is paired with actions that undermine democracy, it is democracy that must take precedence.
I completely agree, thanks for responding. But condemning Trump is not the same thing as condemning his voters and insisting they all voted for him because of some nefarious reason. You haven't said that, but many liberals refuse to make that distinction and see Republicans as an undifferentiated mass of VERY EVIL PEOPLE. This is a populist simplification of complex political realities. People may have many different reasons for voting for a political candidate. We may be perplexed by some of those reasons, but that is no reason to condemn people who voted for Trump. Not all Trump voters eat babies for breakfast. Sorry to belabour this point, but I think this idea of the other side being fundamentally evil is really poisoning American politics. Hatred begets hatred, culture war begets more culture war, polarisation and political breakdown.
I wasn't trying to condemn voters, but rather remind citizens that if they continue to support a politician or party that undermines democracy--even if that politician or party does things they otherwise support--they are complicit in that undermining. I get that most people don't think about such "long-term" or abstract things, which is why I wrote the essay :) And I pointed out that such tendencies exist not merely in the Republican party but are a temptation easy for others--even Trump's critics--to fall into.
"Undermining democracy" has a simple ring to it, but in reality encompasses a broad range of actions and priorities from mechanical to rhetorical that have vastly different impacts. I find it tough to agree someone supports democracy when they are willing to take risks with electoral integrity that are unfathomable by international standards. No ID mail in voting, no limit ballot harvesting, no pre-registration on absentee ballots are three concrete examples of practices actively promoted and pursued in Minnesota and other states with activist election officials that grossly violate international election norms. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld our 3 ballot limit on harvesting, but not before pay-for-ballot schemes garnered hundreds if not thousands of ballots illegally in the primary election. The same people who can pick up the paper and read about billions of dollars stolen from the PPP program by organized criminal gangs falsifying company records cannot honestly believe that similar organized efforts are not afoot to tamper with election integrity given the stakes involved. And election is only the tip of the iceberg on threats to our democracy.
There is absolutely no substantial evidence for any of these charges. It is one thing to say in the abstract that we should have IDs for voting for example, it is another to show that there has ever been substantial fraud as the result of that or any of these other issues. And yes, many scholars have studied this, many public officials have devoted innumerable hours to checking and re-checking elections, overseeing procedures and so on. So it is one thing to call for measures to improve electoral integrity, it is another to make claims of fraud or illegitimate elections without any evidence at all. The former is pro-democracy, the latter anti.
I'm not sure what "charges" you are referring to. The three election integrity risks I identified are not in dispute. You can get a mail in ballot with no ID under Minnesota law. You are not required to register in advance to get an an absentee ballot under MInnesota law (unlike Florida, Ohio that follow Carter Baker). And before the September 2020 ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court, activist groups were advertising the fact they were collecting more than 3 drop off ballots per person (they claimed falsely the Minnesota limit was unconstitutional). No democracy in the world -- not India, not South Africa, not Denmark -- literally NO ONE allows these risk. The EU has strict laws about absentee ballots (you are not allowed to even use them unless you are living overseas and apply well in advance). The combined effect of the Minnesota laws in this area make mail in vote fraud effectively unprovable and unstoppable. Was the video evidence of hundreds of primary ballots being harvested via cash payments real ? Who knows. The cost of pursuing and proving these cases is astronomical and the incentive of the authorities to pursue them minimal, leaving it to not-for-profit groups to do forensic accounting after the fact.
Expanding or “packing“ the court, which Professor Berman refers to, is playing by the rules. The rules, that is the Constitution, says Congress appoints the Supreme Court. There is no defined number of justices and the number of justices has varied over the last two centuries. Putting more justices on the Supreme Court is precisely playing by the rules.
The problem is a) when you it for partisan reasons (as was the case here) and b) in a context where the legitimacy of the courts is already in question, this would have diminished the branch's standing even further. Just because something is legally possible doesn't mean it is wise in all situations.
Your last sentence is true. But. There is no contradiction in using the mechanics of government for partisan ends. That’s what they are there for. And as for the legitimacy of the court: I admit I have no problem imperiling that some. The Court clearly is partisan. Why not deal with that? I’d also like to return major decisions to the legislature. T Jefferson and J Madison never intended the Supreme Court to be the ultimate decider of what government can do.
With just a twist or two of fate, Bernie Sanders could have eked out a narrow victory over Jeb Bush. We have two parties struggling with populism, and right now the Democrats are doing a marginally better job handling it.
Perhaps this noble battle for American democracy is already lost. Social trust among cultural tribes is utterly broken. And pervasive media entities are intent on keeping it so. As a life-long member of the sensible center -- and one who normally avoids catastrophic thinking -- that's a distrubing thought. But having once thought it, I then thought this: So what? Break the country up. Here's a snapshot of how it could be done. Form a Continental Congress. Agree on basic human rights, free markets, complete freedom of movement across borders, easy immigration. Each of the 50 states then holds a referendum, with say 55-60% needed to join the Blue or Red country. Failing that, you're in the Purple country. At any time a state can hold another referendum to leave their country and join another. On the material surface of life, where we mostly live, little would change. In the political and cultural spheres, my guess is the Blue and Red would do poorly. Their elites would be exposed as fools. Over time, a sensible center would emerge and grow the Purple. Thoughts, anyone?
I agree that the country should break up, but into six to eight geographic "clusters," something like New England, Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest, Deep South, Southwest, Mountain States.
While the author raises some good points, this article blames "both sides" equally. I abhor The Elect but living in Michigan I see how the right effectively controls the majority through gerrymandering and intimidation. I am 55 years old and for my entire adult life the GOP has tried its best to "cheat" the system and use whatever means necessary for one-party rule while the Democrats have mostly been willing dupes like Charlie Brown, falling for the football trick. My daughter has already left the country and now lives in New Zealand, where she is happy, healthy, and thriving. I wish I could also leave but my other children still reside in the U.S.
Where to begin ? Any discussion of defending democracy must begin and end with electoral integrity and civics education. The seminal 2004 Carter Baker report (prepared after 2000 election) was implemented in Florida and a few other jurisdictions, but dropped like a hot potato in other areas, particularly Democratic jurisdictions intent on pursuing the most marginal of practices, like no ID mail in ballots and no limit harvesting. Not a single country in the world - not one - accepts these kinds of risks, which far outweigh any benefits. The refusal of modern hyper-partisans to address concerns is a major source of dysfunction in our political system. Arguments against these necessary guarantees installed in every modern democracy from South Africa to India to Denmark are rarely made in good faith.
Although the intent is admirable, this article is sorely lacking in rigor. In the first paragraph Sheri Berman calls the iconic expression of democracy - electing your guy - a “threat to democracy.” In the second paragraph she calls the equally iconic expression of democracy - elected representatives representing their constituents' interests - a threat to democracy because those representatives “prioritized the advancement of favored policies.” A sentence later she condemns what most people would consider a fine example of democracy working as it needs to because the elected people “delivered on [those] priorities.” That’s how democracy is supposed to work, even when you personally disagree with the priorities in question.
Obviously the author, a professor of political science at Barnard, doesn’t really object to those basic expressions of a functioning democratic political system. What she does object to is the weakening of popular and widespread support for the “norms and institutions” which make functioning democratic political system possible. Her prime example is the Weimar Republic, an authentically democratic system which collapsed in 1933 because it lacked the norms and institutions to defend itself. Its own people - including many of its leaders - considered it illegitimate.
We don’t want that happening here. We are not going to keep our constitutional democracy if its prime actors steadily undermine its legitimacy. I admire Ms. Berman for the even handed criticism of her own party. Ill-advised modifications to our institutions for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals (packing the courts, firing the Senate parliamentarian, ending the filibuster) will absolutely reduce the essential legitimacy on which our system depends. I would admire Ms. Berman even more if she would specify rather than simply insinuate the institutional modifications which she claims her opponents have made. “They elected a jerk” doesn’t count. Healthy democracies - including ours - can elect and unelect “disrespectful” people. Maybe we even need one now and then, but that’s not the same as reordering the system itself. A case may be made that both sides of the aisle are up to the same thing, but the author has not made it.
Hi thanks for the comment. It isn't, of course, problematic to support a politicians because s/he implements your preferred policies. The point was that as important as this is, you should not continue to support a politician who, alongside this, trashes the democratic rules of the game. That is what Trump did and so no matter how much you approved of his specific policies, if you don't put the preservation of democracy above partisan interests, democracy can not survive.
Hi Sheri, thank you for your response. Stable democratic governance of open societies, historically speaking, is more the exception than the rule. We don't really know which of the many complex social factors at play are necessary for its continuance and which are more contingent. I certainly don't! It does seem perfectly legitimate to claim - as you imply in your essay - that Trump lacked respect for the traditional norms of conduct, speech, manners and temperament which traditionally we had come to expect in the elected leader of the United States. I agree that he lacked this respect. I agree that this lack of respect has a corrosive effect.
My complaint is that you conflate "norm breaking" in what many people see as essentially matters of style, character and morals with "trashing" the institutional structures of our democracy. It is not at all clear to me that Trump actually behaved in this way. There are some exceptions, including the constitutionally odious funding of border wall construction using money not actually appropriated by Congress for that purpose. But I don't see many others, and I believe the Trump administration consistently deferred to court rulings and other institutional checks on presidential authority. I don't think he disturbed the institutional structure of our democracy in the way that his opponents are now seriously considering.
When you're writing for people with a visceral contempt for Trump's character and his policies you don't need to make these distinctions. People will agree with almost any criticism. But when your audience is people who supported Trump's policies and share your contempt for his character you do. It isn't self-evident to them that Trump "trashe[d] the democratic rules of the game." You actually have to make the case rather than assuming it.
You could contend that the preservation of democracy requires leaders who exhibit in their speech and conduct a reverence for "normal" manners and morals. However it is precisely his lack of deference for those norms which accounts for much of Trump's popularity. The social, religious, moral and cultural sensibilities of our elites have pushed the definition of "normal" further and further away from the "normal" of middle America. In a democracy this doesn't work. The Democratic party acknowledged this implicitly by nominating Joe Biden, and the election results validated it. My response to your article, which rather breezily condemns Trump for being undemocratic is, in a nutshell: show us your case rather than assuming it.
I think if you really look you will see that in terms of actual governance Trump was more or less mainstream and the current proposals from the left to upend institutional structures are anything but. At least I hope that's the case. We need at least one party that respects the institutional rules. If our "conservative" party can't hold the line we really are in trouble.
They didn't just elect a jerk, they elected a person who was openly contemptuous of basic democratic norms and encouraged his followers to behave in the same way. We had the strange spectacle of the President of the United States insisting that he won the election in a landslide, although we know very well that he lost it. Trump endangered American democracy through his recklessness and through his vile conduct as a leader. He made America a laughing stock of the world and gave comfort and joy to America's enemies.
Republicans went along with Trump because they liked his lowering of environmental standards? This is probably partly true, but we can also be a bit more thoughtful/less partisan. The kind of environmental standards that the Left wants is resisted by many because they believe it would cost jobs in their communities and threaten their economic future. Can we acknowledge that people on the other side have some legitimate concerns, even as we disagree with their proposed policies?
Of course, but the point is that even when politicians and parties do what you like policy-wise, if that is paired with actions that undermine democracy, it is democracy that must take precedence.
I completely agree, thanks for responding. But condemning Trump is not the same thing as condemning his voters and insisting they all voted for him because of some nefarious reason. You haven't said that, but many liberals refuse to make that distinction and see Republicans as an undifferentiated mass of VERY EVIL PEOPLE. This is a populist simplification of complex political realities. People may have many different reasons for voting for a political candidate. We may be perplexed by some of those reasons, but that is no reason to condemn people who voted for Trump. Not all Trump voters eat babies for breakfast. Sorry to belabour this point, but I think this idea of the other side being fundamentally evil is really poisoning American politics. Hatred begets hatred, culture war begets more culture war, polarisation and political breakdown.
I wasn't trying to condemn voters, but rather remind citizens that if they continue to support a politician or party that undermines democracy--even if that politician or party does things they otherwise support--they are complicit in that undermining. I get that most people don't think about such "long-term" or abstract things, which is why I wrote the essay :) And I pointed out that such tendencies exist not merely in the Republican party but are a temptation easy for others--even Trump's critics--to fall into.
"Undermining democracy" has a simple ring to it, but in reality encompasses a broad range of actions and priorities from mechanical to rhetorical that have vastly different impacts. I find it tough to agree someone supports democracy when they are willing to take risks with electoral integrity that are unfathomable by international standards. No ID mail in voting, no limit ballot harvesting, no pre-registration on absentee ballots are three concrete examples of practices actively promoted and pursued in Minnesota and other states with activist election officials that grossly violate international election norms. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld our 3 ballot limit on harvesting, but not before pay-for-ballot schemes garnered hundreds if not thousands of ballots illegally in the primary election. The same people who can pick up the paper and read about billions of dollars stolen from the PPP program by organized criminal gangs falsifying company records cannot honestly believe that similar organized efforts are not afoot to tamper with election integrity given the stakes involved. And election is only the tip of the iceberg on threats to our democracy.
There is absolutely no substantial evidence for any of these charges. It is one thing to say in the abstract that we should have IDs for voting for example, it is another to show that there has ever been substantial fraud as the result of that or any of these other issues. And yes, many scholars have studied this, many public officials have devoted innumerable hours to checking and re-checking elections, overseeing procedures and so on. So it is one thing to call for measures to improve electoral integrity, it is another to make claims of fraud or illegitimate elections without any evidence at all. The former is pro-democracy, the latter anti.
I'm not sure what "charges" you are referring to. The three election integrity risks I identified are not in dispute. You can get a mail in ballot with no ID under Minnesota law. You are not required to register in advance to get an an absentee ballot under MInnesota law (unlike Florida, Ohio that follow Carter Baker). And before the September 2020 ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court, activist groups were advertising the fact they were collecting more than 3 drop off ballots per person (they claimed falsely the Minnesota limit was unconstitutional). No democracy in the world -- not India, not South Africa, not Denmark -- literally NO ONE allows these risk. The EU has strict laws about absentee ballots (you are not allowed to even use them unless you are living overseas and apply well in advance). The combined effect of the Minnesota laws in this area make mail in vote fraud effectively unprovable and unstoppable. Was the video evidence of hundreds of primary ballots being harvested via cash payments real ? Who knows. The cost of pursuing and proving these cases is astronomical and the incentive of the authorities to pursue them minimal, leaving it to not-for-profit groups to do forensic accounting after the fact.
Thanks, yes. I think it is a very timely and important point.
Expanding or “packing“ the court, which Professor Berman refers to, is playing by the rules. The rules, that is the Constitution, says Congress appoints the Supreme Court. There is no defined number of justices and the number of justices has varied over the last two centuries. Putting more justices on the Supreme Court is precisely playing by the rules.
The problem is a) when you it for partisan reasons (as was the case here) and b) in a context where the legitimacy of the courts is already in question, this would have diminished the branch's standing even further. Just because something is legally possible doesn't mean it is wise in all situations.
Your last sentence is true. But. There is no contradiction in using the mechanics of government for partisan ends. That’s what they are there for. And as for the legitimacy of the court: I admit I have no problem imperiling that some. The Court clearly is partisan. Why not deal with that? I’d also like to return major decisions to the legislature. T Jefferson and J Madison never intended the Supreme Court to be the ultimate decider of what government can do.
With just a twist or two of fate, Bernie Sanders could have eked out a narrow victory over Jeb Bush. We have two parties struggling with populism, and right now the Democrats are doing a marginally better job handling it.
When the left doesn't like the results of democracy, they label it "populism."
Perhaps this noble battle for American democracy is already lost. Social trust among cultural tribes is utterly broken. And pervasive media entities are intent on keeping it so. As a life-long member of the sensible center -- and one who normally avoids catastrophic thinking -- that's a distrubing thought. But having once thought it, I then thought this: So what? Break the country up. Here's a snapshot of how it could be done. Form a Continental Congress. Agree on basic human rights, free markets, complete freedom of movement across borders, easy immigration. Each of the 50 states then holds a referendum, with say 55-60% needed to join the Blue or Red country. Failing that, you're in the Purple country. At any time a state can hold another referendum to leave their country and join another. On the material surface of life, where we mostly live, little would change. In the political and cultural spheres, my guess is the Blue and Red would do poorly. Their elites would be exposed as fools. Over time, a sensible center would emerge and grow the Purple. Thoughts, anyone?
I agree that the country should break up, but into six to eight geographic "clusters," something like New England, Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest, Deep South, Southwest, Mountain States.
While the author raises some good points, this article blames "both sides" equally. I abhor The Elect but living in Michigan I see how the right effectively controls the majority through gerrymandering and intimidation. I am 55 years old and for my entire adult life the GOP has tried its best to "cheat" the system and use whatever means necessary for one-party rule while the Democrats have mostly been willing dupes like Charlie Brown, falling for the football trick. My daughter has already left the country and now lives in New Zealand, where she is happy, healthy, and thriving. I wish I could also leave but my other children still reside in the U.S.
Where to begin ? Any discussion of defending democracy must begin and end with electoral integrity and civics education. The seminal 2004 Carter Baker report (prepared after 2000 election) was implemented in Florida and a few other jurisdictions, but dropped like a hot potato in other areas, particularly Democratic jurisdictions intent on pursuing the most marginal of practices, like no ID mail in ballots and no limit harvesting. Not a single country in the world - not one - accepts these kinds of risks, which far outweigh any benefits. The refusal of modern hyper-partisans to address concerns is a major source of dysfunction in our political system. Arguments against these necessary guarantees installed in every modern democracy from South Africa to India to Denmark are rarely made in good faith.
Thank you for a well written piece