Democracy Works: Recent Episodes
Penn State McCourtney Institute for Democracy
What does it mean to live in a democracy? Democracy Works seeks to answer that question by examining a different aspect of democratic life each week — from voting to criminal justice to the free press and everything in between. We interview experts who study democracy, as well as people who are out there doing the hard work of democracy day in and day out. Democracy Works is produced by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and WPSU Penn State, central Pennsylvania’s NPR station. Hosts Michael Berkman and Chris Beem hold Ph.Ds in political science, and host Jenna Spinelle has more than a decade of journalism experience. We aim to rise above partisan bickering and hot takes on the news to have informed, nonpartisan, thought-provoking discussions about issues related to democracy.
Changing the world is difficult. One reason is that the most important problems, like climate change and democracy reform are structural. They are larger than any one person can solve on their own, yet we're bombarded with information about individual actions like attending a public meeting or lowering your carbon footprint. Do these individual actions even matter? Should we focus instead of fixing broken systems?
For our final episode of the season, we explore how individual actions and structural reform can work together to create lasting social change on a range of issues, including democracy. Our guests offer a way out of the either-or thinking and a framework for creating lasting social change. In Somebody Should Do Something: How Anyone Can Help Create Social Change, Michael Brownstein, Alex Madva, and Daniel Kelly show us how we can connect our personal choices to structural change and why individual choices matter, though not in the way people usually think.
Brownstein and Kelly join us on the show to discuss examples of how individual actions leveled up to create larger-scale change, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the milk pasteurization movement in the early 20th century. We also discuss how the lessons from these movements can be applied to democracy reform campaigns like campaign finance reform and ranked-choice voting.
Brownstein is Professor and Chair of Philosophy at John Jay College and Professor of Philosophy at The Graduate Center, CUNY. Kelly is Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University, where he is also the Director of the Cognition, Agency, and Intelligence Center.
This is our final episode before our summer break. Thank you to Brandon Stover for editing the show this year, to WPSU for production and promotional support, and to Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, Cyanne Loyle, and Candis Watts Smith for sharing their insights on the show. We'll see you in September!
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Democracy Works host Candis Watts Smith joins Cara Santa Maria on the Talk Nerdy podcast to discuss her new book, Black Evidence: A History and a Warning.
From Reconstruction to Redemption, from the enactment of landmark civil rights legislation to the execution of the Southern strategy, from 2020’s multiracial protests to the swift elimination of policies etching out a more inclusive society, Americans regularly experience periods of racial reckoning followed by walloping retrenchment.
In Black Evidence, Smith shows that this pattern is the result of an American habit: denying the truths about our society that Black people experience and remember. Smith then delivers a warning: the effects of this habit ripple out, dulling our ability to identify the signs of authoritarianism and heightening our tolerance for cruelty. Still, she shows how these same truths offer models to overcome our repeated predicament.
Talk Nerdy host Cara Santa Maria is a clinical health psychologist, science communicator, podcaster, and Emmy Award-winning journalist. In addition to Talk Nerdy, she co-hosts the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast and coauthored Skeptics Guide to the Universe book.
Subscribe to Talk Nerdy
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
From the COVID-19 pandemic to debates over vaccines and the Make America Healthy Again movement, politics and medicine are intertwined in ways not seen in previous generations. When politics enters the doctor's office, what does it mean for the health of our democracy? Julianna Pacheco is working to answer that questions and joins Democracy Works host Chris Beem for a conversation about medicine and politics. They also discuss deaths of despair and how feeling hopeless can lead to political disengagement.
Pacheco is professor and department chair of political science at the University of Iowa. She received a Ph.D. in political science from Penn State and postdoctoral training as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholar at the University of Michigan. She is currently a Carnegie Fellow and part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Interdisciplinary Research Leaders Program. Her research sits at the nexus of political science and population health. She is currently working on a book looking at the role of physicians on the polarization of health.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Danielle Allen's work straddles the line between past and present. On one hand, she's on the road this year talking about America's 250th anniversary in the context of her book on the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, she's hard at work on Substack writing and talking about democracy reform (or renovation she calls it). She's also leading a coalition working to bring nonpartisan primary elections to Massachusetts through a ballot initiative this fall.
Allen return to the show to discuss America's Semiquincentennial and what lessons today's democracy renovators can draw from the process that the Founders undertook to create the Declaration of Independence. We also discuss her work on Educating for American Democracy and Our Common Purpose, two national projects launched in 2021 that were the subject of her first appearance on the podcast. She talks about what's changed, for better and worse, in the past five years.
Discussed in this episode:
- Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality - Allen's book on the Declaration of Independence
- The Renovator - Allen's Substack
- Coalition for a Healthy Democracy - group leading the Massachusetts nonpartisan primary ballot measure
- Educating for American Democracy
- Our Common Purpose
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
What is the role of higher education in a democracy? To what extent should American universities respond to the demands of those in power? Are we meeting this moment? As a former governor, cabinet secretary, and university president, Secretary Janet Napolitano is uniquely positioned to address these questions. She spoke with Michael Berkman, director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and professor of political science at Penn State.
This conversation is, in many ways, a follow up to the one that Michael had with Penn State professor Brad Vivian at the end of 2025.
Napolitano is a professor of public policy and director of the new Center for Security in Politics at the University of California, Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy. A distinguished public servant, she served as the president of the University of California from 2013 to 2020, as the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, as Governor of Arizona from 2003 to 2009, as Attorney General of Arizona from 1998 to 2003, and as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona from 1993 to 1997.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Ayesha Rascoe, host of NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday and Weekend Up First, joins us to discuss what it's like being a political reporter in a polarized country and what the "public" in public media looks like amid the loss federal funding.
Rascoe joined NPR in 2018 and served as White House correspondent during the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. We talk about covering the White House and how her work covering energy policy prepared her for covering day-to-day politics.
She is also the editor of HBCU Made: A Celebration of the Black College Experience, a book of essays about the impact of historically Black colleges and universities. Rascoe is an alumnae of Howard University, where she was editor of the school newspaper.
You might notice that this episode is shorter than usual. That's because a dead car battery on a very cold winter morning in Pennsylvania delayed us getting to the recording studio. We apologize and will be back to normal on the next episode.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Democracy is often framed as a battle between political candidates or parties that have opposing viewpoints and are trying to win over voters to join their side. However, there’s another way to think about democracy as a system of self governance that everyone shares and has a stake in preserving and protecting.
Jeremy David Engels articulates the latter point of view in the book, On Mindful Democracy: A Declaration of Interdependence to Mend a Fractured World. The book blends Engels’s prior work studying democratic theory and history with his experience in yoga, meditation and Buddhism.
Engels joined us to discuss the concept of mindful democracy and why it’s important to consider during the 250th anniversary of America’s founding. He describes how we can — and should — consider a "declaration of interdependence" in addition to the Declaration of Independence the country is celebrating this year. We also talk about the different conceptions of democracy outlined by John Dewey and Walter Lippmann
Engels is Liberal Arts Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State and a mindfulness and yoga teacher. You can find him in the classroom, lecture hall, on a meditation cushion, or a yoga mat, sharing his insights on how to become capable, compassionate, and engaged democratic citizens.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
AI is changing many aspects of our lives, so it's reasonable to expect that it will impact democracy, too. The question is how? Two experts in technology and politics join us to discuss how we can harness AI's power to strengthen democracy. Yes, there will be deepfakes and automated misinformation, but there can also be greater opportunities for the government to serve people and for all of us to have a greater say in our systems of self governance.
In their book Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship, Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders describe how AI could change political communication, the legislative process, bureaucracy, the judiciary, and more. It's a more hopeful argument than you might expect. They discuss how AI’s broad capabilities can augment democratic processes and help citizens build consensus, express their voice, and shake up long-standing power structures. As they say in the interview, AI is just a tool; how we use it is up to us.
Schneier is a security technologist and the New York Times bestselling author of 14 books, including A Hacker’s Mind. He is a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc.
Sanders is a data scientist focused on making policymaking more participatory. He has served in fellowships at the Massachusetts legislature and the Berkman-Klein Center at Harvard University.
Related Episodes
The Problem(s) with Platforms (Cory Doctorow)
Building Better Bureaucracy (Jennifer Pahlka)
Laboratories of Restricting Democracy (Virginia Eubanks)
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In the aftermath of the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, we explore how rising political divides are leading to bigger swings in America's foreign policy — and what that means for our future in the liberal international order.
In her book Polarization and International Politics: How Extreme Partisanship Threatens Global Security, Rachel Myrick argues that polarization reshapes the nature of constraints on democratic leaders, which in turn erodes the advantages democracies have in foreign affairs. We discuss how the pendulum swing from one administration to another leads to instability in foreign affairs. As a result, Myrick says the United States loses both reliability as an ally and credibility as an adversary. Myrick also questions the longstanding thinking that having a common enemy to focus on is enough to overcome polarization, as it was during the Cold War.
Myrick is the Douglas & Ellen Lowey Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University. Her research explores how partisan polarization affects foreign policymaking in democracies, with an emphasis on U.S. national security policy.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
While Democracy Works is on winter break, we're bringing you an episode from our colleagues at The Context, a podcast from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and a fellow member of The Democracy Group podcast network. Host Alex Lovit looks back at the advice from the show's guests this year about how everyday people can get involved in fighting authoritarianism and encouraging citizen engagement.
You'll hear from:
- Ece Temelkuran, Turkish writer and author of How To Lose a Country, the Seven Steps From Democracy to Fascism
- Daniel Hunter, educator with Freedom Trainers and director of Choose Democracy,
- Deva Woodly, professor of political science at Brown University and nonresident fellow at Kettering
- Maria Stephan, co-lead and chief organizer at Horizons Project
- Sharon L. Davies, president and CEO of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
- Steven Levitsky, professor of government at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die
- John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice
We hope this episode leaves you feeling inspired about what you can do to strengthen democracy in 2026 and beyond. Thank you to the team at The Context for sharing it with us!
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
We end this season where we started — a conversation about higher education and democracy. This time, Michael Berkman, McCourtney Institute for Democracy director and professor of political science at Penn State, sits down with Brad Vivian, professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State and author of Campus Misinformation: The Real Threat to Free Speech in American Higher Education.
Berkman and Vivian discuss the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, a proposal issued to several universities by the Trump administration earlier this fall. The compact offers benefits like increased access to federal grants and contracts and priority handling of student visas in exchange for changes in admission practices, a commitment to institutional neutrality, and other demands. Vivan outlines how the compact goes against many of the core values in higher education and what make universities an essential part of American democracy.
Beyond the compact, Berkman and Vivian also talk about how education might be a contributing factor in America's growing political divide and how university faculty and leadership should think about this divide.
This is our final episode of the year. We will be back with new episodes in January. From our entire team, happy holidays and we'll see you in 2026!
Mentioned in this episode:
- Why I'm Excited About the White House's Proposal for a Higher Ed Compact - Danielle Allen
- Polarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics - Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
It's easy to blame algorithms and AI for corroding our information ecosystem, but our guest this week argues that we have just as much, if not more of a role to play in creating the environment we want to see.
Ray Block Jr. is the Brown-McCourtney Career Development Professor at Penn State and the Michael D. Rich Chair in Countering Truth Decay and RAND Corporation. He joins us to discuss the new report, "Rebalancing the Information Ecosystem and Renewing Shared Societal Commitments for Information Use," published by RAND earlier this fall.
Block's scholarly research includes community organizing and social identity. You'll hear that perspective come through in this conversation, which focuses on how social fabric — not fact checking or tech policy —is the key to creating a healthy information environment and, in turn, a healthy democracy.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Paul Martin was fired from his role as USAID Inspector General after he published a report warning that the Trump administration’s plans to dismantle USAID placed more than $480 million in food and other commodities in danger of spoilage or theft. Martin joins us to recount the chaotic few months leading up to his termination from USAID and how his firing fits into a broader assault on independent government oversight and Constitutional checks and balances that are essential to American democracy.
Martin served as Inspector General for USAID from January 2024 through February 11, 2025. He previously served for fourteen years as Inspector General for NASA and Vice Chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. He received a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Penn State, where he was part of The Daily Collegian, and a law degree from Georgetown Law.
His lecture, which also features former U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, is available on the McCourtney Institute's YouTube channel.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
We bring you a special crossover episode with Disorder, a show that explores the fundamental principles lurking behind today's most pressing global issues. Jenna Spinelle talks with Disorder host Jason Pack, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and author of Libya and the Enduring Global Disorder. They discuss the state of democracy around the world and why making America's government more like a European country might not be the solution to polarization that some democracy reformers hope it will be.
Listen to Disorder
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
This episode is a collaboration with our colleagues at News Over Noise, the podcast from Penn State's News Literacy Initiative. We recorded this interview on October 27, the first day of U.S. Media Literacy Week, an event that highlights the power of media literacy education and its essential role in education all across the country.
The conversation focuses on how AI complicates and already-complicated news literacy landscape. With so many news outlets and journalists striking out on their own as content creators, it can feel overwhelming to keep up with the news each day without the added complication of having to question whether what you're seeing is real or computer-generated "AI slop." Despite those challenges, our guests are confident that each of us has the skills and ability to separate factual information from AI slop and make good decisions about how we consume the news.
You'll hear from Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, News Over Noise host Cory Barker, and the following guests:
- Pam Brunskill, News Literacy Project
- Sean Marcus, Poynter Institute/MediaWise
- Jenna Meleedy, National Association of Media Literacy Educators
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Civic education is full of nostalgia. Horace Mann, John Dewey, and the Cold War era often come up in conversations about the current state of affairs. Judge Marjorie Rendell knows this well because she grew up in the postwar era and understand how different today's civic education is from what she received as a young student. She saw it firsthand when she visited classrooms across Pennsylvania during her eight years as the state's First Lady and decided to do something about it when she left the role.
Today, the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement conducts mock trials, read-alouds, and other activities designed to transform civic education from something dry and boring into something exciting for elementary and middle school students. The center also has an eye to the future and are exploring how graphic novels and AI can help their work moving forward.
Rendell joins us to talk about the center's work and her current role as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We discuss what it's like to be a federal judge in the current political climate ,and the role that judges and lawyers can play in helping students learn about the Constitution.
The Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement received the McCourtney Institute for Democracy's 2025 Brown Democracy Medal.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The movement to end gerrymandering is something we've covered on the show several times over the years. Until recently, the conversation focused on independent redistricting commissions formed as a result of grassroots action from voters who felt that gerrymandering led to elected officials who didn't represent the values of the communities they served.
The issue is now decidedly more partisan thanks to efforts to redraw maps to benefit Republicans in Texas and Democrats in California — even as majorities of voters across the political spectrum continue to come down against partisan gerrymandering.
What's a nonpartisan reformer to do in this new reality? We spoke with two people who recently won victories to create fairer maps in their states. Carol Kuniholm is the co-founder and chair of Fair Districts PA, which won a court case to redraw Pennsylvania's maps in 2021 and is pushing for the creation of an independent redistricting commission in the Keystone State. Emma Addams is co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, which was part of a coalition that filed a complaint that led to a Utah court striking down the state's congressional map in August 2025.
Kuniholm and Addams discuss how they created the coalitions necessary to create change, the peril that comes with making redistricting a partisan issue, and why the efforts in Texas and California might not work out the way the parties expect.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The last time Cynthia Miller-Idriss was on the show, we discussed how political extremism was making its way to the mainstream through a variety of channels. This time, we're looking at how misogyny and gender-based violence have become mainstream and the implications for our democracy.
Miller-Idriss write about this trend in her new book, Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism. The book draws from her work studying political violence and extremism, but also from her experience as a female public figure who regularly receives death threats and misogynistic comments directed at her. We talk about both in the interview, as well as organizations that are working to address the crises among American men and boys.
For those local to Penn State, Miller-Idriss will present a lecture on Man Up and sign copies of the book on Thursday, October 23 at 6:30 p.m. in 114 Welch Building. The event is free and open to the public.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Summer is typically a quiet time for higher education but this summer has been anything but quiet amid funding cuts, lawsuits, and questions about the value of American colleges and universities.
Our guests this week are part of Stand Together for Higher Ed, a new nonpartisan movement of university faculty and staff focused on building collective power to uphold the core values of higher education. Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Mark Pachucki is associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-author of the university's Mutual Defense Academic Compact (MDAC) resolution.
Ford, Pachucki, and their Stand Together for Higher Ed colleagues spent the summer talking to faculty and staff from universities across the country about what they can do to defend their institutions amid ongoing attacks and threats from the federal government. They don't have a quick, easy answer but they do have a plan for how people across campuses come together to share how higher education impacts our everyday lives.
Is this approach enough? Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith disagree on the value of Stand Together's approach and discuss their differences at the end of the episode.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
For our final episode of the season, we present a conversation with Ben Rhodes recorded at in Washington, D.C. at the end of May. Democracy Works is going on summer break. We'll be back with new episodes in September!
The Democracy Group's first live podcast recording featuring foreign policy expert and fellow podcaster Ben Rhodes in conversation with Kamy Akhavan of Let's Find Common Ground and Stephanie Gerber Wilson of Freedom Over Fascism about America’s place on the world stage and how the health of American democracy impacts other democracies around the world. They also discuss how podcasting can shape messaging and narrative in a fractured media environment.
About Ben Rhodes
Rhodes is a writer, political commentator, and national security analyst. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers After the Fall: Being American in the World We’ve Made, and The World As It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House. He is currently co-host of Pod Save the World. His work has also been published in The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs.
From 2009-2017, Rhodes served as a speechwriter and Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. In that role, he led the secret negotiations with the Cuban government that resulted in the effort to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba.
To learn more about each of the featured podcasts, visit the Shows page at democracygroup.org/shows.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In a rebroadcast from 2023, we discuss how to meet the demands that democracy places on us without sacrificing our own personal mental health in the process.
Many of us can conjure moments when politics made us feel sad. But how often do those feelings translate into more serious forms of depression or other mental health issues? And if politics does make us depressed, what do we do about it? Christopher Ojeda has spent the past few years exploring these questions and joins us this week to talk about the relationship between depression and democracy.
Ojeda is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Merced and author of the forthcoming book The Sad Citizen: How Politics Is Depressing and Why It Matters,which will be released in June from the University of Chicago press. He visited Penn State in 2023 to give us an early glimpse of this important work on the relationship between democratic engagement and individual mental health. We discuss how to meet the demands that democracy places on us without sacrificing our mental health in the process.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Jeff Sharlet has spent the past few years embedded in the deepest corners of the growing far-right movement in the United States. He's come to think of it as a black hole, something that can pull people in with ever-shifting grievances and a desire for power. He chronicles the movement and the characters in it in his book The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War and joins us to discuss the book and how he's thinking about its thesis in the context of the new Trump administration.
We also discuss some of Sharlet's more recent reporting on war churches in Idaho and Washington, and how things that were on the fringes of the movement five years ago are now squarely in the mainstream.
Sharlet is the Frederick Sessions Beebe ’35 Professor in the Art of Writing and Director of Creative Writing at Dartmouth College. He is also the author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, which was adapted into a Netflix documentary series, and This Brilliant Darkness: A Book of Strangers.
His reporting on LGBTQI+ rights around the world has received the National Magazine Award, the Molly Ivins Prize, and Outright International’s Outspoken Award. His writing and photography have appeared in many publications, including Vanity Fair, for which he is a contributing editor; The New York Times Magazine; GQ; Esquire; Harper’s Weekly; and VQR, for which he is an editor at large.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
From fights over masks and vaccines to the loss of social connection, the year 2020 accelerated many of the trends that were already happening in America and created new obstacles for the country to overcome. In his book 2020: One City, Seven People, and the Year Everything Changed, sociologist Eric Klinenberg takes on a journey back to that year and everything that happened in it through the eyes of seven New Yorkers, one from each of the city's boroughs.
Klinenberg, who recently delivered the Colloquium on the Environment lecture for the Penn State Sustainability Institute, joins us on Democracy Works to discuss how the pandemic accelerated political polarization and distrust in institutions in America and what we can do to repair that damage before the next pandemic or other major crisis comes our way. The book and the podcast interview allow us to see 2020—and, ultimately, ourselves—with clarity and empathy.
Klinenberg is the Helen Gould Shepard Professor in the Social Sciences and director of the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University. He is the author of Palaces for the People, Going Solo, Heat Wave, and Fighting for Air. He has contributed to The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Rolling Stone, Wired, and This American Life. He recently visited Penn State to present the 2025 Colloquium on the Environment for Penn State Sustainability; watch his lecture here.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Last week's Wisconsin Supreme Court election put a spotlight on state-level politics and the way that national politics can influence what happens in the states. But there are a lot of other developments happening at the state level that you might have missed. We catch up on what's happening with Alex Burness, a reporter who covers state and local democracy and criminal justice issues for Bolts.
As the name suggests, Bolts covers the "nuts and bolts of power and political change, from the local up." The topics we cover in this episode include:
- Felon disenfranchisement and mail-in voting
- Mail voting
- Threats to election administrators
- State-level Voting Rights Acts
We also discuss how national politics are shaping decisions that state legislatures make — even when those decisions appear to go against policies that people in a state overwhelmingly support. For more on this dynamic, check out our episode with Jake Grumbach on his book Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics.
Learn more about Bolts
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Cory Doctorow coined the term "enshittification" to describe how tech platforms have eroded over time. According to him, the process goes something like this:
First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
Doctorow joins us in a collaborative interview with News Over Noise to discuss how enshittifiation has affected our ability to find information, engage in deliberative democracy, and more. We also discuss what coalitions are necessary to push back against enshittification and how science fiction can help us imagine a more democratic world.
Doctorow is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, including The Lost Cause, a science fiction novel of hope amidst the climate emergency, and The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Production.
Doctorow's blog, Pluralistic
Doctorow's lecture on enshittification
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
As the lead investigator into both the 2017 racist riot in Charlottesville and the January 6 insurrection, Tim Heaphy has a unique perspective on the cynicism and anger that also fueled Trump’s return to the presidency. All three events, both the violent protests and the peaceful and lawful decisions made at the ballot box in November 2024, reflect an increasing lack of trust in institutions among a growing number of Americans. He reflects on his work and where we go from here in the book Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American Democracy
Heaphy joins us to discuss the divide between people who trust the system and people who don't and make the case for why a disengaged citizenry is the biggest threat to American democracy. We also discuss his reactions to the first few weeks of the Trump administration and the pardoning of people convicted in relation to January 6.
Heaphy served as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia from 2009-14. His previous experience included clerking for Judge John A. Terry of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and working for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Chris Beem, McCourtney Institute for Democracy managing director and research professor of political science at Penn State, talks with author Jonathan Rauch about why the current crisis in American Christianity is also a crisis in American democracy.
In his new book Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy, Rauch (a lifelong atheist) asks what happens to American democracy if Christianity is no longer able, or no longer willing, to perform the functions on which our constitutional order depends?
In the book and in this conversation, Rauch encourages Christians to recommit to the teachings of their faith that align with Madison, not MAGA, and to understand that liberal democracy, far from being oppressive, is uniquely protective of religious freedom. At the same time, he calls on secular liberals to understand that healthy religious institutions are crucial to the survival of the liberal state.
This episode is the third in a series of discussions Chris has hosted about religion, liberalism, and democracy. The first was with journalist Tim Alberta about the evangelicals and the MAGA movement; the second was with political theorist Alex Lefebvre about the role of liberalism in our daily lives. Those episodes come together in this conversation with Rauch.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
It's easy to feel defeated in the face of political challenges, but this episode shows that everyone has the capacity to create positive change and contribute to a culture of peace in their communities. In her book "Peace by Peace: Risking Public Action, Creating Social Change," Lisa Silvestri shows how ordinary people addressed issues in their communities form the West Bank to Baltimore.
Silvestri found those stories through a process she calls "crowdsourcing hope" and found that deliberately seeking out peace led her to discover more and more of it. The book is grounded in the Ancient Greek virtue phronesis, which Silvestri explains in the interview. We also discuss how not all social action needs to be political — and why it might be better if it's not.
After the interview, Cyanne Loyle and Candis Watts Smith discuss the power of using what frustrates you as an impetus for change, and how finding common cause can be more effective at reducing polarization than finding common ground.
Silvestri is an associate teaching professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State. She likes to think, write, and speak about war, peace, politics, social justice, digital culture, democracy and civic life. She has contributed to outlets including The Washington Post andThe New York Times and has spoken at The 92nd Street Y and The South by Southwest Festival.
Lisa Silvestri's website
Peace by Peace classroom guide
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Instances of political violence around the 2024 election and vote certification on January 6, 2025 did not come to fruition the way some experts feared they would throughout last year. But that doesn't mean that we can forget about threats of political violence until it's time for the next election. In fact, political violence continues to rise in the United States and throughout western Europe.
Our guests this week, Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Nicole Bibbins Sedaca of Freedom House and the George W. Bush Institute, are two of the leading voices on how to prevent political violence and create a healthier democracy. They join us to discuss what causes political violence and what democracies around the world can do to prevent it by addressing both cultural and structural issues in politics.
After the interview, Chris Beem and Cyanne Loyle discuss whether non-violent protest movements can successfully combat political violence amid growing polarization and support for political violence from some elected officials and political leaders.
Kleinfeld and Bibbins Sedaca are the authors of the article "How to Prevent Political Violence," which appeared in the fall 2024 issue of The Journal of Democracy.
Journal of Democracy article: How to Prevent Political Violence
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The results of the 2024 election — from Donald Trump's victory to the failure of democracy reform efforts like ranked-choice voting and citizen-led redistricting — took some in the pro-democracy movement by surprise. How could voters make decisions up and down the ballot that would weaken democracy? Scott Warren argues that it's because "democracy" has become too closely associated with the Democratic Party. He laid out the case in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article published shortly after the election and joins us on the show to talk about it.
Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is currently leading an initiative focused on exploring, researching, and convening a pro-democracy conservative agenda in the US, with a short-term focus on election trust. He founded the civics education organization Generation Citizen and led the organization from 2009-2020.
In the interview, Warren discusses how Generation Citizen's funding change after Donald Trump won the 2016 election and how he and his colleagues at SNF Agora are traveling across the country to bring conservatives into the democracy reform movement. Finally, we discuss how to talk about democracy in a way that resonates across the political spectrum — the subject of a Democracy Takes piece Warren wrote with Lilia Dashevsky.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
This episode marks the first time that all five of our hosts (Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, Cyanne Loyle, Candis Watts Smith, and Jenna Spinelle) are together on one episode. It's also the first time we've all been together since the election. We take some time to reflect on changes in America's political party, the decline of liberal democracy in the U.S., and how to harness the good from social media amid growing extremism and misinformation.
Along the way, you'll hear from some of the guests who've appeared on the show this year:
- Joe Wright: How personalist parties destabilize democracy
- Cassidy Hutchinson: Is there room for Republicans in the Democratic party?
- Alex Lefebvre: Can democracy exist without liberalism?
- Matthew Rhodes-Purdy: How populism spreads
- Cynthia Miller-Idriss: The rise of online extremism
- V Spehar: Social media as tool for community building
From the entire Democracy Works team, best wishes for a happy holiday season! We'll see you in 2025.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Balazs Trencsenyi, co-director of Invisible University for Ukraine (IUFU), joins us to discuss the university's work to uphold education and democracy in Ukraine amid the country's ongoing war with Russia. IUFU, an initiative of Central European University was founded shortly after the start of the war in 2022. Since then, more than 1,000 students have taken online and in-person courses taught by faculty around the world.
Trencsenyi is a professor of historical studies at CEU and and director of the university's Institute for Advanced Studies. He is a historian of East Central European political and cultural thought. He's witnessed Hungary's democratic erosion firsthand and discusses Viktor Orban's rise to power and how he's slowly dismantled the country's democratic institutions.
IUFU received the 2024 Brown Democracy Medal from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Trencsenyi and IUFU student assistant Nataliia Shuliakova visited Penn State in October to accept the award.
Read the 2024 Brown Medal book from IUFU students and faculty
Watch the Brown Medal ceremony and lecture
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Colleen Shogan, archivist of the United States, joins us for a conversation about democratizing access to national records and running a non-partisan organization in an increasingly polarized country. Shogan was appointed by President Biden and has been criticized by both sides of the political spectrum for trying to use the National Archives to tell a partisan story about America's history.
Shogan is a political scientist by training and talks about making the transition from academia to government and how her background as a scholar of the presidency informs the work she does now. We also discuss the National Archives and Records Administration's efforts to digitize billions of records housed in facilities across the country.
We recorded this episode before the 2024 election, but as you'll hear, it takes on new significance in the face of a second Trump administration.
Mentioned in this episode:
National Archives Citizen Archivist program
Wall Street Journal article about Shogan
Shogan's response to the Wall Street Journal article
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
We're excited to bring you an episode from Bad Watchdog, the podcast from the Project on Government Oversight and one of our colleagues in The Democracy Group podcast network. This is the first episode of the show's second season, which takes a deep dive on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Established in the wake of September 11, the DHS was entrusted with protecting the U.S. from national security threats. Since then, much of the agency’s focus has been on the southern border — with tens of thousands of people held in its detention centers on a daily basis. Host Maren Machles explores how this came to be and delves into what happens to people held in immigration detention centers with the presumption that they may be national security threats. And she asks the question: How does this relate to the way DHS addresses the most dangerous threat currently facing our nation — far-right violent extremism?
To find out, host Maren Machles talks with Daryl Johnson, who recounts his work as the former lead analyst for domestic terrorism at DHS. She also speaks with Alejandro Beutel, a criminologist who focuses on domestic terrorism, and Berto Hernandez, who shares their story of being brought into the U.S. as a child and held in detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement years later.
Listen to Bad Watchdog
Learn more about The Democracy Group
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
We are collecting our thoughts about what's next for democracy following the 2024 election and will take up the question during our end-of-year episode in December.
Democracy Works host Michael Berkman, director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and professor of political science at Penn State talks with Christopher Claassen, a political scientist at the University of Glasgow, about how to measure support for democracy across countries and across generations.
Claassen grew up in South Africa and was 16 when the country held its first democratic elections. His interest in democracy continued through college and into his career as a political scientist. Today, he is a professor of political behavior at the University of Glasgow. One area of his research focuses on how to measure support for democracy. In a recent paper, he and colleagues developed 17 survey questions that cover all eight components of liberal democracy as defined by the V-Dem project in an effort to refine what people mean when they say the support or don't support democracy.
Berkman and Claassen also discuss how support for democracy is part of the 2024 U.S. election. Note that this interview was recorded in late October 2024 before the election took place.
Referenced in this episode:
McCourtney Institute for Democracy Mood of the Nation Poll
Episode with Cynthia MIller-Idriss on communities and political extremism
Dahlia Lithwick has covered the Supreme Court since the landmark Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. In that time, she's seen a sea change in the court itself, as well as the way that journalists cover it. We discuss those trends in this episode, as well as how former President Trump's legal team has changed since the 2020 election.
Lithwick is the host of Amicus, Slate’s podcast about the law and the Supreme Court, and author of "Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America." She has held visiting faculty positions at the University of Georgia Law School, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the Hebrew University Law School in Jerusalem.
Referenced in this episode:
How Chief Justice Roberts shaped Trump's Supreme Court winning streak - New York Times
"Stop the Seal" 2.0 is here and it's scarily sophisticated - Slate
We helped John Roberts construct his image as a centrist. We were so wrong. - Slate
With just weeks to go before the election, voting and candidates are top of mind of many of us. It's easy to think that once our preferred candidates win, our obligations to democracy are finished until the next election. Scholar and author Eddie Glaude Jr. has spent his career studying the perils of that approach throughout history, particularly when it comes to Black politics and power. Glaude joins us to discuss how he's thinking about the 2024 election, the difference between hope and joy, and why we can't outsource democracy solely to elected representatives.
One of the nation's most prominent scholars, Glaude's work examines the complex dynamics of the American experience. He is the author of "We are the Leaders We Have Been Looking For," "Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul,"and "Begin Again: James Baldwin's America and Its Urgent Lessons for our Own." He is the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of African American Studies, a program he first became involved with shaping as a doctoral candidate in Religion at Princeton. He is also on the Morehouse College Board of Trustees. He frequently appears in the media, as a columnist for TIME Magazine and as an MSNBC contributor.
Chris Beem talks with political theorist Alexandre Lefebvre about why liberalism is more than just a political ideas and procedures, and how abiding by liberal principles can enhance your life far beyond politics.
In his book Liberalism as a Way of Life, Lefebvre argues that liberalism isn’t just a set of neutral procedures; it’s a comprehensive way of life that shapes the way we live and think and work and love in innumerable ways. He also argues that it’s a way of life worth robustly defending, drawing on examples from pop culture and recent history.
Lefebeve is a professor of politics and philosophy at the University of Sydney. He teaches and researches political theory, the history of political thought, modern and contemporary French philosophy, and human rights.
Immigration is a perennial issue in American politics, but the rhetoric we hear from candidates on the campaign trail is often very different than the day-to-day experiences of migrants traveling from central America to the United States and the smugglers who help them make the often dangerous journey to get here. In an effort to better understand this essential yet extralegal billion dollar global industry, anthropologist Jason De León embedded with a group of smugglers moving migrants across Mexico over the course of seven years. The result is the book "Soldiers and Kings: Survival and Hope in the World of Human Smuggling," which we discuss on this episode.
De León is visiting Penn State for a lecture on "Soldiers and Kings" Sept. 17 from noon-1:00 p.m. ET in 110 Henderson Building or via Zoom. Register for the webinar here.
De León is Professor of Anthropology and Chicana/o Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles with his lab located in the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and Executive Director of the Undocumented Migration Project, a research, arts, and education collective that seeks to raise awareness about migration issues globally while also assisting families of missing migrants be reunited with their loved ones. He is also a 2017 MacArthur Foundation Fellow and a Penn State alumnus.
Finally, we are excited to welcome Cyanne Loyle, associate professor of political science at Penn State, to the Democracy Works team. She was a guest host in the spring and will be joining the permanent lineup with Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, and Candis Watts Smith.
We're back from summer break with a deep dive on the National Popular Vote campaign, an effort to render the Electoral College obsolete when states pledge their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
As of August 2024, National Popular Vote has been enacted by 17 states and the District of Columbia, accounting for 209 of the 270 electoral votes needed to make it a reality nationwide. Guests Patrick Rosentiel and Alyssa Cass have a plan to get to 270 by the 2028 presidential election.
Rosentiel is a senior consultant for National Popular Vote and has visited 45 states on behalf of the campaign. As a Republican political field director, he successfully directed grassroots efforts across the West and Midwest to garner Senate support for U.S. Supreme Court candidates John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Cass is a partner at Slingshot Strategies and founded its communications practice. During the 2022 cycle, she spearheaded the communications strategy for two of New York's most competitive, most watched congressional elections, leading media and messaging strategy for Representative Pat Ryan (in both the NY-19 special election and the NY-18 general election) and Carlina Rivera in New York's 10th Congressional District.
After the interview, Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith discuss whether the National Popular Vote will survive a Supreme Court challenge and how it could change the way elections and campaigns are run.
While Democracy Works is on summer break, we bring you an episode from our friends at Making Peace Visible, a podcast that ignites powerful conversations all over the world about how the media covers peace and conflict. This episode features journalist and author Amanda Ripley. We've wanted to have Amanda on the show for a long time and are grateful to the Making Peace Visible team for sharing this conversation with us!
After over two decades as a journalist, including ten years covering terrorism and disasters for TIME Magazine, Amanda Ripley thought she understood conflict. But when momentum started to build around the candidacy of Donald Trump, she questioned what she thought she knew. Ripley interviewed psychologists, mediators, and people who had made it out of seemingly intractable conflicts for her book, High Conflict: Why We Get Stuck and How We Get Out.
In this conversation with host Making Peace visible host Jamil Simon, she shares insights about how people in conflict can move forward, and how journalists can get at the "understory" of what's beneath any conflict.
Order Amanda Ripley’s book, High Conflict: Why We Get Stuck and How We Get Out. Watch Amanada’s talk on High Conflictfor The Alliance for Peacebuilding. Follow her column in the Washington Post.
We've reached the end of another school year and another season of Democracy Works. Before we go on summer break, Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, and Candis Watts Smith reflect on recent events and what's to come this summer. We do this by taking a look back at some of our previous episodes:
The real free speech problem on campus: Penn State's Brad Vivian on the problems with "campus free speech" discourse and media coverage. We discuss how this narrative has been applied to protests about the war in Gaza that happened on some campuses near the end of the spring semester. Follow Brad's Substack for his more recent work on the Gaza protests and more.
A different kind of political divide - Yanna Krupnikov from the University of Michigan on the divide between people who follow politics closely and those who don't. We're seeing this divide play out in recent polling that shows support for Donald Trump is higher among people who say they are not politically engaged, while support for Biden is higher among those who follow news and politics more closely.
Debating the future of debates: John Hudak from Brookings talks about the value of presidential debates to democracy. We recorded this episode in 2022 after the RNC announced it would not participate in events organized by the Commission for Presidential Debates. Now that two debates are scheduled for the next few months, we discuss whether they'll actually happen and how much they'll matter.
This is our last new episode until early September. We'll use the next few months to plan for our fall season. Please send us an email if you have ideas for topics we should tackle or guests we should interview. Have a great summer!
Democracies today are increasingly eroding at the hands of democratically-elected incumbents, who seize control by slowly chipping away at democratic institutions. Penn State political science professor Joseph Wright is and his coauthors explore this trend in their new book, The Origins of Elected Strongmen: How Personalist Parties Destroy Democracy from Within .
Wright joins Michael Berkman, McCourtney Institute for Democracy director and professor of political science at Penn State, on the show this week to explore how the rise of personalist parties around the globe facilitating the decline of democracy. The book examines the role of personalist political parties, or parties that exist primarily to further their leader's career as opposed to promote a specific policy platform.
The Origins of Elected Strongmen will be released June 11 from Oxford University Press. Wright's co-authors are Erica Frantz, associate professor of political science at Michigan State University, and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.
Please join us in welcoming a special guest host for this episode! Cyanne Loyle is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Penn State and a Global Fellow at the Pease Research Institute Oslo. Her research focuses on transitional justice and democratic rebuilding after conflict, which makes her the perfect person to reflect on South Africa's democratic transition.
One additional programming note — Chris Beem lost power during this recording so the closing segment is Cyanne and Jenna reflecting on the interview.
At the end of April, South Africa marked the 30th anniversary of its first post-Apartheid election — the first in the country where everyone could vote. South African writer and scholar Antjie Krog join us for a look at the state of South African democracy today, the impact of the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and how South Africa has served as a model for other countries in democratic transition.
Krog is a South African writer, scholar, and activist. She covered the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the South African Broadcasting Corporation and wrote about the experience in the book Country of My Skull. She has published more than a dozen volumes of poetry and translated Nelson Mandela's biography into Afrikaans. She is currently a professor at the University of the Western Cape.
The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida happened around the same time Democracy Works launched in 2018. In fact, one of the first episodes featured students who organized a march event in State College, Pennsylvania. At the time, we thought it would be fantastic to get David Hogg on the show.
Six years later, he's finally here to talk about what his life has been like since that fateful day in February 2018 and his work to change gun policy at the state and federal level. Hogg also discusses his new project, Leaders We Deserve, which helps young people run for elected office.
Finally, we discuss youth voter turnout and waning enthusiasm for Donald Trump and Joe Biden among young people ahead of November's election.
Heather McGhee made her career in pushing for economic policy changes at the think tank Demos. But she couldn't help but feel that something was missing from her work. So she embarked on a cross-country road trip to understand what's at the heart of what ails America's economy and our democracy. The result is her book The Sum of Us, which she joins us to talk about in this episode.
In the book, McGhee explores what we lose when we buy into the zero-sum paradigm—the idea that progress for some of us must come at the expense of others. She details how public goods in this country—from parks and pools to functioning schools—have become private luxuries; of how unions collapsed, wages stagnated, and inequality increased; and of how this country, unique among the world’s advanced economies, has thwarted universal healthcare.
Finally, she offers examples of how this paradigm is changing in communities across the country when people work across differences to achieve a shared goal.
At the beginning of the episode, we reference our conversation with Rhiana Gunn-Wright, one of the architects of the Green New Deal.
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows whose testimony captured the nation’s attention in the January 6 Congressional hearings, joins us this week to discuss her time in the Trump administration and her new role safeguarding American democracy.
Hutchinson was faced with a choice between loyalty to the Trump administration or loyalty to the country by revealing what she saw and heard in the attempt to overthrow a democratic election. She bravely came forward to become the pivotal witness in the House January 6 investigations, as her testimony transfixed and stunned the nation. In her memoir, Hutchinson reveals the struggle between the pressures she confronted to toe the party line and the demands of the oath she swore to defend American democracy.
Hutchinson’s memoir, Enough, was published in September 2023 and is a New York Times bestseller.
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCartney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University. I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
And I’m Chris Beem.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. This week. We are very lucky to have with us Cassidy Hutchinson, who you may remember from her testimony in that now infamous white blazer in the January 6 committee hearings a couple of summers ago. She’s also the author of a new memoir called enough where she recounts her time working on Capitol Hill and later in the Trump administration under Mark Meadows. So lots of talk about and I think for somebody who’s only in our mid 20s. A lot to learn from Cassidy as well. We were very fortunate to have her spend the day with us here on campus.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, Jenna, she was very generous with her time she was not wearing her white blazer she wore blue in honor of Penn State. She said if she visits a school she tries to wear the school colors I can think of a visitor we’ve had that has been received quite the way Cassidy Hutchinson was received, she got a standing ovation when she walked out on the stage at a packed auditorium, she was really a delightful guest. And very open. I feel like we learned quite a bit about Cassidy herself about what it was like to be working in the White House and about the personal struggle that she went through to find herself in front of that hearing, giving testimony that really, I think no one can deny blew open the January 6 hearings, and probably will continue to resonate as we go through court cases.
Chris Beem
And also, you know, the other thing that struck me was kind of her humility, and the fact that she feels guilt and shame for for some of the things that she did. And, you know, obviously, for those of us who are kind of connected to the political world, that is an incredible rarity to see it at all, let alone see it express publicly. But I think there’s a connection between this sense of humility and her ability to summon the courage to do what she thought was right, irrespective of the costs.
Michael Berkman
And I mean, one of my favorite moments sitting in class with her was when she said that, you know, she came to the realization that maybe she was going to have to do this, testifying that she understood clearly that her work with the Trump lawyers meant that she was being less than truthful, and that being less than truthful, was working on her internally. And she understood that it was bad for the country as well. But so she Googled Watergate, which gave me a clear indication of her age that she had to google Watergate. And she was looking to see you know, who was kind of like in a similar situation to her and she came across Alexander Butterfield, who was an assistant to the President was very different from Cassidy, Hutchinson. He was older, he advanced degrees. He came from an establishment family, he was an officer in the military. I mean, he was much more grown up than Cassidy was at the time that she found herself in this situation. But she did find Alexander Butterfield she got in touch with him. And he was a wise guy. I don’t mean that in the sense of a wise guy. I mean, it seemed like he was a wise man and older guys in his 90s Now, and he told her what she needed to hear, which was that he’s never regretted what he did. They remain good friends, and he provided a lot of inspiration for her. But Chris, I think just the parallels to Watergate itself are worth thinking about here.
Chris Beem
Well, clearly, right. I mean, you know, when you will recounting that story I was thinking about, yeah, it’s much different circumstance between Butterfield and Hutchison. It’s also a very different context with regards to the culture and with regards to how we regard the presidency and it’s just not the same world and I think that makes Cassidy’s stand all the more courageous, right, because she didn’t have anything to rely on.
Michael Berkman
I do think that Cassidy’s decision to go forward happened in a very different kind of political environment, one of you know, political retribution. depolarization one where she had real reason to care for her, you know, have concern for her life. And in the book, it’s really quite striking. I mean, she’s evicted from her apartment and no money at all. And you can’t underestimate I just don’t think the story is told enough about the extent to which the Trump people use their attorneys to represent people that you know, these people around Trump that don’t have the money, it saves in the money and they’re not acting in the best interest of their clients.
Chris Beem
No, they’re acting in the best interest As the person that’s paying the bill.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, clearly were telling her to be less than forthcoming. I mean, they they tried a very careful line. They don’t say to her injury, they’re not saying lie, but they clearly did not want her to tell all that she knew. And I think what really troubled Cassidy and what she also learned from talking to Alexander Butterfield was no, it’s your responsibility to tell the truth, they, you know it, and she needed to do that for herself. And she needed to do it for the country. And now she’s, you know, a young woman trying to figure out how to how to get what to do, to get right how to get back on pass,
Jenna Spinelle
I think that’s a good overview of who Cassidy is why her story is so important for our current political moment. So let’s go now to the interview.
Jenna Spinelle
Cassidy Hutchinson, welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us today.
Cassidy Hutchinson
Thank you for having me. Happy to be here.
Jenna Spinelle
So you know, lots to talk about with your story and everything that you’ve been through. But I want to start with the formation of your political ideology you write in the book, I believe you were in middle school during the 2012 election and and had an assignment to, you know, compare Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And I just wonder if you could talk a little bit about, you know, take us back to that time, and what were some of the things that you’ve saw in in the candidates and and how did you come to make that decision? It’s it’s rare that you someone can point to such a singular experience, that is the formation, especially with someone who has had a career in politics, as you have.
Cassidy Hutchinson
Yeah, it is interesting, looking back on that moment, and backtrack just a little bit more, oh, not a little bit more, sort of a lot. But but we’ll briefly get back up to this. I was four and a half years old when 911 happened. So I that was my first I had this surge of national pride. And it was natural miracles very united in that period. I was also raised, though, in a family that was had somewhat contentious views about the government and not very fond views about the government in some ways. So, you know, I wasn’t raised in a family that was very civically active, my parents had never voted before. But my uncle, my uncle Joe did serve in the Afghanistan war. So he was my first real example, and tangible example. And he was like a father figure to me to have a public servant. So I had this idea of like, I love my country, I want to serve my country in some way. Obviously, at this point, I’m very young. But I had this notion, right was very civic minded. I think from a younger age, although not conscious of it, obviously, that did continue through middle and high school. I was a sophomore in high school during the 2012 presidential election. And we were assigned, basically to write a little paper, but I turned it into this big case study of both candidates, and I still have the binder with all of it in it. And I watched all the debates, then I really started researching both party platforms. And, you know, I’ve thought a lot about this. And I’ve been asked questions about this. I don’t, there wasn’t really one specific issue that drew me towards the Republican Party, I think, you know, I was also raised in a blue collar family. My brother and I were the first in our family to go to college. And it’s because our parents worked so hard. And they gave us that opportunity to be able to do that and to be able to create a life better than what they had for themselves, but also that they were able to enable us to do that. I think what really attracted me to the Republican Party was more just the general belief system. And it sounds sort of silly saying that. But I just felt like what Mitt Romney was saying, aligned with my family, which was sort of anti government, but what I felt like they believed in what I felt like was reinforced with the environment that I lived in, made sense within the Republican Party. And I really liked Mitt Romney. I liked his character I liked Paul Ryan, I, I felt that there was I felt drawn to them as candidates, but I also wasn’t necessarily upset when Obama won the re election. But that was really my first taste of politics. And the years that fall to my junior and senior year of high school, I began to learn more about the party platforms. And that’s when I began to really believe in the Republican Party more across the board with issues which again, it propelled me to where I where I am now, but also to the feature career but also to touch on this to shows like how far we have gone from the difference between the party platform in 2012 versus 2016. And then what it has evolved to today I mean, it’s like IT company slightly different.
Jenna Spinelle
Or maybe lack thereof,.
Cassidy Hutchinson
Romney and Paul Ryan, both are anti Trump and they are the two leading candidates and leader for the Republican Party just 12 years ago. And it’s Yeah, wild to think how fast we’ve devolved in to this.
Jenna Spinelle
So to keep your your story going here, so you get to college, you really hustled and had several internships. And, you know, I was struck this is, I mean, one, your book is just a great behind the scenes look at like, what all of these people who make our government functioning like actually do all day. So that that piece of it is, is fascinating. But there’s I also thought about, you know, so I teach journalism, and I have students who will apply to Fox News and CNN and MSNBC, and NPR and Ben Shapiro’s podcast company, right. So there’s not always a partisan dimension to choosing where you want to work. And I was struck by what you said about sending out your resume to all 100. Senate offices, your career might have gone very differently had someone else. Yes, instead of, you know, Ted Cruz and where you went from there. But I guess I wonder if you can maybe talk about that. I think in these like polarized times, it’s easy to think about everything through this team red versus Team blue lens. But it also seems that there is an element of it that is maybe more nonpartisan, more focused on service and some of these other ideals that that you were just describing.
Cassidy Hutchinson
I applied for every Republican House office before I applied for every Republican and Democrats Democratic Senate office. And this was when I was a sophomore, going to my junior year of college, I considered myself a Republican, Trump had just been elected. I did vote for Trump in in the 2016 presidential election. But I entered public service with the mindset as quintessential as and cheesy as it sounds, but serving my country. And I really took that seriously. In the beginning. And I thought at the end, although there was a big period of disillusionment that I wasn’t conscious of, really at the time, which I’m sure we’ll get to. But yeah, I, throughout my internships on Capitol Hill, and then I ended up interning in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, I did always feel that there was an importance to bipartisanship. And there, you have 70 plus percent of what typically passes through Congress has done so on a bipartisan basis. And that’s, we often focus on the hot button issues. But there is a lot that is accomplished. Typically, when political tribalism isn’t at the levels that it’s at right now. What I think is, I mean, there are a lot of unfortunate consequences of the political period that we’re in right now. But that is a really dangerous aspect of all this is how divided that we have become. And it’s become really easy, whether on the left or the right to demonize the other side and not want to be receptive of the other ideas. And I, I did fall into that. And I don’t say that with pride I, as I interned in large affairs, and I worked in large affairs, eventually the Chief of Staff’s office, and I grew into that the vitriol and the partisanship that I didn’t want to participate in when I became a public servant. And I realized at a point that I was serving my principles, the P a, l s, not the principles, Pl e. S, that I signed up to serve. And I wasn’t honoring the oath that I swore because loyalty to the country is more important than loyalty to an individual. But right now, within the Republican Party, it’s the loyalty is expected to be pledged towards Donald Trump.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And that leads us to a question I had about the idea of of power. I wonder like, you know, had you before you started working on Capitol Hill or on the White House? Did you had you kind of put some of the folks that you end up working for up on pedestals? And if so, how did how, if at all, did your feelings change, once you really kind of saw how the power they had was wielded. It also just seems that in some ways it felt reading your book, like you were talking about a bunch of like high school girls or something. And it’s not, not maybe the stereotypical image that we have of these big important officials in Washington.
Cassidy Hutchinson
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten this question before, but it’s something that I have spent time thinking about two answers to it. First part, just address the book part. When I made the decision to write the book, there were a lot of things that I kept in the back of my mind that I wanted to accomplish. But one thing that I really tried to be conscious of, was to be as straight down the middle with it as I could. I felt like a lot of the books that emerged from the Trump administration were either glowing reviews of him and what the administration accomplished or it was completely critical. And to me, there’s always a middle road, it wasn’t all bad. And at the end of the day, people are people and to be able to bring into try to humanize those moments and show the more vulnerable sides of people, but also who they actually are not the Kevin McCarthy who goes on and gives press conferences and has, you know, he is Kevin McCarthy. But then he’s, he is Kevin, and it goes to be said about every politician second part and more important part of your question. And, you know, I, I actually think it’s was sort of the opposite at the time for me, I could be wrong. But I think, because I didn’t come from a political environment. And my first taste in politics was working for Steve Scalise. Within five days of my internship, I was in a room with every House Republican talking to them, as if they were just people. So I always had this view of like, okay, there are people, I can talk to them, like people, we’re all trying to accomplish something. And I feel like that was beneficial for me in the job, but I also look back now. And I see not just abuses of power and irresponsible abuse of their use of power. But I see more so how political they actually were and how they play the how politicians play a character essentially. And it as humanizing as those other moments are, I was also naive, I think, because I saw them as who they were. And I was naive to the political power that they actually wielded, if that kind of helps.
Jenna Spinelle
You know, it’s it’s interesting to hear you say that he’s trying to try to take the straight down the middle approach, because to me, your book is and what I’ve heard you say publicly, it is remarkably devoid of ego, which is also something that is very rare in in politics, I wonder how you do it both at the time, and you know, looking back how you think about the egos of the folks that you worked with and for and and how that might have played into some of the decisions they made, or maybe things that they didn’t do, because they were, you know, concerned about how it would impact them and their reputations, and that level of power.
Cassidy Hutchinson
I wasn’t completely naive to the egos, especially of some individuals in the administration on Capitol Hill, even like some of my peers and colleagues. There was also natural egotism in Washington, DC, or there was a saying, and it’s not completely flattering or true. But by and large, Washington DC is a city full of idealistic people who think that they can change the world and they can change the country. And it is true, and that it takes a little bit of ego to do something like that. And it’s also an element of how people can change things. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. I was in denial of the level of egotism of some of the people that I did trust. And then I did place a lot of faith and hope in that it wasn’t their ego driving their decision making process, or it wasn’t their political capital that they were trying to save. I saw it as that’s what they truly believed. And like, for instance, my former boss, Mark Meadows, I, I really believed in him, and I really admire we politically were very different, but I admired him, I felt that he was a true believer in the agenda. I didn’t feel that I had to agree with him on everything in order to be an effective staffer for him. I also felt like we had a good dynamic that way. And I’m I’m not going to speculate or hypothesize whether Mark’s ego drove his decision making process or if it was his true belief system. But I see by and large in the Republican Party now, a lot of people who I know, know better who publicly on January 6, came out and denounced the former president for his responsibility that day, I think of politicians like Elise Stefanik, who I really admired. I wrote one of my college papers about her rise in the Republican Party and I, you know, the first years of the Trump administration, she didn’t want to come around the administration. She was a very moderate member and how quickly at least fell into the cycle of appeasing Donald Trump and being an enabler of his agenda, and has completely fallen beholden to Donald Trump now, and that is a trend that we are seeing continued to persist and especially as we go through this primary season, there have been a lot of people that have come out. And I believe a lot of it’s ego I think a lot of it’s trying to save political capital and to keep their power. And it does amaze me sometimes how desperate people are to hold on to that because you it this is still the ideal so maybe you enter public service to be an asset for your country and the most noble thing you can do is step down when you’re not no longer being that asset. But we’re seeing very few Republicans want to do that.
Jenna Spinelle
What can Democrats and folks on the left do here because you know, you also write about the connection that you saw firsthand. Donald Trump make with people in the you know, formation of the mega base, you know, his rally These are compared to rock concerts. And people seek this out because they want that sense of community and to feel heard by him and also by other people. That’s just part of who we are as humans. And I think that notion is often met with condescension on the left, right, the basket of deplorables. And this idea that these people are just stupid, they don’t know anything, and they’re just how could they get kind of swindled like this? Right? So that seems to me to be not the most productive way to do things. So what? From where you sit, like, how can people who are not conservatives kind of aid in this this cause as you were just describing,
Cassidy Hutchinson
I really appreciate this question is, there’s not one clean cut answer, but it’s something that especially the last couple of months, I’ve, since the book came out, I spent a lot of time thinking about and you’re absolutely right there. And that was a big fear that I had coming forward. Frankly, too, I’d seen I’ll use my friend Alyssa Farah Griffin, for example. She has a long history of working in Republican politics on Capitol Hill, she worked for Mike Pence, who worked for the Secretary, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper Mark Meadows. She was the communications director during Trump’s last year in office. But on January 6, Alyssa came out and very fiercely denounce what was happening. And she was one of the first voices to do that. She was almost immediately demonized by the left, because they said, you know, she supported all of this. She doesn’t, she’s not welcome. She, she’s, I’m paraphrasing, but a bad person or she’s not. She was this she can’t ever change. She’s only trying to be advantageous. But then on the right, it was sort of the same thing. People were saying that she was an opportunist, that she was trying to make money and trying to appease the left. So she was in a no win situation there. That being said, That was a big fear that I had coming forward. And I’ve been really fortunate to have the experience that I have had. And I think part of its the changing, slowly changing dynamics of our conversations, but with the levels of political tribalism that we’re at, it is easy to just denounce one side. The focus of this needs to stay on Donald Trump, who is the perpetrator, and his enablers, the people who continue to surround him who are enabling the agenda, whether it’s his staff or members of Congress, the people, the voters, the average American person, in my view, I don’t like using the word victim, but they have been utterly artificially seduced by Donald Trump and his rhetoric, by his conspiracy theories and his promotion of conspiracy theories. He knows how to play on the fears of people and the anxieties of the American people. And he is portrayed as he is an honest man who is exposing the truth. And that’s that’s not the truth. So when we approach these conversations, and I think about even the first few conversations I had when I hadn’t formally broken from Trump world yet, but even the conversations I had, once I did, and I had new legal counsel and I was coming out and about to testify, and the most productive conversations I had with people personally, were approached, not from a place of HOW COULD YOU HAVE BELIEVED X was put me on the defensive. Because when people asked me to help explain certain things to them, I felt they’re receptive to how I could have once believed that, because I gave my mind the freedom to expand and to question things, and to also feel like I was talking to be listened to not talking to be heard and talked at. It’s a problem on the left and the right, the right doesn’t want to have those conversations with people on the left and the left doesn’t want to have, by and large with that with those conversations, the people on the right. But if we’re going to come out from underneath of this, we have to at some point, welcome people back. And we can’t blame the people who have been artists artificially seduced by Donald Trump, they need a home too. And we need, we need to keep them involved in civics and in politics, but also find a way to adequately educate them. And that happens through conversation that happens when we are able to talk to each other. And I think when we can keep that in mind, and it’s, it’s, you know, it’s easier said than done. But when we keep that in mind, especially with levels of political tribalism, that we’re at, you know, people want to feel like they have a sense of security, we gravitate towards tribes, naturally as like a natural human instinct, but that doesn’t have to be the left and the right. We all want, I hope, a better America and doesn’t have to come down to our political belief system. You know, there’s room for change. There’s room for compromise, and that’s what we’re built on.
Jenna Spinelle
I mean, some of this will often lead to a conversation. So there’s culture and then there’s their structure, right? So we have to change the culture to maybe you know, recapture a shared sense of patriotism and these things, but then on the other side of the coin, there’s conversations about well, what incentives need to change for the elected officials to whether it’s you know, gerrymandering reform or the electoral college or some of those things I, I know you’re not an expert in, in political reform, but just thinking are there is there anything that comes to mind as far as incentives for the people who are in power based on on what you’ve seen? Like? What what incentives for them might need to change to get them to do some of these things? You’re just encouraging all of us who are not in positions of power to do?
Cassidy Hutchinson
You know, I will use I hope this helped answer the question, but I’m gonna use the word power very loosely here because you know, that position of power typically is defined as you if you hold public office or what you who you are and what actual power you can wield. But, again, it’s cheesy, but it’s true power is comes from leadership. And you know, Liz Cheney, for example, staunch conservative, obviously, she is the former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter, also very, very conservative. But part of Liz Cheney, Liz Cheney, I think wield a lot of power. But a big part of her power comes from the fact I look back at the her leadership throughout the January six investigations when she sat with Adam Kinzinger are the two Republicans on that committee on that Dyess are surrounded by Democrats, because they know that this moment is so much bigger and more important for our country than this political moment. And they sacrifice their career to do so. But what I think, you know, institutionally, what Liz Cheney has done is commit herself to saving the Republic. In the 2022, midterm cycle, she campaigned for Democrats. To me that is an extraordinary example of power and using money that is, she is fundraiser helping fundraise to put it towards candidates that are not promoting Donald Trump’s agenda, which is dangerous for our country. And seeing that if this means that we need to rebuild the Republican Party from the ground up and have a blue wave, and have Republicans hold Congress for a couple of years, so we can come out from this moment. No, that is, to me where there are, there are institutional reforms, like gerrymandering and things that I wanted, I’m not an expert and comfortable to talk about, there are much more more intelligent people that you could have to talk about the pros and cons of all that. But you know, I think about the power that we have in the power that Democrats also have to to welcome people like Liz Cheney, like myself, like Alyssa Farah, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, Republicans who they might not agree with, but are willing to work with to help overcome this moment. But that’s where we are as a country because I’ve been really impressed with a number of people and even Republicans who want to learn more and who want and who are receptive to learning more about this period in our history. The second thing, I think, that has surprised me and been a huge blessing for me is the story was really difficult for me to write in to me, it wasn’t a me versus them. It wasn’t me versus Trump world, or me versus the Republican Party. It wasn’t me, it’s a me versus me story. It’s a story of how types of coming to age story. It’s a cautionary tale. But it’s also how I wrestled with my belief system, and how I was able to come out from a difficult situation. But that also requires a level of vulnerability that I had to exhibit, which was a learning curve for me. But even talking about family things and knowing that, you know, I always said that one person reads this and feels that they’re more understood. And I’ve had a lot of people come up and talk about personal situations that they’ve been in completely apolitical, that there is an element of my story that does not directly relate to a situation that they are in, but it helps them understand their situation more. And that’s the power of storytelling.
Jenna Spinelle
Last question, Cassidy, what does democracy mean to you?
Cassidy Hutchinson
It’s a loaded question. You know, to me, the democracy means a lot, and there’s a lot of different, say, different forms of democracy. But you know, American democracy is rooted in this belief isn’t we’re not necessarily a two party system, but we function off of different ideas. And, you know, this country is filled with people who thought like Cassidy Hutchinson, we would not be in a great place as a country. And that’s not because my beliefs aren’t okay in some areas, but it’s they’re not perfect in a lot of areas. And the, you know, so the exchanging of ideas is how we have thrived as a country and we have been an exceptional nation for just under 250 years, as an American experiment, because we’ve been able to reflect on our history but also look at our past mistakes and how we can correct those moving forward. And we’ve done that keeping in mind that we are the shining city on a hill in this country that is low Got globally as what other countries want to model themselves after. What I fear about the future of our country right now is that we are not looking towards our future, we’re stuck in this moment of political tribalism where everybody thinks that they’re right, or correct, and we’re not exchanging those ideas. And you know, we’re, I think we’re moving to a better place, both on the left and the right with that. But I also think, looking at this next election, in my view, this really could be the election that solidifies whether we continue to exist and continue to be the American experiment, or whether we really begin our disillusion as a nation, which also sets an example and a global impact, it’s going to send a global shockwave through. So I think, you know, looking at this next election, I’m not here ever going to tell people who to vote for, but there are two primary candidates on the ballot. There’s Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. I disagree with Joe Biden on a lot of policy. But what I believe in Joe Biden is that he is a truly decent person who wants the best for our country who wants democracy to continue continuing, surviving, and thriving. And then we have Donald Trump, who has essentially pledged to begin dismantling democracy, we saw that happen at the end of his first term in office, and it could very easily happen again. So this next election is, in my view, the election that could really could determine whether we continue to vote under our Constitution as it is, or if we’re going to not correct or correct course become, look towards our better angels like we have in the past.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, Cassidy, thank you for all the work that you’ve done to help people see their own better angels, hopefully, and for sharing your story. And thank you for taking the time to talk with us today.
Cassidy Hutchinson
Thank you, and thank you for having me here.
Chris Beem
Terrific interview. I mean, again, you hear this measured tone, and this, you know, overriding desire to say what’s true, and to say it in a way, that’s fair. And I really think that’s admirable, you know, so now I’m going to take it all back. No, that’s not true. I do think that, you know, I wonder how much she’s really come to terms fully with what went on in that White House, right? You know, she talked about at the, at her talk about how she came upon, and this is in the book to where she came upon Mark Meadows, burning documents. And, you know, it’s just hard for anybody not to kind of see that as deeply suspicious at best, but she was not willing to do that. And the other thing that struck me is, you know, she said that doubts started to slowly creep into her mind, about, you know, whether or not Donald Trump was serving the best interests of the nation. And, you know, I mean, I think that is a reality. And it’s impressive to me that she was able to get there. But you know, I mean, those signs were always there, right? I mean, you had this stuff with COVID. And, you know, even during the campaign, you had, you know, making fun of the disabled person and making fun of the Gold Star family. This is just not the way that a president normally behaves. And, you know, I don’t want like I say, I don’t want to, you know, use this as an opportunity or an occasion to say negative things about Cassidy Hutchinson. But I do think it reflects on the kind of the, the world in which we find ourselves where, you know, I and I think most people like me, are continually amazed that all these all this evidence, all these examples of unprincipled behavior, to say the least, just does not register. And it’s just to say that, you know, when you have hitched your wagon to the star, that becomes kind of an armor that surrounds you, and that nothing will penetrate and, you know, I do think it speaks better, of Cassidy that she got there. Anyway, Michael, what do you think?
Michael Berkman
I didn’t really see her that way. I didn’t think she had hooked herself to Trump star at all. You know, my reading of how she ended up where she was, was not a typical to me of ambitious political science students who send off a million resumes to Capitol Hill and hope that one of them is going to land because you know, what they really want to do is be on Capitol Hill. When I read about how she got into the Republican Party in the first place, it didn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump at all. And it was, you know, based on a notion of the Republican Party as promoting strength is maybe promoting the best response to 911, which, you know, for kids who grew up in New Jersey was awfully traumatic events, especially in working class communities, which lost so many of their population and 911. So I didn’t see any of that as what brought her in. She was no true believer by any extent. And she ended up I fought in the White House purely in from a careerist perspective. Like here, Mark Meadows, who she met in the house, invited her over for a significant promotion actually started in the Office of Legislative Affairs. So she was working in this sort of policy like shop within the White House. And then Meadows brought her over, you know, she talked, I thought that I did think it was striking to talk about going to a Trump rally for the first time once she was already in the White House. And looking around and seeing people that looked like the people she grew up with. I thought that was a really telling statement, and also talking about how these people who she had grown up thinking like her parents, that government had nothing to do with them and no interest and they had no interest in government, that they were being heard. And she related to that, and she could see the appeal of Trump. But also, I mean, a multiple times she talked about how, you know, I didn’t like everything that was going on, it was really not all from me. But there were certain things where I really believed people around me were acting in the best interest of the country. And actually, I think she’s probably, you know, I don’t think we give people enough credit for that who was in the Trump White House or were in the Trump agencies, and many of them were doing exactly what they thought was in the best interest of the country. And they recognize that Trump was maybe not a very good person, but this is what they thought was going on until they realized from whatever circumstances that it wasn’t, you know, and the thing with Mark Meadows was like, I thought, yeah, I guess she could have run to the FBI and said my boss’s throwing things into the fireplace. But she said, I certainly wasn’t in a position to tell Mark Meadows, right, what he should be doing. That’s not my job. And, you know, should she have run to the FBI? I don’t know, that might be asking an awful lot.
Chris Beem
And you have, you know, people who have, you know, she, somebody at one point in the talk, someone asked her, How many Republicans do you really think believe, for example, that the the election was stolen? And she joked, and she said four. And that means there’s an awful lot of Republicans in his White House and elsewhere who are lying who are not representing their beliefs accurately. And that is a good explanation for how we, how we are where we are?
Michael Berkman
Well, I was struck by her, you know, somewhat idealistic belief that it’s all going to be okay. You know, so she talks about the people that are really caught up in all of these lies, and, you know, the hardest of the hardcore and kind of thinks about reaching out to them. And I mean, my thought was, these people are never coming back to reality. They are so immersed in a world of disinformation. Yeah, at this point, that they’re gone. And, but she doesn’t, you know, she believes they can be brought back in, believes they should be brought back in.
Michael Berkman
Right. And, yeah, and she believes The Republican Party can be rebuilt with Adam Kinzinger. And her and, and Liz Cheney, Liz Cheney, and some others like that,
Chris Beem
I guess I come down kind of between the two of you, I do think is possible. But I think it’s an enormous task that’s in front of us. And it’s going to take a long time. But long time or short time, whatever, you know, I kind of hope we get there. But regardless, you know, I think all of us who who met Cassie, over her time here, came away with just being so impressed with you know, you can always talk about poise, but in terms of her articulate pneus, her honesty, her self criticism. These are noble things for any human being, but they’re especially good for someone who calls themselves a democratic citizen. So for that reason, I think we’re all all in our debt. And I’d like to encourage you to read her book if you haven’t. Anyway, lots to chew on. For Democracy Works. I’m Chris Beem.
Michael Berkman
I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
Thanks for listening.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss, one of America’s leading experts on the far right, joins us this week to discuss what draws people to political extremism online and offline — and what we can do to combat it.
Miller-Idriss is the director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University and author of the book Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right. As you’ll hear, PERIL takes a public health approach to preventing violent extremism and provides tools and resources to help communities create resilient democracies.
In the interview, Miller-Idriss discusses how extremism and political violence are linked to our desire for community. This dynamic means that extremist ideas can pop up in seemingly innocuous places from martial arts groups to online wellness communities. She says understanding this dynamic is key to moving people away from extremist spaces and into constructive communities.
Miller-Idriss visited Penn State as part of the Mellon-funded Sawyer Seminar exploring the theme, “Birthing the Nation: Gender, Sex and Reproduction in Ethnonationalist Imaginaries.”
Episode TranscriptMichael BerkmanFrom the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University, I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
And I’m Chris Beem.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle and welcome to Democracy Works. Our guest this week is Cynthia Miller-Idriss professor in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Education at American University. She’s also the director of the polarization and extremism Research and Innovation Lab, and the author of the book hate in the homeland the new global far right. Cynthia visited Penn State’s in January to present a lecture as part of the Sawyer seminar I project that will explore the role of gender sex and reproduction in ethno nationalism. But our conversation focuses mainly on the work of her research lab, and how to both recognize and combat political extremism. Something I think we can definitely use, especially in an election year.
Chris Beem
It’s a very timely, sorry to say it’s a very timely topic, right? We all are aware of this, excuse me of this huge increase in domestic terrorism. anti semitism has exploded on the right and the left. There’s, there’s violence against Muslims, African Americans, gay and lesbian people, trans people, you know, we can go down the litany of, of events of mass shootings, where the person was motivated by hatred of the groups that they targeted.
Michael Berkman
And so what we’ve got with Cynthia is a really interesting project, I think, because we have really powerful scholarly work on extremism that approaches it, I think, in a somewhat different way than most of the other work that I’ve read anyway. But attached to that is also a lab that really tries to make a difference. And that tries to see how you can apply what she’s learning through the scholarly work to actually undermine extremism. And our focus here, which is also different, I think, from a lot of work that we’ve seen is on younger people, mostly, I think, middle schoolers and high school, not really college campuses, I think her lab work is almost entirely with families with kids that are in middle school and high school, and she’s trying to understand how young people get sort of swept into extremism, adopt extremist viewpoints, and potentially act on that. And I think what’s so interesting here is that we’re used to hearing about the role of social media. In radicalizing people, certainly, we hear a lot about the role of social media, in mobilizing extremists for, say, ISIS throughout Europe when they’re trying to bring especially women into ISIS. But here, she really goes well beyond social media to talk more broadly about the kinds of spaces that younger people find themselves in, and she uses that word spaces quite a bit that young people find themselves in, where they develop these extremist views.
Chris Beem
Yeah, you know, you read, you read the book, and when I said it reminds me of a whack a mole game, only the whack a mole game is, you know, 1000s of holes, right? And these expressions of far right ideology, and this kind of searching for people to kind of try to find where they are, and to connect to them, at a moment of some kind of vulnerability or lack of sophistication in their lives is just really astonishing to me, I had no idea that there were cooking shows and drywall videos that were were developed as a kind of means for introducing these kind of neo Nazi ideologies.
Michael Berkman
I’m with you. I didn’t know about a lot of this. And I think it contextualize this, for me this notion of growth of extremist growth in a way that’s different from how we usually talk about it. Right. So, I mean, you mentioned even right at the beginning, the rise in hate groups. And so one way that we assess increasing anti semitism increasing right wing extremism, as we say there are more, we might say there are more hate groups around and other ways we look at crimes and we say the more hate crimes around and certainly in hate crimes, we’ve seen quite an explosion. But she wants us to think about this growth in terms of both supply and demand. And so she wants us to think about both, you know, sort of a top down approach or what she calls the supply side approach, which is how different kinds of organizations how different kinds of messaging how different kinds of structures sort of bring people As in, as well as on the bottom up, and that is or the demand side, like, what is it about young people, some young people today that makes them so vulnerable and open to extremism? I mean, what is it about their personalities? What is it about their sense of vulnerability? What is it about who they are, that makes them recruitable? And as I kind of mentioned before, I mean, I think you see this kind of work actually, in, you know, in Europe and understanding ISIS recruitment. And, you know, why is it that some young girls want to pick up and become an ISIS wife and how they’re recruited, say, through different kinds of networks, and through through social media or through other sources like that, but very rarely have I seen this kind of work done on the American side, or at least in a way that’s come to our attention at at democracy works. And I think that’s what makes it particularly interesting to me to move beyond just the groups to move beyond the X to understanding more broadly, the spaces and spaces that she describes as virtual spaces that she describes as real, and spaces that street described, even in purely as purely symbolic that attract, you know, young people today?
Chris Beem
Well, you know, obviously, it is easier to count groups than it is to count 14 year old boys with their laptop open. Right. And so that’s part of the issue here. But yeah, I think, the spotlight exactly and and so you have, you know, I think the fact that so many young people have phones, and laptops, and you know, whatever those things are called the page things anyway, so many people have phones and laptops that so many children have phones and laptops, that it’s just the direct access to these, you know, let’s call them boys is just significantly higher now. And it’s harder for parents to know exactly what they are consuming, let alone, stop it or control it.
Jenna Spinelle
And as she says in the interview, it’s important to make yourself aware of what’s happening in today’s media environment. It’s just as easy to bury your head in the sand and ignore all of this if you want to, but we talk in the interview about how everybody kind of has an obligation to keep this stuff in their minds disturbing as it may be. So let’s go now to the interview.
Jenna Spinelle
Cynthia Miller-Idriss, welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us today.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Thanks for having me.
Jenna Spinelle
So you are one of the country’s leading experts on the far right, and extremism. And you’ve been studying these areas for a long time, I thought maybe we could start with your definition of the far right maybe how you think about it today and how that definition has evolved in the time you’ve been studying this field?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Yeah, well, first of all, I often consider myself an accidental expert on the far right. It wasn’t what I intended to study, I spent the first 1520 years of my career in Germany, studying school based responses to resurgent anti semitism and Neo Nazism there, and was sort of tracing aesthetic changes in the far right, they’re the change from the skinhead kind of racist scene to a much more mainstream, commercialized appearance. And then Charlottesville happened sort of right after I finished a book called The extreme gone mainstream. And so everything shifted. So you know, I wasn’t really working on us contexts, very much at all, although there’s a global dimension to this until around 2017 2018. And I use the term far right, which I often say is the best bad term available for the phenomenon, in part because that is a term that’s used by global databases by scholars around the world. It’s recognizable, but I don’t like the term because it’s often very easily sort of turned into political partisan tensions. But the way that I use the term the definition is it’s loosely gathers two clusters of problematic beliefs and behaviors that are related on the one hand to supremacist to thinking which is thinking that sets up a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority between groups of people in which the other poses an existential threat that often has to be met with violence in this country and globally, that’s most commonly white supremacist extremism, but we also have rising male supremacy, Christian supremacy, Western supremacy. So you have groups like the proud boys who call themselves Western chauvinists, for example, that would fall in that category. Then the other sort of part of the bucket is anti government, anti democratic movements and groups and scenes and that includes in this country, the unlawful militias groups like the Oathkeepers the three percenters but also kinds of general anti government movements and anti democratic movements that seek to reduce the rule of law or the protection of minority rights. And then there’s some other kinds of clusters of things that don’t fit neatly conspiratorial movements like Q Anon, which actually cut across the spectrum. And the last thing I’ll say is that there are a lot of things that fall under those categories that also cut across the political spectrum. So anti semitism, misogyny, male supremacism, for example, are a part of the far right, but also appear across the political spectrum, including on the left,
Jenna Spinelle
And you write in your book hate in the homeland about needing to think about shifting our focus to the ways that people enter far right movements enter extremist spaces. I wonder if you could talk more about generally what some of those pathways are? We’ll get down to more specifics later on. Sure. But and to what extent those pathways are similar, from country to country.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Yeah, so one of the things that frustrated me and when I first started working on this in the US, in part because I live in DC, and so I’m often kind of invited to meetings with policymakers who work in the national security space. And during that kind of post Charlottesville period, when we saw a series of horrific attacks, both in the US and overseas in Christchurch, and El Paso and in Pittsburgh, and you know, then eventually Buffalo and more there was a real shift in the US is interest and willingness to discuss and eventually willingness to acknowledge that as the Department of Homeland Security eventually did in October 2020, that domestic violent extremism is the most pressing and lethal threat facing the homeland. So that finally happened in 2020. So we’re not even that far from that period of time. We’re only about three years into acknowledgement. I say that because that meant, you know, prior to that, for 20 years since 911, the focus had been on international Islamist forms of terrorism and extremism. And so all of the questions that I was getting in those early years were about they were using frameworks that that made sense for ISIS and Islam, you know, and I’ll cut it. And so they were asking questions like about the hierarchy of the groups, the chain of command? How can you infiltrate them? How you know, so all as if this is all organized top down by an ideology, and a structure and a group that can be infiltrated and broken up? And I’m there trying to explain that, you know, actually, what happens in most domestic violent extremism movements, including white supremacy and anti government extremism is the ideas come to you rather than you seeking them out? Especially in online contexts? There are groups producing propaganda. So groups matter. But groups are not where the vast majority of violence comes from, in fact, every major terrorist attack on the far right going all the way back to Oklahoma City, has been at the hands of a person who was not a formal member of a group. And so, you know, we spend a lot of time on groups, including in the media, because they’re understandable. They’re definable, and we think that we can just say like, that’s the problem over there. But actually, I think a lot of the problem is right here on your screen in front of you and your kid’s room and your brother’s room and whatever, as they’re on their laptops, and they’re in online gaming platforms, or they’re in self help forums, or they’re in I mean, really, anywhere. It’s the you know, the point of that book, hate in the homeland to talk about those spaces and places is to show how ordinary these early exposures are. They’re ubiquitous, and they’re everywhere. So hateful, conspiratorial ideas are everywhere. And it doesn’t mean that everyone who encounters them is going to go down those rabbit holes, but the rabbit holes exist, meaning it’s pretty easy to click on the next recommended link and get to ever more salacious content because of how algorithms themselves for social media companies prioritize salacious content, and pretty quickly get to content that’s banned actually pretty, you know, afterward, but has been viewed and downloaded millions of times before it’s banned. So you know, there are cooking shows, there are livestream MMA tournaments, there are online gaming chat rooms and servers that get either infiltrated by or, you know, deliberately introduced by people who are deliberately introducing extremist ideas, or they’re just somebody sharing a link, they get into a chat room, it’s a meme sharing site, and they’re sharing evermore scientific, racist and gross content to try to kind of continue to shock each other. And somebody you know, follows a link to an encrypted chat room and then that leads them down a rabbit hole. So it’s just the pathways are endless, I think at the beginning, and you know, those become more narrow and focus as you move, but there are many different points for potential offer and being early on and it’s one of the things I tried to emphasize.
Jenna Spinelle
And speaking of offering I mean, I know that you communities, whether online or off, also police themselves. And so I wonder to what extent that happens. We you’re right, we do hear a lot about the rabbit holes and the people who become radicalized, but maybe not as much in the media about groups that keep those forces at bay?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Well, there are, of course, there are like trust and safety groups that are official parts of social media platforms that are trying hard to remove bad content, and they get a lot of, they get a bad rap. But I think actually, you know, I’ve talked to a lot of those folks. First of all, a lot of those teams have been decimated by layoffs recently, so they’re really stretched thin, but also they are, you know, they’re trying to work within a corporate structure that prioritizes profits. And that, you know, is always trying to play catch up with the guidelines of how to remove content and how to quickly remove content and use AI in many cases to remove content that AI doesn’t always right away, recognize as false or conspiratorial, or deepfake. Video, you know, the problem I have with the content moderation side of it is that even in the best case scenario, even when everything goes right, and the content gets removed, it’s always been downloaded millions of times and seen, you know, millions of times and so the harm is already done. It may we may stem the flow of the harm, but it’s not actually a preventative. It’s like a band aid, right, you’re stemming the bleeding that’s happened and stopping further harm, an infection from spreading, but you’re not actually like the cuts are already there and are in the in the fabric of our society, our social cohesion, etc, the harms that are done to targeted groups. And so sometimes you get stigma as a policing technique, you know, then sometimes you get individuals who just step up and say, like, that’s awful. But in teenage spaces, there’s not enough of that. And I think part of it is just it’s so normalized. You know, the talk I gave here on campus last night, a young woman came up to me, right at the end of the talk a student and said, you know, just sort of heartbreakingly that, you know, acknowledging just how desensitized she’s become to the, you know, horrific gender based violence that she observes, and you know, in online spaces every day, and just has come to accept it as kind of part of what one of the teenage girls who observed mass shooters online rage later said, quote, it’s what online is, why would anyone report it? I think that that’s a danger to when the kind of when we get so used to how awful it is that you just dismiss it, because there’s a kind of desensitization and dehumanization that comes from that kind of toxic stew, as well. So sometimes there’s policing internally, sometimes there’s external constraints, but I don’t think it’s a match for the kind of desensitization, that’s happening.
Jenna Spinelle
And so you know, people find communities and want to join groups because they want connection, they want to feel validated. They want to feel meaning, and purpose. And so I wonder how you think about that side of the equation. It’s like an extension of the Robert Putnam Bowling Alone problem, right? And so how do we keep all the good stuff about communities and being part of them, but without some of these more nefarious forces that find their way and as we’re discussing,
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
I mean, it’s one of the, you know, one of the pieces of advice we give to parents and our parenting guides and tools and trainings is to think about fostering a healthy sense of connection and belonging and identity, like a lot of teenagers who go looking for this kind of stuff, both on the Islamist ISIS related recruitment. And on, you know, domestic, violent extremist groups here are actually looking for some way to belong, to have meaning to have purpose to contribute to something that they think is bigger and better than themselves. It’s a major set of vulnerabilities. This is a generation of young people that’s more isolated than any generation and previous record. And yet they are connected online. Often they don’t, that doesn’t make them feel less isolated. Right. They have fewer people who they count as friends, they have fewer people who they think they can ask for a favor, or rely on for help. And so those are all things that create vulnerabilities. And it’s one of the reasons why we saw such a surge in both the circulation of online propaganda and in weird kinds of radicalization during the pandemic like QAnon.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And one of the guides that your team put out, you talk about the principle of civic courage, I believe that was in the one for for just general community members, bystanders who might witness forms of extremism. Can you talk about what that is and how it plays out?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Yeah, I mean, so one of the things we find is that there’s really interesting data on this is that people’s willingness to intervene with a person who they know has expressed radicalizing ideas harmful content conspiratorial content is dependent on their knowledge of that, right. So they because they may doubt themselves right to do I really know is that definitely, what did he mean by that? Right? And so we find this with parents, for example, their knowledge of harmful online content, predicts their willingness to engage and their confidence to do so those two things really interesting. We’re doing longitudinal study. These are the parents, we find that they start to forget what they learned about six months after the intervention, but their confidence and willingness to engage stays high for another three months. So you know, what we’ve been talking to funders about is like, that tells us people and then it drops, right. So it trails after they realize they forgotten, then about three months later, they stop being willing to intervene or being confident that they can do so effectively. So we’ve said, you know, look, I think people need a booster, basically, about six months after we’ve had an initial intervention. Can we send people a short video? Can we do a short primer to remind them what they learned and keep their knowledge high, in order to keep the confidence high. And so I think this notion of civil courage is, is about, you know, you know, willingness to step up willingness to speak up to intervene, but I’m also cautious about it, knowing what we know, from the data that that’s also connected empirically, to people’s awareness of the problem. And their, their confidence and willingness to intervene depends on how much they know, right?
Jenna Spinelle
And then I mean, in our media world, it is, as we’ve discussed, you can create a world in which this extremist content is the only content you’re exposed to. But you can also create a world where you never ever have to encounter it, if you don’t want to. And so how much, how much duty do do we all have? I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say people listening to this podcast are probably not mostly consumers of our right or extremist content. But how much duty do we all have to know what’s out there and to and to stay apprised of what’s happening?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
I think, I mean, you know, I’m a compassionate person about how busy people are and how you know, so I’m not going to wag my finger and say, you know, everybody should be doing better. But I think there’s this principle that says, like, we’re all doing the best we can, and we could all be doing better, right, like, and so I think if you acknowledge and recognize that, that we’re doing the best we can with constrained times, and schedules and balances, and overwork, and under, you know, a lack of time for ourselves. And I think staying informed in this moment of real democratic crisis is critical. And I think, you know, one of the things we found with our parents guide is that it only takes parents an average of seven minutes to read that guide. And so we then wrote an op ed for USA Today that said, it only takes seven minutes to keep your kids safer from online harms. And we found that by studying those parents, after even just seven minutes of reading, on average, three months afterward, we had 6% of the 1500. Parents we studied, say that they use what they learned in the Guide to directly intervene with a child who they now understood, was exposed to or expressing radicalizing content. 11% said they, after reading that guide, in just seven minutes, they joined or created a group of other parents to talk about the online harms that their kids were exposed to. And that really, to us says that you can have that’s about 75 people who said, they use what they learned in just seven minutes of reading to intervene. So you know, I think it’s really important to know, you don’t have to go to a whole weekend workshop, you don’t have to take a semester long class, you don’t have to write a book on this. But you can pick something up parents told us they wanted it in a PDF downloadable. So we made it as a PDF downloadable, but it’s also available online, on our it’s all free on our websites, and doesn’t have to be our tools, I think there’s a lot of things that can inform you while you’re drinking a cup of coffee, that actually just helps you. The last thing I’ll say is this data isn’t published yet, but I just heard yesterday, so kind of hot off the press that our 12 month data where we also talked to parents about parenting styles indicates that actually parenting style is a huge predictor of their willingness to engage in their effectiveness at doing so. And so that’s, you know, parents who are so you know, I won’t go into more detail on that. But I think stay tuned for that publication and for what we’re learning about the difference between say being an authoritative parent versus authoritarian versus permissive in terms of how willing and how confident parents are that they can engage effectively with a child turns out to have a lot of impact on whether they can do it. Yeah.
Jenna Spinelle
And and we’ll certainly link to all of those resources in our show notes. But for, for listeners who, who have kids, or maybe who are teachers themselves, what are some of the warning signs to look for?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Well, you know, some of it is like, you know, if teenagers start to say something like, you know, just out of the blue usually like one of the ones we used to say is it probably a little less common now but but teenagers will say something like a joke that is, you know, sometimes quite obvious like we’ve heard parents tell us, a kid says some joke about the Holocaust, right? That’s a con and then when you speak up and say something to that to them about that. They say or something anti immigrant or mentioning the great replacement or something. Then they say, Oh, don’t be such a triggered snowflake. Right? So to me if you if a kid uses the phrase triggered snowflake, doesn’t mean they’re radicalized at all, but it means that they’re definitely exposed to something online. That is a narrative that positions this narrative about like kind of hateful and far right content as being you know, just a joke, and everybody else just can’t get the joke right? is just too serious. Like we’re the edgy ones using satire and humor and you just don’t edit. And so, you know, what we find is that parents actually, you know, usually know something is going on, they just don’t know what it is, right. So we’ve had parents come to us and say, I can tell something’s going on, I don’t know, if they’re doing drugs, if there’s like, if they’re involved in some new relationship, if they’re exposed to something online, but they’re changing, right, the personality is changing. And a lot of the warning signs about being withdrawn, changing relationships, pulling out from other friendships are actually the same across a whole range of problematic things that kids could be doing, or things that could have happened to them. And so talking to them, is really important. And that’s, you know, one of the things we really urge parents and teachers to do is approach the subject with curiosity, rather than judgment, because kids shut down right away, if you have judgment or shame. But if you can, sort of one of the best things is just ask them to explain how a meme works, how they, you know, how do you encounter means how do they work? How do you modify one, can you show me how it works? And then that can get a great conversation going about how awful a lot of these memes are, because a lot of this content comes to kids in the form of jokes.
Jenna Spinelle
So you mentioned immigration earlier. And that was something I thought about as I was reading hate in the homeland, I think it definitely fits into this, you know, Western supremacy ideology you were describing before, but the same time in the US, I mean, there are problems and you know, things that need to be addressed. So how do you kind of focus on those things without, you know, completely giving into that supremacist line of thinking? Yeah,
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
I mean, our you know, in the lab, and my interest is in trying to challenge you know, five things really is what we work on countering and preventing in the lab. One is supremacist thinking, as I said, that sort of sets up this hierarchy of superiority, inferiority, that ultimately, and in many cases, leads to the idea that there’s an existential threat against your group. The second is propaganda, conspiracy theories, all kinds of information problems, so Miss dis mal information. And then the last is misogyny. So those are the kinds of five categories of harm that we work on about online and offline harms. With it, you know, beyond that, you know, we expect there we want a democracy to have a range of political opinions, a range of political solutions, there’s an Overton Window, of course, for any set of public policy decisions, including on immigration, that is always going to move back and forth. And that should move back and forth. And so my or anyone else’s in the labs, own political opinions should be kind of irrelevant to that as they are in my teaching. And we try to, you know, really keep that separate from combating these five things that we think are really undermining and problematic to inclusive democracy. And so the prevention of those five things should be able to be held separate from opinions about policy solutions. And we haven’t had problems with that, per se, I think everybody gets that. And it’s a pretty straightforward thing to try to be preventing violence. And so we haven’t had, I think, as many problems as some other research labs have had, in terms of political attacks on them, or threats against them. And I also think, because a lot of our work with parents and grandparents in particular, has really good evidence that it’s effective for Republicans and for Democrats. And everybody’s worried about what kids are seeing online.
Jenna Spinelle
So the last thing I’m going to ask you about speaking of public policy, you’re often called to testify before Congress. And the popular perception of the way these hearings go is that the members are just looking to ask their gotcha question that they can post on social media or go on cable news later to talk about, I guess, I wonder, do you do you feel like you’re being heard, and that, you know, Congress is actually interested in trying to do their part to solve some of these problems?
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
Yeah, I think it’s changed a little bit over time. So I will say when I first the first time, I testified before Congress, I couldn’t always tell who represented what party and the kinds of questions that I was being asked. And it felt like a pretty civil discussion and dialogue, that’s really changed. And there definitely is a more performative aspect to it. Maybe there always was, and I just didn’t see it. But it felt more serious several years ago than it does right now. And so we have serious discussions, and I’ve declined, you know, times to do it. When it felt really like a circus, like the name of the hearing, you can tell right away, it’s disingenuous, or you just realize it’s just not going to be a good opportunity to share evidence. But even in cases where it looks like it’s going to be difficult, we will often agree to do it. But like, for example, the one we did just recently in May, which was a difficult hearing, we just focused on our parents evidence and just kept coming back to that anytime, you know, it steered away, which said, you know, we’re here to share I’m here to share our evidence about what parents and caregivers need and what communities deserve. And if it’s an opportunity to read that evidence and get academic evidence into the record and share and just keep trying to be civil ourselves, is worth it. And so we’ve been you know, I’m still doing it, not always I will say behind the Scenes, there are much more productive things that happen in the hearings, sometimes open up conversations, and can be opportunities to have further conversations with staff or with congressmen and women behind the scenes later, that can be really useful. And so that’s happened as well.
Jenna Spinelle
Thank you for all the work that you’re doing. And thank you for joining us today to talk about it. Thanks for having me.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, so that was a terrifically interesting interview focused a bit more on the lab and the work that they’re doing then the scholarly work in the book, which was made for a nice combination, I thought I wanted to, I wanted to comment on on something she said there, which talks about her efforts to sort of define the work that they’re doing, and that they think of their work, the work that they’re doing, in terms of evidence based tools using a public health approach. In other words they want to redefine through their lab and the work that they’re doing. They want to redefine this extremism among young people in particular as a public health problem. And good luck with that, because it reminds me of the many efforts that had been made to redefine gun violence as a public health issue. And the incredible pushback that Democrats have gotten from Republicans in Congress, indeed, just an out and out refusal to devote research funds into looking at gun violence as a public health issue, they always comes out well, it’s a mental health issue, which also would be a public health issue, but somehow that connections rarely made. And so I thought I thought that was a really fascinating part of of her discussion.
Chris Beem
And, you know, just important ladles on the depressing bastion of all this, right? Because it just speaks to the fact that you have to stipulate that, you know, far right extremist language and expression is bad in order to do something about it. And, and if you are in Congress, saying things like, you know, alluding to, if not absolutely, Foursquare, appealing to this kind of great replacement theory, you’re not going to do that. And when you have, you know, the leader of your party saying, you know, good people on both sides. And, you know, and when you’re talking about a group of Neo Nazis, that’s very difficult to do. And so I do think it’s it’s just bespeaks kind of the condition in which we find ourselves right now.
Michael Berkman
And she talks, in fact about her experience is trying to talk about this before Congress, where she says that there’s really been a change that when she first started talking to Congress, you couldn’t tell who was asking the questions. And now what’s coming out of Democratic and Republican members towards her is distinctly different than other words, she can tell you what party they’re from based on the question.
Chris Beem
Well, you know, I mean, we could have a long argument about whether congressional hearings were ever useful. They were used. Yeah, in turn, they still are used. Yeah. Well, but But the objective of your average, a US representative, or at least a Yeah, that’s not fair. The objective of a number of important congressional representatives in a hearing is to get themselves viral, is to say something that gets picked up, and that gets put on, you know, cable news and then gets picked up in Twitter. And I think, given that it’s not a surprise that that’s where we are,
Michael Berkman
I mean, reading the book, and listen to the interview. I was really brought back to a book I mentioned in our year rent show, not that I expect anybody remember to mention again, because I think it really is interesting pair these two books, and that’s just Charlotte’s book, the undertow where Charlotte sort of takes a tour through some of these far right spaces, as she would call them, not necessarily as he calls them, but you know, he attends and Ashley Babbitt Memorial, he goes to different festivals, he goes to Trump rallies and, and you know, when, especially when he goes to the Trump rally, you know, he talks about how it reminded him of, I believe I read this in his book that it reminded him of going to Grateful Dead concerts that it had that kind of festival feel to it, in fact that it had people that he’d seen it multiple ones around the country, they follow it around. So there really are these spaces of this kind of extremism that are developing. I mean, the Ashley Babbitt memorials that he talks about are downright frightening, that kind of delusional thinking that’s going on at them the effort to turn her into some sort of a hero. So, uh, you know, I take the two together to give me a much richer understanding of what’s meant by the kind of extremist spaces that are happening around the country, that it’s more than just an algorithm on social media.
Chris Beem
Yeah, the soil is already ready to receive this. And that is a sign of mental illness in our culture, a well adjusted boy doesn’t go looking for neo Nazi propaganda. He’s not looking for groups to hate. And the fact that that is where we are the fact that that is happening so frequently. I think that’s why she’s right to say this is an everybody problem. Yeah. You know, I actually think that might be a good note to end on. You know, I mean, on this podcast, usually we are looking to politicians to solve this. The problem we’re looking at and, and in this case, you know, it looks like her point is Cynthia’s point is that we all have a role to play here. And I think we should be grateful to her for bringing that up making that clear to us. So, for Democracy Works, I’m Chris Beem.
Michael Berkman
I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
Thanks for listening.
Chris Beem talks with journalist Tim Alberta about the role that Evangelical Christians play in the Republican Party — and what that means for the future of American democracy.
Alberta is a staff writer at The Atlantic and author of the books The Kingdom, The Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremismand American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump. He’s also the son of an evangelical pastor.
This conversation covers both books and how the evangelical movement and the Republican party have been corrupted. They also discuss the role that religion should play in politics, and Alberta’s answer might surprise you.
Episode Transcript
For our final episode of 2023, we revisit some of our episodes from throughout the year and reflect on what’s in store for democracy in 2024. We talk about:
- Mental health and media consumption
- Bureaucracy and the prospect of Project 2025
- The Republican party and threats to democracy
Plus, we share some recommendations of the books and TV shows we loved in 2023. Recommendations include:
TV: For All Mankind, Fargo, The Gilded Age, and Slow Horses
Books: The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War by Jeff Sharlet; Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, Why We Did It by Tim Miller
Thank you to all of our listeners for another great year. We’ll see you in 2024!
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University, I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle and welcome to democracy works. So great to have all three of you here. For our final episode of 2023. It’s hard to believe we’ve come to the end of another year already. But we’ve had a lot of great episodes this year. And what we’re gonna do today is take a listen back through some of them, I’ve pulled out a couple of clips from our guests. And we’ll both reflect a little bit on what we heard, and also how what our guests shared this year will have ramifications as we look ahead to 2024. So the first set of topics that we’re going to talk about here is all about media and mental health. We began this year with two episodes about how political news and the way that we consume it impact our mental health. We’re going to hear first from Penn State’s Matt Jordan, who is doing some work on news avoidance. And then from Christopher, Ojeda, from the University of California, talking about some of his work on how politics impacts depression and other aspects of our mental health.
Matt Jordan
News avoidance is something that people have been studying now for a while, because there’s a significant swath of the population that just because of the anxiety that news creates, the way that it’s framed the way that it’s kind of always kind of one bouncing from one crisis to the next, as kind of a wellness technique, what people tend to do is just to avoid it, right? That they’re really managing their own feelings and effect level by just avoiding this kind of tumultuous day illusion of bad news, we should be striving for a kind of a more holistic approach or kind of a balanced approach to the things we do, we should work out a little bit, we should maybe check the news a little bit we should eat, eat good food, et cetera, et cetera. And part of that mindfulness that comes to being wanting to be more realistic is also recognizing that the news is not the only important places that we’re getting stories about what makes people in a democracy work, right we’d from art, we get stories about what good virtue is, and what not. And I think the, the, the danger is that when we think that the only way we can be engaged in democracy or politics is by being a news junkie, then we get pulled into only one kind of story and attempts to send tends to only have the same kind of characters, villains, and people who are doing this bad or that bad. And so we’re talking about in a way, the worst people in the world, and not talking about those people who we see as helpers, or people who are going to help us be better news consumers.
Christopher Ojeda
One story might make us feel anxious, or might make us angry. But when we consume that sort of intense emotional story over and over and over again, it becomes depressing, because we start to think there are too many problems. There are so many problems that even if we solved one of them, a million other problems would exist. How could we possibly tackle all these issues? And so I think it’s the totality of media that we consume, that can be really depressing, rather than any one story. Now, of course, any one story can itself be depressing. We, you know, war, natural disasters, like these kinds of things. Make us feel sad, but but I think it is that sort of nonstop new cycle that really gets to our psyche. So there’s a lot of discussion about how echo chambers are not good for democracy, because we want people talking to people who think differently from them. We want people to be exposed to different ideas and engaging in informed debate with other people. But what happens if that in debate is really stressful, in damaging to our mental health in what is actually good for our mental health is being around people who are like us. And so these are serious conflicts that I think we need to think about as we think about how to make democracy work.
Jenna Spinelle
So my questions for for all of you to get things started here is, you know, these guests seem to be suggesting that we need to be more mindful about how much news we consume, what kind of news we consume. I’m wondering how realistic that is in an election year when political news is seemingly going to be wall to wall.
Chris Beem
You know, when I when I first saw this question, I remember talking to Matt completely outside of the podcast and, and I said that I found myself watching a lot more sports than I usually do. And he said, Yeah, me too. So so we are all guilty of this news avoidance. And I don’t think there’s anybody who really isn’t, though the world is in bad shape right now. And it’s scary and threatening, and it’s not likely to get better in 2024. So yeah, it’s totally understandable that that people are avoiding this and looking for other outlets.
Candis Watts Smith
I will say that it’s worth noting that there was, I was, I would say that it is worth noting that since 2021, I have perhaps, consumed less news, not out of avoidance, but because there are some, well, not, not recently, but over the past couple of years, there’s just been a level of normal miss. So you know, I’ve in comparison to the Trump era, where there was just something bizarre, something absurd, something ridiculous, something unheard of, on a regular basis, in comparison to where we’ve been over the past few years. And I’ll say, you know, let’s say before you, the Ukraine War started that, you know, I wonder if there’s a way that we can remember what the normal feels like. And, you know, how would How do you consume news in a normal space, versus when there’s just pure chaos? I think one of the things and I’ll just start really quickly, one of the things I’ve noticed and the in the past couple of years is how much news in the media is actually not newsworthy. And so I always think to myself, like, oh, there must be enough. If we’re talking about like, Sam Altman getting fired from open AI, like, why was that a huge story? But I think it’s perhaps because we don’t have a president who does unheard of things on a on a daily basis. So okay, so what’s the lesson here? Oh, not elect this person that is going to put us into a state of chronic stress in the media.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, well, for the record, I thought the open AI news was huge.
Candis Watts Smith
At first, not Sam Altman, like the reason why we were talking about Sam Altman had to do with what, what we know about AI and its capabilities, but the whole kind of politics of the guy who got fired, and the personalities involved was not important, in my opinion.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, well given. Right. So that’s, that’s the part that I just really don’t agree with you on Candis. Because I think that, that AI is huge, and will have profound implications for the world. And what was going on at open ai ai was a unique kind of arrangement, where they tried to have this sort of nonprofit board, really keeping an eye on the dangers of AI, I find it not only sort of fascinating, but also profoundly important. So that open aI mean, that company is billions of dollars worth of value. And a technology that, you know, could eat us all up alive. So I just just a difference of opinion on on that. But but but canvas, it does sort of play into sort of my sense of now I, I agree with you completely about Trump and the way that he dominated the news cycle with constant chaos. And I think it was a deliberate strategy, actually, to keep us from being able to focus on anything was going on because everything was being thrown. And Biden really does restore things to normality. But what I mean, my first thought when I was reading, like these, thinking about these clips, and the notion of news of whites is that I sort of feel like we’re at a sort of inflection point in not only this country, but maybe the world. There are, like profound things going on right now. So not paying attention feels sort of risky, to me, not not to the election, necessarily, because the Election coverage is awful. You know, it’s all these polls. And it’s all of these outrageous, ridiculous things that are said at these silly debates that they’re holding. Amen. And yeah, just focusing on the election like that does seem like a kind of unhealthy waste of time. But I don’t know the you know, the possible end of American support for Ukraine. The fact that hostages, including American hostages are still being held. And then, of course, some of the plants that Trump has talked about, and I know that we’ll get to some of them for, for his next term. It says to me that people really ought to be paying attention, not avoiding it. But that doesn’t mean to me watching CNN and MSNBC, I mean, people have to figure out their own ways of staying informed.
Chris Beem
I actually think that’s, I mean, I want to make sure that we’re fair to Matt’s point. It’s not merely about how you how much news you consume. But what is your what is your stance towards this, and his argument is that it’s we’re watching news as if it’s a spectator sport, and that that’s how we’re engaging politically. And I am reminded of Jenna’s podcast how the people decide or when the people decide, sorry, the last episode of the second season two is Eric Liu. And he said something that, you know, that I’ve said, as well that, you know, if you want to engage politically, one way to do it is to engage in your community to become, to engage on a real basis with real people. And if you can do that with people who you disagree with all the better. So part of the issue here is how we understand ourselves, as citizens as political actors, and all the stuff you’re talking about Michael, especially, you know, the cable news channels, frames these things, as, you know, interesting competitions that are fun to watch. And let’s hope our team wins, when, you know, a, the stakes are significantly higher. And be you know, your, the demands that are put on you, as a demo democratic citizen, are much more robust than that.
Jenna Spinelle
So something else that we talked about we as you all know, we love a good bureaucracy episode around here. And we did several of those this year one with Jennifer Pahlka, who talks about the ways that technology can improve the government and how the government can streamline its use of technology. And then we also talked with Jamila Michener, who studies administrative burdens and the way that people particularly poor communities and communities of color, interact with or maybe don’t interact with government services like Medicare and Medicaid, those those kinds of things. So, to refresh your memory about the state of our bureaucracy, let’s hear from Jennifer Pahlka and Jamila Michener.
Jennifer Pahlka
I think that the connection between the public’s experience with government services and the public’s willingness to engage in democracy as we think of it on sort of the electoral side, like do they vote? Are they engaged in public dialogue? You know, do they believe that government can be even if they don’t feel it is today a force for good those things are much more deeply connected than we tend to talk about. Every public servant has many, many experiences in their life, where when someone finds out they work for the government at any level, you know, somebody they know will complain to them about being at the DMV or trying to get their SNAP benefits or they have a cousin who’s on probation. And these just terrible things are happening to people as they get stuck in the bureaucracy. And they hear from them that that experience, even if it’s second hand, makes them believe that our democracy isn’t working and they the public who has his periences don’t tend to distinguish between the bureaucracy and electoral politics. And I think that when we fail to make that connection, we are inviting greater populism.
Jamila Michener
During the pandemic, there were a lot of things that sort of were further invested in that were ramped up. And that were extended in ways that helped a lot of people. And because I was interviewing people all throughout the pandemic, this really became clear to me people know, people don’t know the nitty gritty of policy. They’re not like this bill and that bill, you know, but they know that suddenly, they’re getting more benefits, food benefits, that the amount of SNAP assistance they’re receiving increases, and they can get some more food for their family, or at least offset the growing cost of food. And they know that they’re not having to do as much there’s not as much administrative burden associated with getting help from the government. But it’s worth pointing out that many of these folks are not sitting around at home, like I want the largesse of the government. They’re working really hard, getting paid not great wages, dealing with rising food costs, rising housing costs, rising costs of everything that aren’t keeping up with rising wages trying to survive. And during the pandemic, the government, federal state, local help, and more.
Jenna Spinelle
So, as we heard in those clips, there were some some bright spots here, especially what Jamila talked about, during the pandemic, about the ways that, you know, the government was really able to do more to tangibly help folks in their day to day lives. I know that the work that Jennifer is doing, as well as is trying to strengthen some of these systems so that the government can be less bureaucratic and provide better services, and that she argues, will increase trust in in government moving forward. But on the flip side of this, there’s something called Project 2025. I will link in the show notes, a post from Don Monahan, one of our previous guests, he wrote about this in the New York Times, and I think he even touched on it a little bit when he was on the show. But that kind of threatens to undermine not just this work that Jennifer and Jamila talks about, but the entire way that that the government operates more broadly.
Michael Berkman
When the Affordable Care Act was being developed and proposed, and one of the Obama team’s proposals, there were to have navigators, who would help people to become aware of the benefits that were available to them through the ACA, how to how to work their way through the exchanges, things of that nature, basically, to bring people into the affordable care. And man did people not like that on the Republican side? And you know, in some states, I remember, I didn’t go back and look this up. But my recollection is that in Florida, for example, they were just adamant that there’d be no navigators in their states. And what occurs to me I think about this whole question of, you know, government taking pride and what it does, and bringing people into the programs. It depends how you feel about government. And, you know, that remains one of the underlying conflicts within American society or between American political parties. And, you know, seems to be Democrats like what government does, and they want to bring people in and and, and promote what they do. But you know, this kind of, that’s a democratic idea. Republicans for the most part, or at least Republican elites, don’t like to talk about the good things, government does a much prefer to undercut it as much as they can. So it seems unlikely that they would promote programs like this. And I mean, I hope I’m not unfairly painting them there. But that really does seem over many, many years, my sense of how the party’s differ towards government.
Chris Beem
Reagan said, Ronald Reagan, this was in the early 80s, maybe even the in the 70s. He said, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. You know, so it is a long standing notion, and I only think it’s it’s gotten more extreme with the, you know, decline of any respect for any kind of institutions in society and the denigration of any kind of authority. Right. So it hasn’t improved from those words of Reagan.
Candis Watts Smith
You know, I think just to say that I think both parties understand that policy, Telegraph’s messages to the public, it tells them who belongs who can play, how you know the extent to which your representatives believe that certain people should have a higher quality, citizenship and bundle of rights than others. So I am In, you know, like, we’re we’re making a broad brush statement about whether Republicans want to use government. They want to use it in a certain way. Right? So we can think about bureaucracies and areas of the government that are bolstered. Under, you know, conservative governments are under government. Think about exactly anything about policing, we can think about education, we can increase some we can decrease others, we can think about incarceration, we can think about public parks, we can think about national parks that, you know, there’s all sorts of things. So I think that both parties recognize that they can use the government to get right to to message what it is and who it is that the government works for how easy is it to get a concealed weapons license versus to get TANF? Right, it just, you know, it just these things right can be the government can be made more available or less available, depending on what it is that you want to get to the question about Project 2025. I think we can just think about Maya Angelou, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time, you know, Trump, you know, we can say like, oh, this is so crazy with this ever happened. And yet, uh, yeah. You know, will the cords let it happen? Will Congress let it happen? I mean, Trump has been very clear about his intentions. And we know now in a way that we didn’t know in 2016, the number of people who would be willing to be a part of, you know, a project that takes 10s of 1000s of Trump supporters to undermine the bureaucracy or or weaponize it for for the benefit of for the benefit of Trumpism. So, yeah, we should be we should be worried.
Michael Berkman
But you know, I don’t think one thing that has got nearly enough attention, in my view is Nikki Haley calling saying that she wants to put a five year term limit on bureaucrats, which is nothing that I could think of would I can’t see anywhere in the world that happens. But but just the idea is so antithetical to the way bureaucracy is supposed to work effectively, which is that people are in a position, they learn how to do it, they develop expertise, they develop routines and procedures, they work with clients and get used to doing what it is they do. And what she wants to do is to just wipe that out. Every time somebody learns their job, replace him with somebody else. And there’s just nothing in that idea that is meant to strengthen government services or make them better, make them possible to be administered better or develop more wisely. And then 20, you know, the ideas in in some of this project 2025 really would have a significant impact on the federal bureaucracy. I mean, keep in mind already, that the United States has a much how I put this as a weaker civil service in most other bureaucracies that our, you know, our the extent to which we have political appointees extends much deeper into the bureaucracy than it does in other countries. This will just do that even further turning more and more people into political appointees, and therefore just sort of serving at the whim of the President and doing what the President wants. I think it’s a dangerous idea.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, that maybe leads us into our next topic. We did also talk this year about threats to democracy. In particular, we’re going to highlight two guests. One is Tim Miller, the former Republican strategists Well, you may know from his work now with a bulwark or on this, the circus on Showtime. The other is Barbara Walter, who wrote the book how civil wars starts. And she in her clip will introduce us or at least she introduced me in our interview to the concept of an autocracy and America’s status as one. So let’s hear first from Tim Miller, and then from Barbara Walter,
Tim Miller
On the Republican side, you saw a lot of people that like we’re really almost nihilistic, you know, the chose to go into that because it was like, I like politics. I like the competition. And, you know, whatever I never had in the book about a guy who revealed to me during the interviews that they’ve never voted for a Republican for president and I visit the high level have power, but he just likes the rush of it. All right. So I think that that’s something a little different. Now, I think that that is getting exacerbated to a great degree. If you look at the type of people that are self selecting in to the Donald Trump party, like think about, you know, I don’t I don’t want to insult any students at Penn State that think about the type of person who’s 2022 is like, I like politics. Maybe I’m maybe kind of ideal, you know, I’m ideologically I’m forming my ideology. You know, I’m not talking about the kids that come that are super, you know, already ideologically foreign, but I want to go work in Washington, I want to go work in campaigns, the type of person that’s gonna say, Yeah, I’ll go take a job for the RNC. Like during the Trump era, after Trump, it’s a different type of person I get it is somebody that has that has accepted that they like that, that they’re cool with the trolling and the mocking, and the cruelty? And so I worry deeply about, like the self selection of who is who’s choosing to enter, you know, right now, and I think that that’s true as bait from like, the entry level jobs all the way through candidates, right, like what kind of candidate wants to run? You know, I would say I get calls, frankly, from from people who are conservative mainstream, like, Should I run in a Republican primary, and I basically have to tell them now, yes, and you should do what you want, I’ll support you. But I, there’s just not a path for you, unless you, you know, are willing to debase yourself, for Donald Trump, that has an effect on what kinds of people are going into Washington. So this is an ongoing thing that I think is actually getting a little worse over time.
Barbara Walter
So we were officially classified as in an autocracy in December of 2020. That happened after the sitting President refused to accept the results of election and tried to overturn them. But when Trump did peacefully leave office, and we had a new administration, and that new administration, has been honoring the rule of law and and clearly supports democracy, our score was raised, we went from a positive five to a positive eight, we’re not back at 10. This happened after the after the original book came out. So the paperbacks coming out this month, and it will have updated data. And and so so we’ve kind of dodged a bullet. But but a really important point to make is our democracy score improved, not because any of our democratic institutions were strengthened, our our institutions are as weak today, as they were on January 21, there have been no reforms of the system. Since Biden came into office, the only reason we’re a little bit on unsteady ground, is because we have an individual who honors democracy. Boy, you know that that means that we’re putting a lot of, you know, we’re asking that individual to to hold up democracy. And if somebody else is elected, who who doesn’t want democracy, our system is is still vulnerable to rapid backsliding.
Jenna Spinelle
So this year, our guests, not just Tim and Barbara, but I think across the board, we heard concerns about what’s at stake based on the outcome of November’s election. Think I know the answer to this based on what we’ve talked about so far. But do you share their concerns or other things that our guests maybe haven’t talked about? That you’d like to introduce his other concerns or things that you’re keeping an eye on?
Candis Watts Smith
One thing I think is worth emphasizing, that Barbara Walter mentioned is that one, so many of our ways of doing things is based on norms, and is based on people doing the right thing, and sometimes even just one person doing the right thing or the wrong thing. But also to know that there haven’t been any major reforms, please correct me if I’m wrong, that would prevent any of the things that we’ve seen before and the fact that I don’t know I guess I would be interested to hear your thoughts Michael and Chris, about whether the prosecution’s and the insurrection were is enough of a deterrent for people to try to use violence in the future. I just I’m not sure I get a sense that we have kind of reset or leveled up our expectations for our behavior in the future. If anything, they declined and have stayed on the decline.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, well Well, I think the No, I don’t think that the prosecution’s in the insurrection are going to stronger as a standard as a strong deterrent, at least not to people how to answer that question.
Candis Watts Smith
I mean, the idea, right, is that I mean, the idea around punishment is that it’s supposed to deter people from doing similar behaviors in the future. Now, we know in crime that, for example, that the death penalty does not prevent people from I don’t know, shooting at schools, or whatever, you know, it doesn’t it like harsher penalties don’t seem to do it to what’s what’s the word I’m looking for, um, you know, prevent people deter, deter people from doing heinous things. And on some level, we’re like, you know, we want people to be held accountable. That’s one thing. But on the other hand, we also are hoping that people don’t do this again. And I’m not really sure that we are, there’s been a major signal or a major change in policy and rhetoric. And in much of anything that would deter a future insurrection, if the election doesn’t go the way some number of people think it ought to go. On some level, it seems like insurrection and violence has on some way become, it’s not normal. That’s happened once, but it’s like, we’re kind of in a situation where it, we might expect it. And we would maybe be surprised if it doesn’t happen that way.
Michael Berkman
I think the comments from Tim Miller are valuable here, because as he’s pointed out, there just seems to be an endless pool of people that are willing to kind of do whatever it needs to do to be close to power, or to Close to close to Donald Trump. And, you know, we have seen in many state legislatures around the country that election denialism runs really deep and remains. And we’ve seen this with some with many of the local many of the state political parties as well, that they’ve been kind of completely taken over. So I’m not, you know, I’m skeptical that it’s going to be operated as a deterrent.
Chris Beem
It’s hard to like, you know, put your hands around all the dimensions of this. But Trump gets indicted 91 times, and his fundraising goes up. And his number, his polling numbers go up. And I have no reason to think that’s not going to be the case. Well, you know, I hope it’s not but I don’t know, if and when the man is convicted, I don’t know that that’s going to change. And even the people that have been have pled guilty in the Georgia case, have then come back and said, Oh, well, it was an extorted confession. And so there is this, there is this, you know, argument that there is no rule of law outside of partisanship, that it’s only a matter of who gets control and who is able to employ the law in the service of their partisan ends. And so, you know, I’m not saying that’s true, but I’m saying that is how it is presented over and over and over within the Trumpian circles of the Republican Party. And so I don’t see how this changes. I mean, I don’t see how it changes.
Michael Berkman
I don’t know, I still think that prosecuting these cases is extremely important. I agree. I think it’s very important that the courts are one way remember back to our Jonathan Rauch podcasts and visit they are an important part of the constitution of knowledge and institution that helps us understand what has happened and what the facts are around certain matters. And the courts are doing a pretty good job of that. Right now. It does feel though, like these prosecutions at the federal level just started too late. We just have never been there before. I mean, it has all the recipes. It seems to be a recipe for a constitutional crisis down the line as they kind of wrestle with Well, what do you what happens when the guy is in jail, but he’s elected president, but I also think it’s possible I continue to think it’s possible that it all just falls apart for Him. Once these once these trials begin could just be you know, I could could be just totally crazy of me. But, you know, we just don’t know how things are going to change because the same sort of argument I use with people that really pay a tremendous amount of attention to some of the polls right now, when we know that you can’t really pay any attention to presidential polls until after the Iowa, Iowa caucuses and maybe New Hampshire primaries because everything gets shaken up, and everything changes.
Chris Beem
Well, and as you know, Tim Miller framed it. I have been, you know, continually surprised and disheartened at the degree to which Republican politician to absolutely no better continue to debase themselves to, you know, turn themselves into I shouldn’t say that. I really want to, though, continued to debase themselves for and, and for swear their oath to the Constitution for the sake of their seat of, you know, maintaining their seat. I, I don’t know, these people sleep at night, and I don’t say that facetiously I genuinely don’t. I mean, I assume they love their country. And I assume they, you know, they believe that when they, you know, so affirmed vowed their support for the Constitution. And yet, here we are, again, and I don’t you know, I mean, the latest I will pull, it would just be astonishing at this point. If Trump doesn’t walk away with it, and you know, the idea that something is going to intervene before say February to make people think, well, maybe he’s maybe I should look at Nikki Haley or Rhonda Santas again. I, you know, I would be thrilled if that happened, but I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, you may be right. I mean, it seems it seems difficult, it’s difficult to imagine. I think we also still have to remember that a lot of people don’t pay much attention, this URL we do, and hardcore partisans do. And, of course, the media does with their constant fixation on polls, which in itself, I think is pretty dangerous for coverage of elections, because it means that they’re not covering what the implications of electing one candidate rather than another actually are. But there are a lot of people that are really not all that focused yet. And I take as an example of that these crazy polls that came out.
Candis Watts Smith
You think they’re gonna pay attention before they before primaries? I mean, well, before caucusing. Yes, yeah, attention are the people who vote in primaries, and those are the people who have who are making the choice for the rest of us later.
Michael Berkman
True. True. But still, I mean, when it comes down to time to caucus, you have to really sit down and think about it. And you have to do it in front of, you know, in front of your fellow caucus, mate. I don’t know. Maybe he’s gonna walk away with the whole thing. I he may well, I just think it’s a little early to be so sure of that. And especially given where we might be in some of the trials. But I don’t know. Well, just walk away with it.
Candis Watts Smith
I will just circle back to your previous point about Project 2025 Not being specifically about Trump. So he’s still may not be out of hot water.
Jenna Spinelle
So we have a few minutes left. And I thought that we would just talk about the other things that we liked this year that weren’t related to politics. Clearly, there’s not much to like about politics right now. So let’s talk about some of the other things they other books, movies, TV shows that you might recommend. I was telling you all earlier that that my students really enjoyed playing their Spotify wrapped in class and looking at those. So for me, I really got into the show for all mankind on Apple this year, which is a alternate history of what would have happened if Russia or the Soviet Union had been the first to the moon and the space race had continued. It’s a little bit sci fi but also has some really interesting geopolitical ramifications. They look at how the continued space race might have impacted American politics and cooperation between countries around the world and also just some really great writing and characters. So it’s in its fourth season now. So lots to go back and catch up on. And then on on my Spotify wrapped. My Top Artists this year was a guy named Corey Huang, who is a guitar player and leads a band that’s kind of a mix between Steely Dan and tower power or Earth, Wind and Fire, some kind of funk groups, but he’s incredibly talented, and also very good on social media. He put out this comedy series on YouTube. So just really multifaceted. So those are some of the things that helped me. Keep my news consumption in check this year, was focusing on things like that.
Michael Berkman
Well, I like that show to Jenna. Three. Oh, my God. Yeah, it’s really clever. And I mean, it’s not the best show on TV, but it’s it’s very clever and, and your suggestion had me thinking about a TV show as well. I think Jon Hamm playing a constitutional constitutional Sheriff on Fargo this year is just beautiful. I mean, the show is not everybody’s taste, I realized that but they did set up Jon Hamm as a constitutional sheriff and especially when he gives a speech right at the beginning all I can think about was the show that Candice and I did talking about constitutional sheriffs. They had it down I had it down pretty well my my Spotify revealed that that I have been listening repeatedly and by different artists to the Bob Dylan 2000 Song things have changed, which has a line that I just absolutely love these days. And a goes something goes like this. People are crazy. And times are strange. And every time I hear somebody sing that song, I think, Boy, you really had it in 2000 Imagine if you were writing that song today. And I had a book but I’ll save it because I’ve taken enough time.
Candis Watts Smith
So the TV show that I am living for right now is the Gilded Age is yeah, like, there are I mean, I’m really not into like period pieces, but this one I like because they’re, you know, it’s it’s between, you know, the Gilded Age. So right after Reconstruction right before that progressive era. And there are black characters who are central to the plotline in a way that other pieces around around this time are not and so, you know, there are some ways that are very romanticized like we don’t see. Anyway, we, anyway, I really like it. And I like that, like, they’re the, you know, it’s historical fiction. So there’s elements of real events and real people that you kind of want to like, look more into, right, so Thomas fortune shows up who is a black journalist. Why Frederick Douglass hasn’t shown up? I don’t know, but Booker T Washington has anyway. I accidentally read over Thanksgiving, this book called coming of age in Mississippi by Anne moody. And it is about a foot soldier in the civil rights movement. And it’s one of those, it was written in 1968 is written in vernacular, more or less. And it’s about one of those people that we just don’t know, despite the fact that we’ve benefited from her labor, her insight, bravery, she was exiled from her hometown in Mississippi, as a teenager, because she wanted to help people register to vote and to get access to better schools. And so, you know, it’s just one of those, you know, a story about a person who we don’t hear enough about, though the fact that their work changed our society.
Chris Beem
Well, I you know, reading or listening to that, Tim Miller quote, remind me that it his book, why we did it is real really good. It’s really engaging and seriously honest, and, and introspective, which is, which are words that are not commonly associated with politics these days. So that that I would recommend. So I have two TV shows. One is Slow Horses on an Apple TV, Gary Oldman, I don’t know what it is about Brits and their ability to act, but damn, it’s good. The other thing I wanted to say is I am embarrassed how much of a Star Wars geek I am. But if you haven’t seen Andor. Oh, my God. I mean, it’s it’s really good. Not if you’re just the Star Wars geek, but it’s just really, really good. And so if you haven’t seen that I would really recommend it to.
Jenna Spinelle
All right. Well, I’ll link all of those in the show notes, so folks can check them out, as well as the episodes that we play clips from today, if you want to go back and listen. And while we are on winter hiatus, the show will be off until mid January or so dive back in in 2024. But I hope everybody has a happy holiday season enjoys a little bit of rest at this time of year. Thank you as always to our partners at WPS you for making the show happen. Thank you to all of you, Michael canvas and Chris, for the whole team. I’m Jenna Spinelle. Thanks for listening.
Maithreyi Gopalan and Jilli JungTwo of our Penn State colleagues join us this week to discuss their recent findings on the connection between state-mandated civics tests and voter turnout. Jilli Jung, a doctoral student in education policy and Maithreyi Gopalan, assistant professor of education and public policy, recently published the paper “The Stubborn Unresponsiveness of Youth Voter Turnout to Civic Education: Quasi-Experimental Evidence From State-Mandated Civics Tests” in the journal Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
In the paper, Jung and Gopalan study the Civic Education Initiative, a framework adopted by 18 states since 2015 that requires high school students to take a test very similar to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Civics test. They found that voter turnout among 18-24 year olds largely did not increase in states that adopted the Civic Education Initiative compared to states that did adopt it. The reason for this, they argue, is that the knowledge of civic facts alone is not enough to motivate someone to vote for the first time.
In this episode, we discuss how to structure civic education that could increase voter turnout and lead to more engaged democratic citizens. For more information on this work, check out the CivXNow coalition, which is made up of hundreds of organizations across the country that are working to strengthen civic education.
Jung and Gopalan also recommend the following books and papers to anyone who wants to take a deeper dive into the role of civic education in a democracy:
Making Young Voters: Converting Civic Attitudes into Civic Action
Refocusing Civic Education: Developing the Skills Young People Need to Engage in Democracy
I Will Register and Vote if you Teach Me How: A Field Experiment Testing Voter Registration in College Classrooms
The Impact of Democracy Prep Public Schools on Civic Participation
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University. I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
And I’m Chris Beem.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. This week, we are talking with two of our Penn State colleagues, Jilli Jung who is a doctoral student in educational policy. And Maithreyi Gopalan, who is Assistant Professor of Education and Public Policy. And they are the authors of a new study, which looks at the effects of a mandated civic education test for high school students in many states across the country and how that translates to voter turnout does requiring this civics exam, increase voter turnout, and spoiler alert, it doesn’t. We’ll we’ll talk with Jilli and Maithreyi about that. But before we get to that, I thought it might be helpful to just take a step back and talk about why we even think about civic education in democracy in the first place.
Chris Beem
As we’ve talked a number of times, the founders were nervous about popular sovereignty about giving, you know, so much power to people who were, you know, most people at the time, didn’t want to give power to right. And so one of the ways that they saw as being a remedy to the problem was education. Right. And so you have almost every founder that I know of talking about how education generally, and education in politics and civics, specifically, was essential, right. And I just found this one little quote from Madison, which I think is representative knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and the people who mean to be their own governors must armed themselves with the power which knowledge gives? So I don’t think that’s a distinctive quote, I don’t think you know, I really do think it’s kind of representative. But, you know, in United States and in democracies, generally, civic education is broadly understood as a way to prepare people for the burdens and privileges of sovereignty.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, I would not actually have taken this back to Madison, because there was no particular discussion of public schooling among the founders. And of course, they didn’t really think of the public in broad popular terms, they thought about politics as being restricted to landowning white people. And they had a very elitist view. And true, they were all highly educated. But I don’t really pick up much in what I’ve read about the founders, to say that they saw this as important for the population at large I, I really trace it more to the development of public schooling in the United States, which was really in the 1800s. And public schools were set up to be controlled by their communities, not by the parents, but to be controlled by their communities. And that it was seen that one of the responsibilities of public schooling had to be to help to create train, nurture democratic citizens. And so I would trace it more to the public school movement than I would to the founders. But you know, we’re basically saying the same thing, I guess, which is that we think that there is reason to believe that in the past, there was a belief and there continues to be that students needed to learn about their country and about their system of government than about what it means to be a part of a democracy.
Chris Beem
I would just say, you know, civic education in this regard is no different than just about any other question about the curriculum in public schools, right. I mean, you know, in the library’s in, how do we read, what do we teach? What’s the right way to teach math? I mean, every question about the curriculum is contentious. I mean, Michael, nobody knows more than you about how it’s impacted science curriculum.
Michael Berkman
It’s very contentious. And and, you know, I mean, it comes down to fundamental questions about who should decide, right, but students learn.
Chris Beem
I think that’s a very good segue to the Civic Education Initiative. Right? It’s not particularly old, like it’s what about 10 years old? Right. And it was driven by the Foss institute at Arizona State. Michael, do you want to say any more about that?
Michael Berkman
This civic education test that they have gotten many states to adopt is modeled either exactly, or very closely on the American citizenship test? And I have to say, as I read about it, read some articles about it, and keep coming up with sort of two possible reasons that they wanted to do this. Okay. One is a sense, and you see rhetoric around this very much so that the sense that there’s some kind of national embarrassment, that when kids or many Americans, I guess, are given the citizenship test that citizens have to take, they get much lower scores, and that this is considered a great national embarrassment. I don’t fully get this, because it’s not like the immigrants that come to the United States are randomly selected somehow. So I always have found that comparison, absolutely silly. But when you do read about this, it comes up quite a bit. The other is that there is research that’s out there in the education world, that having a more solid knowledge of the nuts and bolts of American government and American history and American institutions, American processes matters, that you have a higher level of engagement for it.
Chris Beem
I mean, I think it is fair to say a matter of fact, they do say right, that this is understood to be the bare minimum, that students should know, this is the model that has been adopted very quickly by a number of states. And they’re, you know, these two researchers are looking to say, is it doing what they hope it would do? Right,
Jenna Spinelle
Right. Yeah. So let’s go to the interview. We’ll hear Jilli and Maithreyi explain their research and their findings and their methodology in a bit greater detail, then maybe we can come back in and pick up the question of, if not this, then what are you know, what, where do we go now with this information? So let’s go now to the interview.
Jenna Spinelle
Jilli Jung and Maithreyi Gopalan, welcome to Democracy Works. Thank you for joining us today.
Jilli Jung
Thank you for having us.
Mathreyi Gopalan
Thank you so much for having us, Jenna
Jenna Spinelle
Excited to talk with you about your new paper, which explores the connection between civic education and voter turnout among young people. And before we dive into the specifics of that work, I’d just like to talk for a minute about that connection, or the perceived connection between civic education and voter turnout, jelly, it seems like kind of an obvious point on some levels that of course, if you have more civic education, voter turnout will be higher. Right. I wonder if you could just talk a bit about where that assumption comes from and what underlies it?
Jilli Jung
Yeah, that’s a good question. Because it’s like, kind of untested assumption that we have had for a long time. And I think it comes from like, a political scientist view, educators view and then other citizens view. And it’s usually suggested as a solution to solve low voter turnout, because like civic education is kind of designed to prepare students as engaged citizens. And, um, like, for a long time, political scientists has concerned of low youth voter turnout. And then they have often mentioned civic education as a solution to this low voter turnout. And that’s the like, first thing we usually think of when he comes to like, how to fix our low voter turnout is especially among young people. And they like school is the like a great resource where we can start with, you know, like sometimes of intervention to improve those type of civic participation thing. So that’s the like, first thing that people think of, but at the same time, like, it’s not, like certain that civic education actually works well, to improve voting participation.
Jenna Spinelle
And so is the thought here that the more information people have or students have, the more confident they’ll be or the more motivated they’ll be to go out and vote when they’re old enough to do so.
Mathreyi Gopalan
I think that’s just the traditional approach of like educators and political scientists and a lot of them, right. So it’s the traditional model for education itself, you just transfer knowledge, and somehow you hope that our children just take that knowledge, and then go and apply it everywhere. And I think that kind of has translated to this setup to thinking that if we give them civic knowledge, political knowledge and factual knowledge, it will translate to them using it, and to going and being more engaged citizens and in voting. So I think that’s kind of the traditional line that people are hypothesis people have about civic education affecting voter turnout.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. Yeah. And I’m glad that your work is testing that hypothesis, at least in one specific way. And that is based on the something called the civics education initiative. Can you tell us what that is and what It was intended to do.
Julli Jung
It’s a civic state level civics test the policy, it requires high school students to take or pass the exam. And the exam itself is about like, basic US government, politics and history. And questions for the test comes from the US naturalization test, which is for immigrants. So like immigrants, if they want to become a US citizen, they have to take that test. So the policy supporters argue that it’s a bare minimum that, like US citizens has to have. So that’s the format of the test. And like states have really kind of like various forms, they how they implemented it, but like, basically, they use the same set of question and answers for the test. And it is for high school students. And some states require this is a graduation requirement. So they have to take or pass this test to get a high school degree. And like many states allow students to take multiple times. So it’s not a high stakes test. And because students also can see all questions and answers before.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, so if I read correctly, this initiative was launched in 17, or 18. States over the course of a few years, just as kind of a side bar, it seems wild to me that that many states implemented a new policy in such a short period of time. Did that seem kind of quick to both of you coming from your background in education policy? Yeah,
Mathreyi Gopalan
I was kind of surprised, just like within a period of like four to five years, like close to 18 states adopted it. But I think it goes back to what Judy mentioned just a minute ago that it is was not a high stakes test. States also had power to implement it differently across these different states, this own State Department’s of education, or the school districts kind of implemented this policy in a very, very ad hoc fashion. And those are all I think, the reasons why this policy seems to be widely adopted. But I think implementation varies dramatically. And that will be key, in some way for us to keep an eye out on how this policy gets implemented and rolled out. And multiple states are thinking about it, including Pennsylvania, which we might talk about. But yeah, that’s, that’s kind of the surprising thing about how this was quickly adopted in many states.
Jenna Spinelle
Let’s come back to the implementation. I don’t want to bury the lede too much here about your findings from this research, to ask the question simply, did participating in the civic education initiative lead to an increase in voter turnout in the states that had adopted it?
Jilli Jung
No. It’s too obvious for us. I mean, like, even before us, there are many scholars who argue that this policy wouldn’t work. And there are many like educators, scholars arguing there like this learning basic facts about like civics and government wouldn’t increase any types of civic engagement among students. But there was no research empirical research on there. So that’s why we look at it. And then we use like rigorous methods to see the causal effect of the policy on Bora Tana, and with a lot of like, alternative methods, we use a lot of alternative methods to make sure our conclusion, and our conclusion is that the civics test policy did not improve young people’s vote on turnout, at least in the short term, we couldn’t see the long term effect because we only look at the 120 20 presidential election and one midterm election, post implementation.
Mathreyi Gopalan
So we do look at that 20 year panel and look at how the voting rates have changed and states that had adopted it versus not. And we can talk about the method in detail later. But in terms of the post adoption outcomes, we only had very limited short term outcome results. And so yeah, in the short term, it looks like this approach does not work.
Jenna Spinelle
So you said you weren’t surprised by that. Angela, you mentioned that, you know, even before this CEI policy was rolled out, it was kind of questioned. Do you think that this is basically just I don’t want to call it a bad policy design. But uh, you know, is this a problem of the way that this particular policy was structured, rather than a comment on the power of civic education as a whole to impact voter turnout?
Jilli Jung
Yes, it says like specifically about this policy. I still do believe that civic education is super important and it’s grateful and then it’s almost like only thing that we have, like, as a educator to improve students voter turnout, because so many things come from, like family background, but like we can improve things through public education that I still believe civic education, but this policy specifically was not designed well.
Jenna Spinelle
So, you know, knowing that there was this kind of there was this difference of opinion or the skepticism going into it? Why did the people behind the Civic Education Initiative think that this might be a useful thing to do? Or what were you able to find about their rationale for wanting to implement it in the first place?
Jilli Jung
I think basically, their argument was that its minimum test students should know. And it’s doesn’t cost much it doesn’t customers, it’s not a high stake test. So and the students take the test multiple times. So people can implement the policy without worrying too much about on intention or consequences. And I think that convinced legislators alike, because, you know, if it doesn’t work, okay, but if we work is great
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, there’s really no downside.
Jilli Jung
Yes, but like some scholars actually concerned of negative impact of it. Because we have really limited instruction time in school for civic education. And if we implement this policy, it means that students have to learn about this. And it means that it takes up some time of civic education that could be used for other more important civic related activities that might improve civic skills, like, for example, like mock election, or discussing like interesting and important social issues. But rather than doing that people, students just like learned, like, really basic history stuff, and they memorizing answers. And it’s not a good use of time. And given that we don’t have much time for civic education at school, it was concerning
Mathreyi Gopalan
In the world of limited time and instructional time and schools and opportunity costs of Vegas, other policies, taking the space, there is always a downside, when you adopt a policy like this, if it’s not designed well, in the sense that what else could you have done, what else that might have been effective could have been done. And so I think that’s something that these trade offs, we should be thinking about both policymakers, researchers, as well as practitioners, because there’s always an opportunity cost when you’re adopting a policy, what else are you not doing?
Jenna Spinelle
Can you give us a sense of how states and schools within those states implemented this test? You said it’s, you know, kind of an open book sort of thing there. It’s very low hanging fruit. But what does that actually look like in the classroom? To the extent that you are able to look at that information?
Jilli Jung
Yeah, that’s good question. This policy implementation varies a lot across state. So some states even doesn’t require to pass the exam. Some states require students to take and pass the exam to grade your high school by like in other states thick, you know, you can just take and then you don’t need to pass the exam. And then you can take multiple times, but it varies across like state law. And there’s some states does not even track students record at the state level, they just let school district or school implement the policy, and they just provide some guidance, or you can use these questions, you can, you know, follow this instructor like to implement the test. And you can’t have this, you can scoring with following this. And you can record your scores based on this. But then many states allow schools to stick to like, whatever they want. So it kind of varies a lot across schools and across school districts.
Jenna Spinelle
So let’s talk a bit about the research and the methodology that you use to match up these different sets of data. Right. You know, on the one hand, you have the state that that implemented CEI, but then you have, you know, the voter turnout data over here, and, you know, students may go to high school in one state, but go to college in a different state. There’s a lot of moving around that happens at this particular point in someone’s life. So how did you attempt to reconcile those things or how did you go about comparing these different data sources in your work?
Jilli Jung
That’s a great question. We mostly relied on Current Population Survey data, which is a nationally representative data or the US citizen, and it has self Polit voting, participate and information. And we used from 1996 cycle to 2020 cycle that has presidential elections. So we compared. So like, let’s talk about, like design itself first to understand why this method works. So let’s say Pennsylvania implemented this policy in 2008. And we compare, we can compare a voter turnout in 2016 to 2020. So after the policy implementation, does voter turnout has increased, we can look at that. But the problem is that it’s possible that 2020 election was just, you know, like, really, like interesting election that many people go for both. So we cannot know that it’s because of the policy, or is the election specific thing. So that’s why we needed other states that did not implement the policy, but probably experienced the same 2020 election event. So that’s why we need a treatment group which implement the policy and then we need control group that did not implement the policy. And then we can compare whether this golf before and after the policy are differ. So that’s our basic setup. So we calculate we captured like, we aggregated and gathered all individual level voter turnout in each state across 1996 to 2020. And we use the difference in difference to see whether this change comes from policy, not other factors. And you ask the great question that what if people move around? Because our data is from like, 18 to 22 years old? So they already graduated high school when we capture their, like voter voting participation? And our assumption was that, okay, let’s conservative Tivoli assume that they did not move because the previous research show that they people don’t move a lot, and they can move within states, but across this move is quite small. So we based on that assumption, we just linked the high school policy at state level and then 80 to 22 years old voting participation.
Jenna Spinelle
Can you give us a sense of of some of the questions that are on the Civic test? What what kinds of things does it ask?
Jilli Jung
So I have two examples. First, the name of the territory the United States purchased in 1803. The second example, is that the name of the longest reverse in the United States?
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, so not, not necessarily things that are connected to voting in any way, or the things that you mentioned at the very beginning, right, like, how to vote why voting matters? You know, none of those questions are on our ballot, and I could see how, for a high school student, it might be difficult to make the connection between these seemingly random questions and what they’re expected to do as citizens in our democracy.
Jilli Jung
Yes, and it is important to this, say that, like specific politic or knowledge really helps actually, like there are some previous studies finding, find that if you give students really specific information on how to register, how to vote, like, you know, like those type of intervention helped students to go out for vote. So like specific targeted knowledge intervention, helps improving voting participation. However, this just broad, general political knowledge that is not related to voting participation does not help. That’s yeah, that’s the takeaway.
Jenna Spinelle
And so that leads us into, you know, what, what do we do next? Or what follows from this? Is the Civic test still on the books in the states that adopted it? And is it still growing? Or is there is there still a push to get it into even more states?
Mathreyi Gopalan
There are other groups that are really trying to add to what we can do to implement this policy in a more effective way? So maybe changing the kinds of knowledge they get the kinds of knowledge students get tested in these civic s policies. So we’ve been talking to organizations like PS civics, where they think knowledge is just one of the three pillars to improve civic participation, right, but their skills but there’s also action, and so maybe they will add on other layers to this policy where students might Get a more direct feeling of what civic engagement really means by like, say mock elections are participating in other local volunteering activities. Maybe if they add some of these other components in this test, maybe it will be useful in improving their knowledge and changing their actions. But I think adopting the policy acids, it’s probably not a good idea.
Jenna Spinelle
I guess I just wondered too, about like layering on the culture war aspect of this. I know that wasn’t something that came up in your specific paper. But just as people who study education policy and who worked with future teachers, I could see a scenario in which a school might say, well, given how much controversy there seems to be over, anytime we bring up history or civics or you know, maybe this test is all that we’re really able to do, or we don’t want to go any further, because we’re afraid I might make some people mad.
Mathreyi Gopalan
Education and public education in this country is constantly polarized. There are wars about everything, not just culture, like there are reading wars. What’s the best way to teach kids how to read? Are we providing them the right kinds of knowledge? What kinds of maths teaching works, what kind of math knowledge works? And so I think education across the board is just a very politically charged environment. And my hope, as an educator, is to promote research and other kinds of ways in which we can look at data look at policies and effects in as nonpartisan a way as possible. And which is why I think policies like this and data like this should be broadened, and people should have access to such data to do more such analysis to try and ask in a nonpartisan way does it work? If this works, we would have come out and said it works. And the provision just is, I guess, popular and picked up by some groups. But I think we should use good data and good research methods to ask in an, in a nonpartisan way, what works and what doesn’t. And it’s been a deeply problematic issue in very many education related topics. And I think we’re hoping that our work can encourage more researchers to come and study policies and topics like that in a dispassionate fashion as they can.
Jenna Spinelle
To bring things to a close here. So we are heading into an election year. What do each of you, you know, how should educators and people who support civic education which I would love anyone who listens to a podcast about democracy as a supporter of civic education, what should we all be thinking about or striving to do to make sure that our young voters have the information that they need to be, you know, informed and successful in this coming election and to set them up to be lifelong voters?
Jilli Jung
I think just giving them like basic information of how to vote and they How to Register vote is super important. It seems very, you know, easy and Meinl but like previous research shows that that actually increase voter turnout. And like voting participation in all the age impacts their like, lifelong voting participation pattern. So I think those small interventions that teachers can inter, you know, help us to help implement, can have huge effect in the long term. So I would encourage teachers and principals at school to have a like little session of like, giving really specific targeted information to students how to vote how to register.
Mathreyi Gopalan
If there’s one takeaway from our study, it’s not that civic education doesn’t work, but civic test policy does not work. And we want to be really, really clear about that distinction. And I think we should rethink how we educate our kids, to get them to get excited and engaged in the political process. Either side, I mean, you can decide to vote, whichever side you want to go, but you want to be energized about the causes and the issues at stake in the democracy. And so civic educators already know this, many of them. If you talk to social studies, teachers, they’ll be like, this study is not telling us anything new. We knew about this. We didn’t think that policy is going to work. And so I think social studies educators already know this, and I want to encourage the public, the wider public to force schools and policymakers and school districts to rethink their civic education. of curriculum to move away from rote memorization and test based approaches to engaging their students in the political process in the debates that matter in our democracy.
Jilli Jung
Previous research mentioned that young people are fully like politically motivated enough, because I can one credit toward young people is that they don’t care about politics. That’s why they don’t vote. But that’s not true. previous study found that they are motivated enough, but they just don’t have much experience to transform those motivation, intention to rear action. So I think it’s important for us as a society to give them a tool and the power and like, you know, kind of like non cognitive skills to like, transform those motivation to rear action. And that’s what civic education should go for.
Jenna Spinelle
Thank you both for joining us today.
Mathreyi Gopalan
Thank you so much, and I really appreciate you having us.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, well, that was an interesting interview. And really cool work being done by our colleagues up in the ed school here at Penn State. I wanted to pick up Zina from something that came up right at the end of the interview, and that was where they talked about how when they restricted this analysis, as I understood it, to basically information that’s provided to students about how to vote, like where to go. And, you know, where’s your polling place, how to manage mail in voting, all of this kind of Federal Register, where do you not exactly how to register, they’re very clear here that if you want, that’s what increases voting. And I thought this was really quite telling and set a lot about the states that adopted this Civic test as well, because the states that adopted the Civic test are not, from my analysis of it, all that particularly interested in increasing voting, because many of the states that adopted this test actually do as much as they can to make voting difficult. And so some of the states that adopted this, for example, don’t even allow students to use their IDs, to vote their student IDs to vote in states that have strict voter ID laws. They make registration very difficult. You could go on and on. But there’s a big analysis called the cost of voting. And we’re a state gets a score for how difficult they make it to vote. And states that adopted this, with a couple of exceptions tend to be Republican controlled Trifecta states. And they tend to be states that make voting very difficult. And if you want more people to vote, but their analysis shows is that you need to give them information on how to overcome the hurdles that states set up to make voting difficult. So that’s not what’s happening here at all, because they understand that’s the thing that makes voting difficult. So I thought, you know, the real nugget of interesting information was at the end there. And it does make you wonder why states adopted this, if their interest is really not in increasing engagement and voting, because I don’t believe that it is. I think it’s more to do with some notion of citizenship or something where you have a responsibility to know all of these details, every single detail that somebody trying to get citizenship would need to have.
Chris Beem
My assumption was very different. My assumption was that because we are in an era of such controversy, and because there is a, you know, despite all this controversy about what we teach in terms of civic education, there is a fairly universal notion that we should teach something about civic education. And so here comes this very basic, very bland, very uncontroversial set of criteria that the Jo sauce Institute has produced. And is that right, Jo? Sauce Fosse, sorry, Foster. Jo sauce is a professor at Minnesota anyway, here comes a solution, right? And so everybody can just kind of implement this and all these issues go away. But your argument is that that’s not at all what’s going on that this is a decision where we can press present this curricula around civic education that has that, you know, crosses all the T’s and checks all the boxes, but doesn’t move any student any closer to be an actual voting citizen.
Michael Berkman
To me, this is symbolic politics. So these are states that make it as hard as possible. Not all of them but as a, you know, on average, these are states that make it as difficult to vote as possible. Both who are now saying, Look how much we want our young people to vote, we’re requiring them to take this test before they get out of high school. Yeah, I think that it has nothing really to do with voting. And so we shouldn’t be surprised, even though these researchers know exactly what will improve voting, which is giving people the information to come up with the hurdles to overcome the hurdles that the states are setting up.
Chris Beem
So here’s what I would want to see in a civics education curriculum, I would want to see, I mean, very briefly, I would want to see them talking about controversial issues, and then practicing argument, right practicing how you listen and how you evaluate and how you talk about these things with people who don’t disagree with you. Yeah, that don’t agree with.
Michael Berkman
Democratic skills rather than
Chris Beem
Right. And, but I think that’s an incredibly cheap, far more challenging thing to do. And I also just think in this in the current climate, there’s just no way that’s going to happen. It’s going to be agreed to.
Chris Beem
So that’s what we’re left. And so if that means the only thing we can do, that we that we can plausibly get past and, you know, in a red state is to say, here’s how you register, here’s how you find out where you vote, here’s a website that you can go that’s run by the government that will tell you all of this information. If you can’t even agree to that, well, then then your agenda is laid bare. I think that’s I think it’s just pretty much fair to say.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, well, another way of thinking about this is at the state level is just the wrong place. And so states to set up these tests that we know that tests affect what’s taught in the classroom, so I understand why they you know, why states want to set up a test because it’s going to direct classroom instruction, whether or not tests determine what students learn or not. I don’t know that literature well enough, but it does. It does lead teachers to teach to teach differently. But I wonder if you know, some of the political heat on it could be pulled down a little bit, if these kinds of decisions were being made at the local school district level rather than the state. Awesome. Yeah, so different school districts could come up with all kinds of different ways of teaching democratic skills that fits their community. And that fits with, you know, what they want, that they want to do. By, you know, once you take it up to the state level, like with this, then you’re getting right into the middle of partisan politics. And I mean, I understand school district politics have become quite controversial as well, but not everywhere, not on all things. And it’s still nothing like a State Capitol.
Chris Beem
And you’re talking about 1000s talking about
Michael Berkman
10,000 school districts.
Chris Beem
And there is evidence of that.
Michael Berkman
Laboratories of democracy.
Chris Beem
I mean, his paper is, as you say, Michael, a very solid research agenda and presents the data really well. And the conclusions, even as a negative are extremely important. And it’s you know, it’s fun to, to talk about it from the context of political science, you know, with a paper that’s really written by education’s kudos to Julie and Maithreyi. All right. Okay. So for Democracy Works, I’m Chris Beem.
Michael Berkman
I’m Michael Berkman
Chris Beem
Thanks for listening.
Lainey NewmanIn the heyday of American labor, the influence of local unions extended far beyond the workplace. Unions were embedded in tight-knit communities, touching nearly every aspect of the lives of members—mostly men—and their families and neighbors. They conveyed fundamental worldviews, making blue-collar unionists into loyal Democrats who saw the party as on the side of the working man.
Today, unions play a much less significant role in American life. In industrial and formerly industrial Rust Belt towns, Republican-leaning groups and outlooks have burgeoned among the kinds of voters who once would have been part of union communities. This episode explores why that’s happened and whether new unions coming online at places like Starbucks may change the picture moving forward.
Our guest is Lainey Newman, a J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School and co-author with Theda Skocpol of Rust Belt Union Blues: Why Working Class Voters are Turning Away from the Democratic Party. Newman is a graduate of Harvard College and a native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
I’m Chris Beem.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle and welcome to Democracy Works. This week we are talking with Lainey Newman, co author with Theda Skocpol of the new book Rust Belt Union Blues: Why Working Class Voters are Turning Away from the Democratic Party. So this is quite the partnerships. It’s quite the opportunity for a young scholar like Laney to work with kind of a titan of the field like Theda Skocpol, who, of course, has been on our show before. And also, I know that these books take years to write and to plan. But that happened to I think, come out at a pretty good time when unions are in the news right now the you know, the auto workers and FedEx workers recently, we’re hearing about union drives at Starbucks and Amazon and all these places. So it’s an interesting time to consider the evolution of unions over the years, which is what they do in this book in one specific part of the country in western Pennsylvania.
Chris Beem
Yeah, it is a striking moment, right. I mean, we have support for unions higher in the US than it’s been since I think 1965, which is a long time ago. And you know, a lot has changed in the world and in the United States since then. And you also have a Joe Biden, who calls himself the most pro labor president ever. And whether you think that’s true or not, he was the first acting president to be on an active picket line. So yeah, it is a moment for labor in the country. And so it’s a timely topic for us to take up.
Michael Berkman
Labor unions seem to be at a peak of influence and impact, probably very much a consequence of high employment and low unemployment, which puts them in a strong position. The screenwriters did I think better than people thought they would. The UAW is obviously holding out for significant concessions, there have been others that we could point to across the country where unions have done pretty well, or where you’re organizing has gone pretty well, Starbucks is becoming unionized in a lot of different ways. And, of course, part of that, as we’re seeing very much the new face of labor, this book is the old faith, of labor. And the new face is much more likely to be to be minority, to be female, and even to be college educated. And it was at the time, when the people that she’s talking about who were in the trade unions, or in the old steel unions, or factoring manufacturer unions were at the peak of their political power and their economic power in the 1950s and 1940s. And early 1960s. You know, I kind of read her book as another story of loss and change. And the challenge that that presents for populations, that groups of people that saw themselves as really ascendant and maybe are not so scented anymore.
Chris Beem
Yeah, I mean, so the question that they want to ask is, you know, when you’re looking at this time, when unions were as powerful and as well established, as they ever were in American history, they were also almost exclusively if not exclusively democratic, right? It just was a given that if you were in a union, you are going to vote democratic. And that has, you know, that was part of kind of the idea of what it meant to be in a union, it was putting you up against people who were rich and powerful, and, you know, controlled capital, and who, you know, owned the factories, what have you. And so this was part of their identity was that they were Democrats, and you know, whether or not it is we have to be careful. And Michael, you pointed this out, we have to be careful that when we’re talking about unions, that’s almost too broad a brush to say anything meaningful about, but in terms of these unions, and the place that she’s talking about them, right in western Pennsylvania, manufacturing, steel workers, whatever, they are not largely Democrat anymore, and many of them and in terms of the kind of little pieces of data they have, most of them are now kind of identified with Trump with Q anon with, you know, just kind of an 180 degree switch, right. And so that’s what they’re trying to kind of account for. What is it that changed and what Why is it that we find ourselves in this position?
Jenna Spinelle
So yeah, you’re right that this book in this project raises a lot of complicated questions about this region and the people in it and how things have changed and the role that the unions have played in their lives and their communities. I think we will get to all of that with Lanie in the interview, and then maybe we can unpack some of them a little bit further after the interview. But let’s go now to the interview with Lainey Newman
Jenna Spinelle
Lainey Newman, welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us today.
Lainey Newman
Thank you so much, Jenna, for having me.
Jenna Spinelle
So lots to dig into in your new book, Rust Belt, union blues. But before we do, you know, this question of how the Democratic Party lost support of union workers and blue collar voters in the Rust Belt has been a subject of question for journalists and scholars, many of them over the years, this has been an oft interrogated subject. And, you know, it seems that this is in addition to being an academic question for you, you also have a personal connection to this topic. And this region, I wonder if you could start off by telling us a bit about that.
Lainey Newman
I got interested in this question of why there’s been so much drift from the Democratic Party amongst union members, initially, because I had extended family members who were members of the United Auto Workers Union, which, of course, is very much in the news right now. And when I was growing up, these older members have now passed, but they were very staunch, you know, Union men, sort of as we define that term in the book, meaning they were very passionate about being members of their union, they were loyal to their, to their union, and really believed in the Democratic Party and in a working class coalition. And so I just in sort of observing, you know, growing up in western Pennsylvania, and observing the changes that had happened in the region, particularly like culminating in, you know, ended up being 2016, I was just interested in sort of understanding where that identity had gone. And you know, what was left, you know, in its stead. And so, that’s sort of the combination of my, you know, my extended family members. And then also the region that I grew up in my family members were actually up in Minneapolis. But you know, Western Pennsylvania, of course, is one of the real sort of bedrock union towns, I think of the rust belt. And so that those two things sort of what grew into this larger project that I started when I was in college.
Jenna Spinelle
And, you know, you interviewed, I believe it was 50, union members, or former union members and leaders for this book, correct me if that number is wrong, but I wonder if you could talk a bit about how you found them. And maybe if you encountered any hesitancy or skepticism for people about being interviewed, given all the media interest, right, journalists from New York and Washington wondering and asking them to talk about what once was, and and all of that,
Lainey Newman
I initially started reaching out to whoever I could sort of get in contact with. And at first, I was actually talking to some of the leadership, some of the members of the leadership of large international union. So this is like the very upper sort of side of the Union. And I realized pretty quickly that that wasn’t really the perspective that I was looking for. And though that I did get valuable information from those people, that some of which, you know, there’s a couple of things from that, that we incorporate, but, you know, what I really wanted to know, is how the how the rank and file union members were feeling, both retirees who could speak about their past experience, and current members who could speak about their, you know, current experience with the union and how they felt what importance they attributed to the Union. And so I think, initially, just trying to get in contact with really anyone, whether that was reaching out to locals, you know, directly or there were some people, some older labor, basically just, you know, people who really feel really passionately about labor in Pittsburgh, and, you know, have these sort of communities that I was able to, you know, then groups really, that I was able to get in contact with these informal groups, or, you know, whatever people that would meet up and, you know, get together, mostly retirees, and so I was able to get in contact with some of those folks, and then essentially snowball with different people within that community. Sometimes it was, you know, again, cold calls and cold emails, but a lot of times it was saying, developing a relationship with certain members of the community, and then having those people refer me to others. There were some people who sent me essentially like lists of people who they were like, you know, this is my friend in this logo, and, you know, you can try reaching out to them, there were definitely times where people were resistant, but I think more than anything, people were actually appreciative of someone, you know, being interested in curious and wanting to hear their stories. That was what I found overwhelmingly to be the case. I think it also helped that for at least part of these in some of these interviews, I was a student and so being a young person reaching out, you know, and especially talking to the old folks think that they liked that and a lot of them did open up to me which I you know, Wouldn’t made the book possible, really. And so, you know, when people were resistant, I kind of just accepted that and you know, didn’t push it too hard. But a lot of times people were thankfully pretty open with me.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And so you spend a little bit of time in the beginning of the book, kind of defining both what the Rust Belt is and what unions you’re looking at in this context, I feel like that, you know, both of those terms tend to get thrown around a lot in all of this coverage about the changing attitudes and whatnot of this region. I wonder if you could just give us some definitions there. We have listeners across the country and around the world. You know, what is the rust belt? And how are you thinking about what a union is in the context of this project?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, no, that’s a great question. I think that one thing that theta and I really care about in this project is, you know, the specificity of talking not only about unions broadly, but really about, you know, different, there’s a lot of variation within the category of unions. And it’s really hard to sort of lump all the unions together and say, and make broad generalizations. And so that’s something that I think is really important. And in this project, we’re talking mainly about industrial or manufacturing unions, or the construction trades, you know, in the industrial Midwest, so the Rust Belt region. And so, the industrial unions are, you know, sort of the broad unions that are organized, at least were initially organized by industry, whether that’s steel or auto manufacturing, or coal, but a lot of these industrial unions have really expanded into other sectors of the economy. So that’s one thing that we explore in the book, the implications of, you know, steelworkers expanding to organize librarians and nurses and, you know, teachers, etc, as you know, faculty, at various universities, and then the craft unions are more sort of traditional amount of the more traditional fields. So in that domain, we’re talking about people with a certain skill set, so like masonry or electrical workers or brick layers, I guess, you know, plumbers, pipe fitters, and so those unions are have, for the most part kept mainly to that specific skill set. And that specific trade, which stands in contrast to some of the industrial unions, those were mainly the unions that we were looking at, in the Rust Belt. Yeah, it is kind of an amorphous term, I suppose. But we look mainly at the region that I think had really had a lot of manufacturing in the mid 20th century had a lot of sort of industrial towns or small cities. So we think that our conclusions can be generalized throughout a lot of the region, whether it’s, you know, even like through Buffalo, New York, but also up through Minnesota, it’s hard to geographically pin it down, I think, a little bit. But you know, these areas that throughout what we consider what we think of these, you know, states that Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois that had a lot of manufacturing, specifically, though, on the local level, the smaller towns and cities that where those manufacturing were headquartered essentially North centered.
Jenna Spinelle
And you know, so much of the Make America Great, again, rhetoric and ideology is tied to this notion of what it was like to be both, I would say, a union member, or maybe not a union member, but working in a blue collar job in these areas 40 5060 years ago. So I wonder if you could give us a sense of what life was like for a union member in western Pennsylvania in that period of time? What were their working conditions, their relationship to the union and how the union shaped the other parts and interacted with the other parts of their identity?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, I mean, so that’s something that I think we really try to pin down in this research because it you know, what was the starting place, then, you know, that we’re thinking about? And so where have we come? Where have we gone from there? So I think that in the mid 20th century, I think that, you know, the union man, the union family, in communities was very sort of interconnected with other community members with other workers generally lived very near to their workplace, and as did the vast majority of those workers. So when you think about like a mill town, you know, everyone’s sort of in the same general couple mile radius, which stands in stark contrast to today where people are driving in from lots of different places, to wherever they’re working. And the union was connected with a lot of different institutions within those communities. And so whether that was, you know, through sponsoring different events, through relationships with the religious organizations, the churches, in the communities, whether it was directly to, you know, with the family members, or in this case, there were ladies auxiliaries that were organized in You know, connection to the unions, which were mostly white men, though not exclusively. And so I think that the picture and you know, the one that I think, gets a lot of this sort of nostalgia and, you know, the sentimentality from the Republican Party, and even from people who I talked to, in a sense that it was a very tight knit, tight knit community for a lot of people. And it was a way that you could be in the middle class and solidly so without needing, you know, a higher degree or needing some sort of specialization or whatnot. And so I think that that’s sort of what people’s picture, I think that it’s pretty accurate from the documents and from the interviews that we saw.
Jenna Spinelle
So yeah. And so what does that look like today, you also write about some of the organizations that have come to take the place of churches and, you know, civil society groups, other things that weren’t union adjacent in the mid 20th? Century?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, so I think that, you know, as unions sort of declined in the 70s 80s. And through today, though, you know, we’ll see what’s gonna happen in the next several years. But I think that what happened is that people have still, you know, saw, I think it’s human nature to seek community in some form. And whether that’s online communities, for some people, or, you know, in person communities, there’s still sort of a need for that. And when it’s not being filled by, you know, by local integrated civic institutions, like unions, or fraternal groups, or small ethnic churches, it can be filled in other ways, there’s a lot more sort of isolation now in the sense that people I think, are a lot more individually devoted to family and sort of keep to families. But then I think that, you know, one thing that we’ve looked at a lot is the presence of these gun clubs, which are local ones, we studied our local NRA affiliated organizations, fishing, hunting clubs, Rod, and gun clubs, that type of thing. And these institutions have actually remained in these communities and have actually, you know, grown in the numbers sense this sort of decline of unions. And so we look at how those institutions are actually playing a community gathering role and a social role, really, with clubhouses and you know, bingo nights and stuff like that, which is something that other civic institutions traditionally did. Now, those events are sort of happening under this in this backdrop of conservative influence by the NRA. And so that’s one thing that we look at, I think another thing is, you know, the consolidation of churches, which is a whole separate sort of body of research, but there’s been a lot of consolidation shutting in a lot of these industrial ex industrial towns, these smaller churches don’t really exist anymore. And there’s larger, you know, either mega churches or near mega churches that are sort of more streamline, non denominational, but conservative affiliated, religious institutions, and that’s having a very different effect on people’s social lives as well. So that’s sort of some of the things that we’re seeing. But, you know, there’s, it varies based on the community for sure.
Jenna Spinelle
Sure. So you started to mention there the conservative affiliation with gun clubs and mega churches, which gets into some of the connection to the political parties. So thinking back to the mid 20th century, I guess how overtly tied to the Democratic Party were the unions and the other sort of auxiliary organizations that you mentioned. You know, contrast that with the political ties and political influence to the Republican Party that you were just describing in the present day?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, I think one of the things that we sort of discovered throughout our research is, union members have and this sort of rings true today to union members have always sort of resisted a top down, you know, instruction or direction on how to vote. So, you know, there’s always been union endorsement by the leadership, and it still is affiliated very strongly with the Democratic Party. But union members even we discovered this really great survey from the 50s of United Steelworkers members. And, and one of the things that most people agreed with was, you know, they don’t really want their they don’t care for the union leadership necessarily telling them how to vote. They appreciated the for the most part, they appreciated the information that would be provided about candidates, but in terms of saying vote this way, you know, from the international leadership that wasn’t, you know, something that they necessarily cared that much about or adhered to, what they adhere to was the sense of loyalty and commitment amongst one another, I think, and a group identity that was formed based on sort of this understanding of mutual commitments and sort of an alliance with who supports us and who will we support in return? earn. And so I think that one of the things that we’re arguing is, it’s much less about, you know, it was, and it still is much less about, you know, official union endorsement than I think a lot of people probably assume. And we see that today too, with, you know, and clearly, you know, Trump understands that there’s a big difference between how the rank and file union membership votes and who the union leadership over in DC endorses. And he’s been capitalizing on that, and even with going to Michigan and, and whatnot. And so I think that’s one thing that we see. Now, I think that in terms of the conservative influences in these regions now, I think that one of the things that we’re talking about is that it matters where these social interactions are taking place. So the fact that they’re taking place, even if people aren’t talking about the Second Amendment, the fact that they’re taking place in these conservative institutions, has an impact. And it matters as opposed to, you know, taking place at a union hall, or, you know, at more of a sort of community, embedded institution that has either neutral or progressive values, such as a labor supporting church, back in the day.
Jenna Spinelle
So we’ve been talking up to this point about how the unions have changed over the past four or five decades, I want to shift a little bit to talk about how the Democratic Party has changed in that time. I think a critique that I hear a lot, I’d say, both from the left and from the right, is that the mainstream of the Democratic Party is, you know, in that the same timeframe and the, you know, late 20th or 21st century shifted to focus on college educated city dwelling voters, you know, people like you and me, right, versus people in, you know, more sparsely populated areas are working class voters, the Bill Clinton and the Democratic leadership committee all the way up through Obama and Hillary Clinton, I guess, just to ask it simply like, does that critique hold up based on the research that you’ve done here?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, I mean, I think that it does, I think it really does. And it’s something that the Democratic Party in recent years has noticed, and I think tried to, in some ways, address I mean, maybe not as much as not as much as they should, in my opinion. But yeah, I do think that it holds up, I think that there was a lot more sort of emphasis on local and, you know, non urban areas, you know, during this period that we talked about. So in the mid 20th century, and over time, I think that there was a sort of a national sort of consensus maybe, or movement towards really only prioritizing cities. And that coincided with more money in politics. And, you know, this membership to management trend that we’ve seen, which, you know, includes having a lot more sort of top down advocacy and lobbying efforts. So I do think that it’s a fair critique. I mean, you know, as a lot of people have pointed out, Hillary Clinton didn’t go to these places, and Trump did during 2016. And Biden, I think, has made a real effort to sort of remedy that. And he did go to campaign events in western Pennsylvania and in various other parts of the rust belt and in these x industrial areas, but it’s going to take time, I think, and one of the things that we talk about is that these efforts can’t just be the month before an election, you know, this has to be a continued presence. And that’s something that I think, you know, that both theta and I believe, you know, very deeply that the Democrats can’t just show up and say, Look, we’re in your best economic interest. You know, like, if you don’t vote for us, you’re voting against it. That doesn’t work, because politics is about a lot. Political loyalty, and political choices are about a lot more than that. And so I think, you know, there again, I think we’ve realized what we did wrong, or at least some people, you know, and and we’re trying, you know, some, you know, we’re trying to make efforts in that direction. But it’s, I mean, it’s gonna take time, I think, to end a lot more, a lot more of what, you know what we’re doing. So
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, I mean, especially given the, you know, what seems to be a steady stream of both messaging and activities and organizations from conservative identifying organization. So not only are Yeah. So you’re sort of battling that headwind, so to speak, but I wonder if the efforts that you mentioned by the Biden campaign in 2020, if the folks that you interviewed noticed that and if they did, how did they feel about it?
Lainey Newman
Yeah, I mean, so I think the difference, you know, between Biden and Hillary, I think people didn’t notice it and Biden lost less right in the He’s areas surrounding, you know, big cities in the Rust Belt, he closed the margin slightly, and just enough to be able to come out in the states ahead. And so I think that people didn’t notice. I think that there was enough amongst some people, there was enough attention to the issues and his messaging, as you know, being the most pro labor candidate slash president, I think that it has made a difference. I don’t think that for people that have completely lost faith in the Democratic Party that it’s, you know, and believe that Democrats have abandoned labor or banned in these regions of the country, I don’t think that it made all the difference. But, you know, we saw somewhat closer margins and in areas and in these counties where, you know, the margins were in the 20 percentage points, 30 percentage points where the Republicans consistently over the past 20 years have been just running up the numbers, a slightly smaller gap was really important.
Jenna Spinelle
So you know, as we’ve gone through the 2020 election, and the insurrection on January 6, the people are still kind of scratching their heads, two plus years later about, like, how people could believe something that on its face, it’s just blatantly false. And you have, I think it’s one of your subheadings in the book is as a lie is better than nothing. So I wonder if you could unpack that for us?
Lainey Newman
That was a comment that was very striking to me that when I interviewed you said, Yeah, I mean, I think that what that gets at is a sense that even if we understand that things aren’t going to go back to the way they were, you know, even if that’s the undeniable reality, at least someone is paying attention, at least someone showing up and talking to us, at least someone is, you know, thinking about these issues. And I think that that’s what, you know, the sort of Trump effect was essentially, a lot of people didn’t actually vote didn’t believe that he was going to bring them back steel, as he said, at one rally or, or, you know, a call, but just, you know, basically appreciated that he was paying attention to the, to the issues at all. And I think that one of the things as we discussed a bit ago, the Democrats have sort of, you know, had this pattern of just sort of abandoning these areas and abandoning labor and not not paying attention to what was going on. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that unfortunately, that was a sentiment that many of my interviewees had. And that was felt, I think, amongst working people across the Rust Belt. But I think to counteract that there needs to be the Democrats need to sort of, again, build their relationships in these areas, build back their relationships in these regions. Because if there is an existing understanding that these are lies, you know that and a lot of people do understand that. I mean, there are some people who believed everything, you know, what Trump was saying and what the Republicans were saying, and whatever. But then there’s room there. I think, I think that there’s room there. If since there is that understanding that these, this isn’t necessarily true, this isn’t necessarily going to happen, he’s not actually going to do and deliver on these promises. So I do think that that’s where that’s where Democrats have to sort of step up and get back involved in these regions.
Jenna Spinelle
One last question here for you, lady. So I know that the the book is just out this month. We’re recording this at the end of September. But I wonder if you’ve kept in touch with the people you’ve interviewed, if they’ve had a chance to read it if they felt they got a fair shake, or just anything? You’ve heard? All those conversations have continued since you talked to them several years ago at this point?
Lainey Newman
So actually, one of my interviewees got the book before I did. I don’t even I don’t know how that happened. But he got it in the mail, I guess. Before I did. And he sent me an email. It’s actually how I found out that the book was even being printed. And he sent me an email and he was like I agree with, he was really excited. And I thought it meant a lot to me. And he said he was he wanted to send the book to his union leadership, which was great. And so that was one instance. And when I finished my thesis, I also sent my thesis to one of different interviewee in the mail, I just sent him a copy of it. And he also loved it. And I had interviewed him and his son actually, both of whom were Steeler workers, and he read it and then gave it to his son. And so, you know, I think that’s honestly the best feedback that I’ve gotten is from, you know, the people who feel that I’m that we’ve represented their experience, accurately and, and, and in a way that is meaningful to them. And so that’s been really, really great. And I’m excited, you know, hopefully in western Pennsylvania, and we have, we have a couple events, they’ll come out and we’ll get to visit again.
Jenna Spinelle
We will link to the book and perhaps some of those other things coming up in the show notes and hope for Folks will pick it up and check it out for themselves. Lee Newman, thanks so much for joining us today.
Lainey Newman
Thank you, Jenna, this has been so much fun.
Chris Beem
All right. That’s that was really interesting. Michael, this is kind of your, you know, your wheelhouse. What do you think about the argument that, you know, union members have become Republicans? And I mean, let’s start with that claim. And then we’ll go on to their argument about why things changed.
Michael Berkman
Well, these kinds of union members have become have been more likely to become Republican, but it’s certainly don’t think it’s true in the public employee unions, or of the teachers unions, which are still critical parts of the Democratic coalition, certainly teachers for that matter of public employees. So certainly, it’s true, I believe about and data seems to support that. These trade unionists, maybe manufacturing unionists, or at least workers, because let’s keep in mind how much of these industries that were unionized at this time when they’re at their peak are now non unionized. So the auto workers in Tesla, are not unionized. And the auto workers that are down in Tennessee, where there are a lot of plants are also not unionized, but they are workers. But we’re talking here, I guess, about people that are very much specifically still within unions. And unions that are a declining proportion of the overall union population and a declining proportion of the overall population. But yeah, I mean, well, Ronald Reagan did pretty well with them. Ronald Reagan spent a lot of his campaign up in Macomb County, Michigan, you may remember, and Donald Trump clearly did very well with them. And we’re at least in these in there in those parts of the country. And Joe Biden and Fetterman of Senator Fetterman have made inroads, I think, at least in this state, but you know, I think if you look down at this party system, 10 years from now, I think it’s very possible that states that we think of now as such battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, they may not be, you know, they may just go Republican as this sort of pattern continues. But the Democrats are seeing ascendancy in southern states that actually don’t have a whole lot of unions in Georgia, in North Carolina, which I think will be very much in play 10 years from now, Texas, which could be in play 10 years from now, depending on how voting rules go. And these are states with large African American populations. Democrats do extremely well in their urban areas, and a lot of their messaging and a lot of their policy ideas are oriented towards these regions of knowledge workers, African Americans, not necessarily abled as much as they used to be to speak to these older union industries.
Chris Beem
You know, I completely agree with that. I think that this, you know, the takeaway from this book, is not necessarily I mean, I suppose if you were a union executive, you would take the point that if we want to sustain unions and sustain their political, economic cultural power, we have to attend to Union individuals as members and create, seek to create these kinds of this, or maybe, maybe not create, restore these institutions, whereby people have a sense of identity and connection. But I think you’re right, that the, the takeaway here is a story of one, one slice of our society, were the foundation of identity, meaning community, have all kind of eroded in some significant ways. This I mean, it really is just kind of a restatement of some of the stuff out of Robert Putnams famous book Bowling Alone, right, where there used to be these institutions, not just unions, although unions are essential to that, but about ethnic churches and about bowling leagues and about, you know, clubs like Shriners and Kiwanis and whatever. And, you know, it’s not merely enough to say, well, they’re gone. And now what we’ve changed is to note that there is something significant that has been lost not just in terms of politics or culture, but in terms of just, you know, the human need for these things. And if you don’t get them at this face to face community level, you’re going to try to find them elsewhere. And so if you don’t have a union hall where everybody knows your name and where you go for parties and retirements and golf outings and saplings and everything else, then you’re gonna go try to find it in, you know, Fox and Friends, or some kind of online group or, you know, a big organization like the NRA or something like that. And it’s not it’s that is a way of creating community, but it’s not the same. And it’s not as doesn’t serve our very human needs as well.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, I mean, but I mean, these are communities that in many cases had been sort of hollowed out. And so it’s, you know, they, other areas of the country, I think, have really quite vibrant civic lives and organizations that hold people together, you know, I sometimes feel like, this country spends a lot of time talking about what, you know, white people have lost, and not very much about what may be gained and what we might be developing and what we might be building in many urban areas in the United States and many areas of growth in the United States. But this, you know, I definitely see this in the context of other stories of loss and related grievance, you know, and, and it’s not surprising to me, that they would attach themselves to a candidacy, referring to Trump in particular, that’s built upon grievance and, and on capitalizing on the sense of loss that people feel that.
Chris Beem
The thing that I want to, you know, leave our listeners with is that you know, this book if it does nothing else kind of speaks to the importance of connecting with your fellow human beings face to face carrying out with them and doing stuff that not isn’t even necessarily political.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, I mean, I agree with that completely. And I really see this as the strength of this book much more so then which party union members support because I think that’s a larger story about the party coalition’s but this kind of micro look at what has happened in these areas, how it affects people, how it affects their sense of identity, how it affects how they inter relate with one another and then with the political system that I think is really, really interesting kind of micro look that I appreciated the the opportunity to hear about.
Chris Beem
So thanks to Jenna for a terrific interview. Thanks to Lainey and Theda Skocpol for really interesting and book with really innovative research. I’m Chris Beem.
Michael Berkman
I’m Michael Berkman. Thanks for listening.
John IcelandWhy do we disagree about the causes of and solutions to social inequality? What explains our different viewpoints on Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, income inequality, and immigration? Penn State professors John Iceland and Eric Silver join us this week to discuss how the discrepancy between social order and social justice impedes political compromise and progress.
Iceland and Silver, along with Ilana Redstone of the University of Illinois, are the authors of Why We Disagree about Inequality: Social Justice vs. Social Order. In the book, they show how these competing worldviews are preventing Americans from solving their most pressing social problems. Iceland is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Demography; Silver is Professor Sociology and Criminology and recently won the Open
Eric SilverInquiry Award for Teaching from Heterodox Academy.
In the interview, we discuss how the conflict between social order and social justice played out at different points in history going
back to the French Revolutions. Iceland and Silver also offer suggestions for how to move beyond these divisions to find consensus and common ground.
After the interview, Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith discuss whether social order and social justice should have equal footing and how looking to history might not be the best approach for how to break out of these silos.
Why We Disagree about Inequality: Social Justice vs. Social Order
Episode TranscriptChris Beem
From McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University, I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. This week, we are talking with John Iceland and Eric Silver. Both are professors in the department of sociology and criminology here at Penn State. And they are the co author, with Ilana Redstone of the University of Illinois, have a book called Why We disagree about inequality. And this is one of those books where the title really says it all. And the the framework or the reason that they propose for why we have these disagreements is a conflict between social justice and social order. And this is something that we’ve talked about in different capacities on the show before, but I don’t think that we’ve ever really taken a dive as directly on these two approaches to how you view the world political and otherwise, and why they so often come into conflict.
Chris Beem
It’s an it’s an issue that has some pretty thick research elements to it. But it’s also incredibly timely, right? Because no one is disputing that political argument seems particularly fruitless right now. And not to mention ugly and just serves to kind of drive us farther apart. And the book is trying to say, you know, this is what’s going on. And this is what we do about it. Right? And so this, you know, you you laid it out, well, you know, there’s this, there’s these two fundamental kind of orientations to how human beings approach these policy questions and social order and social justice, and you know, what we can let them kind of describe them in the interview. But, you know, the, the point is that these intuitions are these columns, strong and relatively stable. And so it’s kind of like a way that you perceive the world in a very basic sense, it’s kind of like, this is part of your wiring. And, and anyway, that’s, that is the right way they say, for us to kind of understand why it is we disagree so much, and then, you know, then we get on to what we do about it.
Candis Watts Smith
So I would say that this book, also kind of its contribution is that it adds to, you know, a conversation where we usually would talk about left or right Democrat, Republican, conservative liberal, and it layers on this notion that perhaps even among those kinds of divisions, we might think about people’s perspectives of the world, use the word orientation, and on some level, it seems to help us to understand why we see so much affective polarization and polarization generally, I think the argument here is that on some level, people are talking past each other, in part because they have different values, that some people, you know, ostensibly value social justice, while others value social order. You know, I am not sure that I see this as so cut and dry. But I think it’s an important contribution. And the discussion about how we got to where we are today.
Chris Beem
Yeah, I think they don’t want to get tied down to, you know, a cut and dried answer of like, you know, is this hardwired? Is it? Is it social? Or does it depend on circumstances? I think they kind of want to say yes, to all that. But the one point that that I think is key for them, is that a society works better, not only when both of these prospective perspectives are operative, but when each side respects the inherent wisdom of the other side. And not to say that, you know, you’re not going to fight about it. But But the argument is that it is not good for a society to have either all one or all the other because it’s going to end up being either an unjust or or unfree or insufficiently free insufficiently.
Candis Watts Smith
The contribution then is something that kind of reminds me of something that Kimberly Crenshaw talked about, is that it is difficult to pinpoint a problem or pinpoint a phenomenon if we don’t have a name for it. And so here, what they make an effort to do is to give us a name for this kind of these two, these two basic intuitions around how we should move forward and What are how we should think about policy and their effects for our, the way we we live among each other. And so for that reason to say, I think it’s really interesting that you can look at some number of arguments around racial issues, or perhaps transgender issues, or sexism and racism, like all of the things and you can think, Okay, well, what is how is this person coming at this, and maybe one of the ways that they’re coming at this is through a lens of social justice or through a lens of social order. And perhaps putting it that way, giving the label then allows us to have a more constructive conversation about perspectives.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And I think, as you said, we’ll hear more from John and from Eric about how they define social order and social justice and also how these sort of core belief sets impact the media that people choose to consume and, and how they really impact the other aspects of our political lives. So let’s go now to the interview with John, Iceland, and Eric silver.
Jenna Spinelle
John, Iceland and Eric silver, welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us today.
Eric Silver
Thanks for having us. Yeah, thank you.
Jenna Spinelle
So I’m excited to talk with you about your new book, why we disagree about inequality. And I think we’ll just start with some definitions. dive right in, I will start with you, John, if that’s okay. The whole book is based around this social order and social justice framework, I wonder if you could just tell us what that is, you know, listeners may have some notion of of what those things represent from how those terms are thrown around in the in the media, but from your perspective, what do those things mean? And and how do they fit together in your framing?
John Iceland
Sure, we see these as a distillation of moral and philosophical values that are often in conflict, if not in tension with each other. Essentially, social justice is caring for the vulnerable and freeing them from oppression, whereas social order balances these concerns with social cohesion and social stability. So for those from the social order perspective, they think that these things are necessary for a prosperous society.
Jenna Spinelle
And Eric, in in the the media and other places, these notions of social order and social justice are often mapped onto the political spectrum with social justice being associated more with the left and social order being associated with the right. But in the book, you’re clear to say that it’s not always as cut and dry as that.
Eric Silver
Right. So the social justice side, tends to emphasize, as John said, the concern for the well being of individuals, in particular, the weak and the vulnerable. And that’s a widely shared moral concern. Even those on the on the right, or what you might think of as having a social order concern, also care about people, right, and they’re all they have families, and they have friends, and people are important to them. But they balance that concern against the concern for the order and cohesion of groups. And they have an intuitive sense that order is important for the flourishing of individuals. And so that’s one of the places where the these two perspectives, diverge, and end up, you know, in conflict with each other and often talking past each other failing to recognize that they have some significant overlap in their concerns.
Jenna Spinelle
And we’ll definitely get more into that as we go here. But I wonder if you could talk about the origins of this framework and how you kind of came to think that oh, wow, this I’m picturing like, a light bulb moment for one or both of you like, Oh, this is the thing that explains so many of these conflicts that we have in our society. So I wonder if you could talk more about, you know, how you arrived at it? And of course, I know, it builds on the work of scholars like Jonathan Haidt and others. But yeah, tell us about how you arrived at this framework? Sure.
John Iceland
Well, I think we see this in general, that this balancing act between social justice and social order is not just a contemporary kind of problem that we’re facing in the US today. But it’s something that we see in other societies. I think we’ve seen it. Historically, there are a number of people who’ve written about some of this tension. As you mentioned, Jonathan Hite, Thomas Sol, talked about the conflict of visions as he termed them. But it’s about people through history being concerned about, again, freeing people from oppression, caring for those who need help, versus the concern for social stability and cohesion. This is a constant tension through history. and at different times in history, sometimes we have a little more social order, and we could use a lot more social justice. And other times perhaps it’s something where we need to, you know, vice versa.
Eric Silver
Yeah. And John has a right as far as what we’re concerned with. And the term social order and social justice did come to us as a sort of aha, in the sense that there’s a balance between the ideas is captured in the terms, and that they are terms that are easy to grasp, that you don’t have to hear them or hear you have them explain before you understand what they mean. And they are more evocative, even then left and right, or other terms that academics have used to describe this, this kind of polarity and people’s beliefs. And so part of our goal here is to get these terms out into our field and maybe beyond, because we think that they are a nice heuristic for describing a lot of what’s going on in terms of polarization out in the world.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, and speaking of polarization, I know the two of you are not political scientist by training. So this question might not be in your wheelhouse tell me if it’s not, but I’m thinking about, you know, the work in political scientist suggests that an effective polarization or the degree of animosity we feel toward people who hold differing beliefs than us has been on the rise for at least the last decade, if not longer, depending on on who you ask. I wonder if how that might play in here. So at times when the there’s more space or more distance between social order and social justice? Is that when an effective polarization rise? Or would you correlate these things at all?
John Iceland
Yeah, I mean, I would say, certainly, this book came about because we see this growing polarization, and we saw, saw an urgency to try to talk about it to understand it. And from our perspective, I think it’s I’ve long been interested in issues of social inequality, there’s been a lot of discussion of these issues, Eric and I have been discussing these issues also in light of political polarization. So as we discussed, so you know, as we sort of, we’d get together every now and then and talk about them, we felt that we needed to sort of dissect it with this book and talk about it and, and shine a light on it. And not only just from one perspective, but if we want to sort of address polarization, we got to get people from different sides to understand each other better, to have better conversations about these issues.
Eric Silver
And also, I started to realize that each side possesses some wisdom that the other lakhs, and that did a lot also to calm my emotional feelings. And I think part of the motivation for a book like this is to try to spread that kind of experience and enable that kind of experience in our own discipline. Maybe we’ll get to this at some point. But this is a very unusual book for disciplines like sociology, which tends to lean very hard left. So just the idea of trying to present both sides, and to suggest that they have wisdom that the other lacks is an unusual thing. But we think an important thing, not just for the discipline, but beyond. And I think it’s a way of trying to sue these intense feelings that exist on both sides. Yeah.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. Before we get to some of those conversations within the academy, let’s let’s walk through the social order social justice framework with one of the examples that you use in the book. You, you open with the summer of 2020, the death of George Floyd and the in the protests that followed, and then there’s a whole chapter about racial inequality. So walk us through what the social order perspective what the social justice perspective is, and those those points of tension and disagreement between them.
Eric Silver
Yeah, so, so thinking of the George Floyd example. So that puts us in the the neck of the woods that is about race and racial inequality and racial injustice. And so the social justice perspective here is, as John said earlier, very tuned into oppression, and tends to view racial inequality through that lens. And so the reason there is inequality that some whites have more than blacks and Hispanics are somewhere in the middle and that Asians the reason that there’s a distributed distribution of inequality is from this perspective, oppression. There’s some something going on something being imposed on people that’s preventing them from achieving the equality they would otherwise achieve. And so that’s the the social justice perspective criminalized on the social order side. There’s the focus here is on stability and cohesion, group cohesion. And so if you’re looking at this from the lens, it says everything is ought to be in in its place, and ought to be balanced against itself. And that you want to create a world that is orderly and stable, well, then you tend to look at inequality as something more natural that people will have different interests, different abilities, different groups will develop and different cultural tastes and preferences and skills over time. And that those things could lead to different outcomes by race. And that’s not a problem from a social order perspective, it’s to be expected that you won’t have complete equality in everything all the time across all racial groups. And you can sense even as I’m saying that that’s a way of looking at the world as being orderly, even in its inequality. And so these two, these two perspectives come at the same reality and draw from it very different lessons, and therefore, have very different policy preferences when it comes to how you change things to become more equal, and how far you want to go toward doing that.
John Iceland
And just to build on what Eric said, I think from the social order perspective, it’s not that no changes ever needed. But they wanted to see it more incrementally carefully, so that you don’t disrupt things too much. So the concern with the protests after George Floyd wasn’t all necessarily just said, No changes needed. But as the protests grew, and there were some riots across the country, that’s where when you heard a lot of people from the social order perspective, expressing greater concern, it’s that, okay, maybe there are some things that need to be done. But this is not the way to do with riots that are creating a lot of chaos in social disorders, destroying property. So you see a different focal concern there. So when they’re reacting to the same sets of circumstances.
Jenna Spinelle
So John, you mentioned something at the beginning of the conversation that I that has been going through my mind as we’ve been talking through this example, and that is, sometimes in history, there’s been more social order than social justice, and vice versa. But I think people coming from the social justice perspective would say that there’s never been a time in history when we’ve had more social justice and social order, and that itself is part of the problem.
John Iceland
Well, so I guess, you know, social justice or social injustice manifests manifests itself in different ways in history. So I would say a classic example of when social justice perhaps went too far, you know, again, this is all opinions, let’s say in the French Revolution, you take that a time in history, when there was a very oppressive, sort of, essentially kind of a feudal system, a monarchy. And there was a lot of resentment building from below about inequality. And there was, it was essentially a social justice movement, right? It had many aims that we would that we could see why they wanted to fight the oppression from above. But they had a sense of that they could sort of construct a society almost from a knew it had very utopian kinds of visions for the future. And in the chaos that came from this complete upheaval of society, and you had 1000s of people dying. And eventually, social order was only essentially restored once you know, Napoleon came to power, and a monic. monarchy in a different sense, not as oppressive was, was restored. So I think that’s an example where people could see that maybe social justice, who was a time when it went too far, when it tries to think that you can reengineer society in such a way and do away with every single tradition, some which may be pernicious and harmful, you know, a feudal aristocracy, whereas some elements that that are necessary for society to function at all.
Eric Silver
Yeah, I did related to what John is saying is that it’s, it’s tempting to think that social justice has been on the back burner, or something along those lines. But you could look at the last one, I think, John’s example starts in this period, look at the period since the enlightenment, as the beginning of a social justice movement, that has been spreading in the West for 300 or so years, and that it has made in an enormous amount of progress in that direction. One of the characteristics of the social justice orientation, you is that it wants change fast. It’s never satisfied with the current amount of change. Why? Because people are suffering. People are oppressed. How can we just sit still, knowing that they’re suffering around us? And so it never seems like enough. But if you look at it over the longer arc, and I think Martin Luther King said something like, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. And if you look at it over the Over the period that we would say, you know, beginning in the late 16, and 1700s, that’s a story that’s very easy to tell. And so there’s a lot of success that those on the social justice side could see and claim. But again, there’s something in the tendency to hold that position that wants more and wants faster. And so it tends to feel disappointed, even amidst its successes.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And we’re seeing and certainly have seen all kinds of government institutions wrestle with this right? What is their role in helping to ease some of these tensions or to adjust those ratios between social order and social justice? I’m thinking about the Supreme Court affirmative action decision over the summer. So given what you described earlier about the the racial inequality and the varying perspectives between social order and social justice on that, what do you make of what what the Supreme Court is doing here? Do you see that as their effort to, you know, I don’t want to say tip the scales that makes it sound like it’s some kind of rigged system, but to intervene in some way to change that the equilibrium here?
John Iceland
Well, I would say the debate about affirmative action, you know, has that we can learn a lot by using the social justice social order framework, in the sense that affirmative action was devised as a way to try to engineer equity, equal outcomes across groups, which is a central concern for social justice. That’s how they see fairness, right. So to the extent that we don’t have people equally represented in institutions, such as Ivy League universities are highly ranked public universities, you know, the, the defendants, I guess, in the case were Harvard and University of North Carolina. So to the extent that we don’t see groups equally represented, that means that we have, we have an unfair system, and so that we we need to actively do try to achieve equity. Those from the social order perspective, though, are wary of attempts to engineer equal outcomes. And also they have a different sense of what fairness is, they don’t see fairness necessarily, not just in terms of equal outcomes. But are people treated equally in a process? Because they see this as the way you promote social cohesion, essentially. And so that’s why they tend to be against affirmative action, because it’s not well, it gives, you know, points to people based on their background in this case, race. So that’s where we see the tension between social justice and social order. It’s about they perceive fairness in very different ways.
Eric Silver
Right. And And beyond that, the decision are beyond just the details of the decision. policies like affirmative action, while they are aimed at increasing justice by as John said, increasing equity, they do so at a cost. And we may not find it pleasant to recognize that costs, but something like an affirmative action policy is a zero sum game, right. And so some people have to be treated unfairly for other people to be treated better than fairly. And that creates disorder, it creates resentment. It causes people to lose their sense of legitimacy and institutions, if you’re the institutions that are supposed to be running things are designed to treat some people unfairly in order to help others. And this is destabilizing from a social order perspective. And the social order folks feel that in the same way the social justice folks feel the the the suffering of those who currently have less for reasons that are historical and outside of their control. So you can look at the Supreme Court decision as if you’re thinking of social order and social justice as a way of trying to rebalance this. Now, of course, the decision doesn’t produce a solution. Maybe we could talk about that later. But it’s it definitely is an attempt to, or one of the results of it could be to increase people’s sense of the legitimacy in the system if it’s treating everyone fairly, which would promote order the system.
Jenna Spinelle
So one thing that that comes up fairly often when we’re talking about these kinds of things in a in a political sense, is the notion of asymmetry. Right? So things are not there’s the people are accused of both sides ism, or that’s kind of you’re you’re equating, you know, you’re saying that people who rushed the Capitol on January 6 that are on the same plane as people who participated in the riots, the of this in the summer of 2020. So, you know, people, as I said, in the political space are trying to grapple with how much this asymmetry should matter be taken into consideration. I wonder if you thought about that, as you were weighing the you know, social order social justice framework.
Eric Silver
So we’re, we’re not saying that anything goes right yeah. That’s not our, that’s not our position. At the same time, I think we lean toward, let’s hear it out. You know, I think the idea that some perspectives are too dangerous to hear is itself a very dangerous idea. And so I think we would lean toward, you know, not worrying less about both sides ism and worrying more about suppressing points of view, because they are somehow problematic. I’m using air quotes again. And that would be more of a concern, at least speak for myself, for me, and maybe John has a thought about it, too.
John Iceland
I think you’re right, Jenna, that there’s a lot of what about ism, you know, in debates, they point to the worst actors on the other side, often, which are, which, again, isn’t very helpful and understanding the typical viewpoint of someone on the other side versus the extreme person on the other side. And I think asymmetries occurred in different ways in different spaces. Sometimes you’ll have in some spaces where you see sort of, let’s say, views on the right dominate, maybe in some state legislatures, and in other places, more social justice voices dominate. So you’ll, you’ll always have some of that. But, you know, I certainly agree with Eric that we should leave enough room in all spaces, just to hear different viewpoints, and especially you sort of the root reasonable versions of the different sides are out there, you know,
Jenna Spinelle
Well, and one of those places, as you were mentioning earlier, where you might say leans too heavily on on social justice, and your conception is the academy or, you know, obviously, every university is different. And it’s difficult to paint them with with a broad brush, but folks certainly have and it’s generally that, you know, they they are more oriented toward justice, and I don’t think you would disagree, you make the case for more viewpoint diversity. So yeah, talk about about that one. Like what, again, viewpoint diversity is a term that often gets thrown around a lot. So how do you define it? And then, you know, what would you like to see happen within higher education?
John Iceland
Well, I could start briefly, at least part of it is that me and Eric come from the standpoint is that each side has some wisdom that the other can learn from, and actually, the tension between the two is often a good thing. And too much of one or the other, in a given circumstance doesn’t necessarily produce the right outcome. So we discussed that earlier on. So I think this is where in the university where it’s, it would, it’s often useful to have different viewpoints, because if we want to increase our understanding of this world, you need to have people push back on each other. This happens, you know, in the, in the hard sciences, when a new theory comes up. And, you know, we had Einstein’s relativity built on challenge something from the past. And then we had quantum mechanics, and not that I know much about these fields that sort of doesn’t disprove what was before. But likewise, in the social sciences, when we’re trying to learn more about our world, it’s important to have ideas challenged, and sometimes they’re challenged unsuccessfully, and that’s perfectly fine. But I think this is where, if we see one of the goals of the university, is to increase our understanding of our world, this is where different viewpoints is, is helpful and shouldn’t be, you know, viewed in in a negative light in that way. And also, just the last thing I’ll say is when I teach my own classes on social problems, all I like to have students at least consider different viewpoints, because this helps develop their critical thinking skills. That’s what we’re all about in the liberal arts. And of course, they might come to whatever conclusion they come to, and that’s perfectly fine. And that’s what we expect of our students. But I don’t like hand feeding them that this is this is necessarily the truth when it could be an issue, which which is contested to some extent.
Eric Silver
Yeah, I to teach the value of viewpoint diversity, I consider it a value. And in fact, I consider it extremely troubling. That the term is troubling, right? Because viewpoint diversity simply means let’s allow each other to have different viewpoints. And let’s not leave the table because of that. And that some people seem to have recast viewpoint diversity as some kind of Trojan horse for conservatism is, I don’t know what to call it. It’s a it’s a PR campaign that is not grounded in what seemed to me like core values of a democratic society. I don’t think you can villainize viewpoint diversity and maintain democratic deliberation.
Jenna Spinelle
So just curious, Eric, do you so you said the word balance several times, but I didn’t hear you use the word compromise. I wonder Do you see balance and compromise as a separate and how if at all, do you see them fitting together?
Eric Silver
Yeah, compromise is a fine word to me. I think people don’t like it sounds like defeat. So I tend to avoid it. But in the end, if you’ve got people who are strongly committed to their different points of view, sometimes you have to just trust that each side possesses or wisdom the other lacks and be willing to compromise. And hopefully not see it as as a devastating defeat,
John Iceland
I’ll only add to what Eric said that. So it’s important to, you know, to come to seeing the wisdom in the different sides. And I think what this can also help, and we’ve talked about this before, is we’re very concerned about polarization in society. So we want to find a way to have good and productive conversations about the social problems. And so we’re hoping that our book contributes to that. And again, that doesn’t mean that on every issue, the the answer is always in the exact middle. Sometimes on some issues, we do need a lot more social justice, there’s too much sort of hierarchy and structure that is not helpful. And then other times, we might, we might find the opposite. But let’s have a conversation about these things. That’s what we think’s important.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, your book is, is very readable, very easy to help understand some of these problems that we face, I hope listeners will pick it up and give it a read. And I thank both of you for joining us today.
Eric Silver
Thank you, Jenna, for having us.
Chris Beem
Well, thank you, Jenna, that was really a really terrific interview. And, you know, there’s one point I think I want to get back to, but I wanted to just kind of start with, you know, we mentioned it in the front part about this, this question of where do these differences come from, you know, to talk about them as intuitions, it does really kind of, you know, brings to mind the idea that these are somehow innate, or that we kind of are born with them, or that they are, you know, dispositions, right. But, you know, it’s, it’s pretty obvious, I think, and I don’t think they’re going to dispute this, that when you look at people circumstance, in life, you you kind of get a, a, you know, people tend to line up one way or the other, right. So if you are wealthy and well established, and your life is going well, then obviously, you’re going to have an incentive to keep things the same to keep things stable. And it would seem to me that that is going to kind of make you more likely to prefer social order. And conversely, if you’ve experienced society in a way in which you’ve experienced oppression, you know, whether you’d be, you know, LGBTQ, or whether you’d be, you know, African American, or, you know, some kind of other group, a poor person, you name it, you’re going to have a much different experience, of stability and of order. And so of course, you’re going to want to be more open to the social order. Ideal. And so I just, I think, this question of, you know, where does this come from? How does what does it mean? And how do we rightly understand it? You know, it’s, it is complicated, but I think it’s essential to kind of figuring out, you know, what we do about this?
Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, so, I mean, there’s a social dimension to this. And the thing is, is that there is no one person who is always located in a position of power or on the top of hierarchies every single time. No, are there are people who are located on every, you know, bottom hierarchy every single time. So, you know, we’ve all experienced power and powerlessness. But we also know that there are some people who have greater experiences of oppression of exclusion of marginality. And we might expect those people to be more likely to align with the social justice framework. And just as you said, you know, those who find themselves in more powerful positions where the status quo is looking real good for them, we might expect them to feel a you know, be more aligned with have a greater probability of being aligned with the social order. And I just also want to say, though, that this is one of the reasons why higher education is so important, is because college especially and I’ve really been trying to think about this and I’m looking for someone to tell me, another case or where I’m wrong, is that college is one of the few places where you are shoulder to shoulder with people who are just not like you, where people show up from I mean, I have a good fortune of working at Duke and when I was at Penn State to there are people from all over the world from all walks of life. And so that education component serves to broaden people’s horizons and perspectives. I’m only saying this because during the inner Have you there’s this kind of notion that academics and academia leans liberal and leans toward the social justice idea. But I think that’s partially because when people are exposed to the circumstances of other people’s lives in real way and find themselves in proximity, or an ally ship, with people that are not like them are people that have faced marginalization, they are more likely to note and notice the unfairness of it all and the contradictions, of meritocracy of, you know, of liberty and egalitarianism and all of the things that we say that we want, and don’t necessarily have, I had a little bit of hard time. When I say this, I really have to wrestle with this kind of idea that social order, and social justice can be put on an equal more moral footing, at least in a real world way I can think abstractly about it. But when our examples are George Floyd, and me too, and the two intuitions here, for me are not morally equivalent. Because one perspective tends to be held by people who are people with power, and the other perspective tends to be held by people without power. So yeah, I guess the last thing I would say, and I don’t normally go on like this, but I cannot help myself is that for me, I think actually, this this kind of these two ideas are not social order and social justice, are not as cut and dry.
Chris Beem
I think that’s a really good transition to the go. One other point that I really want to get to, and it’s something that all three of us kind of highlighted. In the interview, both you and I Candice, were like, Jenna, that’s a really good question about when is the social justice, intuition, the IT motivation? Conception? When has that ever been ascendant? Right? I mean, it’s all about, you know, structures are about social structures are about power. And people with power, create them, right. And they create them in ways to sustain their own power. I mean, there’s nothing weird or you know, I mean, that’s not a lefty thing to say, that’s just empirical. That’s the way it works. And so when when Jenna said, when was it? When was it the social justice conception ever ascended? And they said, the French Revolution, and both of us are like, you know, I mean, like, you know, it’s not, I mean, there’s an argument there, you know, you could say, Okay, I guess so. But first of all, I’m I’m not sure if it works on its own, because, you know, there was really It mean, is social justice, the same as just this kind of violent and really violent retribution against the ruling class? Is that what social justice is? I’m not sure. But even so even if you just accept it, as 250 years ago, right? And if that’s the case, if that’s the arc, if that’s the shining example, you point to well, then that kind of bespeaks the fact that social justice is really kind of always, you know, a legged out in this kind of, in this world we live in.
Candis Watts Smith
Yes, agree. I think for me, there was an implied notion, and maybe not intended by John and Eric, but the example was one that highlighted notions of disorder. And so then it was my question was, is there an idea that social justice and social disorder go together? And similarly then, on the other side, does social order and social injustice always go together? So I think, for me, there just needed to be a little bit more care and nuance around the subject of social justice and social order and, and the extent to which they overlap the tensions that are there. But I’m not I appreciate the discussion of tension, but I wish for just a little bit more nuance on both sides. I was trying to think of an example of when social justice has been like, ascendant and I thought maybe it would be like reconstruction, but even then, radical reconstruction did turn formerly enslaved people into Congress people, and that was a lot of change and a little bit of time. And, okay, yes, then we ended up with Jim Crow for another 100 years, but my point is, is that there there are moments when a lot of change can be made in a little bit of time. And if people stick with it, right if people have to Stuck with reconstruction, we might be in a totally different place than we are today.
Chris Beem
Well, I mean, I think what you can take away from this conversation is that this book is full of ideas and concepts and, you know, ways of framing, you know, very topical issues that are really thought provoking. And, you know, I mean, I don’t know that, that you know, you and I Candice came down exactly the same on anything except maybe the French Revolution. But, but that’s, that’s to the books credit. Right. So thanks to Eric and John, for, for coming on for and for the terrific book. And for Jenna for the interview. I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith. For Democracy Works, thanks for listening.
Before we get to the show notes, we invite you to take our listener survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works coffee mug!
Chris Beem talks with former Republican political operative Tim Miller about the party's loyalty to Donald Trump and where it might go in 2024 and beyond. Miller is a writer-at-large for The Bulwark and the author of the best-selling book Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell. He was previously political director for Republican Voters Against Trump and communications director for Jeb Bush 2016. He also appears on MSNBC and The Circus on Showtime.
Miller's book is a reflection on both his own past work for the Republican Party and the contortions of his former peers in the GOP establishment. He draws a straight line between the actions of the 2000s GOP to the Republican political class's Trumpian takeover, including the horrors of January 6th.
In this conversation, Miller and Beem also discuss alarming trends among young conservatives and how they may continue, or even exacerbate, some of what Miller observed after the 2016 election.
We’re back from summer break and diving into the 2024 election season, Donald Trump’s indictments, the spread of election deniers, and more. We also welcome Michael Berkman back from sabbatical and discuss the significance of “Democracy 2024” as the backdrop for the first Republican presidential debate on August 23.
For our listeners who teach American politics, we’ve put together a list of episodes designed to be a companion to your courses. Check it out at democracyworkspodcast.com/syllabus.
Referenced in this episode: Votebeat piece by Jessica Huseman on Trump indictments
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University. I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candice Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. Welcome back, everybody. We are back in the swing of things after our summer break from the show. I hope you all enjoyed the episode that we put out over the summer, you heard from some other podcasts and some things that we didn’t quite get to in the last academic year. But we are also excited, Michael, to have you back with us. You were on sabbatical last semester. So Michael, welcome back.
Michael Berkman
Well, thank you. It’s great to be back. I missed the show. And I missed all of you.
Jenna Spinelle
As per usual, and I pulled out a couple of things that I thought we could talk about just to reorient ourselves and our listeners as we head into a new election cycle, a new semester academic year for all of us. And the first thing is, the first Republican primary debate was held. As we record this on August 29, about a week ago, it’ll be just about two weeks by the time this episode comes out, and there have been countless takes about who did well, or not so well, and all of that. So I don’t really want to focus us on that. But instead, I know the first thing that caught my eye when I saw the stage itself was that it read democracy 2024. And I would just love to know what you all think about that. Does Fox News and the people on the debate stage they are Republican candidates? Are they thinking about democracy the same way we are? Or if not, what is behind it? What does that say to you that it was so front and center literally at the debate?
Chris Beem
I was kind of surprised to see that side to be honest with you. Because what I hear at least well, more frequently than defensive democracy. Is this Republican saying, well, we’re not a democracy. We’re a republic. And you know, you expect to hear this from from the flakes of the world like Lauren Bobet. But Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ted Cruz, this is not an a fringe characterization among among Republicans. And let me just stipulate That’s wrong. That’s a dumb thing to say. There. You know, it’s like saying, it’s not a cracker. It’s a saltine. But it’s so so it’s nonsense, but it’s also pernicious nonsense, I think. And so if we’re not a democracy, will what do we care about efforts to make our democracy better or worse? You know, it’s basically not our concern, because we’re a republic. And so I was, like I said, I was surprised. And maybe that’s a little pushback from the RNC. I don’t know. But it was, it was a surprise. And I think, you know, I’m glad to see it.
Michael Berkman
A couple thoughts on that I, you know, it’s an election. And so, you know, from, from anybody’s perspective, even if you think of the country as a republic, rather than a democracy, it is Republic, then elections are central to it. But what does strike me to the extent that I was watching the debate, or what I what I see on Fox News is that, you know, so this is a network that was sued, and had to pay a great deal of money because of election denialism. And so they’re cautious about that now, but at no point have I did they talk about on that stage? Or have I seen evidence that Fox talks about why election denialism is dangerous to democracy, how what they were doing was hurtful to democracy, not just hurtful to their own bottom line. I also just to just to respond to a crusade, on the mood of the nation poll, when we ask people what they value about democracy, we often get this response from conservatives, especially older conservatives, we’re a republic, not a democracy. I wouldn’t say we don’t get it from a majority of Republicans, but we get it from a not insignificant percentage. And I we look at that statement a little bit differently. We don’t necessarily think it’s dumb. We think that what they’re doing is expressing a concern with democratic rule with mob rule, in their own words, but certainly in majority rule, and I think it’s because they recognize that, you know, within the conservative movement, that they’re increasingly a shrinking part of the electorate, and they’re threatened by newly empowered groups, and they and so they want to emphasize that we’re not a democracy, but rather this republic, which, which we have always taken to mean and our interpretation of it goes back to Robert Dahl’s interpretation of it that this phrase captures the idea that there is a fear of mob rule of majority rule, and that goes back to the Federalist Papers, right? That was Madison.
Chris Beem
Well, he’s talking about Athens. Right. And so that’s the one government in the history of democracies, that was actually a direct democracy. And that was 2500 years ago. So I mean, I actually think that the the issue is that they’re trying to legitimize the two most undemocratic dimensions of our government, which is the Electoral College, and the two senators for each date. And they are they are APA, politically undemocratic, and they’re not going anywhere. And, and they usually end at least recently, they end up benefiting Republican candidates. So they want to justify that ideologically.
Candis Watts Smith
But so just to dovetail on that point, Chris, is that one thing that I can say that conservatives are very good at, is CO opting particular concepts for their own meaning and purpose, defining them as they see fit. So for example, voter integrity when people are talking about voter ID or early voting or mail in ballots, and why we would want to, you know, raise the bar for people to actually cast their ballot. Some people will call this voter integrity, which sounds great. Democracy is also a word that sounds great. So this is very much in that pattern. I think the other thing that stands out to me or stood out to me, was the extent to which a group of people who say they love the Constitution, have policies and agendas that seem very anti. And so one of them, for example, is Vivek Rama, swamis idea that we should raise the voting age to, you know, your mid 20s, or something like that. Right. So this is a way to cut out a large portion of the population. Or as another example, both kind of Mike Pence and Ron DeSantis, essentially kind of talking about federalizing policies that they say, like, that are supposed to be at the state. So which is it? Are we doing federalism? Or are we doing national politics where one particular party that is indeed shrinking? gets to say, what’s good for everyone? Right? So it’s very much moving away from local politics and states rights. And for these kind of overarching, let’s make the united states Florida kind of things. So I find it laughable that this kind of talk about lauding the Constitution and loving democracy are, this is the kind of that what we get, when we unpack it, we see that, that neither of these things are truly valued among these candidates.
Chris Beem
You know, I had to just just to put a point on that just about every question that you asked, Jenna, I could like just summarize up with Talk is cheap. And you know, I mean, say you love democracy. Well, okay. But actions speak louder than words. So anyway,
Michael Berkman
Well, I think we shouldn’t confuse democracy and the Constitution. The Constitution is a pretty undemocratic to che document. And that’s my point about Republic not a democracy in part. I mean, the Constitution is littered with provisions to try to protect not against direct democracy, but against majority rule in general. I mean, the Electoral College, we talked about Senate, we could go on and on. I mean, there were all kinds of restrictions built in there intended to No, just the whole creation of a Republicans sort of elite that would emerge through their filtering system of multiple elections, you know, having the state legislators vote for the senators and, and state legislators, picking the electors, and on and on, they wanted to remove things from the people as much as they possibly could. And they certainly I mean, Ramaswamy, in particular, has a shaky notion of the Constitution. And in general terms, he’s, he’s often sort of tossing things out there that have nothing to do with the Constitution. And I don’t even think he understands exactly when it when it was written. What we’re most alarmed me, though, Canada’s line in line with some of the things that you were talking about was, I think that some of them were talking about bombing Mexico, or maybe just putting heads on stakes at the border and using the military at the border. These are things that I don’t know if these are against the Constitution, necessarily. They’re certainly against the law. So there seem to be, they’re playing to the audience.
Jenna Spinelle
And speaking of that, you know, we were chatting before we started recording about the growing number of voters who identify as independent. Now they may still vote Republican, or vote for Republican candidates. But I wonder what that says to all of you about the notion of a primary. And I’m sure there’s something similar on the Democratic side, as well. You know, we’ve talked on the show before about primaries tending to attract the extremes of the party in terms of voters. And I just wonder with seemingly more and more people, and more and more younger people identifying as independent does the system need to change to catch up with that? Or is it going to lead to the candidates that are selected through the primary process, perhaps being out of step when it comes to the general election?
Candis Watts Smith
So this is really tricky, because it’s even hard to say, the primary system, because it’s different in every place. So in Pennsylvania, you have to choose a party. And if you’re independent, you may not vote in the party. And so then we could see how independents can be locked out of that situation. In the product, Carolina, you can identify as an independent, but you must choose a party to vote in the primaries. And I wonder, I guess I haven’t I mean, this is a empirical question is do we get very different types of candidates out of the two types of systems, one where independents are locked out? And another way they’re not?
Michael Berkman
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything compelling that that is true, although it seems like it should be. Right, because the people voting in primaries are the most extreme members of each party, the Republican primary electorate is quite different from the electorate, that’s likely to vote for Republican candidates in 2024, for example, they’re just far more committed to Donald Trump, they’re far more conservative on some of their policies. And they do nominate some rather extreme candidates, you know, I think that the polarization from whatever the sources are the primaries or whatever, whatever is driving the polarization. And I believe it’s multiple factors. It’s been happening for a very, very long time. But I think the polarization does drive many young people in particular into calling themselves Independents. Because the one one thing that polarization does force you to do, and this is what tougher for a younger voter coming into the political system that it is for somebody who has been in it for a while, is you have to choose between two drastically different alternatives. And that might not be a two drastically different alternatives who seem to hate each other. And that might not be something that’s appealing to too many of them. I’m not the first person to come up with this. But I do think that’s part of what’s driving the rise of independence. And as more of these young people come into the electorate, we’re going to see the number of independents continuing to increase
Chris Beem
The impact of that is going to be is that it’s going to further diminish the power of parties, which we’ve talked about being on issue and problem in terms of gatekeeping and and setting norms for behavior and expectations, things like that.
Michael Berkman
Right. I mean, that’s what strikes me about the Republican Party right now is the complete abandonment of the role of gatekeepers, you know, so you mentioned Republicans and Democrats, the Democratic Party is operating as a gatekeeper traditionally has, I don’t think they’re holding primaries, in many states. Certainly, they are making it as difficult as they possibly can, for anybody to come in and oppose Joe Biden, because they’re playing gatekeeper. But the Republicans, I mean, the idea that a political party would nominate for president, somebody who is under indictment in four different cases, and is going to be out on bail, as Christie likes to bring up and maybe even is convicted. By that point, is just mind blowing. Like a political party doesn’t do that, as we traditionally think of the Republican Party, because the job of a political party more than anything, is to win elections. That is a reason for existing traditionally, as we thought about them, they exist to find candidates run them and win. Yet they know that running somebody who is in the situation that Trump is going to be in IS, IS is not going to go well for them. But they seem incapable of playing any kind of gatekeeping role on this. Got to kind of free for all and everything’s being driven by Donald Trump or letting it happen.
Chris Beem
You know, we’ve seen this this show before. Yeah.
Michael Berkman
Right. Mitch McConnell could have stopped the whole thing. I mean, if you think of Mitch McConnell, as sort of the leader of the establishment leader of the Republican Party, he could have stopped it. He could have stopped it in the second impeachment. Instead, he came out and he said, we’re gonna let the criminal justice system do this. We’re not going to do it this way. That was exactly what he said, Well, let’s move to the criminal justice system. And you can see all the respect that many Republican leaders are giving to the criminal justice system now that they’ve got Donald Trump in their clutches, but all he had to do was vote for impeachment. And that was it.
Chris Beem
But you notice how silent Mitch McConnell has been over the last two months. But the other thing is, I mean, I’m quite confident that he thought he could have his cake and eat it too.
Michael Berkman
American institutions, including the judicial system, are being routinely torn apart by many Republican elites. And very few of them, including Mitch McConnell, are standing up for them and saying, Look, we have a process. We’re now in that process. In fact, when I voted to not impeach him, I said it’s removed to the process. So we have to respect the process, we have to see what happens. We have to believe in the integrity of the system. He’s not doing that. And by the admission, what he’s doing is he’s allowing all these voices to adjust. Now, right now, we know that American public opinion, we’ve done polling on this as shifted, especially among Republicans strongly against the FBI, it’s strongly against the Justice Department in general, whatever the resolution of these cases now, right, the juries have been vilified, even before they’re chosen. Even before any of this happens. They have made sure that nobody will trust or at least people on the Republican side, many of them will not trust the system. So Mitch McConnell, silence is not to me, okay. His silence is going along with this, because he’s got responsibility. He’s the Senate Minority Leader. He’s a leading Republican establishment figure. I can’t think of anybody else. Who would who has that role book, Kevin McCarthy, but he doesn’t have you know, Kevin McCarthy has a totally different kind of thing. He, he does everything he can to decimate America, right?
Chris Beem
No, I can’t argue with any of that. But none of this is new. Right. This is this is why are we 16?
Jenna Spinelle
I mean, what is maybe new? And Michael, you started to mention this before is the is the Republican Party being becoming more and more one of those institutions that conservatives or Republicans are turning against? And what happens if that is indeed, the case? The incentive, as you said, has traditionally been to win elections. But are there other incentives that might knock that down from first place, so to speak, and
Michael Berkman
Well, to me there, it’s the sort of attachment of the Republican Party to one person, as an instrument of that person. And to the extent that they’re not an instrument to that person, then they’re disposable to and I mean, I suspect and eager to hear from others to that, you know, as the thing plays itself down, and if Donald Trump starts to sort of crumble as I continue to believe he will, then that party is going to go to war with itself, as you already saw, at the debate, some policy routes about which there’s going to be really serious conflict within the Republican Party, over Ukraine, and especially when the funding bill comes up in the Republican House, where I think they’re probably going to vote against continued funding for Ukraine, and then the Senate is not going to be very happy with that. But you saw between pans, and Nikki Haley, right, and then Ramaswamy and some of the others, I think, I think there are real policy conflicts within that party, probably in a lot of other areas, as well, but they’re also around just this devotion to one person.
Candis Watts Smith
I would like to talk a little bit about that. So I was asked by a journalist why I thought that the question was, why isn’t DeSantis doing as well, as we thought and the questions that were posed to me around were around rhetoric. And I said that I actually think that that’s not the issue that we’re kind of in this moment where we are seeing a thing that maybe we haven’t seen before, which is kind of loyalty to an individual. And, you know, I think about, I remember when there was a shirt, someone bought me a shirt with Obama’s face on it. And I thought that was so weird, because I’m like, Oh, that’s not something that we do in the States. Like that’s something that other people do in non democratic countries to kind of focus on a particular human person. And I wonder to what extent we’re just not even tapping into this idea of loyalty because it’s not something that we’ve seen it. We haven’t seen it this way. And we don’t really seem to have language around it.
Michael Berkman
I have that thought around the flags. Like I never remember flags before. For candidates, these, especially flags that are bigger than the house that they’re in front of, with Trump’s name on them and, and is there something really, you know, it’s kind of a cult of personality, and that’s that’s a dangerous thing, especially if the party He is a part of that. Right? Which very clearly seems to be.
Chris Beem
It’s a manifestation of connecting a political leader intimately to one’s own identity. It’s not just a partisan choice. It’s not just an expression of opinion. It’s, this is who I am. And the fact that you, you can also do it in a way where you are thumbing your nose at everybody who doesn’t like it. That’s the other advantage to doing that. But yeah, I noticed that I mean, I canvass Robotham. I gave him money. And the I, you know, I put a sign in my yard and that was it. Right? That was it. But that’s not what’s going on here. And I really have tried to try to figure out what it is that accounts for this difference. And I think that’s it that is to be a Trump supporter is to attach one’s own sense of purpose, meaning value identity directly to that person, which is not a good recipe.
Candis Watts Smith
I guess my and I guess my question is, is have we ever seen this in our history?
Michael Berkman
We’ve seen demagogues, we I don’t know that we’ve ever seen quite like this.
Chris Beem
Not like this. I mean, you know, Roosevelt was president for what, 10 years for elections. I remember people saying, Yeah, Joe Lewis was always the champ the Yankees were always had world series champion. And Roosevelt was always the president. But that’s about as far as it went. It was never I don’t know, at least I don’t recall it being this kind of identification.
Michael Berkman
You know, with Lindbergh, maybe with Father Coughlin, maybe even with George Wallace. But in all of those cases, parties played the role of gatekeeper they kept them out. Right. And, you know, this is this is really one of the really important insights from that how democracies die. That responsibility has been abdicated. So you get here, maybe, Jen a good time to transition to the indictments.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, I was, I was going to actually. So I want to again, there’s so much changing. And, you know, I don’t want to get too bogged down in the weeds of every single indictment, I’m sure our listeners have sort of kept up with with some of that. But I want to instead focus us on an op ed that Jessica Hughes men from vote beat who was a guest on the show, last fall, she covers election administration, at the local level, and the people who make elections run and work. I’m just going to read a few lines of this, and I’ll link the whole thing in the show notes. But she says, I don’t have to tell you that an indictment won’t solve these problems. I also don’t have to tell you that things are likely to get worse before they get better. The push for hand counting paper ballots, the angry battles over control of elections, the rampant abuse of public records requests by bad faith actors. And the baseless lawsuits that demand so much taxpayer money are ongoing proof that his message meaning Trump’s message is still resonating. So I think it’s it’s tempting to see that yeah, you know, on one hand, Trump’s finally maybe going to get what so many people hope is coming to him. But yet there’s these other things that have already happened. And we’re going into another election with a workforce that is, at best burned out, if not left the public service or moved on to something else, because they’re getting threats. And, you know, just all as Jessica says, all these things that make it difficult, if not impossible to do their job. So I wonder how you all kind of square those things, and maybe how our listeners should think about squaring those two things like Trump being going through the justice process, but also the effects that, you know, what he is accused of doing seems to have already caused.
Chris Beem
I don’t know what’s going to happen. And I think I’m less pessimistic than Jessica is. But you know, I don’t want to sound like do justice of the heavens fall. But I’m not far from that. I you know, I just the rule of laws, the rule of law. And I, you know, I’m absolutely certain that things might get worse. But I am even more certain that the alternative of doing nothing of establishing a two tier system of justice is absolutely and and categorically worse. And so that’s a hill I’m willing to die on.
Candis Watts Smith
Well, let me just say we already have a two tier system of the criminal legal system, but not this way.
Chris Beem
I mean, yes, we do. But the idea that a president we’re not we’re just going to let that go. You’re Write? Of course, that’s right. But it doesn’t change what’s at stake in this in this choice.
Michael Berkman
I think Huseman is kind of mixing two things up together. And it’s a bit of a red herring. So nobody ever said that these indictments are the criminal justice system going after what happened on around the 2020 election was going to fix the problems with our democracy. And that’s not the job of the Justice Department. That’s not what they do. Right. They take write cases, and then they prosecute them and then judges judge them and, and democracies do this with former leaders all the time. There’s nothing new here in terms of democracies is not like, you know, the end of the democracy that we’re prosecuting a former president,
Chris Beem
It’s happened in the phrase for us, we’ve never done it.
Michael Berkman
But it is not an eight. It is not an undemocratic action. It’s happened in South Korea. It’s happened in men. It’s happened in Italy happened in other hands, it’s happened in Italy, right? So it’s happened in other places, once somebody leaves the office there, they’re just a citizen. And they’re liable to the justice system, which is treating him I think, quite nicely right now relative to the severity of the crimes. The other issue has to do with the ongoing threat to democracy from the perversion of our elections, in particular, along the lines of what happened in 2020. was putting the details aside was an effort to subvert the will of the people in multiple states. You know, one of the things that I was working on during my sabbatical was at my colleague, Michael Nelson, and I hear we’re working with folks at State United, who some of our listeners may remember was on the show last year, and one our brown metal, and we’ve been sort of cataloging very carefully precedents of election deniers and state legislatures. And so for example, in Pennsylvania, well over half the Republicans, well over half of the Republicans in the state legislature continue to deny that Joe Biden won Pennsylvania and won the election in 2020. And we know from other guests we’ve had from things we talked about this kind of election denialism. This is dangerous. This is a dangerous SOS to really be getting involved. We also know there has been all kinds of machinations in terms of the people that supervise elections in various states, changes in the laws, removing local control, all kinds of things like that. So whether or not we have disaster coming, I certainly hope not we require vigilance, continued vigilance on what’s going on. Because we we continue to have a highly decentralized system of elections in this country, where we allow states who are under the political control of people that don’t acknowledge even the last election, that they have the control over the election. So I think that is continued concern, a continued threat, something that needs to continue to be monitored. I’m not really sure what it has to do with Donald Trump, other than it is important that it be transparent. What happened last time, and the only way to achieve that transparency is going to be through the courts, or at least an important way to achieve that transparency is going to be through the courts. It came through the January 6 committee, but for half the country that was devalued, right? Oh, those were the Democrats. Now it’s going to come out of the courts. And that’s why there’s such an effort to devalue the courts as well. Because we can’t that way, we don’t have to accept what comes out of the way and by come out of the courts.
Candis Watts Smith
You’re talking about Trump’s cases?
Michael Berkman
Well, principally. But I also think you see what I’m really fascinated by the Georgia case. And not not actually because Donald Trump is at the top of it, but because of the people at the bottom of it. Because what the what the Georgia case does is show at the state level where these things go on what happened to steal an election. And so you’ve got the harassment, the utter harassment of these two election workers, right, that was perpetrated by people in Georgia and people from outside Georgia, in Georgia, that’s a Georgia State Crime, it should be tried there. You also have, you know, these fake electors, they’re prosecuting them in Michigan, because that was a Michigan plot, it should be prosecuted in Georgia to should probably be prosecuted in Arizona as well. These are state and there were other pieces of it as well. So it’s not just Donald Trump standing at the top, which of course, is what Jack Smith is all about with his case, and why he streamlines it the way that he did. But what I like about the George, because I think it’s important is it shows what can happen within the state, if there’s a concerted effort to steal an election. And you know, what bothers me a little bit about Jack Smith’s approach, although I understand why he’s doing it, I think is it feels a little bit like the January 6 committee to me, which largely coming from Liz Cheney, made itself all about Donald Trump, that this was Donald Trump. But what the Georgia case does are so no, this was the Georgia Republican Party. Again, case shows this was the Michigan Republican Party. Hmm. And I think it’s really important since that’s where elections are run. Okay, you got me on a soapbox on that.
Chris Beem
The only thing I would say is that I think what is indispensable if this is to go well, or at least not terribly is for the judges and the prosecutor, prosecutors to conduct themselves with probity to conduct themselves with rectitude, and a sense of gravitas associated that’s appropriate to this level of indictment. And from where I sit, they have been I have seen, you know, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been impressed with their ability to wade through this chaos and and just say, This is my courtroom. And we’re going to do it this way, because this is the right way. And if there’s anything else, I think it just undermines the kind of the one shot we have of getting through this. Well. And so, I mean, so far, I think that just speaks well to what could happen.
Michael Berkman
I mean, there’s nothing to disagree with there. But I’m struck by the fact that these federal prosecutors and judges who have for the most part acted with probity and professionalism, and all that are attacked is basically fascist pigs by Donald Trump, and nobody in the Republican Party with the exception of the Never Trump errs, who are no longer part of the Republican Party stand up and say, No, they’re not. They’re acting with profanity, because this is how the court system works. This is what bothers me about Mitch McConnell’s silence, as well as out of so many others that it’s not all but you know, it shouldn’t just be Chris Christie out there talking about how, you know, this is how the system works.
Chris Beem
Well, we just had a conversation with Tim Miller, where we kind of go into some of the, some of the reasons for for this complete, cowardice, moral cowardice.
Jenna Spinelle
We’re gonna have to leave it there. And it’s so good to have all of you back. I’m looking forward to getting back into our regular flow of episodes. Were going to stay bi weekly as we were in the spring, and lots of good stuff coming your way. So for the entire democracy works team. I’m Jenna Spinelle. Thanks for listening.
We're back from summer break and diving into the 2024 election season, Donald Trump's indictments, the spread of election deniers, and more. We also welcome Michael Berkman back from sabbatical and discuss the significance of "Democracy 2024" as the backdrop for the first Republican presidential debate on August 23.
For our listeners who teach American politics, we've put together a list of episodes designed to be a companion to your courses. Check it out at democracyworkspodcast.com/syllabus.
Referenced in this episode: Votebeat piece by Jessica Huseman on Trump indictments
We're excited to present an episode from our sister podcast, When the People Decide, about how libraries can be sites of civic engagement and building a new social fabric in America's cities and towns.
Librarians have spoken for years about “library faith,” the belief that public libraries are central to democracy because they contribute to an informed citizenry. Today, the idea is gaining even more traction, and even conservative crackdowns on what’s permitted in libraries reinforce the idea that they’re more than just “book warehouses” but centers for community engagement and representativeness.
This week, hear from two librarians working to enhance the role libraries of libraries democracy and civic engagement. Shamichael Hallman explains how he brought his experience in tech and faith leadership to bear when he ran a branch of the Memphis Public Libraries, including bringing Civic Saturdays to his community, a program of Citizen University. And public policy advocate Nancy Kranich of Rutgers University shares the high hopes she has that libraries remain crucial institutions that allow us to engage with our government–and each other.
Subscribe to When the People Decide
Americans want electoral reforms so that they can have more choice in elections. Recent surveys show that 20 to 50 percent of Americans are open to a new electoral system, while demand for a third party has crept upward since Gallup began asking in 2003. More Americans now call themselves “independent” than identify with either […]
Americans want electoral reforms so that they can have more choice in elections. Recent surveys show that 20 to 50 percent of Americans are open to a new electoral system, while demand for a third party has crept upward since Gallup began asking in 2003. More Americans now call themselves "independent" than identify with either of the major parties, but what happens when Americans try to reform their way out of a two-party system?
In More Parties or No Parties, Jack Santucci traces the origins and performance of proportional representation in U.S. cities, the reasons for repeal in all but one case, and discusses the implications of this history for current reform movements at the state and national level. In a two-party system, reform requires appealing to the group that wants to "get the parties out of politics" (or, in modern terms, to "reduce polarization"). This leads to ostensibly nonpartisan reform packages, yet party-like formations emerge anyway, as voters and governments need to be organized. However, such reform is not stable and has tended to make voting difficult for everyday people.
This conversation, originally recorded in August 2022, looks back at the history of political reform and current movements like the Forward Party and the adoption of ranked-choice voting in Nevada and other states. As you'll hear, reform is easy to put into a slogan, but much harder to implement in practice.
More Parties or No Parties
Jack Santucci's website
This week, we bring you an interview from the Democracy Paradox podcast about the political crisis in Peru and how it fits into the bigger picture of democratic erosion around the world.
Democracy Paradox host Justin Kempf thinks Peru is an extreme case of something that I think will become more common. His guest is Rodrigo Barrenechea, assistant professor of social sciences at the Universidad Católica del Uruguay and a Santo Domingo Visiting Scholar at Harvard University’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. He recently coauthored (with Alberto Vergara) the article "Peru: The Danger of Powerless Democracy" in the Journal of Democracy.
Democracy Paradox podcast
Democracy Paradox on Twitter
This episode from the Village SquareCast is a conversation between Manu Meel, executive director of Bridge USA and Mónica Guzmán, a senior fellow for public practice at Braver Angels and author of I Never Thought of it That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times.
Manu and Mónica discuss how to fight back against political division and find the answers you need by talking with people—rather than about them—and asking the questions you want across the divides you want, curiously. Mónica argues that seeing where people are coming from isn’t just possible, it's easier than you think.
I Never Thought of it That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times
Subscribe to the Village SquareCast
Political Historian, author and editor Eli Merritt joins #democracyish to provide some historical grounding for the place we find ourselves in America's story. America is at a tipping point, the question is what direction does it fall?!? Danielle and Waj discuss this and more on this episode of democracy-ish
Before we take a break for the summer, we wanted to talk about some of the events that have been on our minds lately, and some of what we'll be watching over the summer. Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith talk about what's happening in North Carolina, what we may hear from the Supreme Court in June, the fight over the debt ceiling, and more.
Many of these conversations ultimately boil down to the question of how serious the representatives of our democracy are about protecting the things that make America democratic. We end the episode addressing the question of whether the perverse incentives and the unserious behavior they produce can be overcome — and what it will take to do so.
New episodes of Democracy Works will return in late August. In the meantime, we'll be rebroadcasting some older episodes you might have missed and sharing episodes from our partners in The Democracy Group podcast network.
We've talked about generational politics on the show before with episodes on Millennials and Baby Boomers. This week, we turn our focus to Gen Z, those born from the late 1990s to early 2000s. This generation's formative experiences include school shootings, a global pandemic, and reckonings with racial and economic inequality.
In his book Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America, John Della Volpe argues that Gen Z has not buckled under the weight of the events that shaped them. Rather, they have organized around the issues America has left unsolved, from gun control to racial and environmental justice to economic inequality, becoming more politically engaged than their elders were at their age and showing a unique willingness to disrupt the status quo.
Della Volpe joins us this week to unpack what he's learned from thousands of conversations with members of Gen Z and what this generation's growing power means for the 2024 election and beyond. Della Volpe is the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, where he has led the institute’s polling initiatives on understanding American youth since 2000.
Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America
John Della Volpe on Substack
This week, we bring you an episode from Think Inclusive, a podcast that builds bridges between families, educators, and disability rights advocates to create a shared understanding of inclusive education and what inclusion looks like in the real world. The episode explores what Critical Race Theory is and what advocates for inclusive education need to know about the Anti-CRT movement.
You'll hear from individuals with experience and expertise in CRT:
- King Williams, a filmmaker, and journalist in Atlanta, GA
- Alida Miranda-Wolff, a professional in the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging sector in Chicago, IL
- Eddie Fergus, a professor at Temple University
- Pete Newlove, a doctoral student at the University of Colorado and current high school English teacher,
Referenced in the episode:
- Cherokee Schools' would-be diversity administrator shares why she stepped down (Cherokee Tribune & Ledger News)
- Teacher Anti-CRT Bills Coast To Coast: A State By State Guide (Forbes)
- Plessy v. Ferguson (History.com)
- Conservative-led school board fires superintendent after allegations of private ultimatum, teacher protest (Washington Post)
- Gov. Kemp opposes 'Critical Race Theory' in letter to state board of education (11 Alive - Atlanta)
- State Education Board Passes Resolution On Teaching Race (Georgia Public Broadcasting)
- Teachers Say Laws Banning Critical Race Theory Are Putting A Chill On Their Lessons (NPR)
Peniel E. Joseph, author of The Third Reconstruction: America's Struggle for Racial Justice in the 21st Century, joins us this week to discuss how the era from Barack Obama's election to George Floyd's murder compare to the post-Civil War Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement.
Joseph argues that racial reckoning that unfolded in 2020 marked the climax of a Third Reconstruction: a new struggle for citizenship and dignity for Black Americans, just as momentous as the movements that arose after the Civil War and during the civil rights era. However, Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith are not so sure he's right about that conclusion. We hope you'll listen to the arguments and think critically about where you land on the question of whether America has experienced or is in the midst of a Third Reconstruction.
Joseph is based at the University of Texas at Austin, where he holds the following titles:Associate Dean for Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Barbara Jordan Chair in Ethics and Political Values, Professor of History and Public Affairs, and Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy. His career focus has been on "Black Power Studies," which encompasses interdisciplinary fields such as Africana studies, law and society, women's and ethnic studies and political science. He is a frequent commentator on issues of race, democracy and civil rights.
Between democracy and autocracy is an anocracy, defined by political scientists as a country that has elements of both forms of government — usually one that's on the way up to becoming a full democracy or on the way down to full autocracy. This messy middle is the state when civil wars are most likely to start and the one that requires the most diligence from that country's citizens to prevent a civil war from breaking out.
Barbara F. Walter, author of How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them has spent decades studying civil wars around the world and working with other political scientists to quantify how strong democracy is in a given country. She joins us this week to discuss those findings, how the democratic health of the United States has shifted over the past decade, and more.
Walter is the Rohr Professor of International Affairs at the School of Global Policy & Strategy at the University of California, San Diego. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and completed post docs at the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University and the War and Peace Institute at Columbia University.
How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them
Barbara F. Walter on Twitter
At the end of March, millions of Americans lost access to Medicaid as pandemic-era expansions to the program were rolled back. At the same time, North Carolina’s legislature voted to expand Medicaid, marking a demonstration of bipartisan agreement in these polarizing times. This backdrop makes it a very interesting time to talk with Jamila Michener, who studies both the specific politics of Medicaid and how the political fights over Medicaid illustrate larger issues in federalism and democracy.
In this episode, we discuss how receiving government benefits like Medicaid impacts political agency, whether it’s possible to square federalism and equality, and more.
Michener is associate professor of government at Cornell University and author of Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics. In the book, Michener examines American democracy from the vantage point(s) of those who are living in or near poverty, (disproportionately) Black or Latino, and reliant on a federated government for vital resources.
Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics
Michener on Twitter
Episode TranscriptChris Beem
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University, I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. Our guest this week is Jamila Michener, who is an associate professor of government at Cornell University, and author of the book Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism and Unequal Politics. This book has been out for several years now. And but I really think that some of the things that we’re seeing happen right now, with the rollback of some of the pandemic era expansions to public assistance, broadly defined, whether that’s housing assistance, or food assistance, or things like Medicaid, Jamila and I talk about that in the interview, but I think this is a really important time to be thinking about how the distribution of these benefits this assistance, it has impacts on federalism and equality and our democracy more broadly.
Candis Watts Smith
On March 31, the U.S. government will essentially kind of do a wind down around Medicaid. And I’m not really sure if a lot of people are aware of that. And I think it’s really, I guess, on some level, it’s really good to have Jamila, here, right now, as a scholar of race, of poverty of policy, she makes salient millions of people who are otherwise made invisible to most people, her twitter handle is poverty scholar. And I just, I really admire Jamila, as an academic, her work is really careful. And it’s often beautifully written. But also she does the work of turning common sense on its head, and really asked us to think about the assumptions we make around poverty and poor people. So for example, I think the fact that there’s not a huge headline about the unwinding of the COVID-19, related Medicaid, unwinding tells us that the media is not necessarily speaking from the perspective of people in poverty. So her work kind of asks us to think about, you know, under what conditions, are we really seriously considering the well being of poor folks? And what does it mean that we may or may not care about a large and sometimes growing group of people, for the health of our democracy.
Chris Beem
It is striking that there isn’t more news around this event. I mean, you know, COVID, is no longer emergent, you know, whatever its status and, and so it’s that, you know, some of the expansion of Medicaid, it happened around that much of the expansion, but we’re still talking about, you know, somewhere around between 80 and 90 million Americans, which is just a staggeringly high number. And the idea that that this is going to go away, is going to have significant impacts with regards to health care with regards to health outcomes with regards to what happens to rural hospitals, what happens to, you know, hospitals in urban settings, where they’re suddenly overwhelmed, going back to emergency rooms serving as points of care or entree into the healthcare system. I mean, we don’t really know. And, you know, you hear these wide estimates about how many people are going to go back to being uninsured between what is it between 4 million and 15 million, something like that. But it is a big event. And it’s a big event for an enormous number of Americans. And there are no Americans who won’t feel the impact of this.
Candis Watts Smith
So, you know, we expanded Medicaid enrollment and then allow continuous enrollment, because there was a recognition that people needed health care during the pandemic, is that not the same when we do not have a pandemic? So, you know, one of the things I think that Jimmy does work highlights is that policy Telegraph’s messages to the public about who is deserving and who is undeserving, who should be cared for and who shouldn’t, who should be able to live with dignity, who should be able to participate in politics. And so, you know, there’s oftentimes you talk about, you know, low income people and people facing poverty don’t participate. Well. What kind of signal are we giving to people to say, we actually do not care if you are or are not insured? And you know, just to kind of be more nuanced about it is that because Medicaid And we can talk more about this later because Medicaid is partially allocated with state funds, that some states have a higher tolerance for inequality than others, some states have a higher tolerance for on democratic institutions than others. But you know, here, I think that all of this helps us to kind of see that our policies tell us something about our own values about who we value, what we value and the extent to which we’re willing to make sure that people have what they need. So, you know, I’m so appreciative of Jamila, kind of bringing up this conversation about Medicaid, because on one level, it seems so niche, I mean, you know, like, aside from the fact that 80 million people, yeah, that’s a pretty big niche. But like, policy wise, right, it’s not really a policy that people think about a lot. But when we start using it as a case, we can see the things that it highlights about poverty, about inequality, about federalism, about racism, mercy, about racism, about representation, all of these things are really illuminated, when we start unpacking how Medicaid works and doesn’t work for Americans.
Chris Beem
Well, and when you I mean, with respect to Medicaid, you know, you have exhibit A, and then Medicare as Exhibit C, you know, and so you can see, in stark contrast, how these programs that are ostensibly are meeting the same need are just understood and treated. So incredibly, definitely.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And I think we do definitely talk about that, in the interview, the difference between Medicare and Medicaid politically, and how that impacts the way that recipients of those programs view themselves and their sense of political agency. That’s a word that comes up a lot. So thank you both for setting the table there for us. And let’s go now to the interview.
Jamila Michener, welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us today.
Jamila Michener
Thanks for having me.
Jenna Spinelle
So, you know, as I was reading through your book, fragmented democracy, I wrote in my notes that on the one hand, it’s about one very specific policy program, that’s Medicaid, but it’s also in some way, it’s about everything about all of the ways that it’s a much bigger conversation about equality and policy and democracy. And so I guess I wonder to kick us off here, you know, how you kept those two thoughts in your head at the same time, as you were working on the book, and in the work you’ve done after, you know, focusing on this very narrow policy on the one hand, but also zooming out and thinking about and telling this much bigger story?
Jamila Michener
Yeah, that’s a great question. I love that you can see both of these at the same time, when you look at the work. Honestly, I started in a more focused place, which was, because so much of the book was grounded initially, in what I learned from people, when I talk to them in a way that brings you like very much to the micro, you know, like you’re talking to people about their experiences. And so you are thinking about a specific program, specific people, how they understand it, how it affects their lives. And for me, that kept it really interesting, because it wasn’t just some abstract theoretical concept. It was very real in very many people’s lives, you know, even more people now than when I wrote the book, right? What is upwards of 80 million people on Medicaid at this point. And so it’s, in one way, I thought, I’m gonna write a book about one policy, that policy might as well be one that like 10s of millions of people rely on because it might be one policy, but it has a really big imprint in people’s lives. But then as I talk to people, I realized this wasn’t just about one policy, it was about the structure of our political system and the structure of our political lives, right. And so I didn’t start off thinking, I think, if I started off thinking, I’m going to write a book about federalism and political equality and political institutions, and I probably would have been overwhelmed, honestly. But instead, I started off thinking, I want to understand this program, which is huge and important, and what it means in people’s lives, and specifically what it means for democracy. And then I kind of panned out, as I learned, and it ended up being about these bigger things. But that was a process that happened slowly so I was able to ease my way into it and not be like too overwhelmed.
Jenna Spinelle
And I want to come back to some of the other ways that the inequality that you describe is playing out across other policies, but can you talk a little bit about the history of Medicaid was the inequality that you discovered kind of baked into it from the start, or did it evolve over time as the program expanded?
Jamila Michener
Yeah, I love that, you know, the answer is both it was baked in from the start. And then it evolves continually over time. I mean, Medicaid, although it’s huge now. And it’s a lot of kind of state budgetary footprints, even the federal budget. It started off, understood to be a program or designed to be a program that was going to be pretty small, right? Like all the action was in Medicare, people who were over 65 elderly people were very much understood at that point, when Medicaid first kind of came into being in the 1960s, the people who are understood to be the most in need, and also the most like, politically powerful, who really needed to be responded to on a policy level where like elderly people who had very few options when it came to health insurance and very great needs. And so a lot of the focus at that time when the legislation was being developed, was on Medicare, right, understandably, so. And so Medicare was designed in a way that reflected the fact that policymakers really wanted to serve this over 65 constituency, it was universal, anyone over 65 can get it. It was centrally administered. It’s not like what state you live in changes what kind of Medicare you get Medicare is Medicare, no matter where you live, it was a social insurance program imagined as something that people would pay into and then be able to rely on when they got to be older. It was all the things that we often really like about the way social policy is designed. And it was for a pretty sympathetic group of people like elderly people, you know, who have worked hard their whole lives, Medicaid was kind of tacked on, because it was like, oh, maybe we should do something for poor people, too, right. But it didn’t have the political sway behind it. And it wasn’t the main focus. It wasn’t like people living in poverty or an important political constituency who we really want to serve. It was kind of like, well, we’re doing this big thing. We have the majorities we need in Congress, and the support we need from the president at the time was Lyndon Johnson, let’s tack on a smaller thing. That is kind of important, too. But it really was not imagined to be a big deal. Johnson doesn’t even mentioned it in the big speech that he makes about that social security legislation that passes Medicaid and Medicare and 65. And some people call Medicaid, Medicaid like the friendless stepchild of Medicare, it’s like out here over there on the side, and nobody cares about you. But over and so it’s designed in a way that reflects that, like, it’s not universal, the way that Medicare is, instead, Medicaid is only for people who meet certain criteria, you have to be living in or near poverty, initially, you have to have other criteria. Initially, you had to be on what was considered welfare, cash assistance, then, and there are other categorical requirements like maybe if you’re pregnant woman, if you’re a child, if you’re but really only people living in poverty, who then also meet other criteria. So the idea was, this is going to be for a small slice of the most vulnerable people, it’s not going to be a huge resource or investment. And at the start, that was true, but it pretty quickly changed, right? Medicaid was designed to be a program that was going to be partially paid for by states, and also that states would have a lot of control over they would have a lot of discretion over. And so the program grew over time. But very unevenly, I mean, the last state to get a Medicaid program was Arizona in I think, 1981, or 82. So the first state is starting its Medicaid program in 6566. And the last, so there’s a big span of time before we even have it in every state. And then every state is kind of doing a different thing. And that was really only possible because it was a program that wasn’t designed for constituency that was understood to be very politically powerful. So it’s kind of like we’re gonna give you all scraps and you got to take what you can get. That’s changed a lot over time. It has, it hasn’t changed entirely. But efforts to cut Medicaid efforts to pull back efforts at retrenchment have consistently failed. And instead, the program has grown over time. Now because all Medicaid beneficiaries are super politically powerful. In fact, part of what I talk about in my book is reasons why they’re not. But because this is a really great need. And there are some buckets of people in the program who are sympathetic and do who do have some political sway, you know, and so, yeah, it started off as one thing it’s evolved a lot and it’s ever evolved. over, you know, the pandemic brought a real expansion expansion in the sense that more people got on the rolls, because hey, there’s a pandemic, and you want people to have health insurance so that they can get coverage. And also, the federal government said, you know, we’re gonna give states more resources for Medicaid, but we’re gonna require that they don’t churn, they don’t turn people away, or take people off the program. And so that was the status quo for the last few years during the pandemic, pretty soon at the end of, you know, March, that’s no longer going to be the case. And states can start churning people off the press. So this 80 plus million people that we have now that number is going to plummet back down. So to say, this is a program that is ever changing. It’s literally happening right now as we speak. Yeah,
Jenna Spinelle
I’m glad you brought up the kind of political agency and the difference between how the program how Medicare and Medicaid are thought of politically because as you were describing, you know, Medicare is universal on this focus on senior citizens who are and have been a very reliable voting bloc, I’m sure that played into the minds of the legislators who were involved in passing it. But as you tell in the interviews you did for your book, people who are on Medicaid don’t have that same sense of political agency. Can you talk more about that? Where those feelings come from? I think this might be another kind of chicken in the egg situation like, do they feel politically powerless before they started on Medicaid? Or was it a result of being kind of churned up through this system that made them feel like they didn’t have much political agency? In some cases, as you said, there? There are certainly exceptions. But you know, my sense was that broadly, the the sense of agency was fairly low.
Jamila Michener
Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, baseline people who the vast majority of people who are Medicaid are people who are living in or near poverty, many, not all, but many of those people have a variety of health problems they’re facing. And so these are not the folks that are going to be the most politically active and have the most political agency, right. That being said, even if the baseline isn’t like, this is the group that’s going to be out there engaging politically. One of the things that I point out in the book is the ways that then once you enroll in the program, your experience with the program, itself plays a role in further dampening your political wherewithal. And so when you give people access to a resource they didn’t have before, and they know that resource comes from the state. If they respond politically, it’s not as though Medicaid beneficiaries are just this political last cause. And these are people who were never going to participate anyway, given the right context, the right access to benefits, and then you get health care, maybe that means that you’re less worried. And you can now participate more fully in the life of your community and your polity. There are all sorts of processes and mechanisms that explain this. But the larger point is that a program like Medicaid shapes people’s political lives, and when it’s expansionary, and it’s generous, and it reinforces human dignity, it can draw people into our democracy. And when it’s retrenching and it’s pi V, and it reinforces alienation and stigmatization. It can push people out of our political community. And the book really focuses a lot on that. Since then, I’ve done more research and more thinking around the role of like organizing advocacy and other community organizations grassroots organizing, and that’s another pathway where I’ve seen people bring in Medicaid beneficiaries and activate them, some of these red states where we’ve gotten Medicaid expansion, and we did not expect it. It wasn’t accidental, it was because people organized to get it. And part of the way they did that was not by assuming that Medicaid beneficiaries are somehow naturally powerless, but by thinking about how to build power among that group, and so policy and people organizations can build power among Medicaid beneficiaries, but it doesn’t happen naturally. Right. And policy actually has the power to do the opposite. It can erode and wane the power of beneficiaries, which isn’t good for democracy as a general course of of action.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, and, you know, some of those expansions I know happen through ballot measure campaigns, when you know, that’s a very particular type of tool and mechanism. And we’ve seen it happen across several policy areas where states that are stereotypically conservative pass what we might broadly consider progressive policies whether it’s, you know, marijuana legalization or minimum wage increase or changes to to voting policies and procedures and so I guess I wonder if you would consider Medicaid as an instance where the interests of constituents and people are not necessarily aligned with the interests of legislators and the incentives that they have.
Jamila Michener
Yeah, I mean, of course, this really varies by state. And it depends on who the legislators are. But certainly it’s the case that because Medicaid expansion was associated with and came as a part of a larger package of policies through the Affordable Care Act, which is by some pejoratively called Obamacare, and by others, Obamacare is a compliment, right? It depends on where you’re coming from. But because Medicaid expansion was associated with the ACA with Obamacare, and because Medicaid in general, as a policy is associated with being a costly government program, if you are conservative in the sense that you want government to have a smaller footprint, you don’t want to see it growing. Or if you’re partisan, in the sense that you don’t want to support a program that’s associated with President Obama, then you might have reasons political reasons, either ideological or partisan to oppose Medicaid expansion. And that’s what we saw in a lot of different places. And that is very much out of sync with with public opinion more generally, right? There’s wide scale support for Medicaid. In terms of public opinion, it’s only a little less popular than Medicare, which is like pretty astounding, like a lot of people assume that, quote, unquote, poor programs are always going to be stigmatized, and always going to be looked down on. But when we look at public opinion, data focused on Medicaid, it doesn’t look like people’s attitudes towards cash welfare, you know, or even their attitudes towards, quote unquote, food stamps, or SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Instead, it’s actually much closer to people’s attitudes towards social security and Medicare, not quite there. But pretty close, right? This might have something to do with the fact that, you know, when you survey people, and you ask them, if they have some connection to Medicaid, either personally, because they use it at some point in their lives, or because they know someone close to them, in their immediate circle who uses it, over 70% of Americans have that connection. So this is a program that many people understand matters in the lives of either themselves, or people they love across the life course, you might not need it right now. But when you’re older, and you’re thinking about being in a nursing home facility in a country that has like, basically zero Long Term Care Options, guess what a lot of middle class people when they get elderly and need to be in a nursing home, they’re going to rely on Medicaid did provide their long term care. And so over the life course, a lot of people are connected to Medicaid. And so it’s a pretty popular program. And I think that means that it is in many ways out of sync with what most people want with what many people want, when you oppose Medicaid or you want retrenchment of Medicaid, or you don’t want to expand Medicaid, that’s often not because that’s what the average person wants. It’s because you have political constraints, either ideological or partisan, that make you reluctant around this program. And so it’s a matter of democracy, like where what people want should be reflected in outcomes, right. That’s part of how we think about democracy. And Medicaid is one of those spaces where you can have that disconnect, depending on what state you’re in, which is another aspect of our political system, which is federalism, and how responsive elected officials are to preferences actually varies across place. And so our democracy isn’t just the national thing. There’s a kind of sub national variation in the quality of democracy.
Jenna Spinelle
So I have a few questions for you about federalism. But can you just talk about that definition and how you kind of arrived at it for purposes of this framework you lay out?
Jamila Michener
Yeah, I mean, I draw on a lot of different people to try to think about and conceptualize federalism, I will say, when I first realized that, Okay, I gotta write things about federalism. In this book, I kind of rolled my eyes, I was like, Oh, this is so boring, you know. And then as I got into it, I was like, wow, this is really not boring. This is the heart of how our political system operates. But really, federalism reflects a kind of division of authority in government such that the central government of a national government doesn’t have all of the authority or decision making power. Instead, some of that power also lives in the hands of states. And that’s like constitutionally dictated, right? Like, that’s the 10th Amendment, like states have power. But also in the book, I tried to think about federalism even more broadly than that. And this is really drawing on Lisa Miller, and legal scholars like Heather gherkin, who take federalism right down to the local level, right? And it’s not so much that localities have constitutionally embedded powers like states do. You But many states are giving are delegating power to localities, and certainly no localities are doing the administration of many policies. And so this distribution of power of responsibility of authority across levels of government is really the hallmark of federalism. To be clear, federalism can take many different forms. It’s changed over time, historically in the US, and it’s certainly different in different places. But I think, at the crux of calling this federalism as opposed to something else, right, like just some decentralized power, which is a font a feature of federalism, but it’s really that there is genuine substantive authority at other levels of government, the states can do things that the federal government can, and that the federal government can’t necessarily stop them from doing right, they have real power, right. And that also is true of localities, to a certain extent, to a lesser extent, but a certain extent. So I call it federalism all the way down from the top with the federal government, through states and localities. There’s a different distribution of power and authority. And that has implications for how people experience policy for the way policy is designed and administered, and ultimately implications for democracy.
Jenna Spinelle
And is it possible to square federalism and equality? Or to borrow a phrase from a question I asked earlier? Is inequality baked in to federalism?
Jamila Michener
Yeah, that’s a great question. You know, in some ways, inequality isn’t inherently baked into all kinds of federalism. So for example, some other federal systems not in the US have, like fiscal stabilization measures built into them, right, which means that if one state in the Federation has like dramatically fewer resources than others, the central unit, the central government, may give that state additional resources redistributed more to them to sort of balance things out, right. So there are ways that you can design a federal a federated polity, ways that you can structure federalism so that it is not such an arbiter of our harbinger of inequality, right. But that is not generally what we’ve done in the US. So I don’t want to like impinge federalism as a kind of system in some universal uniform or inherent sense. But as federalism has been built, and expressed and articulated in the context of the US, it has been a medium through which inequality has really been perpetuated. Certainly, this is the case for racism and racial inequality, also the case for economic inequality. And in the book, I focus on the kind of big three, which is racial inequality, economic inequality, and political inequality, right, that you have differential political voice as a result of some of the policies and practices oriented with federalism. But it’s important, I thought, I struggled with this a lot. When I read when I wrote the book, I thought, what’s the point of saying this, because it’s not like federalism is going to change, like it’s a part of our political system. And the more I read about federalism, the more I learned about it, the more I became convinced that like, we’re not suddenly going to have like, some kind of national, everything where federalism goes away. But we can certainly do it differently than we’re doing it now. And we can do it in ways that push back against the kinds of inequality that maybe now we take for granted, that quality of life in Mississippi is going to be dramatically different than quality of life in Minnesota. Maybe now we take for granted that you’re going to have rights and privileges in California and New York that you absolutely do not have in Georgia and Florida. But that doesn’t have to be the case. We can have federalism and not have that.
Jenna Spinelle
And we’ll end here. I know, you mentioned earlier that at the end of March, which we’ll be right when this episode is coming out, there’ll be pandemic related changes to you know, not just Medicaid, as I understand that, but lots of kind of assistance that had been in place during the pandemic will be ending. So can you just, you know, talk more about what that outlook is what the kind of post pandemic relief era looks like, maybe not just for Medicaid, but taken more broadly into some of the other aid areas that were expanded during the pandemic years.
Jamila Michener
Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I mean, some people are calling it the great unwinding. Because the, during the pandemic, there were a lot of things that sort of were further invested in that were ramped up and that were extended in ways that helped a lot of people. And because I was interviewing people all throughout the pandemic, this really became clear to me people don’t know the nitty gritty of policy. They’re not like this bill and that bill, you know, but they know that suddenly they’re getting more benefits, food benefits that the amount of of SNAP assistance they’re receiving. increases, and they can get some more food for their family or at least offset the growing cost of food. And they know that they’re not having to do as much there’s not as much administrative burden associated with getting help from the government. They know they’re getting emergency rental assistance. So they’re able to stay in their houses, people know that things change, and that it can make their lives like noticeably easier. And this is great unwinding the fact that a lot of the things that we ramped up that we extended that we expanded during the pandemic are now waning, is a huge concern. It means for many people, they’re going to go back to facing even higher levels of precarity. Like they were prior to the pandemic or early in the pandemic, but also people now No, it’s not necessarily Oh, I didn’t have to be living on the brink that way. It was clearly within the ambit of this of the federal government and state governments and local governments to provide these resources. And now I’m just going back to the way it was before many of these people are really hard working people. I mean, I don’t think anybody should starve or not have a roof over their head, whether they’re lazy or hardworking. I think that’s a matter of human dignity. But it’s worth pointing out that many of these folks are not sitting around at home, like I want the largesse of the government, they’re working really hard, getting paid not great wages, dealing with rising food costs, rising housing costs, rising costs of everything that aren’t keeping up with rising wages trying to survive. And during the pandemic, the government, federal, state, local, help them more. And now there’s a decision to stop that. And so people have to live with that their kids have to have less food to eat, they have to have, you know, a harder time keeping a roof over their head and such. And I guess the main, the last thing I would say is that the great unwinding is going to be very uneven. And I know listeners will probably think this lady is obsessed with federalism maybe a little bit, right, because of how much it matters in people’s lives. I’ve worked with some states on how to manage the unwinding. And there are some states that are really working hard to make sure that anybody who is still eligible remains on these programs to really limit the amount of churn the people coming on and off limit, the omitted the additional administrative burden that people face. There are states that are working really hard to do that, because they don’t want to see a mass exodus of people from government assistance programs. And there are states that are just counting down until they can get these people off the assistance. And so where you live is going to be a great determinant of how you experience this great unwinding. And it’s arbitrary, and it’s capricious, and it means that some people are going to face pain, honestly, that they wouldn’t have to if they just lived someplace else.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, Jamila, thank you for your work, shedding light on these issues and helping us think about federalism. In this way, we will link to your book and some of your more recent work in the show notes. So listeners can go check it all out. But thank you so much for joining us today.
Jamila Michener
Thanks for having me, this has been a fun conversation, always love to geek out about federalism.
Chris Beem
That was terrific, and really lays out this book in a very clear and succinct way. I think what is really interesting and distinctive about this book, is how it uses a specific policy question and, you know, innovation to kind of get at this really wooly and complicated and important concept of federalism. And it is, you know, we understand we Americans think about federalism as one of those, you know, really weighty words that we can just throw around and that it kind of like it’s a trump card on conversation. While this is just federalism, right? As we just noted in the last show about juries, right? founders were scared of democracy and scared of giving this power to everybody. But they were also very scared of unrestricted political power. And so federalism was kind of framed as this way to further restrict power, political power, and to make another level of checks and balances, right. So we’ve always had this idea that the states have sovereignty, where how much and how and when it competes with the federal government who wins. These are incredibly fraught questions. They’re incredibly mushy questions. There’s no guidebook that tells you when one wins and when the other wins. And politicians are extremely good at playing both sides. Right. And so when you look at Medicaid as opposed to Medicare, you see this concept in action and you see how kind of Have mushy and inarticulate it is, it’s not going anywhere. federalism is part of our political DNA. But it is also Medicare Medicaid bespeaks just how complicated and politically expedient this concept can be.
Candis Watts Smith
You use the word mushy that Medicaid kind of illustrates how mushy this business of federalism is. And I think that one way to step back and think about this is something that you said earlier, which is, we have case a Medicaid, we have case B, Medicare, Medicare, as Jamila outlined, was a policy that was intended to be strong, well put together easy to get that it is constructed to be not prestigious program, but it is treated that way. And the people who get Medicare are believed to be and constructed as deserving Medicaid, as she outlined was kind of tacked on and then given to the states. And so, you know, on some level, we might ask ourselves, well, you know, Medicaid is very much a child of federalism. And why, because we were willing to let states do what they pleased for a particular group of people. And there’s another group of people that the federal government said, come hell or high water, we’re going to make sure that they’re okay. So, you know, I think that’s right. I mean, I do think that Medicaid reveals, right, if you walk from one state to another, that your Medicaid benefits and eligibility can change drastically, some people are actually making life decisions around what kind of healthcare they might get under a state Medicaid system. Voting is similar education is similar. I mean, granted, like these are things that are given to the states, like the states have power around voting, the states have power around policing, the states have power around education, the states have power around a lot of things the federal government could, when it wants, Congress get itself together, could do very different things and set baselines and create incentives for states to produce better outcomes. And sometimes they do, and when they don’t, and when they do similarly, we learn what we value as a country. And so you know, the kind of range and complexity that we see Jamila, this book shows that range and complexity influences whether people are going to participate. So it’s not even just kind of like the first order effects of material outcomes for people. But there’s a second set of effects around how people participate in politics, because they are telegraph messages about whether they should, whether they are full citizens, whether they belong in the community, whether they can actually understand what’s going on, you can understand your benefits, can you understand politics enough to be able to make a good decision? So one of the things I appreciate about her unpacking the complexity is that it tells us not just about how well off a group may become or not become, but also what the kind of second order effects on democracy is. And whether people want to participate after dealing with the state dealing with the state’s red tape and dealing with the state’s administrative burdens. That is something worthy of her work as well.
Chris Beem
That’s well said, I think there is a deep and abiding suspicion of poor people. And the suspicion is that they are gaming the system, right? The trope of welfare queens is long standing. And when it comes out, because it does happen, right? When it comes out, it becomes a big story. And you know, there is this. There is not a conservative Christian on Earth in the United States of America, who does not know the verse, the Bible verse, He who does not work, neither shall he eat. Right? This is a very deep idea in American life. And we are an incredibly libertarian country. I have in the last 10 years been to England and South Africa. Those are both lock in countries in their founding in their in their kind of self conception there. are so much more communitarian than the United States of America, we are if you know, I don’t know, maybe Australia, but we are an extremely libertarian country. And if you are that, then your notion is that, hey, you’re responsible for you. And if you are, if you make it, it’s because of you, and if you don’t, is because of you. And so therefore, there’s already this presumption that if you’re poor, that is because of either your moral failure or choices you’ve made. And so you know, you get some, you will find that people are more engaged around questions of children and the disabled, right, because that is something that you can’t necessarily, but certainly you can’t control who you’re born to who your parents are, right. And equality of opportunity is a an important concept in United States politics, at least, you know, it’s as a concept. But, you know, we’re not willing to do the, to make the investments to make equality of opportunity genuine, right, because we’re more worried about somebody gaming the system.
Candis Watts Smith
So you know, I mean, just going back to, you know, about what we learned and didn’t learn during the pandemic, right. So we have this notion that if you are, there are a lot of people who believe if you are poor, it is because something that you did you have control over this, except the pandemic, it’s kind of similar to the Great Depression, illustrated, that you can be poor because of somebody else’s doing right, or because of the situation or the circumstance. And that became very clear for a lot of Americans very quickly, most Americans do not have enough savings to withstand one month of unemployment. And so that kind of irony is that this kind of idea, and value still is maintained, even after recently learning relearning this lesson, during the pandemic. And I know that we didn’t learn the lesson, because the first kind of talk about unemployment benefits was that we need to end unemployment benefits, because people are not working. The point that I’m trying to make here is that, you know, our ideas about who is deserving, who is morally suspect, who deserves dignity, did not get a full revision and review after the pandemic. And I don’t know, on some level, I just feel like we’re bumping our head against the walls. And this kind of Medicaid unwinding, I think, is just yet another example of how we have yet to learn our lessons around how we can make our values and our priorities match. And maybe our values and priorities do match. Like maybe it’s just that we don’t value people’s health. And so we don’t prioritize it. But it seems like we should, right?
Chris Beem
I think it’s a good note to end on. You know, it speaks to the fact that this isn’t a distinctive, I’m going to use that word again. It’s unusual to have a book about policy that usually only appeals to policy geeks make arguments that are at the core of how Americans understand their government and how they understand the moral implications of their government. So terrific. Great. So I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith. For Democracy Works, thanks for listening.
This week, we bring you an episode from Feet in 2 Worlds and its series Immigrants in a Divided Country, which explores the current political landscape from the perspective of immigrants.
In this personal audio essay, writer and audio producer Boen Wang goes looking for answers. He always thought his mom—an immigrant from Mainland China —was brainwashed by the Chinese Communist Party. His mom, on the other hand, thinks he’s been brainwashed by the New York Times and CNN. To break the deadlock Boen interviews his mom about the evolution of her political beliefs—which are on the opposite end of the spectrum from his.
As he learns more about his family and himself, Boen discovers the surprising history and etymology of the term “brainwashing”—which goes back to the last Chinese empire and is deeply rooted in American Cold War-era anxieties about the rise of communism. In the end, he emerges with a new understanding of the use and misuse of “brainwashing” and shares his thoughts on how people with opposing views can live with their differences.
Juries have been at the center of some of the most emotionally charged moments of political life, especially in high profile cases like the trial of Derek Chauvin for George Floyd’s murder in 2021. This week, we explore juries as a democratic institution. Our guest, Sonali Chakravarti, argues that juries provide an important site for democratic action by citizens and that their use should be revived. She says juries could be a forward-looking institution that nurtures the best democratic instincts of citizens like examining their own perceptions and biases and engaging in dialogue and deliberation.
Chakravarti is a professor of government at Wesleyan University and the author of Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life , published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020.Her work focuses on public participation in legal institutions and the relationship between law and politics.
Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life
Chakravarti on the Chauvin trial – The Atlantic
How jurors can protect abortion access – Boston Review
More than ever, civic learning is needed to ensure each and every person across this country has the necessary tools to engage as members of our self-governing society. However, schools are also a growing part of the culture wars. According to a 2022 National Education Association Survey, nearly half of schools reported challenges teaching about race and racism and practices related to LGBTQ students in the classroom. As we've discussed before on the show, book bans, funding cuts, and teacher shortages are also making teaching anything — let alone civics — more difficult.
At this critical juncture, Civic Learning Week unites students, educators, policymakers, and private sector leaders to energize the movement for civic education across the nation. This week's episode includes two experts who talk about the theory and practice of strengthening civics education in these polarizing times.
Emma Humphries is Chief Education Officer and Deputy Director of Field Building for iCivics, the non-profit founded by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to reinvigorate civics through free, interactive learning resources. Emma serves as iCivics’ pedagogical expert, ensures its resources evolve to a place of greater equity and deeper learning for all students, and advocates for more and better civic education across the country.
Ashley Berner is Director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and Associate Professor of Education. She served previously as the Deputy Director of the CUNY Institute for Education Policy and as an administrator at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia. Her most recent book is Pluralism and American Public Education: No One Way to School.
Civic Learning Week
iCivics poling on bipartisan support for civic education
Diffusing the History Wars: Finding Common Ground in Teaching America's National Story
People who want to improve the world often encounter problems of collective action (how to get many individuals to act in concert), of discourse (how to talk and think productively about contentious matters), and of exclusion. To get things done, they must form or join and sustain functional groups, and through them, develop skills and virtues that help them to be effective and responsible civic actors.
Peter Levine, one of America's leading scholars and practitioners of civic engagement, identifies the general challenges that confront people who ask the citizens' question and explores solutions in his most recent book, What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life. Democracy Works host Chris Beem also thinks through these questions in his most recent book, The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Democracy. In this conversation, Levine and Beem discuss how their approaches differ and how individual and collective actions can't be separated from each other when it comes to civic engagement.
Levine is the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs in Tufts University's Jonathan Tisch College of Civic Life.
What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life
The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy
Many of us can conjure moments when politics made us feel sad. But how often do those feelings translate into more serious forms of depression or other mental health issues? And if politics does make us depressed, what do we do about it? Christopher Ojeda has spent the past few years exploring these questions and joins us this week to talk about the relationship between depression and democracy.
Ojeda is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Merced and author of the forthcoming book The Sad Citizen: How Politics Makes Us Depressed. He visited Penn State to give us a sneak preview of this important work on the relationship between democratic engagement and individual mental health. We discuss how to meet the demands that democracy places on us without sacrificing our mental health in the process.
Episode TranscriptChris Beem
From the McCartney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University, I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle, and welcome to Democracy Works. This week, our guest is Christopher Ojeda, who is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Merced, the author of the forthcoming book, The Sad Citizen,: How Politics Makes Us Depressed, and an alum of Penn State, he received his PhD here a few years ago, and we brought him back to campus recently, at the request of the McCourtney Institute Student Advisory Board who had been asking us to do some programming around mental health and democracy, it is a topic that is very much on their minds. And Christopher, as it turned out, was the perfect person to bring in to have that conversation.
Chris Beem
Yeah, that’s why we have the student advisory committee, we wanted to know, what students were thinking about and what they were concerned about. And this issue of mental health in general, and depression, specifically, is something that’s really significant within this population. And, and I looked up a, you know, tried to look up some, some numbers. And I mean, this is from the Walton Family Foundation in a survey they they paid for, and it said that Gen Z is about twice as likely as Americans over 25 to battled depression, and the number is 42%. Coming up on half of all Gen Z Americans. And, you know, there’s there’s a lot of reasons for why that is. That’s where we are, right? Their whole civic lives, they’ve seen some really disturbing things happen. They’ve seen politics, apparently, prove unable democratic politics prove unable to, to address some problems as they saw COVID They saw issues associated with climate change a variety of other issues. And and Kansas, as you mentioned, gun violence and school shootings, too, right.
Candis Watts Smith
Yeah. I mean, this is a group of people who asked fourth and fifth graders, you know, we did fire drills or tornado drills. They’re doing active shooter drills. And, you know, I think I’m really glad that we’re having this discussion, because we tend to think primarily about politics and policy as perhaps addressing the issue of health, mental health, physical health, health care, reproductive health, you know, that we hope that we have the politics and good governance to produce outcomes that are better for the public. But what Christopher does is kind of spin this on its head and say, Yeah, but look at what happens when you when you are not doing your part when you’re not doing like when we don’t have good governance, when we are not feeling constrained by the norms of losers consent, when we are expected to kind of watch the news on this kind of 24 hour loop, and just kind of a mass, you know, aggregate these really often sad, anger inducing anxiety inducing pieces of news, right, that that in itself, can produce depression and sadness. And so I’m really, I’m, I’m pleased that we brought Christopher along for me, as an educator to just kind of think about how I talk and teach around a topic that can do harm to my students to be to be quite frank.
Chris Beem
Well, and that does harm to our democracy as well. And that’s kind of Christopher’s point. I don’t, I don’t want to leave listeners with the impression that this is simply a problem for young Americans, right. It’s documented all over the world. And I just went to for my physical last week, and my physician is kind of McCourtney is to group and he asked me what we’re doing. I told him and, and I just said, I asked him, Are you? Are you seeing more depression and anxiety and he’s a family physician, and he just gravely shook his head. Yes. The other thing that you were saying I think is, is is right. And it’s really I think, at the core of why Christopher’s work is so importantly, it does have this kind of Zeitgeist kind of feel to it, what’s going on now, but it’s also true that he’s asking questions about democracy per se right now. Because democracy is going to be, it’s going to inevitably involve wins and losses, you know, you’re going to have candidates that you really want to win who don’t, and or policies that you really want to pass that don’t. And you’re going to feel bad. And that’s just part of what you sign up for. But Christopher’s asking the question, when does it become so bad? That it undermines our feeling of empowerment or desire to be to kind of shake it off and get on to the next battle? And do we do enough of us feel so overwhelmed by depression, that it becomes harder to sustain a democracy? And more importantly, how do we know when that’s happening?
Candis Watts Smith
I’m glad that Christopher is thinking about this, because I think you know, when I told other people, yeah, we’re doing this podcast today on the sad citizen, and everybody that I talked to is like, yes, that part. So you’re right. It’s totally in the zeitgeist. And the good thing about students is that they have words for their feelings. And they are able to articulate what some of us older folks cannot articulate, which is, we really need to be thinking about what these questions of mental health and emotional intelligence mean, for the way that we engage with politics and democracy more generally.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And I think you’ll hear in this conversation that Christopher is very thoughtful about how he thinks about this work. And he also, in addition to the quantitative research, he did interviews with mental health professionals and therapists about some of the ways that they are working with patients who come in with depression that is related to politics, or their engagement with the news and these sorts of things. So we talked about that. So lots to get to in this one. Let’s go now to the interview with Christopher Ojeda.
Jenna Spinelle
Christopher, Ojeda welcome to Democracy Works. Thanks for joining us.
Christopher Ojeda
Thank you so much for having me.
Jenna Spinelle
So there’s lots to dive into in your work about the relationship between mental health and political engagement. I’d like to start with just a little bit about how you became interested in this this area of study, and maybe to the extent that that relates to your own experience, which you also have written about.
Christopher Ojeda
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the question. So I first came to the topic of depression, when I was working at Penn State, I was doing research in a developmental psychology lab, and a lot of the researchers there were studying depression. And I began to wonder what political scientists might have to say about the subject matter. And at the time, I was writing my dissertation on why it is that the rich participate in politics more than the poor. And I started to think perhaps, depression is an important part of answering that question. Because we know that people who live in poverty experience depression more often than then people who are in middle class or upper class. And so I started to investigate. How does depression shaped the way we engage with politics, and I found that it has this really profoundly D mobilizing effect, you’re less likely to participate, you’re, you’re less trustee and you’re less engaged, or efficacious in so that’s how we came to the topic. But after 2016, that’s when I began to think about the topic in reverse. So rather than how does depression shaped the way we engage with politics, I began to think, how does politics shaped the way we feel? Can politics makes us make us depressed? And I came to this topic after the election of former President Trump, because I was doing a postdoc at Stanford at the time. And the day after the election, I noticed a lot of people were very upset, visibly upset on campus. And it was clear that they were having a really difficult time processing the outcome of the selection. And it got me thinking, Can politics make us make us feel depressed? And that’s how I started. I was when I really thought there’s a book here. I should write about this.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. And so is it fair to say it kind of combining those two ideas you were just talking about that there is kind of a vicious cycle here, politics makes us feel depressed, and then we’re less likely to be engaged and then we become more depressed or more anxious, and it kind of spirals from there. Yeah, absolutely.
Christopher Ojeda
I think these things feed off of each other for sure. And there’s a couple of ways Is that that happens, but one of which is that if politics is making us, if politics can make us feel depressed, and that depression, D mobilizes us makes us disengaged from the political process, then one possibility is that depression becomes a becomes a tool of political actors who want to restrict the scope of conflict, if they want to keep people out, you know, say they’re in the dominant position, and they want to maintain that position, then perhaps sort of making people feel depressed, keeping them out of the political process is something that’s in their interest. And so that’s one potential implication. But another is that if people who are depressed by politics don’t participate, and then they sort of think, well, the political process doesn’t benefit me, then that might leave them feeling even more depressed, and that makes them even less engaged. And so that becomes another way in which these things feed off each other.
Jenna Spinelle
And before we get too far here, we should probably just set set a definition here, I know that there’s the kind of the psychological definition of of depression. And so how did how did you take that and apply it to the realm of politics?
Christopher Ojeda
That’s a great question. Depression means so many things to so many different people, I really think of there being three different ways of defining depression, there is the clinical definition of depression. And I think that’s what a lot of people think about when they hear the word and that’s major depressive disorder is sort of defined by the American Psychiatric Association, they have very clear criteria for when someone is depressed and someone is not depressed. At the same time, there is a there’s sort of a vernacular, meaning it’s how we use the word in everyday language. You know, we we use the term depressed, depressing to refer to anything that’s sort of sad or pathetic, like I say, like, my salad is depressing, right? If it’s, like, wilted or doesn’t look so good. And then I think there’s like a third meaning of the term, which is what I call the affective meaning, and that is this feeling of sunken pneus, right that like there was a weight on your existence, in this meaning, I think bridges the clinical and the vernacular meanings, and that’s how I think about depression. And so I think of depression as sort of a feeling of families that capture this sense of having this weight on your shoulders. And that can be anything from disappointment, which is perhaps the mildest member of the Depression family, to something like despair, which would be one of the more intense members of the family.
Jenna Spinelle
And yeah, there is, I think, kind of this continuum, especially when we think about like, the the candidate or the party that we support, not winning an election, there’s like, oh, yeah, it’s unfortunate that we lost all the way to yeah, having more serious feelings, or this Yeah, that kind of weight on your shoulders. You were you were talking about before. So if I, if I recall correctly from from reading your work, there’s this this question, and this Avenue has not really been explored that much before within the realm of political science. So how did you go about assessing that continuum and getting the information? You know, especially because it’s only I feel like been recently that we’re even talking openly about mental health and and these kinds of things?
Christopher Ojeda
Yeah, so definitely, you’re right in saying that it hasn’t. The topic of depression has not been explored in political science very much. I mean, we’ve talked about a little bit my research on how depression can be demobilizing. But no one is really written about how politics can be depressing. And I think that we want to, you know, as I approached this topic, and it’s very new, and it’s very fresh, I want to be thinking about the range of feelings that politics can make us have, whether it’s disappointed, or whether it’s despairing. And so I’m exploring all of these different members of the Depression family in the book. And so you know, you might have you might recall, for example, in the early Biden presidency, people were so hopeful after he was elected Democrats were so hopeful. But you know, within a year, Democrats were feeling very disappointed. There was this sort of botched out withdrawal from Afghanistan, there were problems getting some of the bills passed through Congress that the Biden administration had introduced, and Democrats were feeling very disappointed. And what that means is they they felt like there was a lost opportunity, they were sort of let down by this leader they had trusted. And I think that sense of disappointment is fairly common in politics. On the other end of it, you can imagine cases where politics evokes a more significant feeling of depression. So one example I think about is, is this photographer, this photo journalist, Kevin Carter, he was South African and he was working in the 80s and 90s in South Africa during apartheid and then he was also covering the feminine I’m in the Sudan, and he eventually committed suicide, because in any road in his suicide note about the despair, he felt at witnessing all this political violence and trauma, and really being helpless to do anything about it. And so I think, in other ways, politics can make us feel very intensely depressed. And I want to cover that full range of feelings. So that we can see the very different ways politics can can either let us down make us disappointed or make us feel despair.
Jenna Spinelle
I mean, you mentioned before, ways that politicians can play on on these, and how do you think about the role that the media plays here, we just did an episode of the show recently all about the concept of news avoidance. And I, you know, I hear from my students that they’re choosing not to consume news because they feel that it can be damaging to their mental health to be reading about politics. And you know, like some of the things you were saying before, so you know, how much of what we’re seeing now is just a function of the media landscape and changes there, and how we access and process information.
Christopher Ojeda
I think the media landscape plays a really big role. I mean, most of our experiences with politics are indirect, they’re mediated through the media, right? Like none of us. Most of us did not go to the inauguration of President Biden, or the inauguration of former President Trump. But we all sort of saw it occur on the media. And that’s true of most of our political experiences. So the media has a really important role. And I think one of the challenges is in the modern media now works in this attention, economy space. And what that means is that their success depends on our continual engagement with media. And I think it’s this continual engagement, that can be really depressing. So any one story might make us feel anxious, or might make us angry. But when we consume that sort of intense emotional story over and over and over again, it becomes depressing, because we start to think there are too many problems. There are so many problems that even if we solved one of them, a million other problems would exist. How could we possibly tackle all these issues? And so I think it’s the totality of media that we consume, that can be really depressing, rather than any one story. Now, of course, any one story can itself be depressing. We, you know, war, natural disasters, like these kinds of things. Make us feel sad, but but I think it is that sort of nonstop news cycle that really gets to our psyche.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, and it it also brings up I think, a bigger theme in your book, I’m just gonna gonna read a line here, you’re sort of answering the question of, what do we do when democratic values and personal well being come into conflict, I think that kind of gets to how, what media we choose to consume or not how much we choose to engage or not. And so people are, you know, obviously, taking their own courses of action to decide what this balance looks like for them.
Christopher Ojeda
One theme that has emerged in this book is the is the potential is the tension between democratic values in our personal well being. And let me give you an example of that, which is, with the news, which we were just discussing, the Democratic citizen is one who is engaged in their inform, right, so they’re keeping up with what’s going on, they know, you know, who are the major actors? What are the what are the political processes, you know, there’s Congress, there’s legislatures, there’s the judiciary, all these things, but what if, at the same time, being informed means being overwhelmed? And how do we reconcile those two things the the need to have a citizenry that’s informed but also the need to have a citizenry that has a sound mental health. Another example is the case of echo chambers, right? So there’s a lot of discussion about how echo chambers are not good for democracy because we want people talking to people who think differently from them, we want people to be exposed to different ideas and engaging in informed debate with other people. But what happens if that in debate is really stressful in damaging to our mental health in what is actually good for our mental health is being around people who are like us. And so these are serious conflicts that I think we need to think about as we think about how to make democracy work.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, and and to bring in this this idea of individuals seeking mental health counseling and, and therapy you mentioned listening to podcasts that have ads for better help and all of these These kinds of things. So it’s certainly something that that’s on the rise. And I feel like it’s only grown even since the pandemic era people seeking out these services. But um, talk about, you know, the, what you’ve learned about the landscape for mental health professionals to be able to engage some of these questions with their clients.
Christopher Ojeda
So I think so I’ve been doing interviews of mental health professionals around the country over the past year. And I’m asking them, what kinds of problems are your clients talking about? Do they talk about politics with you? And if they do, what do they say? But I’m also asking them, how do you respond to your client? You know, what do you say when they talk about politics? What advice do you give them? I also went to a lot of popular psychology websites to try and read. Alright, what advice is there online? You know, not everyone sees a therapist, not everyone sees a mental health professional, but a lot of people visit psychology websites to figure out, I’m going through a hard time, what should I do? And so I want to know what advice is out there. And I think that the field of psychology and psychiatry is starting to recognize that people are increasingly stressed by politics in that they need to be able to tell people how to cope with the challenges politics presents, a lot of therapist I talked to, you know, told me that they never received any training about how to deal with conversations about politics. And so they end up applying rules that they learned about in in their training in graduate school, that may or may not be applicable to politics. So one of them is the rule of neutrality. So a lot of therapists think that they’re supposed to be neutral. And this is especially true when it comes to politics, they shouldn’t be taking one side or another. And that makes sense. But oftentimes, because neutrality is can be a contested idea in the political arena, it’s almost easier if the therapist just shuts down any conversation about politics, rather than engage in a conversation about politics. Because if they engage, then they risk violating this rule of neutrality. But if they don’t engage with a conversation about politics, and they can ensure that they remain neutral, and that may not be what’s best for the client, even if it is ensuring the neutrality of the therapist.
Jenna Spinelle
Yeah, how much of this what we’ve just been talking about is unique to the US and our system of two parties, single member districts, we talk a lot on this show about different political reforms, whether it is you know, proportional representation, or rank choice voting or exploring multi party systems, like how much would would any of those reforms help with this, this picture would do you think that there would be maybe a positive impact on you know, depression, and some of these these mental health issues we’ve been talking about?
Christopher Ojeda
I definitely think there is. There are ways we can design political institutions like our electoral system, for example, to be less depressing when politics does not work out the way we want it to. And in the book, I primarily focus on the United States. But I do analyze some data from Great Britain in the Netherlands, and then also a survey called the European social survey that spans lots of countries in Europe. And one of the things I find, for example, with respect to the Netherlands is the electoral loss in the Netherlands doesn’t have the same kind of impact as it does in the United States. The Netherlands is a multi party system, it does not have those same single member districts that we have in the United States. And I think what this does is it sort of doubles the impact of losing when, when because there’s not one winning party, there’s a majority party, but then they have to build a ruling coalition, which means they have to work with other parties. And so you can see how there’s a way in which electoral loss doesn’t mean being, you know, in the minority for four years before the next election. And so what I found actually in another lens is that winning an election can reduce feelings of depression, but that losing an election doesn’t amplify them as much as it does in the United States. If that makes sense.
Jenna Spinelle
One more question about depression before we move to maybe some of the more virtuous aspects of this work. So you also write about the the connection to the idea of the losers consent, which as we know, from you know, the 2020 election into January sixth is very, very important in a democracy that walk us through that how are these feelings of depression around politics connected to the idea of the losers consent?
Christopher Ojeda
That’s a great question in political Science, we have this idea that elections work not because of the winners, but because of the losers, that the losers recognize the game is over, and they stop playing. And they allow the winning team to assume the position of power. And so the losers consent is really important. And I think the, in the book, I talk about the possibility that feeling disappointed is an important part of securing the losers consent in the aftermath of an election. And there’s a lot of rituals around securing the losers consent, you know, the losing candidate gives a concession concession speech in which they tell their supporters, the election is over, I’ve lost, we now have to recognize that this other person won, you know, we’re going to do what we can to support them, we’re also going to continue to fight in other ways, there are future elections, the losing candidate goes to the inauguration of the winning candidate, so on and so forth. And these things signal to the losing side that that it’s over. And that can induce a sense of disappointment, which then sort of propels them to sort of de mobilize step away from the political process, let the winners come to power. And I think we actually saw that these rituals were disrupted in 2020, because former President Trump was unwilling to concede the election and even suggested that the election didn’t result in his loss, that in fact, the his supporters, the election have been stolen, and his supporters were sort of unjustly, um, cheated out of his win. And so actually, that evokes feelings of anger, right? We feel angry when someone has someone has done something to us, that’s unfair. And we feel disappointed or depressed when there’s some kind of loss. That’s a deep loss and sort of a loss that we can’t overturn or undo in some way. And so I think we saw how important depression can be to securing the losers consent, not through all the elections in which we observed people being depressed, but through an election in which we observed people not being depressed.
Jenna Spinelle
So we’ve we’ve been talking about depression and kind of negative feelings. But there are also ways that feeling somewhere on that depression spectrum you articulate it can actually be a motivator for political action, and kind of a way to maybe cope with it is to become more involved in politics, as opposed to what we were talking about earlier with, with avoiding it or tuning it out.
Christopher Ojeda
Yeah, absolutely. Oftentimes, feelings of depression come from a sense that we don’t have any control over a bad situation. And one way to try and combat that those feelings of depression is by finding ways in which we can exert some influence or find our agency in politics. And so getting involved has the potential to help us feel less depressed about politics, right, we can see the impact we have on what’s going on.
Jenna Spinelle
Right. And this is often I think, talked about, you could have the most impact at the local level, right? And you maybe can’t do anything about what’s happening in Washington. But you can, you know, go to your local city council or your your local school board meeting, I guess, how do you think about that, like the level of impact that someone can have does it? Does it I guess, from a mental health perspective, does it matter as much what the substantive outcome is versus like, whether people feel they’re making an impact? If that makes sense?
Christopher Ojeda
It does make sense. And I think it’s, you make a really good point, the local level is potentially a really great way to develop a sense of agency in politics. The national level is so complex, and there are so many people involved, that it’s really hard to feel like you can make a difference. But at the local level, where you know, the issues are really about what’s going on in your neighborhood, you can see that you have an impact and that you make a difference in that will give you a sense of control that I think will help you overcome any sense of helplessness you might have about how politics works. The other thing I would add to is that politics is always going to be a little disappointing. You know, it doesn’t always go our way we sometimes get less than we want sometimes the issues we care about aren’t put on the agenda. That is a natural. I mean, it’s an inherent part of the political process. And so learning that feeling disappointed is is part of the political process. I think that’s okay. Right like and what that signals to us is perhaps we need to use different tactics or we need to change the our approach to achieving our goal. Whatever we’re doing isn’t working. What is more concerning is when we start to feel depressed, like really intensely depressed by what’s going on in politics. Because that can really change the way we think about politics, we depression can lead to a negative thought spiral, it can make us even more depressed, it can make us sort of think that everything’s hopeless, no change is possible, the system doesn’t work. And that’s not, that’s not helpful for you. It’s not helpful for democracy. And so I think drawing the distinction there between, you know, politics is sometimes disappointing, and we need to work through that disappointment in politics can be depressing. Those are useful distinctions to make, I think one thing educators can do is, is help students learn to engage in politics in a healthy way. So not, you know, getting their news from sources that are going to sensationalized the news or bombard them with, you know, click bait, that’s not really helpful. So getting getting news from more tempered, even handed sources I think is important. Another thing educators can do is, as we talked about, encouraging students to become involved at the local level, you know, even if a lot of the education is about national politics, you know, how Congress works, and how the Electoral College works. The local level is where you can find some sense of agency. And so, you know, finding that right balance, I think, is something that educators can help students do.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, I think your your forthcoming book will be a great place to start that that conversation and get our listeners thinking. So it won’t be out for a little while, we got a sneak peak here on the show, but we’ll certainly keep everybody in the loop when it comes out. So Christopher, thanks so much for your time today.
Christopher Ojeda
Thank you for having me.
Chris Beem
So, I think it’s interesting how Christopher kind of talks about the concept of depression, right. And, you know, my wife has, you know, was a psychiatric psychiatric nurse for decades. And she, you know, has a very clear clinical definition of what depression means, and, and how, when you can legitimately make that diagnosis. And then, you know, we all have this, you know, I mean, Christopher talks about it, right, that, Oh, my God, this salad is depressing, or, you know, this, or whatever it is this movie, this, this, this podcast, whatever it is, it’s depressing. But I think it’s, I think he kind of does a pretty good job of leaving off those extremes, but still kind of like having a workable definition. And the idea that we have this weight on us, you know, I don’t know, if there’s a human being who’s who doesn’t understand what that means. I don’t know who they are. And I don’t, I don’t know if they’re really human being right. I mean, it’s just kind of, it’s just a natural part of all of our lives. And it is relevant for politics, when it becomes such a way that it closes us off from civic and political action, I guess.
Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, I think he does. I mean, for us, non doctor, doctors, I think he does a good job of kind of using this word depression to refer leads of feelings related to sadness. And I, you know, he makes an effort to kind of combined our every way, our everyday way of talking about this, and like, putting it in conversation with the clinical literature. So I mean, for me, the way the word is used here is legible. To me, as a reader who is concerned with these issues, I think other people would say the same. Again, like I mentioned before, this book, to me is really helpful in thinking about the ways that I’m asking my students to, you know, engage with the news every day before we come to class. And what he’s talking about is what happens when we expose ourselves over time, to a series of news stories that when aggregated, can produce a sense of despair, sadness, and depression. So just, you know, I was just, I know that your wife is lovely, and she is right. Chris is great, in a different way.
Chris Beem
No, I think that’s I agree with that. And, and certainly, you know, I agree with all the other stuff you said, because I’m not a fool. But I think you he is right, to take people’s own perception. Seriously, right. So when it’s not that 43% of Gen Z errs, you know, Merit hospitalization, or you know, some kind of drug therapy or something like that. But the idea that they feel depressed, and they, they feel this in a as a weight on them as they go through life, we, we and I had a student tell me I’m like, you know, every election I’ve ever known democracy has been on the ballot. And I’m like, Yeah, I can’t argue with you. You know, I can’t tell you, you’re wrong. I can’t tell you that that doesn’t stink. Right? You know, that, that there’s something just overall, emotionally draining about the idea that, you know, well, here’s another one, you know, we just went through it, we dodged a bullet, you know, but now, here’s another one every every two years, this is where we’re going to be. And it’s, it’s hard not to see, you know, this idea that the election is a battle and the stakes are that high. Yeah. And that if you lose, you have good reason to despair. All of that makes our politics not just worse, but it makes democracy harder to sustain over the long run.
Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, so just to remind our, our listeners that our students, most of them, nearly all of them, were born in the 21st century. So, you know, they may have remembered like, Obama might be their first election that they remember. And it’s now really kind of interesting to romanticize and be nostalgic about that kind of 2008 moment, and that it was historic for Obama to be the first black president. If he hadn’t one. I’m not sure that, you know, people would have been disappointed around the politics. Yes. The history certainly, yes. But not, not because they felt that democracy would be at risk,
Chris Beem
Right, or the nation as a whole. Right, I completely agree with that.
Candis Watts Smith The thing about what you’re what you’re saying about this kind of moderation, is that democracy depends in part on the idea that if you lose, it’s okay, because maybe you don’t agree with what the other team and I mean, that probably is kind of a relatively new way to think about politics, the other group team, whatever cares about the same issues that you care about, but just may go about executing them differently? Well, I think that we kind of are at a point where our most prominent political leaders and candidates have actually very different values around core ideas. And so like you said, the stakes are high. The other thing that I think is important to mention is that a high quality democracy is characterized by a sense of uncertainty. So this kind of idea that, okay, we lost this time, but there’s a chance that we can win next time, and that we can’t prepare for the next iteration of the game, because we’re not going to be sure who the winners and losers are going to be. But if we are in a situation as we are, as many Americans are, where politicians are picking their constituents, and thus picking winners or losers, then there there can be a sense of despair. And that wouldn’t be unreasonable, because there’s not a sense that maybe next time, things could be different. So you know, the kind of larger context of where we are around the kind of the way our institutions are shaped the way our our our districts are shaped the extent to which our political leaders are abiding by political norms, forbearance. All of that matters so much here. And if we’re responding to politics with depression, then we’re probably responding to a bad situation, that our emotions in this case are a symptom of a deeper root cause around the quality of democracy.
Chris Beem
No, I think I yeah, I think we’re, you know, of one mind on this, right, that, that, that depression is simply a manifestation of pathological politics. And there’s a number of reasons to account for that. I mean, I’m gonna just say that, you know, if you think I mean, let’s put it both ways, or you think Trump is a malignant narcissist. And, you know, having him come into power is an app and let alone coming into power again, would be an abject disaster for our nation and the world. Then you’re gonna you’re gonna see this as very stressful and if you think that he was, he’s a distinctively unique gift of from God to save the nation, then you’re going to have, so one of us is going to be fiercely depressed on one side, automatically. And, and that is not, that’s not great. That’s not how, how democratic politics works best. And, and so it, it’s no wonder that people are reacting this way.
Candis Watts Smith
So I’m just I was just gonna slow us down here for a second channel my colleague Kristen Goss, who does study gun violence. And she was in The Washington Post a couple of months ago, saying that it drives her nuts when people say that nothing has happened. And I think what we mean when we say nothing is different is that nothing that we want done has been done, and nothing that we can see. We can’t see what has been done. And she just kind of points to the same issue that I’m pointing to. And then I think Christopher is pointing to that there are groups in local spaces that have mobilized to oust people out of certain offices and to make change in policy at the local level. And so again, you know, I don’t discount I mean, I don’t discount the fact that just yesterday, there was a mass shooting at Michigan State. I don’t discount the losses of life that we see, period. There are people who are mobilizing, and who could benefit from more citizens joining them. If and I think that might be bolstered by a media landscape that shares these opportunities for agency and shares. success as a antidote is what I’m looking for. of this kind of see the for the feelings that we get that we typically get when we are just kind of rained upon with terrible news.
Chris Beem
Well, so we have laid out Christopher’s argument pretty well, I think and and both of us think that there’s a all three of us think that there is something important that he’s that he’s after here, and both, you know, in a right now, what do we do sort of way and also in how do we you know, what is the relationship between depression and a well functioning democracy as well. So, lots to chew on and we’re very grateful for gender for the for the interview and for Christopher for coming back for old home week. I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
And I’m Candis Watts Smith For Democracy Works, thanks for listening.
Many of us can conjure moments when politics made us feel sad. But how often do those feelings translate into more serious forms of depression or other mental health issues? And if politics does make us depressed, what do we do about it? Christopher Ojeda has spent the past few years exploring these questions and joins us this week to talk about the relationship between depression and democracy.
Ojeda is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Merced and author of the forthcoming book The Sad Citizen: How Politics Makes Us Depressed. He visited Penn State to give us a sneak preview of this important work on the relationship between democratic engagement and individual mental health. We discuss how to meet the demands that democracy places on us without sacrificing our mental health in the process.
Why has the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in elected office proved so persistent? Some experts suggest that women lack sufficient ambition to run for office relative to men, while others say that districts with majority white populations do not provide adequate resources or opportunities for minority candidates to succeed. These approaches tend to treat women and racial minorities as parallel social groups, and fail to account for the ways in which race and gender simultaneously shape candidacy.
In her book, Nowhere to Run, Christian Dyogi Phillips introduces the intersectional model of electoral opportunity, which argues that descriptive representation in elections is shaped by intersecting processes related to race and gender. The book and this conversation shed new light on how multiple dimensions of identity simultaneously shape pathways to candidacy and representation for all groups seeking a seat at the table in American politics.
Phillips is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California, and holds affiliations with the USC Institute for Intersectionality and Social Transformation and the USC Dornsife Equity Research Institute. Prior to becoming an academic, Phillips led organizing and political campaigns in the American labor movement.
Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections
Christian Dyogi Phillips on Twitter
How much news is too much? Or not enough? News Over Noise, the new podcast from Penn State’s News Literacy Initiative explores that question and offers guidance on how to consume news that enhances your participation in our democracy without becoming overwhelmed by all the noise on social media and the 24/7 news cycle.
News Over Noise co-hosts Matt Jordan and Leah Dajches join us this week to discuss how the news impacts our mental health, the future of media literacy education, and more. Jordan is a professor of media studies Dajches is a post-doctoral researcher, both in the Bellisario College of Communications at Penn State.
Listen to News Over Noise
News Literacy Week– January 23-27, 2023
We’ve had some incredible guests on the show in 2022. For our final episode of the year, we’re taking a look back at what we’ve learned from them. Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, Candis Watts Smith, and Jenna Spinelle revisit our episodes with:
- Jake Grumbach
- Jeffrey Sutton
- Francis Fukuyama
- Jamelle Bouie
- Lilliana Mason
- Jon Meacham
- Jessica Huseman
- Joanna Lydgate
A programming note: Democracy Works will be moving to a bi-weekly release schedule in 2023. If you have ideas for people we should be talking to or topics we should cover, please get in touch!
Episode TranscriptMichael Berkman
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on the campus of Penn State University, I’m Michael Berkman.
Chris Beem
I’m Chris Beem.
Candis Watts Smith
I’m Candis Watts Smith.
Jenna Spinelle
I’m Jenna Spinelle and welcome to Democracy Works. If all four of us are together, that means we have come to the end of another season of the show. And this will be our final episode for 2022. And we’re going to do something a little bit different this time. And we I’ve been thinking about all the guests we’ve talked to throughout the course of the year on the show, I realized, we’ve had some pretty incredible folks come through our recording spaces, both in the studio and online. And I thought that we would take some trips back and revisit some of the things that we’ve learned from them. So we will be interspersing clips from some of our guests throughout the episode and kind of reflecting on what we took from them and and some of the bigger lessons and democracy that we also try to bring forward on the show, Michael, I know you say sometimes that you think of the podcast as a seminar. And so that is what we’re going to try to do here today.
Jenna Spinelle
So we are going to start with a topic that we’ve we’ve talked about on the show pretty much since the beginning, and that is federalism, state politics, some of the conflicts between national and state politics. And we had two guests in particular this year that I thought really hit on that first was Jake grim back from the University of Washington, who had a book come out earlier this year called laboratories against democracy. Jake was recently on the Ezra Klein show as well, but we will always be able to say we had him first before before Ezra did
Candis Watts Smith
And New Yorker put him on the good books list.
Jenna Spinelle
Right, right. Yes, it is a very good book. And the other was Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who has a book called who decides, which looks at federalism through the lens of state constitutions. And as you’ll hear with a very heavy lens on Justice Brandeis. So let’s take a minute and hear from Jake and then from Judge Sutton,
Jake Grumbach
When coalition’s that are supportive of democratic institutions like the expansive right to vote fair, districting, things like that, when they do take national power, you should really use it to standardize national standards across states and democratic institutions. That’s very crucial and historical, you see this pattern, threats to American democracy have tended to be state legislatures have been the main sort of backsliders or institutions that hold back democracy, whether it’s through allowing slavery, Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, even mass incarceration, now current threats to voting rights, and gerrymandering and so forth and elections version. It’s been the Supreme Court that has largely enabled the state legislatures. And then it’s been when they step up, Congress has been the one to stop state legislatures from doing that. So Congress has tended to not actively backslide. But they often have this sin of omission, where they don’t actually organize to pass national policy to stop state legislative backsliding on democratic institutions. So I think that’s an important implication. And then also, just, in a way, broader sense. All of those theories of federalism being great for policy, innovation and so forth, policy learning, bringing people closer to their, you know, elected officials, depolarizing politics nationally, all of those things don’t appear to apply anymore in this era of highly nationalized, polarized parties and national media and all of this, those don’t seem to apply anymore.
Jeffrey Sutton
If you have a new problem, let’s let’s talk about things that we all agree are problems, opioids, data privacy, I suppose features of the pandemic. And they’re parts of these problems that, you know, it’s very hard to get up on a soapbox and say there’s just one and only one answer. We’d love to have the opioids crisis behind us, we’d love to have a way to be more confident about data privacy. And what Brandeis says and he’s saying this back in the 20s, and 30s 1920s, and 30s, is that when you have a new policy problem, why not let a brave state take a shot at solving the problem and if they develop a good or even winning insight, other states can follow it. And if a truth really emerges, then at that point you nationalize your solution. The key insight I’m trying to take from Brandeis is, you know, we have 50 state court systems we have 50 state constants. motions, why not use the state courts as the initial innovators, initial laboratories of experimentation when it comes to the meaning of what processes do when is the search unreasonable? It means there’ll be less resentment and conflict, once you have a national solution. If you have one, it probably promotes the best ideas as opposed to prematurely constitutionalized in something. So that’s, that’s the basic idea. And it’s a, you know, it’s a really interesting time to be thinking about it. Because whatever one thinks about the current US Supreme Court is a court that is a little less willing to take issues out of the Democratic sphere. Whereas in earlier courts, particularly in the 50s, and 60s, that was something the US Court was pretty comfortable doing. And so we’re just living in this world, when now you have two opportunities, not one, to protect rights, you hold dear.
Candis Watts Smith
So it was really fascinating for me to be reminded of these two scholars, and to have them back to back Sutton is a Brandeisian, he, you know, really kind of focuses on the idea that states are more nimble, they are more flexible, their constitutions are more likely to change. The idea here is that states will customize their policies and legislation for their constituents. And he argues historically, that states have become more democratic. And in this case, he means, you know, incorporating elections for state judges, or introducing the initiative, or having more opportunities for direct democracy, which the federal government doesn’t have these kind of very direct, you know, democracy components. But putting these two folks in conversation, we see that Jake is really interested and concerned with politics, not just principles. And so for example, we have the principle that at the state level, Americans have more say they can change laws, for example, they can change abortion laws. But this misses out on the politics of, for example, the Supreme Court, you know, allowing for a great deal of democratic backsliding by dismantling the Voting Rights Act. So you know, there’s an idea that people can vote in their states. But I think Jake’s work really kind of presses on this idea that we have also come into a situation where fewer people in some states have a modicum of opportunity to get their say, at the state level. So you know, I think here we kind of can see what our principles are and the contradictions that are produced in practice.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, I’m the on the one hand, you know, Sutton is making the argument that states are more democratic in the kinds of institutions that they have, right. So they have access to initiatives and referendums that’s not available, the federal government and judges might be elected, as opposed to appointed at the federal level. And we could go on Kansas mentioned, some, but what Drake is pointing out is that well, this may be true, but at the same time, they’re, they’re passing laws that restrict democracy. And this is really not all that concerning to certain at least that’s what I kind of picked up in the in the discussion with him. And even in the in the clip that Jenna just played, which I think is fairly representative. You know, he’s talking about policies, and I mean, very canvasses correct, and sort of referring to him as Brandeisian because he’s referring to different kinds of policies, right. So he’s talking about responses to the pandemic, and opioids and data privacy and things like that. But he’s not talking about actually the fact that states are responsible for essentially establishing the rules of democracy in this country, because elections are all pushed down to the state level. And in there, you know, Jake’s work is really powerful. And in pointing out how some states have moved in highly regressive directions, others have not. But some have really remote moved in highly regressive directions. And I don’t know, maybe we can get to it or not. But I do think it’s really interesting some of what Sutton had talked about, to now see what’s going on post Roe, because it is actually the case that many of the state constitutions are providing pro choice forces with avenues to fight that, to my knowledge anyway, had not really ever been used before. And so you’re seeing these interesting cases in state courts in Utah and in Florida and other places, where state constitutions may actually be more protective of people’s rights to choose. Reproductive freedoms then the national constitution.
Chris Beem
The reason I would find them distinctive is follows on that. Michael It’s It’s Jake’s argument that federalism doesn’t work as well, when politics becomes nationalized, and when there just isn’t as much distinctiveness within an among states. And so you have these arguments that are that where the state is almost rendered just a smaller actor in the same dynamic. And I feel like Sutton for all his knowledge and really impressive knowledge of the state constitutions is operating at a theoretical level where well, that’s not how it’s working anymore.
Jenna Spinelle
Another theme that we heard this year on the show was the idea of liberalism, and majorities and counter majorities was how I framed it in our notes document the idea of what role should institutions play? How much should we how should we think about majorities and minority rights and that relationship and so on the on this point, we’re going to hear first from Francis Fukuyama. And then from Jamelle Bouie.
Francis Fukuyama
I think that for many people on the progressive left, the real problem is that liberalism is slow. It works by law, it’s very procedural, you have to respect you know, the rights of all the people, including entrenched interests. And so sometimes it’s very hard to, you know, to change things. And that is very frustrating because liberalism in no society has ever lived up to the full promise, you know, that everybody would be treated equally under the law, that doesn’t happen in the United States today, despite, you know, our founding on those principles. And so that’s one thing. I think there are other sources of discontent. So a lot of it has to do with economics, you know, liberal societies protect property rights. And for that reason, I think they’ve been associated with economic growth and prosperity. But beginning in the, you know, late 70s and 80s, you had the rise of what’s now called neoliberalism where I think market principles were carried to extremes. And also the state, you know, the role of the government was denigrated, and there was an attempt to roll back the state to a point where you had financial instability, because of deregulation, you’re on the growth of a lot of inequality. And that, I think, you know, led to a lot of populism in the 2000 10s, because people didn’t like the world that emerged out of those principles.
Jamelle Bouie
That is sort of an example of how our system works to constrain big majorities from just forming in the first place and then acting. The problem, I think, with this insight, especially as it’s applied to our system of government, is that it? It misses the extent to which majority is when they’re large and diverse majorities especially can act in ways that do actually preserve the liberties of everyone within them that B, is that a large pluralistic majority? Because it’s comprised of many different kinds of groups? Is it possible for it to act in ways that seek to preserve a minimum level of security for everyone in the group? And I think that if you look at American history, you see that actually happening quite often you see, big pluralistic majority is when they’re able to form trying to do things to preserve like a baseline of political rights for everyone involved in it isn’t. It isn’t our counter majoritarian ism that protects that, that protects people at the mercy of you know, I think I said in that piece, local bullies and bosses, right, it ends up being majorities trying to act but that attempts to do it and it’s our counter majoritarian system by empowering you know, what the framers may have called factional minorities by empowering those factions on the local level on the state level, on the federal level, to some extent, that stymies the ability to protect vulnerable minorities within the political system. And I think that, that is just like, not how Americans are accustomed to thinking, I think, for a variety of reasons from from sort of Cold War era civics education, right where we have to, we have to hype up the American political system as like the best of all possible worlds, to sort of like the residual sense that like, you know, states are a your state identity is paramount political identity, and you got to protect it, like for all these reasons, Americans have come many Americans have come into this idea that if we let majorities act, something terrible is going to happen. And I just don’t I don’t think the evidence really supports that within the American system.
Michael Berkman
So Those were those were two interviews that I enjoyed quite a bit. I think they have different foci. But it’s it’s interesting to think about how they differ in that. We see both sides of liberal democracy here. I think Fukuyama focuses much more on the liberal side of liberal democracy, and so protections, rights restrictions on government power. But for Bouie, democracy is really about popular will and responsiveness about majorities and the Constitution that for Fukuyama would, would provide the liberalism of the protections for buoy is restraint on democracy. And I mean, I just thought he was, I’ve thought about it a lot since the interview, the sort of framing he had of talking about the Constitution as a kind of constraint on democracy. And, of course, I’ve always sort of taught the constitution that way, but really, ever sort of formulated it that way going forward, that we tend to conflate the two, and talking about the Constitution as though it is American democracy. But it’s not, it’s defining the limits on power, it’s defining who has powers. But in fact, our country has been nothing but a progression with steps back, but basically a progression towards greater democracy away from the Constitution, even to the point where we’ve had to change it multiple times, in order to keep up with the democratic impulse within the country.
Candis Watts Smith
What stood out to me regarding these two is that they both kind of touched on the idea that what we call democratic institutions can be used in illiberal and anti democratic ways. So for it seems to me that Fukuyama, you know, a person can be democratically elected, to be repressive, these are not mutually exclusive possibilities. And then for Bouie, we have a number of counter majoritarian institutions that are ostensibly designed to protect more minority rights. But these two can be used to prevent the extension of more rights and greater inclusion. The thing that stands out to me about Bouie is that he really takes an optimistic stance on the potential for the majority, which also just kind of rethinking, like the way we’ve been socialized about, you know, kind of be beware of the power and the tyranny of the majority. But I wonder still, if we’re at a particular moment in time, where we have a large majority with many factions, then, you know, people will be in multiple factions. And so ideally, they would protect, they would expand rights, and they would, there would be greater inclusion. But you know, I wonder, I don’t know, I wonder if that’s just something we’re in a democratic, we have, we maybe were in a particular moment of being optimistic around that issue. And if there are other moments where we’re actually we do want to be sure that the majority can be constrained.
Chris Beem
This is typical Bouie, right? I mean, he’s contrarian, he’s he’s focused on history. And it’s always kind of thought provoking and challenging to listen to him. I mean, I think, you know, he acknowledges, right, that tyranny of majority of the majority is a thing. And it’s it’s also true that that’s particularly important, particularly something that the founders were worried about. Right. But the other point, and so I guess, I feel like there’s, you know, there’s risks everywhere, right? Every institution can undermine and subvert rights. And so it kind of makes me think one thing I take from it is that, you know, it speaks to how important having those rights articulated how important it is to have them articulate. I mean, they can still be circumvented, but it’s hard to do that when they are. They’re explicit, agreed to articulated.
Candis Watts Smith
So. So kind of like the having the necessity to protect marriage equality and interracial marriages right now.
Chris Beem
Right, exactly. I mean, that’s right. And I wonder, actually, that’s interesting. You said that, because this is one of the things I was thinking, Is it true? And I don’t know this, but my bet is that gay marriage came about more quickly because of the courts than it would have if it had been a national issue. I know that to be true, but I certainly think it’s at least plausible. So I don’t know that it’s always the case. That I was sure it’s not always the case that going to be more democratic.
Michael Berkman
Might have been the other way around. You know, the courts came around because majority might have been quickly. Well,
Candis Watts Smith
I mean, I think the other thing is like the you know, for sample, you know, in 2012, North Carolina had left it to the voters and the voters said no. And so that’s one state. And so one of the things that buoy like Grumbach is not a brand DGA, right is this kind of idea that the like that states can prevent a greater inclusion of of rights. So we might have expected in any particular state, some states would vote for it, and some states would vote against it. But if there are national poll in, you know, lists that we can all vote, maybe maybe we would have voted as a country for marriage equality in ways that at various states we would not have.
Chris Beem
Kind of quickly there, right. Obama basically got outed as being 14 marriage, right, in his administration. And then, you know, how much later was the Supreme Court ruling? But yeah, so it’s all kind of, you know, these things just kind of turn quickly, once they’re determined that they’re going to return.
Candis Watts Smith
One thing that kind of stood out to me in that particular clip, or made me thinking about is just kind of the role of governance. And, you know, this kind of idea that, you know, we’re seeing all of these kind of chipping away at, you know, government actually working. So we hit upon these questions of governance, when we talked to Dan Moynihan and also Christopher ally, about rural broadband, and just kind of how this orientation towards market principles carried to the extreme are actually undermining many of the things that we need most to get just things running to make government work, even if you want it to work in a constrained way, at least you want it to work efficiently and effectively. And so you know, that that conversation made me think of, you know, just kind of thinking about administrative capacity, or the extent to which kind of a neoliberal orientation has prevented Americans from having, you know, what is now a basic necessity? In this case, broadband.
Michael Berkman
And I think that’s part of Fukuyama is point to is that, you know, neoliberalism did enormous damage to the capacity of government to govern, and in part by hollowing it out, but also by, and I think, probably more to the point by destroying people’s confidence in it. And also, you know, and Bill Clinton had a lot to do with this. Because when, you know, when Bill Clinton basically gave up the show on Democrats being a party that was supportive of government responding to problems, what was his quote, government’s not the solute, he had some he had some quote in there,
Chris Beem
That era of big government is over. Big Government is over,
Michael Berkman
Basically picking up on the Reagan on government. And, you know, I think we’re still feeling the effects of that today. There’s simply no confidence in government. And, yeah, there’s simply no confidence in government and so much of government has been has been sort of hollowed out,
Candis Watts Smith
Which I think it becomes an issue, right. It’s like a, like a death spiral on some level. We don’t have confidence, so we don’t support it. And then we have reasons to have confidence and go on and go on and so forth.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, we really saw that play itself out in COVID, where, you know, you clearly needed a large government response. And, you know, it’s just relentlessly attacked. And we haven’t seen anything yet, as we’re gonna see next congressional term when Fauci and other public health officials are called before Congress to basically be burned at the stake.
Chris Beem
Well, and this this side of that is just that the markets are infallible, right, that that markets are going to solve these problems and including things like climate change and and accepting inequality and setting ever higher domain dimensions of economic inequality is the price you pay for that kind of efficiency. And the the costs to democracy of, of scaling inequality are basically ignored.
Jenna Spinelle
Well, and this discussion about lack of or decreasing trust in institutions, and to some extent each other gets to our next set of clips, which takes up the issue of polarization and unity and how extreme has partisanship become, can we come back from the brink? This is something that there are no shortage of opinions of bout on this show and many other places. But for our purposes, we’re going to hear from Lilliana Mason of Johns Hopkins University, who we talked to back in the spring. She’s the author with Nathan Telmo have a book called Radical American partisanship, which, through public opinion, work, tries to understand exactly how divided we are in a variety of ways and on a variety of topics. And then we’ll hear from Jon Meacham, the biographer, has written a lot about the soul of America, the idea that, you know, we are maybe more united than we think or have the potential to be. So let’s hear from Lilliana Mason and Jon Meacham.
Lilliana Mason
If the parties could organize, you know, brutal violence during the Civil War. What are we doing right now? And we’re only asking questions about like, do you want to be next door to somebody? Right, we’re not actually asking anybody, the potentially really radical feelings they might have about their own party and people in the other party. And that’s, you know, really based on this idea of, of American, you know, political science thinking about, you know, we think of partisanship as a pretty benign thing, or, or isn’t like an organizing, you know, tool for people to be able to vote more easily. And, and so we’ve never, ever really asked people kind of the more extreme possibilities of their attitudes about people in the other party. So it really does seem to be that there is that one of the major and for Republicans, actually, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of moral disengagement from Democrats. So it really does seem that one of the things that’s happening is that Democrats and Republicans are hating each other over this specific issue of social equality, right, the traditional social hierarchy where to women, and they also this, this relationship also holds for Republicans on the sexism scale. So where women belong on the traditional on the social hierarchy today, where where do Where do non white Americans belong on the on the social hierarchy today? And that, that question really seems to be driving a lot of the animosity that we’re seeing, partially because the parties have sorted into these kinds of identity based groups, and with, you know, sort of white Christian men being in the Republican party that has really centralized the question of status, and whether or not we’ve made enough progress to be a more egalitarian, multi ethnic democracy, or whether we need to do more or or whether we’ve gone too far, which is, which is sort of the push and pull between Democrats and Republicans is sort of a central question that they seem to be arguing about.
Jon Meacham
My view is you can’t love your country only when you win. And as long as we accept the protocols of politics, if we accept the rules of the road, if we accept, pick your analogy, then we can argue, and this country is always at its best, this country’s at 6040. That’s massive unity, right? 40% of the country never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. In the three great landslide elections from 19, from the second world war until now. 40% still voted the other way. 1964 1972 and 1984. So what we’re really looking at, I think, is 6040 is the goal, or the historical measure. Right now we’re at 50.5 to 49.5. Right? So how can we at least get to maybe 5347, and 53-47, which is what say, George HW Bush got in 88 or so we would sit around thinking the country has come together, both big and there’s a lot of political science on this the structural nature of polarization of that we can talk about if you want. But I think this is an eminently doable, because we’re not talking about that many people. And all I mean, I mean, I don’t care if you disagree totally with me on everything. In fact, most people do, I would imagine. But you got to say the election was fair. Right? That’s the that’s the threshold. If you’re going to participate in what is functionally an unfolding, plot, to undermine governance, then that’s not unity. If you if we’re all in it, and we fight it but we accept the rules. That’s a whole different thing. That’s what we’re supposed to do.
Candis Watts Smith
I would be interested to know how Lillian John are feeling about American democracy today after the kind of first major election And after 2020 You know, Lily definitely points out that there’s an underlying simmering reservoir of political unrest and PyLint potential for political violence. And to me Trump’s point, there are people who are unwilling to say that elections are legitimate, and that has its own set of problems, you know, the we need the losers consent to move forward. And I guess, you know, maybe on some level, I’m curious to know what you to think about where we stand on those issues, these issues that John and Lilly bring up in their interviews.
Michael Berkman
Yeah, if I could pick up with that, in what most struck me before this election was that the husband of the Speaker of the House was attacked for political reasons. And the other party joked about it. Yeah. And I don’t know that there’s anything more really to say about American politics today, or anything more that affirms what what Liliana and her co author were trying to argue in that book, which is much greater acceptance of political violence. And of course, nothing has happened since the election. To dispel any of that, right, there was the attack on the nightclub, thinking there’s something else that I’m missing, but all this violence gets wrapped up. I don’t know, I continue to feel like, Oh, well, how could I forget that the ex president met at his summer Country Club or whatever we call that place, Mar a Lago with an avowed white supremacist and anti Semite? I mean, I think that nothing changed from the election, if anything, it’s just gonna get worse. And I think their findings, which have been confirmed by other polling, I mean, they did their experiments are, I think, probably more more compelling. But it’s been confirmed by other polling data as well. That there’s just more acceptance of political violence now, especially on the on the right. And that’s terrifying.
Chris Beem
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. I mean, I feel like the deal election of 2022 is being presented as being this watershed that that shows that we’re out of the woods. And I don’t think that’s true at all. I think you can say that it was, it could have been a lot worse than it was we
Michael Berkman
Can carry out an election what’s that? It showed we could carry out?
Chris Beem
Right? And maybe the wind is out of the sails of the whole election denial crowd? Maybe not. But it certainly wasn’t again, it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. You know, I think, you know, I mean, I’m a big Lilly automation fan. I think I used to work a lot in my in my last book. She is smarter research is good. And I completely agree that there’s this cultural core to the split, that we find ourselves in front tech, right, that there has been these dramatic cultural shifts in American society. And half of Americans see that is basically a good thing. And half of America sees it basically, as a bad thing. And when you say you want to make make it make America great again, you want to go back to the former status quo ante when there was a white male Christian, hegemonic, you know, if you looked at this, you know, Anna sceptically you’d say, well, yeah, that’s just kind of what happens when there’s a big cultural shift that there’s a, a core of people who see their identity and their self interest too tied up in the former status quo and let it go. But eventually it changes and how soon and under and how violent that change is. That’s a different story, a different question. We don’t know the answer to it. But yeah, I mean, I think that’s basically where we are right now.
Candis Watts Smith
Thank goodness for the people who show up to work every day to make sure that that doesn’t happen while you
Chris Beem
Guys both Jana, and, and you guys are all like coming up with these great segues. Very impressive.
Jenna Spinelle
Thank you. Thank you. Nice. Yes. Nice. Setup. Thank you, Candice. For our last set of clips, which looks at to harken back to the name of the show the ways that democracy works the ways that just like you said, the people who show up every day to fight for democracy and the principles they’re in so in this set of clips, we’re going to hear from Jessica Houston of the new site vote beat that’s out on the ground covering county clerks and other people across the county. True. And then from Joanna Lydgate of the States United democracy Center, our 2022 Brown Democracy medal winner for the work they’re doing on the legal and the policy and the advocacy side to help these folks. So let’s hear from Jessica and Joanna.
Jessica Huseman
The vast majority of clerks that I speak to on a daily basis are like, people who started working at the county when they were 16 years old and like, have just been promoted and promoted and promoted. Right? Like, they’re not people who you can’t get a degree in election administration, right, like you just do it. And so, you know, I think that that realization has been really helpful. Like I have noticed, for example, that clerks are much more willing to spend more time with me and other local media for for the reasons that that I’ve articulated. But you know, I, you know, I think that the other thing is that there are big nonprofits that are helping these groups come up with communication strategies. So the elections group is a consulting group that does a lot of like, work with local municipalities, and they had Pam Fessler come in and do like a communications guidebook for election workers. And Pam Fessler is a delight and a genius from NPR. And so, you know, I think that there are these support systems and guidebooks that didn’t exist before like these people actually need to be told, like, here’s how to engage with the media. And that’s not, that’s not an insult to them, it just like is what it is. And so now that they’ve got those tools at their disposal, I can see them, putting them in.
Joanna Lydgate
And I think the good news is that these folks are holding strong, we get to work with them every day. They’re incredible at what they do. One in three says they feel unsafe in the job right now, yet they keep doing the job. And they’re holding strong just like they did in 2020. And they’ll continue to do that if we continue to support them. I think about it this way, you know, when I need my car fix to take it to a mechanic when my kid is sick, I take her to go see a nurse or a doctor. election administrators are professionals, like so many other people we rely on in our lives. And in our system, they’re trained to do this. They’ve done it for decades on a nonpartisan basis. And so to be undermining and questioning their work in this way, you know, not only is it totally unmerited, but it’s really unAmerican. And so we do our best as an arm just described to support these officials and to educate the public on what they do. But we also get to be inspired by them every day and all across the country.
Candis Watts Smith
So both Joanna and Jessica reveal for me, on one hand, how important the people on the ground are to making democracy work via the election process in particular. And on the other hand, how much our democracy as we know, it depends on unsung heroes, county clerks, poll workers, etc, which is quite different from what we were just talking about elites who have an entirely different set of incentives, some of which are incentive to misbehave and to, you know, undermine the kind of central components of democracy, there are just kind of 1000s of people who work at an offices that are ugly, and have, you know, bad lighting. And, you know, but they, they show up to ensure that we can move from one election to the next, despite all of the kind of obstacles that people are putting in front of them on an everyday basis.
Michael Berkman
Yes, I mean, bravo to the election workers who managed to pull off a very good election and even counted the votes fairly fast, which there were a lot of concerns wouldn’t happen. And, you know, these adaptations put in in response to COVID are continuing to work pretty effectively. And all of that is good, I still think it reveals a real weak spot in our democracy, the fact that our elections are so decentralized, the fact that they’re so much of their administration is put into the hands of elected officials, and then also to just everyday folks, we have volunteers who are being asked to put up with with quite a bit increasingly so this is not the only way that a country can run elections in other countries. Elections are administered by a political or nonpartisan administrative, nationally, national offices with uniformity across all voting jurisdictions, with professionals who are paid and you know, it’s good, it worked, and hopefully it’ll work next time, too, but I continue to feel like elections are really a American institutions have held up well in a difficult time, I think, but election strike me He as a really vulnerable area,
Chris Beem
These election, beleaguered, unfairly treated threatened election workers helping them figure out how to present themselves in terms of the media, how to present the work they do in a way that seems you know that that appears less threatening or less nefarious, and also defending them right in law on and otherwise, and my kids would be shocked if the if they heard that I was the the Pollyanna of the group. But you know, it is it is true that the one election denier that’s operating right now is Kari Lake out of Arizona. And she is becoming a laughingstock, you know, both in terms of her inability to get any groundswell behind her and in terms of the reaction of the general public. So I just say it it’s not it, this is not a done deal. There are there are opportunities here duck democracy works, dammit.
Michael Berkman
You know, sometime maybe next year or something, and we can flesh out a little bit more about what this notion of election denialism needs, you know, it’s, it’s all being taken quite literally right now. So they deny the media that 2020 election. And so the big ones all lost the States United had their focus on the people that were going to be governor, Secretary of States, that type of things. The referees, I believe is determined State United uses, right it concern with replay, but over 60% of from a number I picked up from the Washington Post of Republican House members now or election deniers. And I know somebody here just did a really interesting paper on the tweeting activity of state legislators. And the extent to which they’re tweeting out misinformation about elections is mind blowing. And it’s not like they do just that, you know, election denialism doesn’t like to sit there alone. It is part and parcel of a general worldview of conspiracism. And of not accepting reality. And I think we’re going to be dealing and this is why, Chris, I think I probably tend to be a little less optimistic than you around some of these issues coming out of this election. What does it mean that so many of these people now are in positions of elected office at the state level in Congress, at the school board levels, I mean, it’s true, maybe they’re not going to be the referees, although that may depend a little bit about how the more cases decided true, they’re not going to be the referees. But there’s something really toxic about the fact that this has worked its way into our elected officials, and public the extent that it has and it feels very anti democratic to me,
Jenna Spinelle
You know, I think about our conversation we had with Larry Putnam, earlier this season about, you know, we have to kind of keep these the two thoughts in our head at the same time and not let the pessimism, you know, get in the way of the work that’s necessary to fight for democracy, whether that is organizing work that Leora and her colleagues in southwestern Pennsylvania do, whether it’s the poll workers, whether it’s supporting people doing good journalism, and supporting organizations like States United, or any of the other democracy reform organizations that are out there. And I think that’s always the balance, maybe going all the way back to the beginning of the show, that’s always been the balance that we’ve been trying to strike here.
Candis Watts Smith
I mean, I appreciate like, just the reminder that we have to have a North Star, we have to have something that we have that we can imagine to be a better situation than what we have. And if we just kind of focus on what we don’t have. We can’t, we won’t walk toward the kind of the ideal situation. So
Chris Beem
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I mean, I certainly absolutely agree that this is no occasion to let our guard down. And I absolutely agree that the next two years as so many two years cycles in the past is going to require vigilance and willingness to just keep stepping into the ring. And that’s where we are, but certainly not enough reason to give up either.
Jenna Spinelle
All right. Well, I think we’ll leave it there. Thank you, Michael, Cands, Chris, for another great year. Thank you to all the guests who have joined us Over the past year, you’ve heard from some of them in this episode, but there are a whole host of other episodes, you could go and check out while we’re off for the holidays. And thank you to our colleagues at WPS you for helping us put the show together and get it out on the airwaves. And thank you to all of you for listening. If there are people you think we should be talking to topics you think we should be talking more about, or maybe less about in 2023. I’ll put a link in the show notes to get in touch with us any and all suggestions are welcome. So for the entire Democracy Works team. I’m Jenna Spinelle. Thanks for listening.
We've had some incredible guests on the show in 2022. For our final episode of the year, we're taking a look back at what we've learned from them. Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, Candis Watts Smith, and Jenna Spinelle revisit our episodes with:
- Jake Grumbach
- Jeffrey Sutton
- Francis Fukuyama
- Jamelle Bouie
- Lilliana Mason
- Jon Meacham
- Jessica Huseman
- Joanna Lydgate
A programming note: Democracy Works will be moving to a bi-weekly release schedule in 2023. If you have ideas for people we should be talking to or topics we should cover, please get in touch!
A few days after the midterms, a Substack post from Dave Karpf caught our eye. In it, he takes up the question of how the Republican and Democratic parties should move forward after the election. This conversation covers party networks, Karpf's lessons from environmental organizing, and how to craft political messages in a changing social media environment.
Karpf is an associate professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University. His work focuses on strategic communication practices of political associations in America, with a particular interest in Internet-related strategies. You might remember him as the professor who called Bret Stephens a "Bretbug" on Twitter a few years ago.
Karpf's Substack, The Future, Now and Then
Karpf on Twitter
Across op-ed pages and Substack newsletters college campuses have become fiercely ideological spaces where students unthinkingly endorse a liberal orthodoxy and forcibly silence anyone who dares to disagree. These commentators lament the demise of free speech and academic freedom. But what is really happening on college campuses?
In his new book, Campus Misinformation, Penn State professor Brad Vivian shows how misinformation about colleges and universities has proliferated in recent years, with potentially dangerous results. Popular but highly misleading claims about a so-called free speech crisis and a lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses emerged in the mid-2010s and continue to shape public discourse about higher education across party lines. Such disingenuous claims impede constructive deliberation about higher learning while normalizing suspect ideas about First Amendment freedoms and democratic participation.
Taking a non-partisan approach, Vivian argues that reporting on campus culture has grossly exaggerated the importance and representativeness of a small number of isolated events; misleadingly advocated for an artificial parity between liberals and conservatives as true viewpoint diversity; mischaracterized the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces; and purposefully confused critique and protest with censorship and “cancel culture.”
Vivian is a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State. His research focuses on public controversies over collective memories of past events. He previously appeared on our show to discuss Confederate monuments following the Unite the Right really and related events in Charlottesville.
Campus Misinformation: The Real Threat to Free Speech in Higher Education
Brad’s first appearance on the show
Jamelle Bouie’s writing spans everything from 19th century American history to 1990s movies, but he’s spent a lot of time recently thinking about America’s founders, the Constitution, and the still-unfinished work of making America a multi-everything democracy. In that work, he’s identified a contradiction that he believes is impeding democratic progress: “Americans take for granted […]
Jamelle Bouie's writing spans everything from 19th century American history to 1990s movies, but he's spent a lot of time recently thinking about America's founders, the Constitution, and the still-unfinished work of making America a multi-everything democracy. In that work, he's identified a contradiction that he believes is impeding democratic progress:
"Americans take for granted the idea that our counter-majoritarian Constitution — deliberately written to constrain majorities and keep them from acting outright — has, in fact, preserved the rights and liberties of the people against the tyranny of majority rule, and that any greater majoritarianism would threaten that freedom," Bouie wrote.
In this interview, we discuss that claim and why he's is looking to Reconstruction as a time that could provides lessons for our current political moment. Bouie is a columnist for the New York Times and political analyst for CBS News. He covers U.S. politics, public policy, elections, and race.
Jamelle Bouie at the New York Times
Bouie's lecture on "Why the Founding Fathers Still Matter" at Penn State
When the People Decide - our series on ballot initiatives and direct democracy
We talked with Pennsylvania Attorney General (and now Governor-elect) Josh Shapiro back in 2018, at the height of efforts by state attorneys general to block actions from the Trump administration on issues from immigration to opioids. We discuss those efforts in this conversation and the role that Shapiro sees states playing in American democracy — a new meaning to the term "states rights."
Looking back, you can hear some early seeds of the themes that would emerge during Shapiro's gubernatorial campaign, particularly around his desire to fight for the people of Pennsylvania and not be afraid to get political when the circumstances demanded.
We'll be back next week with a new episode featuring New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie on majoritarianism and counter-majoritarianism in American democracy.
With hundreds of elections deniers running in the midterms, democracy is on the ballot this fall. The team at the States United Democracy Center is at the forefront of efforts to ensure free, fair, and secure elections in 2022, 2024, and beyond. Cofounders Norman Eisen, Joanna Lydgate, and Christine Todd Whitman join us this week to talk about how they're doing it in states across the country and how everyone can support their efforts.
Through legal, policy, and communications work, States United is fighting back empowering state leaders as they defend elections. These officials are the frontline champions in the battle for our democracy. Governors help enshrine voter protection into law, and attorneys general defend those laws—along with election results. Secretaries of state oversee elections, and law enforcement leaders make sure they are safe and free from violence. States United’s mission is to bring these leaders together to protect elections, prevent political violence, fight disinformation, and pursue accountability for those who step outside the bounds of our democracy.
Eisen is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, former Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and Special Counsel to the White House for Ethics and Government Reform. Lydgate is the former Chief Deputy Attorney General of Massachusetts. Whitman is the former Governor of New Jersey and was the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator in the George W. Bush administration. They are the recipients of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy's 2022 Brown Democracy Medal.
States United Democracy Center
States United: A Survival Guide for Our Democracy - Eisen, Lydgate, and Whitman's book written as part of receiving the Brown Democracy Medal
Amid election deniers and political polarization, it’s easy to overlook the times when democracy is actually working. We do that this week in a hopeful conversation about resident-centered government. Elected officials and administrative staff like city planners often have the best intentions when it comes to development and redevelopment, but political and professional incentives push […]
The conversation about climate change has come a long way from the days of polar bears and melting ice caps, but as our guest this week shares, there's still a long way to go in creating truly inclusive climate policy. In order to do that, those who are most impacted by environmental racism need to be involved in the policymaking process.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright is the director of climate policy at the Roosevelt Institute and one of the intellectual architects of the Green New Deal. She grew up on Chicago's South Side and talks about how environmental justice shaped her life from an early age — event if she didn't know that's what it was. We also discuss how climate reform is connected to other parts of America's political system and efforts to reform democracy.
It's no secret that liberalism didn't always live up to its own ideals. In America, many people were denied equality before the law. Who counted as full human beings worthy of universal rights was contested for centuries, and only recently has this circle expanded to include women, African Americans, LGBTQ+ people, and others. Conservatives complain that liberalism empties the common life of meaning.
As the renowned political philosopher Francis Fukuyama shows in Liberalism and Its Discontents, the principles of liberalism have also, in recent decades, been pushed to new extremes by both the right and the left: neoliberals made a cult of economic freedom, and progressives focused on identity over human universality as central to their political vision. The result, Fukuyama argues, has been a fracturing of our civil society and an increasing peril to our democracy.
Fukuyama isthe Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a faculty member at Stanford's Institute on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. His previous books include Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment and The End of History and the Last Man.
Liberalism and its Discontents
This episode is part of the series 2022 Midterms: What’s at Stake? series from The Democracy Group podcast network. Think of it as an election administrator vibe check as we head into the midterms. Election officials are the backbone of our democracy, but also increasingly the face of fraud allegations from far-right groups and others who […]
The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act shines a light on the administrative state. How will the billions of dollars for Medicaid, green energy, and other provisions be spent and turned into policy? With the help of people whose jobs are largely nonpartisan and non-political. Complaints about government bureaucracy are nothing new but has recently […]
We’re back after our summer break and catch up on what’s happened to American democracy while we were on hiatus. Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, Candis Watts Smith, and Jenna Spinelle are back after summer break to discuss the January 6 committee hearings, which we previously teased as “democracy’s summer blockbusters.” Did they live up to […]
It’s no secret that there’s a partisan divide in the media, but thus far, solutions to bridge that divide have been few and far between. Our guest this week had an idea that seems to be taking hold and building a readership across the political spectrum. Isaac Saul is the founder and publisher of Tangle, […]
We are excited to share the first episode of a new narrative series on ballot initiatives from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy: When the People Decide. In this reported series, Jenna Spinelle tells the stories of activists, legislators, academics, and average citizens who changed their cities, states, and the country by taking important issues directly […]
Democracy Works is taking its annual summer hiatus starting next week, but that does not mean the wheels of democracy will stop turning while we’re away. In fact, this summer could prove to be quite the opposite. In this episode, we discuss what’s going on in the Supreme Court and the impact of the rulings […]
In 100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting, E.J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport argue that all members of a democracy must participate in elections. Universal voting would be the surest way to protect against voter suppression and the active disenfranchisement of a large share of our citizens. And it would create a system true to the Declaration of Independence's aspirations by calling for a government based on the consent of all of the governed.
The system works in Australia, but can it work in the United States? Would it become just another tool in partisan warfare? Can American democracy even handle something like universal voting? We explore those questions this week.
Dionne is is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, university professor at Georgetown University, and visiting professor at Harvard University. He is the author of Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country.
Rapoport is the Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School. He formerly served in the Connecticut state legislature and as secretary of the state. He also served as president of Demos and of Common Cause.
Additional Information100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting
Related EpisodesDanielle Allen on achieving democracy's ideals
How national parties are breaking state politics
E.J. Dionne on empathy and democracy - E.J.'s first appearance on the show in April 2019
The Baby Boomers are the most powerful generation in American history — and they’re not going away anytime soon. Their influence in politics, media, business, and other areas of life is likely to continue for at least the next decade. What does that mean for younger generations? Generational conflict, with Millennials and Generation Z pitted […]
Millennials are often seen as a progressive-minded generation – as 80’s and 90’s kids, they grew up in a digital landscape that exposed them to a diversity of perspectives. But while expectations were high that this generation would be on the frontlines in the fight for racial equality, recent research by Democracy Works host Candis Watts Smith paints a different picture.
During this conversation with Lisa Hernandez and Lizzy Ghedi-Ehrlich, host of the Scholars Strategy Network's No Jargon podcast, Candis discussed how white millennials’ really think about race and the ways in which their views and beliefs have largely halted progress for Black Americans and other racial minorities in the United States.
Additional InformationRacial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics
Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter
Related EpisodesThe clumsy journal to antiracism
Book bans are nothing new in the United States, but our guest this week says the current movement to restrict access to books about race and gender has a different flavor than bans in previous eras. Rather than coming from individual parents or from the ground up in a community, demands to ban dozens or even hundreds of books at a time are coming from state legislators or national parent groups who circulate lists of books online. This trend is troubling for free speech and for the democratic processes that govern how students access information in schools.
Joining us to unpack what's happening and what we can do about is Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education at PEN America. He oversees advocacy, analysis, and outreach concerning educational communities and academic institution and drives PEN America’s efforts to catalyze a more informed, civic culture through education and advocacy for the rising generation and the general public.
Additional InformationPEN America's report on book bans
Related EpisodesHow national parties are breaking state politics
Public schools, not government schools
We love a good debate — and have certainly had plenty of them on this show. But how effective are they in today's media and political landscape? We take up that question this week, prompted by the Republican National Committee's recent decision to withdraw from the Commission on Presidential Debates.
John Hudak, deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management and a senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, wrote a piece on the GOP's decision that caught our attention. He joins us to discuss the commission's history and where things might go between now and 2024.
Additional InformationHudak's piece for Brookings
Hudak on Twitter
Americans owe more than $1.5 trillion in student debt and some members of the Millennial and Gen Z wonder whether they’ll ever pay off their loans. Student loans began as a well-intended government program to help increase America’s brainpower in the Cold War era, but as our guest this week describes, grew into a political […]
Americans owe more than $1.5 trillion in student debt and some members of the Millennial and Gen Z wonder whether they'll ever pay off their loans. Student loans began as a well-intended government program to help increase America's brainpower in the Cold War era, but as our guest this week describes, grew into a political and financial morass that's swept up millions of people over the past 50 years.
The Department of Education announced on April 19 that at least 40,000 borrowers will be eligible for debt forgiveness through a loan forgiveness program for public servants, but as we discuss in this episode, the program is complicated and places an administrative burden on borrowers to comply with its rules.
Our guest this week is Josh Mitchell, a reporter who covers the economy and higher education for The Wall Street Journal, and author ofThe Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe. In the book, Mitchell draws alarming parallels to the housing crisis in the late 2000s, showing the catastrophic consequences student debt has had on families and the nation’s future.
Additional InformationThe Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe
April 2022 loan forgiveness announcement from the Department of Education
Peter Pomerantsev visited Penn State at the end of March, when he was just back from a trip to Ukraine. We discuss what he saw there, as well as how American media is covering the war. We also talk about the similarities between Ukraine and the United States when it comes to being vulnerable to Russian disinformation — and how both countries can strengthen democratic media.
Pomerantsev is a senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University and author of the books This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality and Everything Is True and Nothing Is Possible : The Surreal Heart of the New Russia.
Additional InformationPeter's lecture on Ukraine at Penn State
Peter's article on Ukraine in Time
Peter's article on Ukraine in The Economist
Jon Meacham is one of America’s leading thinkers on how the country’s political history can inform the present. He recently visited Penn State to present a lecture on his 2018 book The Soul of America and joined us for a wide-ranging conversation on the war in Ukraine (and whether Zelensky really is like Churchill), American […]
Political violence is rising in the United States, with Republicans and Democrats divided along racial and ethnic lines that spurred massive bloodshed and democratic collapse earlier in the nation’s history. The January 6, 2021 insurrection and the partisan responses that ensued are a vivid illustration of how deep these currents run. How did American politics become […]
Peter Pomerantsev will visit Penn State March 31 and April 1 to discus Ukraine, Russian misinformation, and more. To get ready for his visit, we're rebroadcasting our conversation with him from May 2021. Click the link below to register to watch his lectures via livestream.
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda — the terms are thrown around a lot but often used to describe the same general trend toward conspiratorial thinking that spread from the post-Soviet world to the West over the past two decades. Peter Pomerantsev had a front seat to this shift and is one of the people trying to figure out how to make the Internet more democratic and combat disinformation from both the supply side and the demand side.
Pomerantsev is a senior fellow at the London School of Economics and the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality and Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible: Adventures in Modern Russia. He has a forthcoming project with Anne Applebaum that will examine why people believe in conspiracies and how to create content that fosters collaboration, rather than sows division.
Additional InformationRegister to watch Pomerantsev's lectures
Pomerantsev on Twitter
This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality
Related EpisodesA path forward for social media and democracy
Can pranksters save democracy?
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
The concept of dignity comes up a lot when we think about the condition of American democracy. Francis Fukuyama wrote about the demand for dignity and the politics of resentment and Chris Bail talked with us how dignity offline impacts our behavior online, just to name a few. Rep. Ro Khanna combines his experience in […]
Was the war in Ukraine inevitable? What is Vladimir Putin trying to achieve? What does the conflict say about Ukraine as a democracy? Those are just a few of the questions Michael Berkman explores this week with Donna Bahry, professor emerita of political science at Penn State and an expert in Soviet and post-Soviet politics and democratization.
Donna has studied Russia and the Soviet Union for decades and traveled to the country dozes of time from late Gorbachev era through 2018. She also talks about the challenges of doing scholarly work in the region and how that task will become even more difficult in the wake of the current crisis.
Related EpisodesWill Alexei Navalny make Russia more democratic?
Robert Kagan is a foreign policy expert who turned his focus to the United States last fall in a Washington Post column titled “Our Constitutional Crisis Is Already Here” that became one of the Post’s most-read pieces of 2021. We’re lucky to have Kagan with us this week to discuss the ongoing crises of democracy […]
What should academic freedom look like in 2022? How has it become conflated with the idea of free speech? Who should decide how issues regarding faculty speech should be adjudicated? Those are just a few of the questions we explore this week with Michael Bérubé and Jennifer Ruth, authors of It's Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.
The book considers the ideal of academic freedom in the wake of the activism inspired by outrageous police brutality, white supremacy, and the #MeToo movement. Arguing that academic freedom must be rigorously distinguished from freedom of speech, Bérubé and Ruth take aim at explicit defenses of colonialism and theories of white supremacy—theories that have no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever. They argue that the democracy-destroying potential of social media makes it very difficult to uphold the traditional liberal view that the best remedy for hate speech is more speech.
Bérubé is the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Penn State; Ruth is a professor of film at Portland State University. They've also coauthored Humanities, Higher Education, and Academic Freedom: Three Necessary Arguments.
Additional InformationIt's Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy and the Future of Academic Freedom
Related EpisodesJonathan Rauch on The Constitution of Knowledge
Are land-grant universities still democracy's colleges?
Thomas Main's new book The Rise of Illiberalism explores the philosophical underpinnings of this toxic political ideology and documents how it has infiltrated the mainstream of political discourse in the United States. By the early twenty-first century, Main writes, liberal democracy’s failure to deal adequately with social problems created a space illiberal movements could exploit to promote their particular brands of identity politics as an alternative.
While illiberalism has found a home across the political spectrum, it is far more prevalent on the right — so much so that it appears to have taken over the modern-day Republican Party as evidenced on January 6, 2021. We explore those ideas with Main this week and also revisit the foundations of liberal democracy as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Additional InformationThe Rise of Illiberalism
Thomas Main on Twitter
Related EpisodesSore losers are bad for democracy
Daniel Ziblatt on how democracies die
We’ve talked a lot on this show about the problems that news deserts, misinformation, and information silos present to democracy. Our guest this week says these things are all downstream from a much more fundamental disconnect between the need for a free press in a democracy and the models the United States has set up […]
Over the past generation, the Democratic and Republican parties have each become nationally coordinated political teams. American political institutions, on the other hand, remain highly decentralized.
In his forthcoming book, Laboratories Against Democracy, Jake Grumbach argues that as Congress has become more gridlocked, national partisan and activist groups have shifted their sights to the state level, nationalizing state politics in the process and transforming state governments into the engines of American policymaking in areas from health care to climate change. He also traces how national groups are using state governmental authority to suppress the vote, gerrymander districts, and erode the very foundations of democracy itself.
Grumbach is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington. He was recently granted tenure. Congratulations, Jake!
Additional InformationLaboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics
Grumbach's website
Grumbach on Twitter
Related EpisodesFederalism in uncertain times
Recent elections and the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection have underscored worrisome trends in the present state of our democracy: the extreme polarization of the electorate, the dismissal of people with opposing views, and the widespread acceptance and circulation of one-sided and factually erroneous information. Only a small proportion of those who are eligible actually vote, and a declining number of citizens actively participate in local community activities.
In Flunking Democracy, Michael Rebell makes the case that this is not a recent problem, but rather that for generations now, America’s schools have systematically failed to prepare students to be capable citizens. In the book and in this interview, he specific recommendations for how the courts can and should address this deficiency. He also talks about his efforts to make those ideas a reality — including petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
Rebell is executive director of the Campaign for Education Equity, executive director of the National Access Network, professor of law and educational practice at Teachers College, Columbia University, and adjunct professor of law at Columbia Law School.
Additional InformationCook v. McKee - the case Rebell and his colleagues are taking to the U.S. Supreme court
Center for Educational Equity at Columbia University
Flunking Democracy: Schools, Courts, and Civic Participation
Related EpisodesPublic schools, not government schools
Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom
Correction: In this episode, we referred to St. John's Church in Lafayette Square as a Presbyterian Church. It is an Episcopalian Church. We apologize for the error.
Around the world, religion is being used to fuel "us vs. them" narratives and undermine the foundations of democracy. This week, we dive into what this means and how people of faith can chart a different path forward.
Faith, Nationalism, and the Future of Liberal Democracy highlights the use of religious identity to fuel the rise of illiberal, nationalist, and populist democracy. It examines the ways religious identity is weaponized to fuel populist revolts against a political, social, and economic order that values democracy in a global and strikingly diverse world.
The book is intended for readers who value democracy and are concerned about growing threats to it, and especially for people of faith and religious leaders, which is why we're excited to have author David M. Elcott on the show this week. Elcott is the Taub Professor of Practice in Public Service and Leadership at the Wagner School of Public Service at NYU and director of the Advocacy and Political Action specialization.
Additional InformationFaith, Nationalism, and the Future of Liberal Democracy
Democracy and the language of faith - article in Democracy Journal
We’re back with a new season and our 200th episode! Penn State’s Jim Piazza returns to the show this week to discuss a new study on why the loser’s consent is a critical part of a healthy democracy — and what happens when politicians and other elites fail to abide by it. Piazza found that […]
We're back for a new season and our 200th episode! Penn State's Jim Piazza returns to the show this week to discuss a new study on why the loser's consent is a critical part of a healthy democracy — and what happens when politicians and other elites fail to abide by it.
Piazza found that countries where one of the main political parties lost the election but refused to accept the results experienced five domestic terrorist attacks per year, compared to one attack every two years in countries where political parties accepted election results. The “sore loser” effect also makes terrorism more acceptable, with one-third of people in countries that reject election results saying terrorism is justified, compared to 9% of people in countries where election results are accepted.
At a time when many experts are sounding the alarm that "it can't happen here" might not hold, Piazza's work and the principles behind it are critically important to consider.
Additional InformationArticle in Political Research Quarterly
Article in The Conversation
How Civil Wars Start
Related EpisodesUnderstanding domestic terrorism - Piazza's first appearance on the show
There's no shortage of articles these days about how democracy is doomed in 2022 and/or 2024. Michael, Chris, and Candis discuss them this week and work through how much weight to give the doomsayers and how to take antidemocratic forces seriously without falling too far into despair.
We also touch on what's happened in schools and at school board meetings over the past year, and what these developments mean for long-held theories about the power and stability of local government. Finally, we discuss the University of Austin, which is led by several former guests of this show, and whether it will really solve the problems it aims to.
Thank you to everyone who's listened to and supported the show over the past year. We are taking a few weeks off and will be back with new episodes in January. Happy holidays!
Additional InformationTrump's next coup has already begin - The Atlantic
Our constitutional crisis is already here - The Washington Post
Trump won't let America go. Can Democrats pry it away? - The New York Times
Related EpisodesAmerican democracy's violent disruption
Political disagreements are everywhere these days and most experts agree that too much political polarization is bad for democracy in the long run. How do we move beyond those disagreements, or at least not make them worse? Does the solution come from individual actions or institutional reform? Or perhaps a mix of both? This is what Robert Talisse describes as the "democrat's dilemma" and he argues the solution starts with introspection that he calls "democratic reflection."
Drawing on social science research concerning political polarization and partisan identity, Talisse's new book Sustaining Democracy suggests that when we break off civil interactions with our political opponents, we imperil relations with our political allies. In the absence of engagement with our political critics, our alliances grow increasingly homogeneous, conformist, and hierarchical. Moreover, they fracture and devolve amidst internal conflicts. In the end, our political aims suffer because our coalitions shrink and grow ineffective.
Michael and Chris contrast the need for democratic introspection and collaboration with the prospect of institutional reform and discuss how to make sense of Talisse's arguments as we approach the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection. Talisse previously joined us in December 2019 to discuss his book Overdoing Democracy.
Additional InformationSustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side
Related EpisodesIs it possible to overdo democracy?
In her book Until I Am Free, Keisha N. Blain situates Fannie Lou Hamer as a key political thinker alongside leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks and demonstrates how her ideas remain salient for a new generation of activists committed to dismantling systems of oppression in the United States and across the globe.
Despite her limited material resources and the myriad challenges she endured as a Black woman living in poverty in Mississippi, Hamer committed herself to making a difference in the lives of others and improving American democracy for everyone. She refused to be sidelined in the movement and refused to be intimidated by those of higher social status and with better jobs and education. As she saw it, no one was free until everyone was free.
Blain is an award-winning historian of the 20th century United States with broad interests and specializations in African American history, the modern African diaspora, and women’s and gender studies. She is an associate professor of History at the University of Pittsburgh and the president of the African American Intellectual History Society. She is currently a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. She is also a columnist for MSNBC, covering race, gender, and politics in historical and contemporary perspectives.
Additional InformationUntil I Am Free: Fannie Lou Hamer's Enduring Message to America
Hamer's 1964 Democratic National Convention speech
Blain's website
Blain on Twitter
Related EpisodesThe ongoing struggle for civil rights
Civil rights, civil unrest
This week, we broadcast a recording from a virtual event with Andrew Yang and Charlie Dent on political parties and democracy reform. We discuss open primaries, ranked-choice voting, universal voting, and more.
Dent was the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s fall 2021 visiting fellow. He spent seven terms in Congress representing Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley and served in the Pennsylvania state legislature before that. He’s currently executive director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, a CNN political analyst, and a 501c3 adviser for the Renew America Movement, which supports candidates who are committed to democracy and the rule of law.
Yang ran for president in 2020 and mayor of New York City earlier this year. Most recently, he founded the Forward Party, a movement that brings together people interested in solving America’s problems, debating ideas in good faith, and advocating for policies like open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Before that, he started Humanity Forward to advance policies aimed at ending poverty. His latest book is Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy.
Both Dent and Yang spend a lot of time thinking about how to fix what’s broken in American politics but have different ideas about how to do that and where go from here, which made for a very interesting discussion.
Additional InformationWatch the event on YouTube
Forward Notes on the Future of Our Democracy
Forward Party
Renew America Movement
Related EpisodesThe case for open primaries
Your guide to ranked-choice voting
How to end democracy's doom loop
A roadmap to a more equitable democracy
As we’ve heard from Carol Anderson and others on this show, the fight for voting rights often breaks down along racial and partisan lines. Desmond Meade saw that as a problem and set out to change it by channeling our shared sense of humanity and the common good to push for change. Meade is a […]
As we've heard from Carol Anderson and others on this show, the fight for voting rights often breaks down along racial and partisan lines. Desmond Meade saw that as a problem and set out to change it by channeling our shared sense of humanity and the common good to push for change.
Meade is a formerly homeless returning citizen who overcame many obstacles to eventually become the President of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC), Chair of Floridians for a Fair Democracy, and a graduate of Florida International University College of Law. He led the FRRC to a historic victory in 2018 with the successful passage of Amendment 4, a grassroots citizen’s initiative which restored voting rights to over 1.4 million Floridians with past felony convictions.
He is a 2021 MacArthur Fellow — a recipient of the organization's prestigious genius grant — and was recognized by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World for 2019. He received the 2021 Brown Democracy Medal from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State.
Additional InformationAmerica's Disenfranchised: Why Restoring Their Vote Can Save the Soul of Our Democracy
Let My People Vote: My Battle to Restore the Civil Rights of Returning Citizens
Meade's Brown Democracy Medal lecture
Florida Rights Restoration Coalition
Related EpisodesVoter suppression doesn't repeat, but it rhymes
Danielle Allen on achieving democracy's ideals
Jonathan Haidt is part of the newly-announced University of Austin, created in response to what its founders deem a lack of viewpoint diversity among college faculty. Haidt was beginning to explore those themes when he joined on the show in March 2019.
We say on this show all the time that democracy is hard work. But what does that really mean? What it is about our dispositions that makes it so hard to see eye to eye and come together for the greater good? And why, despite all that, do we feel compelled to do it anyway? Jonathan Haidt is the perfect person to help us unpack those questions.
We also explore what we can do now to educate the next generation of democratic citizens, based on the research Jonathan and co-author Greg Lukianoff did for their latest book The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.
Jonathan is social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. His research examines the intuitive foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultures — including the cultures of American progressive, conservatives, and libertarians.
Additional InformationThe University of Austin
Heterodox Academy
The Coddling of the American Mind
Related EpisodesA love letter to democratic institutions
Andrew Sullivan on democracy's double-edged sword
In an era of increasing social isolation, platforms like Facebook and Twitter are among the most important tools we have to understand each other. We use social media as a mirror to decipher our place in society but, as Chris Bail explains, it functions more like a prism that distorts our identities, empowers status-seeking extremists, and renders moderates all but invisible.
Bail's book, Breaking the Social Media Prism, challenges common myths about echo chambers, foreign misinformation campaigns, and radicalizing algorithms, revealing that the solution to political tribalism lies deep inside ourselves. Drawing on innovative online experiments and in-depth interviews with social media users from across the political spectrum, this book explains why stepping outside of our echo chambers can make us more polarized, not less.
Bail is professor of sociology and public policy at Duke University, where he directs the Polarization Lab. He is the author of Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream.
Additional InformationBreaking the Social Media Prism
The Polarization Lab
Bail's website
Bail on Twitter
Related EpisodesA path forward for social media and democracy
Facebook is not a democracy
Political campaigns in the United States, especially those for the presidency, can be nasty—very nasty. And while we would like to believe that the 2020 election was an aberration, insults, invective, and yes, even violence have characterized U.S. electoral politics since the republic’s early days. By examining the political discourse around nine particularly deplorable elections, Mary E. Stuckey seeks to explain why.
Stuckey is the Sparks Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State. She specializes in political and presidential rhetoric, political communication, and American Indian politics.
After the interview, Michael Berkman and Candis Watts Smith discuss how the despicable discourse Stuckey describes trickles down to local politics, particularly school board races in the current election cycle.
Additional InformationDeplorable: The Worst Presidential Campaigns from Jefferson to Trump
Mary Stuckey on Twitter
Related EpisodesDemagogues are more common than you think
As another election cycle approaches, moderates in the Republican Party have some choices to make. Will they continue to fight Trumpism from within? Or break out to form a new political party, perhaps in coalition with moderate Democrats who feel alienated by the party's leftward turn? Miles Taylor and Charlie Dent are two Republicans at the forefront of addressing that question through the Renew America, a movement to deepen America’s pro-democracy bench.
By working together across party lines, the group hopes to shift the balance of power in Washington, DC away from those who want to dismantle democracy’s guardrails and back to real leaders who will put country over party.
Taylor is the co-founder of Renew America, former chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security and author of the New York Times bestseller A Warning. Dent is the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s fall 2021 visiting fellow. He served seven terms in Congress representing and is now executive director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program and CNN political analyst.
Additional InformationRenew America
Miles Taylor on Twitter
Charlie Dent on Twitter
Related EpisodesWhat really motivates Trump supporters
Congressional oversight and making America pragmatic again
Over the past 30 years, citizens of democracies who claim to value freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law have increasingly embraced illiberal politicians and platforms on both the right and the left. Democracy is in trouble, but who is really to blame? In Our Own Worst Enemy, Tom Nichols challenges the current depictions of […]
Over the past 30 years, citizens of democracies who claim to value freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law have increasingly embraced illiberal politicians and platforms on both the right and the left. Democracy is in trouble, but who is really to blame?
In Our Own Worst Enemy, Tom Nichols challenges the current depictions of the rise of illiberal and anti-democratic movements in the United States and elsewhere as the result of the deprivations of globalization or the malign decisions of elites. Rather, he places the blame for the rise of illiberalism on the people themselves. Ordinary citizens, laden with grievances, have joined forces with political entrepreneurs who thrive on the creation of rage rather than on the encouragement of civic virtue and democratic cooperation. While it will be difficult, Nichols argues that we need to defend democracy by resurrecting the virtues of altruism, compromise, stoicism, and cooperation — and by recognizing how good we've actually had it in the modern world.
Nichols is Professor of National Security Affairs, at the US Naval War College, a columnist for USA Today, and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of The Death of Expertise, No Use: Nuclear Weapons and US National Security (2013), and Eve of Destruction: The Coming Age of Preventive War.
Additional InformationOur Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from Within on Modern Democracy
Tom Nichols on Twitter
Related EpisodesPrimaries, parties, and the public
Chris Beem on democratic virtues
Gerrymandering is one of the topics we've discussed most on this show, with good reason. But those conversations mostly stopped at the solution of creating independent redistricting commissions to draw electoral maps, taking the process out of partisan-controlled state legislatures. While that's undeniably a good thing, this week's guest argues it's just one part of a bigger solution. An independent nonpartisan commission is not always going to create a nonpartisan map.
Christopher Fowler is an associate professor of geography at Penn State and a member of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's Redistricting Advisory Council. His research examines the way our choices about geographic boundaries shape the outcomes we are able to observe. He examine neighborhoods, school catchment areas, electoral districts, metropolitan areas, and labor markets with a focus on how these units of observation reflect the distribution of populations in space.
After the interview, Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith discuss whether ideas like ranked-choice voting and multi-member districts can take hold in America's political landscape. Regular listeners of the show will not be surprised to hear that Chris is doubtful, while Candis is optimistic.
Additional InformationFowler's Monkey Cage article on redistricting
Pennsylvania Redistricting Advisory Council
Related EpisodesExtreme maps, extreme politics
One state's fight for fair maps
Carol Anderson's book One Person, No Vote was written before COVID-19, but many of the patterns she discussed are more salient than ever as states enact new voting restrictions ahead of the 2022 midterms. In the book and in this conversation, Anderson traces the history of voter suppression since the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which nullified critical pieces of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
She draws parallels between poll taxes and literacy tests in the Jim Crow era to voter ID laws and other modern-day barriers designed to keep people of color from voting. As Mark Twain famously said, "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." After listening to this conversation, it's hard not to think that's the case with voting.
This week is National Voter Education week, an effort to bridge the gap between registering to vote and casting a ballot. Visit votereducationweek.org to learn more about this important effort.
Anderson is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of African American Studies at Emory University and author of the bestselling books One Person No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our Democracy, White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Nation's Divide, and The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America.
Additional InformationAnderson's website
Anderson on Twitter
Brennan Center for Justice on DMV closures
Related EpisodesLaboratories of restricting democracy
The problems of disinformation, conspiracies, and cancel culture are probably familiar to many of our listeners. But they’re usually talked about separately, including on this show. In his new book, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, Jonathan Rauch ties these threads together and shows how they contribute to a larger problem of a departure […]
The problems of disinformation, conspiracies, and cancel culture are probably familiar to many of our listeners. But they're usually talked about separately, including on this show. In his new book, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, Jonathan Rauch ties these threads together and shows how they contribute to a larger problem of a departure from facts and truth in favor of feelings and falsehoods.
The book reaches back to the parallel eighteenth-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the “Constitution of Knowledge”—our social system for turning disagreement into truth. The institutions that Rauch describes as "reality-based communities," universities, media, government organizations, and the courts, need our support now more than ever as they face attacks from illiberal forces across the political spectrum.
But are the problems on the left and the right really the same? Rauch argues they are. Michael Berkman and Chris Beem consider that equivalency after the interview.
Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program and the author of eight books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is a contributing writer of The Atlantic and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry’s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. He has also authored research on political parties, marijuana legalization, LGBT rights and religious liberty, and more.
Additional InformationThe Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth
Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought
Jonathan Rauch on Twitter
Related EpisodesHow democracies can win the war on reality
Andrew Sullivan on democracy's double-edged sword
Jonathan Haidt on the psychology of democracy
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
As we’ve said many times on this show, democracy is long and slow, which is the exact opposite of the ethos that Amazon has pushed into our culture through quick shipping, easily accessible entertainment, its takeover of cloud computing, and more. Amazon’s expansion across America, from distribution facilities to data centers, is exacerbating regional inequities […]
As we've said many times on this show, democracy is long and slow, which is the exact opposite of the ethos that Amazon has pushed into our culture through quick shipping, easily accessible entertainment, its takeover of cloud computing, and more.
Amazon's expansion across America, from distribution facilities to data centers, is exacerbating regional inequities and contributing to the unraveling of America's social fabric. Not only that, cities competing for Amazon's new facilities offer tax breaks that prevent funding from going to basic government services. And, the company's takeover of government procurement has taken lucrative contracts away from local businesses.
Alec MacGillis, a senior reporter at ProPublica, chronicles these trends in new book Fulfillment: Winning and Losing in One-Click America. The book chronicles how Amazon contributed to the gap between the country’s winning and losing regions, and how its workplace practices foster isolation and competition, rather than camaraderie and shared goals.
Was Amazon deliberately trying to undermine democracy? Or using the existing system to its benefit? We talk with MacGillis about founder Jeff Bezos's political philosophy and how it's impacted the company's decision-making over the years. We also discuss what we as democratic citizens can do to push back against some of these forces.
Additional InformationFulfillment: Winning and Losing in One-Click America
Alec MacGillis on Twitter
Alec's website
Related EpisodesCan corporations be democratic citizens?
Reimagining citizenship in a consumer world
Candis Watts Smith takes a turn in the interviewer's chair this week for a conversation about abortion and American democracy following the passage of SB8 in Texas and the Supreme Court's response to it. Like a lot of things in American democracy, it's complicated.
As Candis says in the episode, it isn’t typical for us to discuss “hot topics” or policy matters, per se, on Democracy Works. But, this policy and the Supreme Court’s response to it throws a great number of matters related to democracy into relief, including federalism, the role of the Court to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution and constitutional rights, state politics as laboratories of democracy and policy innovation, and partisan strategies to create the country in their ideological image.
Candis talks with Rebecca Kreitzer, associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an expert on gender and political representation, reproductive health policy and political inequality. Rebecca was one of our first guest on Democracy Works back in 2018 and we're thrilled to have her back for a second appearance on this critically-important topic.
Additional InformationRebecca's Monkey Cage article on Texas's heartbeat law
Postscript podcast on abortion from the New Books Network
Rebecca Kreitzer on Twitter
Related EpisodesBehind the scenes of the "year of the woman" - Rebecca's first appearance on the show
Half of the U.S. Senate and one-third of the House of Representatives is 65 or older. What does that mean for Millennial politicians? Time magazine’s Charlotte Alter joins us this week to discuss. Generational divides in American politics are nothing new, but they seem particularly striking now as the oldest Millennials turn 40 this year. […]
Generational divides in American politics are nothing new, but they seem particularly striking now as the oldest Millennials turn 40 this year. This generation has different lived experiences than its predecessors, but has been sidelines from political power as Baby Boomers live longer and benefit from incumbency advantages. Charlotte Alter has spent the past four years documenting these dynamics and join us this week to discuss.
Alter is a senior correspondent at Time magazine and author of The Ones We've Been Waiting For: How a New Generation of Leaders Will Transform America. The book covers national-level politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elise Stefanik, as well as local leaders like mayors Svante Myrick (Ithaca, New York) and Michael Tubbs (Stockton, California).
Alter's reporting defines the class of young leaders who are remaking the nation–how grappling with 9/11 as teens, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupying Wall Street and protesting with Black Lives Matter, and shouldering their way into a financially rigged political system has shaped the people who will govern the future.
Additional InformationThe Ones We've Been Waiting For: How a New Generation of Leaders Will Transform America
Charlotte Alter on Twitter
Thinking Is Cool podcast
Related EpisodesWill Millennials disrupt democracy?
We’re back after our summer break! Michael, Chris, Candis, and Jenna catch up on what happened over the summer, from COVID vaccine mandates to school board chaos to the refugee crisis in Afghanistan. The underlying theme of it all is one of democracy’s central tensions — the collective vs. the individual. The tension between individual […]
We're back after our summer break. Michael, Chris, Candis, and Jenna catch up on what happened over the summer, from COVID vaccine mandates to school board chaos to the refugee crisis in Afghanistan. The underlying theme of it all is one of democracy's central tensions — the collective vs. the individual.
The tension between individual liberty and the common good plays itself out in America's COVID response, debates over how race and history are taught in schools, and how we respond to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. We discuss all of those issues this week and reflect on what our responsibilities are as democratic citizens.
Related EpisodesRefugees and the politics of displacement
The clumsy journey to antiracism
Additional InformationChris Beem in The Conversation: Why refusing the COVID-19 vaccine is immoral and un-American
Candis Watts Smith in The Fulcrum: Experts fear ban on critical race theory could harm civics education
Hurt Your Brain newsletter
As redistricting begins across the country, we revisit our conversation with journalist and author David Daley about the consequences for American democracy if gerrymandering happens again this time around. This episode originally aired in January 2021, not long after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Daley has spent the past decade covering attempts by politicians to draw those maps to their advantage in a practice known as gerrymandering. He's also covered the groups of citizens across the country who pushed back against them to win some major reforms that will make the process look different now than it did in 2010.
Daley is a journalist and author of Unrigged: How Citizens are Battling Back to Save Democracy. His work has appeared in the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, the Washington Post, and New York magazine. He is a senior fellow at FairVote, the former editor of Salon, and lives in Massachusetts.
Additional InformationDaley's op-ed on democracy deserts in The Guardian
Unrigged: How Americans are Battling Back to Save Democracy
Daley on Twitter
Related EpisodesOne state's fight for fair maps
Next-generation democracy: An interview with high school student Kyle Hynes, who won Pennsylvania's citizen mapmaking contest.
Democracy and populism diverge at a single point. It’s like a fork in a road where both traditions depend on a common history, but they split in two. At first it may seem the choice doesn’t matter. You believe that eventually they will both lead to the same destination except they don’t. The choice leads to two different outcomes. Populism uses some of the same language of democracy. It has a similar vocabulary. But as we go farther down its path, the less in common they have with each other.
Jan-Werner Müller is among the most recognizable voices on the subject of populism and democracy. This conversation from the Democracy Paradox podcast touches on some of their most challenging aspects from political leadership to majority rule to militant democracy. This conversation explores some of the ideas at the heart of this podcast. Ideas that give definition to the very meaning of democracy.
Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University and author of Democracy Rules and What is Populism?
Additional InformationDemocracy Paradox
Democracy Rules
Jan-Werner Müller at Princeton Politics
Some of the most talked-about issues in Congress these days are not about the substance of policies or bills being debated on the floor. Instead, the focus is on the partisan conflict between the parties and the endless debate about whether individual members of Congress will break with party ranks on any particular vote. This behavior allows the parties to emphasize the differences between them, which makes it easier to court donors and hold voter attention.
Some amount of competition between the parties is necessary in a healthy democracy, but have things gone too far? Frances E. Lee joins us this week to explain.
Lee is jointly appointed in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs. She is the author of Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign and The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era with James M. Curry.
Additional InformationLee's book, Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign
Her lecture at Penn State on lawmaking in a polarized era
Lee's website
Related EpisodesCongressional oversight and making America pragmatic again
Unpacking political polarization
Many of us can recall the experience of scrolling through our phones or streaming TV apps without ever choosing something to focus on. Pete Davis describes this an "infinite browsing mode" and argues that it creates a culture where democracy can't fully thrive.
Davis is cofounder of the Democracy Policy Network and author of Dedicated: The Case for Commitment in an Age of Infinite Browsing. His work is grounded in the notion of "long-haul heroes," or the people who show up day in and day out to make progress on the issues they care about while building stronger communities in the process. This could be anyone from the go-to event organizer in your town to people who work on nationwide campaigns for issues like racial equality and LGBTQ rights.
This work has always been difficult, but Davis argues it's even harder now because of the constant distractions that our media environment provides, along with the FOMO and related feelings that prevent us from dedicating ourselves to anything in the long term. We unpack all of that in this episode and discuss how Davis is turning his ideas into action through the Democracy Policy Network.
Related EpisodesThere is no "I" in democracy
Additional InformationDedicated : The Case for Commitment in an Age of Infinite Browsing
Democracy Policy Network
This is What Democracy Looks Like podcast
Pete Davis on Twitter
Three pillars hold up autocracy in Russia, author and New Yorker staff writer Masha Gessen says: media control, sham elections and downright terror. But the opposition movement spearheaded by imprisoned activist Alexei Navalny has struck at the heart of all three. This time on the show, Gessen explains how — and measures the power of democratic aspirations in a country struggling against corruption with hope, against the past with visions of a happier future.
Navalny, a lawyer who has become President Vladimir Putin’s chief political rival, leads the Russia of the Future party, whose motto is “Russia will be happy.” In prison, his health failing, and recently off a 24-day hunger strike, Navalny continues to command respect — and a vast YouTube following — in part because he is brave enough to fight the system, even if it costs him his life, Gessen says.
It’s a powerful message for a generation from whom many of the tools of critical social analysis have been withheld. Against the odds, Navalny’s resistance is inspiring young people who have grown up with no ruler other than Putin, a former KGB officer who views the totalitarian past with nostalgia.
This episode comes from our colleagues at Democracy in Danger, a production of the Deliberative Media Lab at the University of Virginia.
Additional InformationDemocracy in Danger podcast
Surviving Autocracy by Masha Gessen
Related EpisodesWill Alexi Navalny make Russia more democratic?
Can transparency, oversight, ethics and accountability save American democracy? What can Congress do to create lasting ethics reforms? How would the For the People Act change ethics rules for the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the U.S. government and are the changes enough? How can the Office of Government Ethics and Office of the Inspector General contribute to democratic accountability? How can Congress get a toe hold into reigning in presidential power?
In this episode of the Democracy Matters podcast from the JMU Center for Civic Engagement, hosts Abe Goldberg, Carah Ong Whaley, and Angelina Clapp talk with Walter Shaub, who leads the Ethics and Accountability Initiative at the Project on Government Oversight about what elected and other government officials and the public can do to create and implement long-lasting reforms to shore up the barricades against authoritarianism.
Additional InformationDemocracy Matters podcast
Project on Government Oversight
Walter Shaub on Twitter
JMU Civic
Local news and democracy have been intertwined since the days of Alexis de Tocqueville. As we've discussed on this show before, news outlets are one way that people who live in a city or town keep up on what's happening in their local government. However, our guest this week argues the "watchdog" effect of local journalism might be overstated, along with the correlation between local news consumption and political participation.
Nikki Usher is an associate professor in the College of Media at the University of Illinois and author of News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism. In the book and in this conversation, Usher recasts the challenges facing journalism in terms of place, power, and inequality. She questions longstanding beliefs about the relationship between local news and civic engagement and separates observed behavior from myths about American democracy and the media's role within it.
This conversation originally appeared on New Books in Journalism, part of the New Books Network.
Additional Information
News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism
New Books Network
Related Episodes
News deserts are democracy deserts too
Facebook is not a democracy
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow in the Political Reform program at New America. He is the author of Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America and The Business of America is Lobbying. He is also the co-host of the podcast Politics in Question, and writes for the New York Times, Vox, and FiveThirtyEight, among other outlets. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California.
Hear more from Drtuman at a virtual event on "Democracy's Crises and Failure of Imagination" sponsored by The Democracy Group podcast network. Lee will be joined by Carah One Whaley of James Madison University, democracy entrepreneur Turi Munthe, and Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle. Join us Wednesday, July 7 at 2:00 p.m. ET or watch the recording at democracygroup.org.
Additional InformationJuly 7 event with The Democracy Group
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America
Related EpisodesDoes Congress promote partisan gridlock?
Primaries, parties and the public
How the Tea Party and the Resistance are upending politics
We often talk about democracy in the context of politics and institutions, but this week’s guest draws from Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and John Dewey to offer a different perspective. We live in an era defined by a sense of separation, even in the midst of networked connectivity. As cultural climates sour and political […]
We live in an era defined by a sense of separation, even in the midst of networked connectivity. As cultural climates sour and political division spreads, our guest this week suggests there is no better time to reconsider ideas of unity in democracy.
In his book, The Ethics of Oneness, Jeremy David Engels argues that if the lessons of oneness are taken to heart, particularly as they were expressed and celebrated by Whitman, and the ethical challenges of oneness considered seriously, it is possible to counter the pervasive and problematic American ideals of hierarchy, exclusion, violence, and domination.
Engels is professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State and the Barry Director of the Paterno Fellows Program. He's also a yoga and meditation instructor who has spent time studying yoga and philosophy in India. He is the author of The Ethics of Oneness: Emerson, Whitman, and the Bhagavad Gita, The Art of Gratitude, The Politics of Resentment, and Enemyship: Democracy and Counter-Revolution in the Early Republic.
Additional InformationThe Ethics of Oneness
Jeremy's website
Join The Democracy Group podcast network on July 7, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. ET for a virtual event on "Democracy's Crises and Failure of Imagination" featuring Lee Drutman of New America, Carah Ong Whaley of James Madison University, and Turi Munthe of Parlia. Register here or visit democracygroup.org to watch the recording.
The New York City mayoral primary is this week and will be the first one to use ranked-choice voting. This week, we revisit an episode that aired not longer after the city's voters approved ranked-choice voting via ballot measure in November 2019.
What is ranked-choice voting? How does it work? And, is it more democratic than the single-vote method we’re used to? This week’s guest has answers to all of those questions.
Burt L. Monroe is Liberal Arts Professor Political Science, Social Data Analytics, and Informatics at Penn State and Director of the university’s Center for Social Data Analytics. He says ranked-choice voting is generally a good thing for democracy, but not entirely without problems of its own. We also talk about bullet voting, donkey voting, and other types of voting that have been tried around the world.
As Michael and Chris discuss, ranked-choice voting falls into a category of grassroots organizing around pro-democracy initiatives like gerrymandering and open primaries. These efforts signal a frustration with the status quo and a desire to make the rules of democracy more fair and equitable.
Additional InformationFairvote, an advocacy group for ranked-choice voting and election reform
Burt’s Google Scholar listing
Related EpisodesHow to end democracy's doom loop
The case for open primaries
One state’s fight for fair maps
As we enter summer vacation season and emerge from pandemic isolation, Robert Talisse thinks it’s a good idea to take a break from politics. In fact, he might go so far as to say democracy is better off if you do.
Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University and author of a new book called Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place. The book combines philosophical analysis with real-world examples to examine the infiltration of politics into all social spaces, and the phenomenon of political polarization.
Talisse's next book,Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe The Other Side, will be out later this year. He's also the host of the Why We Argue podcast.
Additional InformationOverdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place
Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe the Other Side
Why We Argue podcast
We end this season the way it began, with a roundtable discussion on the state of American democracy. Michael, Chris, and Candis reflect on the January 6 insurrection, the one-year anniversary of George Floyd's death, and the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre.
On the one hand, it's easy to be pessimistic about where things are as state legislatures continue to pass restrictive voting measures and Congress seems more polarized than ever. Yet, it's our duty as democrats to persevere despite these challenges and push the limits of our imagination about what democracy can and should be.
We've touched on both of those dynamics this season — from journalists David Daley and Chris Fitzsimon talking about state legislatures creating "democracy deserts" to Harvard professor Danielle Allen discussing how we can establish a new common purpose as Americans and Peter Pomerantsev on how to combat misinformation online. If you missed any of those episodes, check out the links below.
This is our last new episode with the entire team for the summer. Over the next few months, we'll be airing bonus episodes, rebroadcasts, and episodes from other podcasts we think you might enjoy.
Related Episodes
American democracy's violent disruption
Danielle Allen on achieving democracy's ideals
Laboratories of restricting democracy
Extreme maps, extreme politics
Additional Information
The Vital Center podcast
On Opinion podcast
This week, we explore the questions of who governs in a democracy and what happens when the power is taken away from the people. Ashley Nickels, associate professor of political science at Kent Sate University, examines these questions through the lens of a municipal takeover in Flint, Michigan in 2011 that replaced elected city officials with an emergency manager appointed by the state. Nickels also challenges the notion that policy can be removed from politics and treating it as such has implications for democracy. The focus on austerity and cost cutting set the stage for the Flint water crisis in 2014 and, Nickels argues, left the city's residents with little power to change the situation.
Nickels is the author of Power, Participation, and Protest in Flint, Michigan: Unpacking the Policy Paradox of Municipal Takeovers, which won the American Political Science Association's Robert A. Dahl Award in 2020 — an award given to recognize scholarly work in the field of democracy. Michael and Candis discuss how Nickels's work picks up some of the questions that Dahl's landmark work on democracy introduced in the mid-20th century.
Additional Information
Power, Participation, and Protest in Flint, Michigan: Unpacking the Policy Paradox of Municipal Takeover
Ashley Nickels's website
Growing Democracy podcast
Related Episodes
The power of local government
Ten thousand democracies
Shaylyn Romney Garrett is a writer, speaker and changemaker pursuing connection, community, and healing in a fragmented world. She is the co-author with Robert Putnam of The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again, which charts what the authors describe as the "I-We-I" curve in American democratic engagement and civic life.
In the book and in this interview, Romney Garrett takes us back to the Gilded Age, another time when America was highly unequal and divided. We discuss the reforms that came out of that era and how it led to decades of a "we" culture that got us through war and economic hardship with a reimagined civil society.
These trends reversed throughout the 1970s and 80s, but Romney Garrett argues that we could be on the cusp of making a shift back to 'we" — if we're willing to put in the work to get there. As a social entrepreneur, she talks about some of the organizations and projects that she sees as starting down the path toward this transformation.
Additional Information
The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again
Shaylyn Romney Garrett's website
Related Episodes
How democracies can win the war on reality
Colored Conventions show us where democracy really happens
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda — the terms are thrown around a lot but often used to describe the same general trend toward conspiratorial thinking that spread from the post-Soviet world to the West over the past two decades. Peter Pomerantsev had a front seat to this shift and is one of the people trying to figure […]
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda — the terms are thrown around a lot but often used to describe the same general trend toward conspiratorial thinking that spread from the post-Soviet world to the West over the past two decades. Peter Pomerantsev had a front seat to this shift and is one of the people trying to figure out how to make the Internet more democratic and combat disinformation from both the supply side and the demand side.
These issues came to a head in the United States last week as Liz Cheney was removed from her leadership position in Congress for not pledging her support to the lies surrounding a rigged 2020 election. Michael and Chris begin with a discussion of this dynamic before the interview.
Pomerantsev is a senior fellow at the London School of Economics and the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality and Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible: Adventures in Modern Russia. He has a forthcoming project with Anne Applebaum that will examine why people believe in conspiracies and how to create content that fosters collaboration, rather than sows division.
Additional Information
This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality
How to Put Out Democracy's Dumpster Fire - article with Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic
Peter Pomerantsev on Twitter
Related Episodes
A path forward for social media and democracy
Can pranksters save democracy?
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
Chris Beem takes the interviewer's chair this week for a conversation with political theorist Laura K. Field about her recent work that examines how the conspiracism described by Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead in their book A Lot of People Are Saying has made its way to prominent conservative intellectuals and the institutions that support them. The conversation ends with ways that listeners can take conspiracy-minded arguments with the appropriate grain of salt and perhaps disconnect from politics a little in the process.
Field is a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center and scholar in residence at American University. She he writes about current political affairs from a vantage point informed by the history of political thought. Her academic writing spans antiquity and modernity, and has appeared in the The Journal of Politics, The Review of Politics, and Polity. She earned a Ph.D. in political theory and public law from the University of Texas at Austin.
Additional Information
The Highbrow Conspiracism of the New Intellectual Right: A Sampling From the Trump Years
Revisiting "Why Liberalism Failed:" A Five-Part Series
Laura K. Field on Twitter
The Niskanen Center's podcasts: The Science of Politics and The Vital Center
Related Episodes
How conspiracies are damaging democracy?
Is it possible to overdo democracy?
Is the Federalist Society bad for democracy? There's nothing inherently wrong with groups of like-minded people organizing to share and disseminate their ideas — everyone from James Madison to Alexis de Tocqueville would agree on that. However, our guest this week argues that the group's outsized role in the courts has undermined the notion of judicial independence, one of the hallmarks of our democratic experiment.
Amanda Hollis-Brusky is an associate professor of politics at Pomona College. She is the author of Ideas with Consequences, which examines the history of the Federalist Society and how it's shaped the courts and their relationship to the other branches of government over the past 40 years.
Additional Information
Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution
Amanda's September 2020 congressional testimony
Related Episodes
The Supreme Court's politics and power
For nearly 100 years, African Americans gathered in cities across the United States to participate in state and national-level political meetings that went far beyond slavery and conventional racial narratives to discuss education, labor, and what true equal citizenship would look like. This rich history went largely unnoticed for decades until P. Gabrielle Foreman and her colleagues formed the Colored Conventions Project to collect and categorize convention records and associated documents.
Foreman and Colored Conventions Project Co-Director Jim Casey, both professors at Penn State, join us this week to explain what the Colored Conventions were and how they fit into the larger arc of the Black freedom struggle and the ongoing effort to make the United States a fully-inclusive multiracial democracy. In addition to co-leading the Colored Conventions Project, Foreman and Casey are also co-authors ofThe Colored Conventions Movement: Black Organizing in the Nineteenth Century, released in March 2021 by the University of North Carolina Press.
Additional Information
The Colored Conventions Movement: Black Organizing in the Nineteenth Century
The Colored Conventions Project
P. Gabrielle Foreman on Twitter
Related Episodes
The long road to a multiracial democracy
Srjda Popovic and Sophia A. McClennen have appeared on our show separately and are now joining forces to apply a research framework to dilemma actions, a nonviolent organizing tactic that works by capitalizing on a belief that's commonly held by the public but not supported by those in power.
Rather than simply getting people together to protest in the streets, you organize them to do something that causes a scene, like kissing on a crowded subway platform or planting flowers in potholes that line a city's streets. Authority figures are faced with the dilemma of making themselves look foolish by taking the bait or doing nothing and looking weak. Either way, the pranksters win and can gain media attention, new members for their cause, and in some cases, a much-needed morale boost.
Popovic is co-founder and executive director of the Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS), an organization that trains nonviolent activists around the world. McClennen is a professor of international affairs and comparative literature at Penn State. She studies how satire and irony impact political actions and behavior. Popovic and McClennen collaborated on the new book Pranksters vs. Autocrats: Why Dilemma Actions Advance Nonviolent Activism, written as part of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy's 2020 Brown Democracy Medal.
Additional Information
Pranksters vs. Autocrats: Why Dilemma Actions Advance Nonviolent Activism
Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS)
Related Episodes
A playbook for organizing in turbulent times
Satire is good for more than just a few laughs
Our guest this week argues that, much like democracy itself, public education is an ideal that we’ve never quite lived up to. We discuss the constitutional right to education and how it’s ebbed and flowed over the years, following many of the same trends as support for and access to other democratic institutions. The Trump […]
The Trump administration infamously referred to public schools as "failing government schools," illustrating how education has been caught up in the broader attack on the roots of American democracy. While the language is new, Derek W. Black argues the sentiment very much is not.
Black is a professor of law at the University of South Carolina and one of the nation’s foremost experts in education law and policy, focusing on school funding and equality for disadvantaged students He is the author of Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy. The book traces the legal history of public education, and how the right to education was challenged during Reconstruction, the Civil Rights era, and other pivotal moments in American history.
After the interview, Candis and Chris discuss the ways that neoliberalism has impacted public education, the promise and peril of teacher's unions, and how COVID-19 has further complicated our already complex relationship with public education.
Additional Information
Black's website
Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy
Black's talk for Penn State's Center for Education and Civil Rights
This week's featured show from The Democracy Group podcast network: How Do We Fix It?
Related Episodes
School segregation then and now
Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner joins us to discuss the promise and peril of institutional reform and how he built a coalition of voters who are traditionally overlooked in politics. He spent his career as a civil rights attorney, not a as a prosecutor like his predecessors. He’s part of a growing movement of progressive […]
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner joins us to discuss the promise and peril of institutional reform and how he built a coalition of voters who are traditionally overlooked in politics. He spent his career as a civil rights attorney, not a as a prosecutor like his predecessors. He's part of a growing movement of progressive district attorneys who focus on ending mass incarceration, not solely on enforcing law and order.
Krasner won in 2017 and increased voter turnout in an off-year election; he is up for re-election this year. He is the subject of the new PBS Independent Lens documentary Philly D.A., which follows his campaign and first three years in office. He is also the author of For the People: A Story of Justice and Power. Both the book and the documentary series will be released April 20.
Additional Information
Philly D.A. from PBS Independent Lens
For the People: A Story of Justice and Power
This week's featured show from The Democracy Group podcast network: Let's Find Common Ground
Related Episodes
What Serial taught Sarah Koenig about criminal justice
The world's most punitive democracy
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, legislators in 43 states have introduced more than 250 bills aimed at restricting access to voting in person, by mail, or both. Chris Fizsimon, director and publisher of States Newsroom, returns to the show to give us a birds-eye view of what's happening on the ground in state legislatures.
We discuss how Republican legislators are pushing things like shortened mail-in voting windows, expanded voter ID requirements, and other cumbersome administrative changes under the guise of protecting or restoring election integrity after the 2020 election. After the interview, Michael and Candis reflect on the broader question of voting as a partisan issue and what that means for the future of American democracy.
States Newsroom is a nonprofit news organization with newsrooms across the country specifically focused on state politics. Fitzsimon joined us last spring to discuss COVID-19 protests at state capitols.
Additional Information
States Newsroom
Brennan Center State Voting Bills Tracker
Chris Fitzsimon on Twitter
Leadership Now: How Businesses Can Support Democracy
Related Episodes
Give me liberty or give me COVID-19? - Fitzsimon's first appearance on the show
This Week's Democracy Group podcast network featured show: Our Body Politic
Danielle Allen is a leader of two large-scale efforts to make democracy truly inclusive and reimagine the way we teach new generations of democratic citizens. She joins us this week to discuss both initiatives and how to build coalitions for effective change
Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and Director of Harvard's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. She is a leader and spokesperson for Our Common Purpose from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Educating for American Democracy, a collaboration among dozens of civics-focused organizations and educators.
These projects share a theme that democracy is in crisis and the only way out of it is to double down on democratic reforms while wrestling with our complicated past and admitting that the United States has never been a fully inclusive democracy. Allen says that reforms are achievable and desired by many people across the country and across the political spectrum.
Getting there won't be easy, however. Chris describes these efforts as the "Manhattan Project for democracy," but Allen says she is a "not an optionalist," meaning that, if we want democracy to succeed, we have no other choice but to push forward despite the naysayers out there.
Additional Information
Our Common Purpose
Educating for American Democracy
Allen's lecture for the McCourtney Institute
Allen on Twitter
Related Episodes
Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom
Your guide to ranked-choice voting
The case for open primaries
If you're listening to this podcast, you probably don't fit Ethan Porter's definition of a consumer citizen, but you probably know someone who does — someone who tunes out of politics and would rather focus on just about anything else. Porter argues that appealing to consumer behavior might be on way to spark civic engagement among this group.
In The Consumer Citizen, Porter also makes the case that Americans would trust the government more if it did a better job of communicating about its services. He has some ideas about how businesses can join the effort to increase civics education for everyone, not just students in school. We cover all of those topics in this conversation, and Michael and Chris offer their reflections — and a healthy dose of skepticism — after the interview.
Porter is an assistant professor at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago in 2016. He is the author of The Consumer Citizen and the forthcoming False Alarm: The Truth About Political Mistruths in the Trump Era.
Additional InformationThe Consumer Citizen
Ethan Porter on Twitter
Related EpisodesWhen the "business of business" bleeds into politics
The FBI recently reported that it’s opened 2,000 domestic terrorism investigations since 2017. How the United States responds to these threats touches on some of democracy’s most basic tensions. We explore those tensions this week and discuss where things might go from here. When the social fabric and institutions the hold a democracy together are […]
When the social fabric and institutions the hold a democracy together are weakened, it can create a breeding ground for extremism that radicalization that might eventually lead to acts of domestic terrorism like the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. It's a vicious cycle — weaker democracy breeds more distrust which leads to more extreme actions. As Anne Applebaum reminded us last week, democracy is not inevitable and takes hard work to sustain.
This week, we break down what domestic terrorism is and how it largely spread unnoticed for much of the 21st century while the focus was on international terrorism after 9/11. Our guest is James Piazza, Liberal Arts Professor of Political Science at Penn State and an expert on the study of terrorism, including its socioeconomic roots, the role of minority rights, and state repression of terrorist activity. Piazza talks about why it seems to have taken so long for the U.S. to recognize domestic terrorism as a threat and what 20 years of studying international terrorism can teach us about radicalization and deradicalization.
Additional InformationPiazza's website
Piazza in The Conversation on hate speech and political violence
McCourtney Institute Mood of the Nation Poll on trust in the FBI
Journalist, author, and historian Anne Applebaum says that democracy is not like running water — something that we know will always be there when we turn on the tap. Her latest book Twilight of Democracy, highlights the ways in which countries around the world are coming to terms with this fact and provides suggestions for how […]
Anne Applebaum is a staff writer at The Atlantic, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and a senior fellow at The Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. She joined the McCourtney Institute for Democracy for a virtual event on February 17, 2021 to discuss her most recent book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism.
This episode includes the closing remarks from Applebaum's lecture, followed by a Q&A with Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle that covers the future of the Republican Party, how the Cold War served as a unifier for Republicans and Democrats, and why she believes economic inequality and democratic erosion are not as closely linked as some people think.
Additional InformationVideo of Applebaum's Feb. 17 lecture
Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism
Applebaum's work in The Atlantic
Related EpisodesDaniel Ziblatt on How Democracies Die
Viktor Orban's "velvet repression" in Hungary
Brexit and the UK's identity crisis
Seizing Freedom is a new podcast from Virginia Public Media that tells the stories of Black Americans during Reconstruction who fought for the everyday freedoms that many of us take for granted, like the right to decide how to make a living or which causes to support. Drawing from host Kidada Williams's research on historical records of formerly enslaved people, the show brings to light voices that have been muted throughout American history.
Williams is associate professor of history at Wayne State University, author of They Left Great Marks on Me: African American Testimonies of Racial Violence from Emancipation to World War I, and editor of Charleston Syllabus: Readings on Race, Racism and Racial Violence.
Additional InformationSeizing Freedom podcast
Kidada Williams
Related EpisodesThe clumsy journey to antiracism
Civil rights, civil unrest
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
The U.S. Capitol insurrection broke open a lot of conversations that had long been simmering under the surface about social media and democracy. Michal and Chris discuss this inflection point and our guest, Sinan Aral, shares ideas for how we might move forward. Sinan Aral has spent two decades studying how social media impacts our […]
Sinan Aral has spent two decades studying how social media impacts our lives, from how we think about politics to how we find a romantic partner. He argues that we're now at the crossroads of a decade of techno-utopianism followed by a decade of techno-dystopianism. How to reconcile the promise and peril of social media is one of the biggest questions facing democracy today.
Aral is the David Austin Professor of Management, Marketing, IT, and Data Science at MIT; director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy; and head of MIT’s Social Analytics Lab. He is the author of The Hype Machine: How Social Media Disrupts Our Elections, Our Economy, and Our Health — And How We Must Adapt .
In his book and in this conversation, Aral goes under the hood of the biggest, most powerful social networks to tackle the critical question of just how much social media actually shapes our choices, for better or worse.
Additional InformationThe Hype Machine
Sinan Aral on Twitter
Related EpisodesFacebook is not a democracy
Free speech from the Founding Fathers to Twitter
Alexei Navalny has been a figure in Russian opposition for years, but garnered international attention recently though social media and what's widely believed to be an assassination attempt by the Russian government in the fall. This week, we unpack the complicated nature of Russian democracy and how the U.S. and other countries should respond — or not — to what's happening there now.
Michael Kimmage is a professor of history at the Catholic University of America and a non-resident allow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. From 2014 to 2016, he served on the Secretary's Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State, where he held the Russia/Ukraine portfolio. He is the author of two books on American history and culture, and he has published articles and essays on the transatlantic relationship, on U.S.–Russian relations, and on international affairs in The New Republic, The New York Times, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Additional Information
Kimmage's New Republic article on Russian democracy
Kimmage at the German Marshall Fund
Out of Order podcast
Related Episodes
Hong Kong's fight is everyone's fight
Brazil's tenuous relationship with democracy
From gerrymandering to ranked-choice voting to expanding voting rights, the ballot initiative has been essential to expanding and reforming democracy in recent years. However, the initiative has also been used to constrain minority rights and push the public to act on polarizing issues like the death penalty and immigration.
Ted Lascher and Joshua Dyck are the authors of Initiatives Without Engagement: A Realistic Appraisal of Direct Democracy's Secondary Effects. In the book, they develop and test a theory that can explain the evidence that the ballot initiative process fails to provide the civic benefits commonly claimed for it, and the evidence that it increases political participation. Ultimately, they argue that the basic function of direct democracy is to create more conflict in society — something that runs counter to the way initiatives are often framed by scholars and democracy reformers.
Lascher is Professor of Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Sacramento. Dyck is Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Additional InformationInitiatives Without Engagement: A Realistic Appraisal of Direct Democracy's Secondary Effects
Joshua Dyck on Twitter
Related EpisodesThe democracy rebellion happening in states across the U.S.
Winning the "democracy lottery"
Extreme maps, extreme politics
We'll be back with a new episode of Democracy Works next week. In the meantime, we invite you to check out our partner podcasts in The Democracy Group podcast network. Here's a small sampling of what the network's shows have covered recently:
- Politics in Question examines the future of the Republican Party with the author of a new book on the Tea Party and insurgent factions in American policies.
- How Do We Fix It? explores free speech and big tech with former ACLU president Nadine Strossen.
- Future Hindsight discusses the link between Christianity and white supremacy in United States history.
- Another Way by Lawrence Lessig shines a light on what political reform lessons the United States can draw from Alaska.
- Democracy Matters from James Madison University explores the history of insurrection and section in the United States with a panel of faculty experts.
- 70 Million explores the push for criminal justice reform in jails throughout the United States
- The Science of Politics from the Niskanen Center explores the politics of homeschooling
- Out of Order from the German Marshall Fund of the United States takes stock of Germany’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which recently ended.
Learn more about the network and subscribe to its newsletter for updates at democracygroup.org.
Despite ongoing threats of violence, the wheels of democracy continue to turn, and in 2021 that means redistricting. States will draw new electoral maps this year using data from the 2020 Census. Our guest this week has spent the past decade covering attempts by politicians to draw those maps to their advantage in a practice […]
Despite ongoing threats of violence, the wheels of democracy continue to turn, and in 2021, that means redistricting. States will draw new electoral maps this year using data from the 2020 Census.
Our guest this week has spent the past decade covering attempts by politicians to draw those maps to their advantage in a practice known as gerrymandering. He's also covered the groups of citizens across the country who pushed back against them to win some major reforms that will make the process look different now than it did in 2010.
David Daley is a journalist and author of Unrigged: How Citizens are Battling Back to Save Democracy. His work has appeared in the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Slate, the Washington Post, and New York magazine. He is a senior fellow at FairVote, the former editor of Salon, and lives in Massachusetts.
Additional InformationUnrigged: How Americans are Battling Back to Save Democracy
David Daley on Twitter
Fair Districts PA on judicial gerrymandering
Related EpisodesOne state's fight for fair maps
Next-generation democracy: An interview with high school student Kyle Hynes, who won Pennsylvania's citizen mapmaking contest.
This episode was recorded on Friday, January 8, 2021, two days after the day that many of the things we’ve talked about on this show came to a head — political and epistemic polarization, delgitimation of the opposition, degradation of democratic norms, racial inequity, and many other factors. Democracy Works hosts Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, […]
Democracy Works hosts Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, and Candis Watts Smith reflect on the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and what it says about the condition of American democracy. They also discuss whether it's possible to learn from this moment and what guideposts they'll be looking for to determine whether all the talk about protecting and restoring democracy we've heard since the attack will translate into action.
This episode was recorded on Friday, January 8, 2021.
Additional InformationStatement from Michael Berkman and Chris Beem on January 6, 2021 attack
Related EpisodesAndrew Sullivan on democracy's double-edged sword
What really motivates Trump supporters
Daniel Ziblatt on "How Democracies Die"
Neoliberalism is one of those fuzzy words that can mean something different to everyone. Wendy Brown is one of the world’s leading scholars on neoliberalism and argue that a generation of neoliberal worldview among political, business, and intellectual leaders led to the populism we’re seeing throughout the world today. But is it mutually exclusive to democracy? Not necessarily.
Brown joins us this week to help make sense of what neoliberalism is, and where things stand today. We were lucky enough to get an advance copy of her book, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism,which will be released in July. It’s a follow up to her 2015 book, Undoing the Demos, and you’ll hear her talk about how her thinking has changed since then.
Brown is the Class of 1936 First Chair at the University of California, Berkeley, where she teaches political theory.
Additional InformationWendy’s books: In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, Undoing the Demos
Wendy’s website
Our episode with David Frum
From Pizzagate to Jeffrey Epstein, conspiracies seem to be more prominent than ever in American political discourse. What was once confined to the pages of supermarket tabloids is now all over our media landscape. Unlike the 9/11 truthers or those who questioned the moon landing, these conspiracies are designed solely to delegitimize a political opponent — rather than in service of finding the truth. As you might imagine, this is problematic for democracy.
Democracy scholars Russell Muirhead and Nancy Rosenblum call it “conspiracy without the theory” and unpack the concept in their book A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy.Russell is the Robert Clements Professor of Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth. Nancy is the Senator Joseph Clark Research Professor of Ethics in Politics at Harvard.
As you’ll hear, the new conspiricism is a symptom of a larger epistemic polarization that’s happening throughout the U.S. When people no longer agree on a shared set of facts, conspiracies run wild and knowledge-producing institutions like the government, universities, and the media are trusted less than ever.
Additional InformationA Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy
This episode was recorded on December 15, 2020, the day after the Electoral College voted to confirm Joe Biden as the next United States President. However, some Republicans refuse to accept the result and vow to continue fighting the result until Inauguration Day. Michael, Chris, and Candis discuss what these challenges mean for the long-term health and legitimacy of American elections and American democracy.
They also discuss damage to the institutions that comprise America's liberal democracy and what it will take to repair them moving forward. Finally, they touch on increasing polarization and whether a generational shift will change the dynamics over time.
This our final new episode of the year. We'll be on a winter break for the next few weeks, during which time we'll be rebroadcasting some episodes from our back catalog that you might have missed. If there are any guests or topics you would like us to cover in 2021, please email democracyinst@psu.edu to share your ideas.
Thank you to our colleagues at WPSU for helping us produce the show every week — Andy Grant, Emily Reddy, Kristine Allen, Anne Danahy, Jen Bortz, Chris Kugler, and Mark Stitzer.
From our team to your and your family, best wishes for a happy holiday season!
Lee Hannah and Dan Mallinson have been studying marijuana policy for several years and watching as initiatives pass in states across the country. We discuss how the process of organizing around a ballot initiative has changed as the marijuana industry grows, and whether the growing number of states legalizing marijuana will lead to changes at the federal level.
Hannah is associate professor of political science at Wright State University and Mallinson is assistant professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg. Both received their Ph.Ds from Penn State, where they worked with Democracy Works host Michael Berkman.
This episode hits many of the items on the Democracy Works bingo card — federalism, states as laboratories of democracy, ballot initiatives, social justice, and more.
Additional InformationHannah and Mallinson's article on federalism and marijuana legalization for the London School of Economics
Hannah on Twitter
Mallinson on Twitter
Related EpisodesThe democracy rebellion happening in states across the U.S.
Using the tools of democracy to address economic inequality
Many, many articles, books, documentaries — and even podcasts — have been produced over the past four years to explain who Donald Trump’s base is and what motivates people to vote for and otherwise support him. Our guest this week offers answers to these questions that are grounded in social science and political psychology. John […]
John Hibbing is the Foundation Regent University Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska. He studies the manner in which these biological variations mitigate the way in which individuals respond to politically relevant environmental occurrences. His latest book is The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump's Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era.
The book draws from an original national survey that includes over 1,000 strong Trump supporters and Hibbing's own experience at a Trump rally in the Midwest. Hibbing argues Trump's base is driven by the desire for security, not fear or authoritarianism as others claim. In the book, and in this interview, Hibbing also provides insight into the approaches likely to increase levels of political civility in the future.
Additional InformationThe Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump's Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era
Hibbing's University of Nebraska faculty page
Hibbing on Twitter
We are conducting a listener survey in partnership with our colleagues in The Democracy Group podcast network. Take a few minutes to help us learn more about how we can make epodes that will better serve you in 2021 and beyond and receive a Democracy Group notebook. Take the survey.
Related EpisodesJournalist Salena Zito on Trump voters and her book "The Great Revolt"
Jonathan Haidt on psychology and political polarization
We are conducting a listener survey in partnership with our colleagues in The Democracy Group podcast network. Take a few minutes to help us learn more about how we can make epodes that will better serve you in 2021 and beyond and receive a Democracy Group notebook. Take the survey.
Geraldo Cadava is a professor of History and Latina and Latino Studies at Northwestern University. His book,"The Hispanic Republican: The Shaping of an American Political Identity from Nixon to Trump," examines little-understood history of Hispanic Americans with a cultural study of how post–World War II Republican politicians actively courted the Hispanic vote.
In the book and in this interview, Cadava offers insight into the complicated dynamic between Latino liberalism and conservatism, which, when studied together, shine a crucial light on a rapidly-changing demographic that will impact American elections for years to come.
Additional InformationThe Hispanic Republican: The Shaping of an American Political Identity from Nixon to Trump
Cadava's lecture for Penn State Latinx Studies
Cadava's website
Cadava on Twitter
Related EpisodesLatino immigrants and the changing makeup of American democracy
Street-level bureaucrats at the border
Dawn Carpenter is the creator and host of What Does It Profit? - a podcast that explores how we can reconcile capitalism’s demand for profit with the long term well-being of people and the planet, She is a former investment banker who had a mid-career pivot to studying applied ethics, the nature work, and the responsibilities of wealth.
Dawn and Jenna discuss the rights and responsibilities corporations have to both shareholders and stakeholders, and how those dynamics have evolved from the postwar Keynsian period through the neoliberal era to the crossroads we seem to be at today.
We'll be back with a full episode next week. In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving from our team to yours and we hope you enjoy this interview.
Additional InformationWhat Does It Profit?
Related EpisodesWhat neoliberalism left behind
When business bleeds into politics
Will Friedman is president of Public Agenda, a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and public engagement organization that strives to strengthen democracy and expand opportunity for all Americans. One of the organization's major projects is the Hidden Common Ground Initiative, which challenges the increasingly dominant narrative of a hopelessly-divided America by identifying and elevating the areas and narratives where Americans agree on solutions to politically-polarized issues, and by fostering productive dialogue on those areas where we truly disagree.
This work, along with the Hidden Tribes initiative, Common Ground Committee, and others begs the question — if this common ground is already prevalent in our society and our democracy, then why is it hidden? We explore that question in this episode and ask how to work toward common ground in a way that does not simply maintain the status quo.
Additional InformationHidden Common Ground Initiative
Related EpisodesTrust, facts, and democracy in a polarized world
Does Congress promote partisan gridlock?
Lieberman is co-author with Suzanne Mettler of the book "Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy." He is the Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University.
Political polarization, racism and nativism, economic inequality, and excessive executive power—alone or in combination—have threatened the survival of the republic, but it has survived—so far. What is unique, and alarming, about the present moment in American politics is that all four conditions exist.
By revisiting how earlier generations of Americans faced threats to the principles enshrined in the Constitution, Lieberman sees the promise and the peril that have led us to today and, in this conversation, we chart a path toward repairing our civic fabric and renewing democracy.
Additional InformationFour Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy
Robert Lieberman on Twitter
Related EpisodesA brief history of "people power"
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
Using the tools of democracy to address inequality
Democracy takes center stage on Wynton Marsalis’s latest album, The Ever Fonky Lowdown and his forthcoming work, the Democracy Suite. However, he’s been thinking about the connection between jazz and democracy for his entire career. We are thrilled that he took a few minutes to talk with us about it this week. Listen to this […]
The Ever Fonky Lowdown from Marsalis and the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestraaddresses the timeless cycle and methods used by the elite to exploit their fellow citizens in order to acquire, expand and maintain power.
In the words of Mr. Game himself, ”We are here tonight, but this is an international hustle. It has played out many times across time and space, and is not specific to any language or race. It takes on different flavors according to people’s taste, but always ends up in the same old place.”
Clips from The Ever Fonky Lowdown are used with permission from Blue Engine Records.
Additional InformationThe Ever Fonky Lowdown - Jazz at Lincoln Center store
The Ever Fonky Lowdown libretto, written by Wynton Marsalis
The Sound of Democracy - virtual event for Penn State's Center for the Performing Arts
Related EpisodesHow music transcends political polarization
More than 2,000 local newspapers have closed over the past 20 years, leaving some parts of the country in what’s known as a “news desert.” This week, we examine what impact that’s had on civic engagement and democratic participation — and look at ways people are trying to make local news great again. The connection […]
The connection between local news and democracy goes back to the Founding Fathers and particularly to Alex de Tocqueville. We explore the rise, fall, and potential rebirth of local news this week with Jennifer Lawless, Commonwealth professor of politics at the University of Virginia and co-author with Danny Hayes of the forthcoming book News Hole: The Decline of Newspapers and the Future of American Democracy.
In the golden age of newspapers, the "news hole" was the section of the paper not taken up by advertising — aka where the stories, photos, sports scores, TV listings, weather, and everything else lived. Though that dynamic still exists, the term news hole has taken on a whole other meaning that's literally a hole in a community without a local news organization.
This conversation is critically important in the height of election season as people across the U.S. vote for the more than 500,000 local elected positions across the country. As we heard from Mirya Holman in the Sheriffs 101 episode, it can often be difficult to find accurate, credible information about these candidates without local news organizations.
Additional InformationResources for finding local news in your area:
Institute for Nonprofit News
LION Publishers
States Newsroom (for state government coverage)
UNC research on news deserts
Jennifer Lawless on Twitter
Is that a fact? podcast from the News Literacy Project
Related EpisodesSheriffs 101
Defending the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate
Fake news, clickbait, and the future of local journalism
A lot of people are thinking about the Civil War era these days, whether it's asking questions about whether we're in a second civil war now, or thinking about what happened during the election of 1876. In addition to our discussion of the Supreme Court, we talk about both of these things with Rachel Shelden, associate professor of history at Penn State and director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center.
If it sounds like we covered a lot in this episode, it's because we did. Like any good historian, Shelden does not use her knowledge of history predict the future, but she does offer some very useful insights for how the past can help all of us frame and interpret what's happening now.
Related EpisodesThe perfect storm for election disaster
A brief history of "people power"
Additional InformationShelden's article in the Washington Post
Stanford's Jonathan Gienapp on originalism and history
Penn State Richards Civil War Era Center
In this episode, we review the mechanics of how election results are certified and the work of the Electoral College between Election Day and Inauguration Day. Most of their work has historically happened behind the scenes, but it could become very public this fall if results are contested. We also look at what elections in 2000 and 1876 can tell us about what might play out over the next few months, and why the act of conceding an election is important for democratic legitimacy.
Our guest is Lawrence Douglas, the James J. Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought at Amherst College. He is the author of seven books and a regular contributor to The Guardian.
Additional InformationWill He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020
Lawrence Douglas in The Guardian
Related EpisodesThe people who choose the President
Andrew Sullivan on democracy's double-edged sword
The constitutional crisis episode
We really enjoy collaborating with the team at WPSU on Democracy Works and were happy to give the interviewer's chair to WPSU News reporter Anne Danahy for an episode that also aired on the station's interview show Take Note.
This interview was recorded on Tuesday, September 30, 2020, before the first presidential debate and President Trump's diagnosis with COVID-19.
In some ways, the fight for democracy in Hong Kong is unique to the region and its relationship with China. However, the protests also feel familiar to anyone who's been watching the Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S. or what's happening in countries like Hungary and Brazil.
This week, we examine what's driving Hong Kongers into the streets, the generational divides that are emerging over issues like universal suffrage and income inequality, and what Hong Kong's relationship with China might look like moving forward.
Our guest is On-cho Ng, head of the Asian Studies Program at Penn State and Professor of History, Asian Studies, and Philosophy. He is a native Hong Konger and received both his undergraduate and master's degrees from the University of Hong Kong.
Related EpisodesChina's threat to democracies around the world
Viktor Orban's velvet repression in Hungary
Populism is not a monolith
Inside the world's largest democracy
Our guest is Mirya R. Holman is an associate professor of political science at Tulane University. She was drawn to researching sheriffs after growing up in rural Oregon, where sheriffs were the only type of law enforcement, and identifying a lack of research about them once she got to graduate school.
In this conversation. Holman discusses what sheriffs do, how those responsibilities have changed in light of COVID-19 and ongoing civil unrest, the difference between sheriffs and police, and where to go to find information about sheriff elections that might be happening in your city or town this fall.
Additional InformationHolman's website
Holman on Twitter
Nancy Thomas is director of the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, an applied research center at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. Over the past decade, the IDHE has worked to understand how college students vote and make recommendations to university leaders about both short-term voting challenges and long-term obligations to creating democratic citizens. This conversations covers both of those areas, as well as what role faculty can play in fostering democracy and civic engagement in their courses.
Additional InformationInstitute for Democracy and Higher Education
National Voter Registration Day
Faculty Network for Student Voting Rights
Campus Election Engagement Project
All In Campus Democracy Challenge
Related EpisodesThe promise and peril of early voting
Are land-grant universities still democracy's colleges?
Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom
National Voter Registration Day is September 22. In a normal election year on a college campus, that would mean lots of canvassers with clipboards and pizza parties to encourage students to register. Those activities can’t happen the same way this fall, but our guest this week argues that the pandemic should not detract colleges and […]
The phrase “laboratories of democracy,” coined by former U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, is typically used to describe experiments with new social and economic policies that occur at the state level — things like voting systems and public financing of elections. This week’s episode explores a different side of that approach when state and […]
Virginia Eubanks examines the relationship between technology and society in her book Automating Inequality: How High-Tech tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor and joins us this week for a discussion about who matters in a democracy and the empathy gap between the people who develop the technology for social systems and the people who use those systems.
Eubanks is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is also the author of Digital Dead End: Fighting for Social Justice in the Information Age; and co-editor, with Alethia Jones, of Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around: Forty Years of Movement Building with Barbara Smith. Her writing about technology and social justice has appeared in Scientific American, The Nation, Harper’s, and Wired. She was a founding member of the Our Data Bodies Project and a 2016-2017 Fellow at New America.
Additional InformationAutomating Inequality: How High-Tech tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
Eubanks will present a lecture on her work for Penn State's Rock Ethics Institute on October 1, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. The event is free and open to anyone. Register here.
Related EpisodesA roadmap to a more equitable democracy
Will AI destroy democracy?
Facebook is not a democracy
We are excited to begin a new school year with a new cohost, Candis Watts Smith, who you may remember from an episode earlier this summer on her book Stay Woke, or from a roundtable discussion on Black politics back in February. In this episode, Michael, Chris, and Candis discuss: The dynamics at play in […]
In this episode, Michael, Chris, and Candis discuss:
- The dynamics at play in national, state, and local elections this fall
- How politics impacts the Census Bureau and other organizations
- Whether all politics are really local
- What we've learned since 2016 about how democracy functions
We are excited to welcome Candis to our team. As you'll hear, she doesn't always agree with Michael and Chris and brings some important perspectives to the table.
Related episodesThe clumsy journey to antiracism
Breaking down Black politics
Public health depends on the Census
Free and fair elections during a pandemic
Episode creditsThis episode was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Mark Stitzer, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
Many of us are spending more time at home these days than we ever have before. In the United States, owning a home has come to symbolize the American Dream and homeowners have more political capital than those who don't. Over the past decade or so, this has led to showdowns at local government meetings between YIMBYs, who want more housing, and NIMBYs, who do not.
Dougherty covers economics and housing for the New York Times and is the author of "Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America." The book focuses on San Francisco, but as you'll hear Dougherty say, he could have written it about just about any major city in the U.S.
We also discuss the role that ballot initiatives play in the fight for housing, particularly in California. Born during the Progressive era to give more power to the people, Dougherty they've become co-opted by money and other influences that plague other areas of our democracy.
Related EpisodesThe power of local government
Ten thousand democracies
Additional InformationGolden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America
Dougherty's work in the New York Times
In their new book A Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage, Christina Wolbrecht and Kevin Corder examine women’s (and men’s) voting behavior, and traces how women’s turnout and vote choice evolved across a century of enormous transformation overall and for women in particular.
The work shows that there is no such thing as ‘the woman voter. Instead, there is considerable variation in how different groups of women voted in response to changing political, social, and economic realities. The points Wolbrecht makes in this interview about how women are perceived by pundits and scholars alike are worth reflecting on as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of suffrage and prepare for an election this fall.
Wolbrecht is Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy. Her areas of expertise include American politics, political parties, gender and politics, and American political development.
Additional InformationA Century of Votes for Women: American Elections Since Suffrage
Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy
Christina Wolbrecht on Twitter
Related EpisodesBehind the scenes of the "year of the woman"
The connective tissue of democracy
This episode examines the arrest, trial, and conviction of suffragist Susan B. Anthony for the crime of "voting while female." Rather than sitting on her heels, Anthony launched a campaign to raise awareness about voting rights for women that would set the stage for the next 50 years of work through the passage of the 19th Amendment.
You might be familiar with parts of this story, but you've never heard it quite like this — Anthony is voiced by actress Christine Braranski in this episode.
She Votes! is hosted by Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Boston Globe and founder of The Conversation Project, and Lynn Sherr, a longtime correspondent for ABC News and author of "Failure is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words."
The 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment is coming up at the end of August and we're planning an episode of Democracy Works on a century women's voting on August 24.
You can find more episodes of She Votes at shevotespodcast.com or in any podcast app. Thank you to the Wonder Media Network for sharing this episode with us.
"Hope for Democracy" recognizes the primary problems that plague contemporary democracy and offers a solution. It tells the story of one civic innovation, the Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), which asks a small group of citizens to analyze a ballot measure and then provide recommendations on that measure for the public to use when voting.
It relies on narratives of the civic reformers who developed and implemented the CIR and the citizens who participated in the initial review. Coupled with extensive research, the book uses these stories to describe how the review came into being and what impacts it has on participants and the public.
In this episode, we also discuss the ways that deliberative democracy challenges existing power structures and how it can change participants' thoughts on civic engagement and how they can impact government outside of partisan politics.
Gastil is Distinguished Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science and Senior Scholar in the McCourtney Institute. Knobloch is Assistant Professor in the Communication Studies Department at Colorado State University and Associate Director of the university's Center for Public Deliberation.
Additional InformationHope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics
McCourtney Institute for Democracy Virtual Book Club on Hope for Democracy - August 31, 2020, 4 p.m. ET
Citizens Initiative Review
Related EpisodesFrom political crisis to profound change
Winning the democracy lottery
At the end of its 2020 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on what might seem like an obscure question in Constitutional law, but could have huge ramifications in elections this November and beyond. We dive into the ruling on "faithless electors" in this episode from The Democracy Group podcast network.
Democracy Works podcast host and producer Jenna Spinelle leads a discussion with:
- Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, founder of Equal Citizens, and host of the podcast Another Way by Lawrence Lessig. Lessig and Equal Citizens Executive Director Jason Harrow argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the electors in Washington and Colorado.
- Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One and one of the nation’s foremost experts on Congress and ethics in politics. Issue One was part of an amicus brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of the states.
- Michael Baranowski, associate professor of political science at Northern Kentucky University and host of The Politics Guys, a bipartisan American politics and policy podcast. Baranowski is an expert on political institutions and discusses the practical implications of the Supreme Court's decision with Lessig in the second half of the episode.
The first half of the episode focuses on the Supreme Court's decisions in Chafalo v. Washington and Baca v. Colorado. Lessig and McGehee explain what led them to get involved in the cases and have a spirited discussion about the role special interests could play in the Electoral College.
Then, Lessig and Baranowski discuss the Supreme Court's opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, and how to make the Electoral College more democratic though measures like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
A huge thank you to The Democracy Group Network Manager Katie DeFiore for editing this episode!
Note: Severe thunderstorms hit Washington, D.C. when we recorded this episode on July 22, 2020 and Meredith McGehee lost power halfway through. We were not able to get her back on the line before the end of the recording session. We apologize and are grateful for the time she was able to join us!
Additional InformationEqual Citizens
Issue One
The Democracy Group podcast network
The Politics Guys podcast
This week, we're bringing you an episode from another podcast we think you might enjoy, Broken Ground from the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Broken Ground digs up environmental stories in the South that don’t always get the attention they deserve, and giving voice to the people bringing those stories to light. While the show focuses on the South, the conversations — including the one in this episode — resonate far beyond the region's confines.
In the latest season, the podcast explores how Southerners living along the coast are navigating sea level rise as they race against the clock. How will people on the front lines protect themselves from the immediate and impending threats of rising tides?
This episode features a conversation with Dr. Robert Bullard, widely considered the father of environmental justice. He talks with Broken Ground host Claudine Ebeid McElwain about how communities of color are disproportionally impacted by climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction. Bullard was scheduled to visit Penn State in April and organizers are hopeful that he'll be able to make the trip in April 2021.
If you enjoy this episode, check out Broken Ground wherever you listen to podcasts.
Additional InformationBroken Ground website
Dr. Bullard's website
Southern Environmental Law Center
Related EpisodesMichael Mann's journey through the climate wars
Changing the climate conversation
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
We're digging into the archives this week for another episode on race and criminal justice. Peter K. Enns, associate professor in the Department of Government at Cornell University, Executive Director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, and author of Incarceration Nation: How the U.S. Became the Most Like the conversation with Frank Baumgartner last week, we look at how public opinion around criminal justice has changed over the past two years and how that translates into public policy.
Enns argues that, while public opinion around criminal justice continues to shift, we still don't have anything close to a clear picture about what's happening inside correctional institutions. That, he says, makes it tough for the public to fully grasp the gravity of how incarcerated people are treated and inhibits progress toward a more just, rehabilitative system. We also talk about whether it's possible to both deal with COVID-19 in prisons and jails while also pushing for long-term structural change — and how making conditions healthier and safer benefits everyone.
Additional InformationIncarceration Nation: How the U.S. Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World
Peter K. Enns on Twitter
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
The Marshall Project - nonprofit journalism on criminal justice
Related EpisodesSuspect citizens in a democracy
Civil rights, civil unrest
A roadmap to a more equitable democracy
This week marks the beginning of our summer break here on Democracy Works. We are going to be rebroadcasting a few episodes from our back catalog — with a twist.
In fall 2018, we did two episodes on police, criminal justice, and race that are directly relevant to what’s happening today. We caught up with those guests recently to talk about what’s changed in the past two years and how they think about the research in our current moment.
First up is Frank Baumgartner, Robert J. Richardson Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He directed the team that analyzed the data published the book Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race.
In the book and in our initial conversation, Bamgartner makes the case that an empathy gap exists between people with political and social power and the people who are most likely to be pulled over. The result is that segments of the population who are already disenfranchised become even more distrustful of the police and the government and less likely to vote and otherwise engage with democracy.
During our follow-up conversation in late June 2020, Baumgartner reflected on whether the empathy gap has closed over the past two years and how common-sense police reform can work — even in the midst of a pandemic.
Additional Information Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race
Frank’s profile on the Scholars Strategy Network
Related Episodes The full episode with Frank from October 2018
What Serial taught Sarah Koenig about criminal justice
The clumsy journey to antiracism
Michael, Jenna, and Chris in the studio in summer 2019.
Before we take a short summer break, Michael and Chris answer your questions about democracy in our current moment. Thank you to everyone who sent in questions; they were excellent!
Some of the things we talk about in this episode include:
- The difference between federalism and the federal government
- The definition of an institution
- How media coverage of the 2020 election will compare to 2016
- What mask wearing says about the health of American democracy
- What the U.S. can learn from other democracies
- Why the “hard work of democracy” is that way
For the next few weeks, we’ll be revisiting some of the episodes in our back catalog (with a twist) and bringing you episodes from other podcasts that we think you’ll enjoy. We’ll be back with new episodes before the end of August.
If you have suggestions for episodes topics or guests for us to tackle in the fall, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. We would love to hear from you.
Contact us
Related Episodes Last summer’s listener mailbag
A democracy summer reading list
Federalism in uncertain times
Free and fair elections during a pandemic
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on June 18, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
As we bring this season of Democracy Works to a close, we’re going to end in a place similar to where we began — discussing the role of political parties in American democracy. We started the season discussing the Tea Party and the Resistance with Theda Skocpol and Dana Fisher, then discussed presidential primaries with David Karol and the role of parties in Congress with Frances Lee.
All of those episodes looked at the party system as it currently stands. This week’s conversation invites all of us to imagine how we can break out of the status quo and create something very different.
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow in the Political Reform program at New America. He is the author of Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America and The Business of America is Lobbying, and winner of the 2016 American Political Science Association’s Robert A. Dahl Award, given for “scholarship of the highest quality on the subject of democracy.” He has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
Drutman is also the co-host of the podcast Politics in Question, and writes for the New York Times, Vox, and FiveThirtyEight, among other outlets. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California.
We have one more new episode next week before we take a summer break. We’ll close the season with the second annual Democracy Works listener mailbag.
Additional Information Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop audiobook
Politics in Question podcast
Political Reform at New America
Uniting for Action America – registration deadline July 31
Related Episodes Does Congress promote partisan gridlock?
Primaries, parties and the public
How the Tea Party and the Resistance are upending politics
Your guide to ranked-choice voting
Congressional oversight and making America pragmatic again
This week, we are bringing you another interview that we hope will give some context to the discussions about racism and inequality that are happening in the U.S. right now.
We’re joined by Tehama Lopez Bunyasi, assistant professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University and Candis Watts Smith, associate professor African American Studies and political science at Penn State. She was recently named the Brown-McCourtney Early Career Professor in the McCourtney Institute for Democracy.
Bunyasi and Smith are coauthors of a book called Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making all Black Lives Matter, which looks at the history of structural racism in the U.S. and gives people information and tools to become antiracists.
We talk about the clumsiness associated with changing patterns of thinking and behavior and how that’s playing out across our online and offline lives and among both individuals and companies. We also discuss the inherent messiness of the Black Lives Matter movement and why that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Additional InformationStay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making all Black Lives Matter
Three Myths about Racism – Candis’s TEDxPSU talk from February 2020
24 podcasts that confront racism in America – list from the Bello Collective
Related EpisodesBreaking down black politics
Civil rights, civil unrest
A roadmap to a more equitable democracy
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
Episode CreditsThis episode was recorded on June 9, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy.
As protests continue throughout the U.S. in the wake of George Floyd’s death, we’ve been thinking a lot about comparisons to the Civil Rights era and whether the models for demonstrations created during that era are still relevant today. As we’ve discussed on the show before, public memory is a fuzzy thing and we’re seeing that play out here amid discussions of how peaceful protests should be.
Our guest this week is uniquely suited to speak to questions of civil rights and civil unrest. Clarence Lang is the Susan Welch Dean of Penn State’s College of the Liberal Arts and professor of African American Studies. He is a scholar in African American urban history and social movements in the Midwest and Border South. He is the author of Grassroots at the Gateway: Class Politics and Black Freedom Struggle in St. Louis, 1936-75, and Black America in the Shadow of the Sixties: Notes on the Civil Rights Movement, Neoliberalism, and Politics.
In addition to his scholarly work, Lang also has a personal connection to what’s happening right now. He grew up on Chicago’s South Side and a family member who was a police officer. He’s a humanist at heart who believes that our country can pull together and overcome these trying times.
Additional Information Lang’s website
Grassroots at the Gateway
Black America in the Shadow of the Sixties
Between The World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates
A list of podcasts about racism and inequality from the Bello Collective
Uniting for Action: America
Related Episodes The ongoing struggle for Civil Rights
School segregation then and now
What neoliberalism left behind
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on June 2, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy.
We are working on an episode about the social and democratic context for the protests taking place around the U.S. after George Floyd’s death; we’ll have it for you on Monday. In the meantime, we are going to share a few episodes from our archives that we hope can provide context for our current moment.
One voice we want to lift up during this time is Aaron Maybin, a former Penn State and NFL football player who is now an artist, educator, activist, and organizer in Baltimore, which is where we interviewed him in August 2019.
Maybin has been a tireless advocate for Baltimore’s black community long before protests over the death of George Floyd hit the city. His work will continue long after the protests end — whenever that might be. He believes that the hard work of democracy happens when the cameras and outsiders go away and community members can be empowered to fight for the change they want to see. He also seeks to move people through his art and his work as an art teacher in some of the city’s most underfunded schools.
His perspective is worth listening to, or perhaps even revisiting if you’ve already heard it, as we all make sense of what’s going on and how we can do our part to confront structural inequalities and racism in the U.S Learn more about Aaron’s work on his website or by following him on social media:
Finally, our colleagues at the Bello Collective also put together a list of 20 podcasts that confront racism in America. You can find it here.
This is another episode that we recorded in our final days together in the office before COVID-19. However, the topic is just as relevant — if not more so — in our new reality.
The topic is free speech and our guest is Stephen D. Solomon, Marjorie Deane Professor at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University and founding editor of First Amendment Watch. He is the author of Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech.
Stephen lays out how the Founding Fathers, particularly James Madison, thought about free speech, free press, and the freedom to assemble. The ways we communicate have changed drastically in the past 250 years, but the concerns about protecting the free expression of ideas remains the same.
We also discuss free speech on college campuses and how social norms around speech can be just as powerful as laws in place to protect it. It’s too soon to tell how the virtual environment will impact this dynamic, but it will be interesting to watch as colleges prepare for whatever the coming academic year has in store.
Additional InformationStephen’s website
Revolutionary Dissent
Uniting for Action: America
Related EpisodesDefending the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate
Facebook is not a democracy
Jonathan Haidt on the psychology of democracy
Today we’re bringing you a special episode produced by Nicole Gresen, our intern on Democracy Works during the spring 2020 semester.
Nicole spoke with Bob Buckhorn, who was mayor of Tampa, Florida from 2011-2019, about the role that mayors have played during COVID-19 and how they have to put partisans allegiances aside during times of crisis. As Bob says, people look to mayors for empathy and solidarity in the face of uncertainty — whether it’s a natural disaster or a pandemic.
Bob also talks about his history in politics, which began not long after he graduated from Penn State. Under his leadership, Tampa became known as a city on the rise for startups and economic development. Though he’s no longer mayor, he continues an active role in the city’s government.
Nicole graduated from Penn State in May and is currently pursuing career opportunities in digital media. We really appreciate all of her help behind the scenes on the show over the past few months and wish her success in her career.
These days, it can feel like some politicians are working against experts in public health and other fields when it comes to actions surrounding COVID-19. There’s always been a tension between populism and expertise, but our media landscape and strong partisan polarization are pushing that tension to its breaking point — or so it seems, anyway.
As with many issues we’ve covered on this show, there’s more to it than meets the eye, and we are digging into the relationship between expertise and democracy this week in a collaborative episode with our colleagues at Penn State’s Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences. The Huck Institutes produce The Symbiotic Podcast, a show that explores how scientists are collaborating in new ways to solve complex global problems.
In this episode, you’ll hear Symbiotic Podcast host Cole Hons and Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle in conversation with Taylor Scott, associate director of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration, and Democracy Works host Michael Berkman. We discuss how organizations like the Research-to-Policy Collaboration seek to promote engagement between researchers and legislators and what both groups can do to make the relationship stronger. We also talk about why expertise is important in a democracy and what happens when it is undermined.
Don’t forget, we are still taking questions for the second annual Democracy Works listener mailbag episode. We’ll read your questions on the show and choose three submissions to win Democracy Works mugs.
Submit your question here.
Additional Information The Symbiotic Podcast
Research-to-Policy Collaboration
Listener mailbag questions
Related Episodes Does Congress promote partisan gridlock?
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
Michael Mann’s journey through the climate wars
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on May 6, 2020. Thank you to Cole Hons of The Symbiotic Podcast for engineering the recording session. The episode was edited by WPSU’s Mark Stitzer and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy.
As if the COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t enough to deal with, the World Health Organization says we’re now in an infodemic alongside it. We’ve seen this play out as misinformation and conspiracy theories move from digital to mainstream media and cast a shadow of doubt about information coming from the government and public health experts.
Our guests this week have been tracking China’s role in this infodemic and argue that Beijing is taking a few pages out of Russia’s playbook for interfering in the 2016 U.S. election and its broader efforts to undermine democracy around the world. Jessica Brandt and Bret Schafer are part of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks online information manipulation through its Hamilton 2.0 dashboard.
Early on in the pandemic, they saw an uptick in tweets from Chinese diplomats and embassies that were amplifying conspiracy theories about the virus’s origin and casting doubt on information from the World Health Organization and other official sources. The goal is not necessarily to have people believe these claims, but to stir up enough doubt to discredit democratic norms and institutions.
If you enjoy this episode, we recommend checking out the Out of Order podcast, produced by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and part of The Democracy Group podcast network.
Finally, it’s time for the second annual Democracy Works listener mailbag episode! In a few weeks, we will record an episode answering your questions before we take a summer break. Send us your question about democracy and we’ll answer it on the show, plus you’ll have the chance to win a Democracy Works mug.
Additional Information Jessica and Bret’s article on China’s COVID-19 disinformation efforts
Hamilton 2.0
Out of Order podcast
The Democracy Group podcast network
Listener mailbag question submission
Related Episodes Protecting democracy from foreign interference
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 28, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
COVID-19 has exposed longstanding racial and economic inequalities in American life, which is evident in the fact that communities of color are being hit the hardest by both the medical and the economic impacts of the virus. Our guest this week argues that now is the time to empower those communities to have a stake in building a better future for themselves and making our democracy stronger in the process.
Our guest this week is K. Sabeel Rahman, president of Demos and co-author of the new book Civic Power: Rebuilding American Democracy in an Era of Crisis. He is also an associate professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches constitutional law, administrative law, and courses on law and inequality. His last book, Democracy Against Domination, won the Dahl Prize for scholarship on the subject of democracy.
Rahman argues that the old ways of thinking about and participating aren’t working for under-represented groups. His book lays out a framework for how to make democracy reform more inclusive and how to balance liberalism and democracy by making institutions more representative of the communities they serve. The book was written before the pandemic hit, but feels even more relevant today.
After the interview, you’ll hear an ad for Future Hindsight, one of our fellow podcasts in The Democracy Group podcast network. The show’s new season on misinformation and democracy launches Friday, May 15.
Additional Information Civic Power: Rebuilding American Democracy in an Era of Crisis
Demos
Future Hindsight
The Democracy Group
It’s time for the second annual Democracy Works listener mailbag episode! Send us your question about democracy and we’ll answer it on the show.
Related Episodes Civic engagement, social distancing, and democracy reform
Doing the hard work of democracy in Baltimore
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 16 and May 5, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
This episode was recorded before COVID-19 changed everything, but many of the themes we discuss about public opinion polling and the importance of trust and facts to a democracy are perhaps more relevant now than ever before.
We talked with Michael Dimock, president of the Pew Research Center, about how the organization approaches polling in a world that increasingly presents competing partisan visions of reality.
Trust in the media and government has been declining for years, if not longer, and may be exacerbated by COVID-19. What’s more concerning for democracy, Pew’s Trust Facts, and Democracy project found, is that our trust in each other is also declining.
People don’t trust their peers to use good judgement when comes to evaluating information or making political decisions — especially when it comes to people from the opposing political party. Polling done as part of Trust, Facts, and Democracy found that about 60% of adults said they have little or no confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions.
What does that mean for democracy? Dimock doesn’t shy away from talking about the grim realities of our current political climate, but does offer a few glimmers of hope from the Trust, Facts, and Democracy work.
Additional Information Pew’s Trust Facts and Democracy project
Pew polling on COVID-19
After the Fact podcast from the Pew Charitable Trusts
The McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s Mood of the Nation Poll
The McCourtney Institute for Democracy is starting a virtual book club! Our first selection will be How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Join us for online meetings May 20 and 21. Visit democracy.psu.edu/book to learn more and RSVP.
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on March 10, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
Democracy is very much a group activity. Inside, we come together to debate, discuss, do the work of government, and make laws. Outside, we protest and hold rallies. But much of this is not possible. Social distancing presents a tremendous challenge. In this episode from The Democracy Group podcast network, we look at the barriers and the opportunities as we all deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
“COVID, the pandemic … has really brought to bear not just the inequities and the inequalities, but also the necessity to have a much more active sense of democracy as a verb — democracy as an action that we can all be part of.”
-Juleyka Lantigua-Williams, 70 Million
Host Richard Davies
Co-host, How Do We Fix It?
@DaviesNow
Guests Mila Atmos
Host, Future Hindsight
@milaatmos
Juleyka Lantigua-Williams, Founder and CEO of Lantigua-Williams and Co.
Creator and Executive Producer, 70 Million
@JuleykaLantigua
Carah Ong-Whaley, Associate Director at James Madison Center for Civic Engagement at James Madison University
Co-host, Democracy Matters
@CarahOng
Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at New America
Co-host, Politics in Question
@leedrutman
From Maine to California, people across the country have gathered at their state capitols over the past few weeks to protest stay at home orders issued by their governors in response to COVID-19. Protest is a hallmark of any democracy, but what happens when doing so comes with health risks? What is motivating people to take to the streets? How should media organizations cover the protests, and how do the people protesting feel about the media?
Joining us this week to explore some of those questions is Chris Fitzsimon, director and publisher of States Newsroom, a collective of nonprofit news sites that cover state politics in many of the places where the “reopen” protests have occurred. Fitzsimon talks about what his organization’s reporters have observed on the ground and the challenges that states face in deciding when to lift stay at home orders and restart economic activity.
We also discuss how this movement came together and whether it might have staying power beyond the immediate concerns related to COVID-19.
Additional Information States Newsroom
Visit ratethispodcast.com/democracy to leave a rating or review for Democracy Works.
The McCourtney Institute for Democracy is starting a virtual book club! Our first selection will be How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Join us for online meetings May 20 and 21. Visit democracy.psu.edu/book to learn more and RSVP.
Related Episodes Federalism in uncertain times
COVID-19 exposes democracy’s tensions
Tracing the past, present, and future of protests
How the Tea Party and the Resistance are upending American politics
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 22, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
We are excited to collaborate with our partners in The Democracy Group podcast network to bring you a bonus episode on how COVID-19 is impacting democracy in the United States and around the world.
COVID-19 brings together several issues that have long been talked about separately — political polarization, misinformation, international cooperation, democratic norms and institutions, and many others. We dive into some of those issues in this episode and discuss how we can all work together to protect, and even strengthen, democracy as we emerge from the first wave of the pandemic.
For more information about The Democracy Group podcast network, visit democracygroup.org. Thank you to Democracy Group Network Manager Katie DeFiore for producing this episode!
Host: Jenna Spinelle, Communications Specialist at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy
Host, Democracy Works
@JennaSpinelle
Guests: Luke Knittig, Senior Director of Communications at the McCain Institute
Host, In The Arena
@LukeKnittig
Jeremi Suri, Mack Brown Distinguished Professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas Austin
Host, This is Democracy
@JeremiSuri
Rachel Tausenfreund, Editorial Director at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Host, Out of Order
@thousandfriend
Weston Wamp, Senior Political Strategist and Consultant at Issue One
Host, Swamp Stories
@westonwamp
With each passing day, the relationship between states and the federal government seems to grow more complicated. States are forming coalitions and working together to chart a path out of COVID-19, while sometimes competing with one another for resources. A lack of clear guidance from the federal government will likely lead to a fragmented return to business and social life state by state in the coming weeks and months.
This situation is unique in many ways, but brings to light the complexities of American federalism — our topic of discussion this week. Charles Barrilleaux, Leroy Collins Professor and Political Science Department Chair at Florida State University, is an expert on American federalism and joins us to discuss the relationship between states and the federal government, and how that manifests itself during the response to COVID-19.
The episode begins with Michael and Chris explaining the history of federalism and what powers the Constitution gives states and the federal government.
Related Episodes COVID-19 exposes democracy’s tensions
When states sue the federal government
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 13, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
The general election is going to happen in November, and candidates still need to figure out ways to get their messages out to voters. COVID-19 has changed everything about the way candidates communicate with potential voters and how they position themselves in relationship to the virus.
This episode addresses the nuts and bolts of campaigning during a pandemic, but we also discuss a broader question — should we even be talking about politics at a time like this? Our guest this week makes an interesting case about why the answer is always “yes.” John Sides is a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and publisher of the Monkey Cage, a political science blog published by the Washington Post.
Sides talks about the novel coronavirus has impacted campaigns up and down the ballot, and why it’s valuable to consider it as a political problem apart from a public health issue.
Note: You’ll hear a reference to Bernie Sanders during the interview. We recorded on April 6, before Sanders announced he was dropping out of the race.
Additional Information John’s website
The Monkey Cage
A look at ethics of campaigning during COVID-19
Related Episodes Free and fair elections during a pandemic
COVID-19 exposes democracy’s tensions
Primaries, parties, and the public
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 6 and 7, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Mark Stitzer, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
The COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. intensified just as the 2020 Census was getting underway in earnest. As Americans fill their days with news about the new coronavirus, the Census Bureau is doing everything it can to spread the word about completing the Census online while grappling with how to do critical in-person follow up during a time of social distancing. As our guest this week explains, the consequences of an undercount directly impact public health in significant ways.
Jenny Van Hook is the Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology and Demography at Penn State and a former member of the Census Advisory Board. She was an expert witness in the legal fight over the efforts to add a citizenship question to this year’s Census and has written about the Census in The Conversation and other outlets.
Census Day was April 1, but there’s still time to complete your Census online at 2020census.gov.
This episode begins with an ad for Lyceum, a new app that’s specifically for educational podcasts. Learn more and join the conversation with other listeners at lyceum.fm.
Related EpisodesIt’s good to be counted – our interview with Jenny from May 2018
Episode CreditsThis episode was recorded on March 31, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
As COVID-19 intensifies throughout the U.S., questions about the future of the remaining primary elections and the general election in November are beginning to surface. The last thing you want are large groups of people standing in line near each other for long periods of time. At a time when seemingly everything in life has gone remote, states are starting to think about what a remote election would look like, too.Our guest this week is one of the people helping them figure it all out.
Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT and a contributor to the Election Updates blog, a partnership between MIT and the California University of Technology. He’s spoken with election officials across the country and about how to implement voting by mail and change processes to make in-person voting safe.
Voting by mail does not come without its problems in terms of election security and electoral integrity. We explore those with Charles and discuss how planning now can help mitigate those risks in the fall.
Democracy Works is proud to be part of Lyceum, a new platform dedicated to educational audio. The app includes curated lists of shows around topics like climate change, linguistics, and ancient history, as well as opportunities for listeners to connect with podcast creators and with each other. Visit lyceum.fm to learn more.
Additional Information Election Updates blog
Ted Recommendations to Ensure a Healthy and Trustworthy 2020 Election – a piece Charles c0-wrote for Lawfare
Related Episodes The promise and peril of early voting
How states are working to keep you vote safe
Episode Credits This episode was recorded on Wednesday, March 25, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle and edited by WPSU’s Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
As we’ve seen over the past weeks and months, democracies and authoritarian countries respond to pandemics very differently. There are balances to be struck — liberty and community, human rights and disease mitigation — that every country’s government and culture handle a little differently. We dive into that this week with our first ever all-remote episode as we adjust to the new normal of life during COVID-19.
Our guest is Nita Bharti, assistant professor of biology at Penn State and faculty member in the university’s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. Nita’s research focuses on the interactions between social and biological processes as underlying determinants of human health — making her the perfect person for us to talk to about the response to COVID-19.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to outbreak mitigation, but there are lessons we can take from other outbreaks about how information affects behavior and how the government can help or hinder that process. As Nita says, we’re likely only beginning to see what the new normal looks like in the U.S.
Additional Information Nita’s article on COVID-19 in The Conversation
The Bharti Lab of Human Infectious Diseases
The Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Penn State is taking questions about the Coronavirus pandemic at askciddpsu@psu.edu. Each week, experts will answer your most commonly asked questions, anonymously. They will attempt to provide the most current accurate information, informed by scientific evidence. Episode Credits This episode was recorded on Thursday, March 19, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle and edited by WPSU’s Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
We know that there are a lot of episodes about COVID-19 out there right now. We’re working on one of our own that we hope to bring to you soon, but in the meantime, consider something different to focus on while you practice social distancing this week.
We’ve talked a lot on this show about the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world — from Viktor Orban in Hungary to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. We sometimes tend to paint these countries with same brush, often referring to the book How Democracies Die. While the book remains of our favorites, this week’s episode is a reminder that populism does not look the same everywhere.
We welcome back Penn State’s Vineeta Yadav to look at some of the forces that are pushing back against populism around the world, and how those efforts look different in each place. She joined us last fall to discuss the rise of Narendra Modi in India. We reusume that conversation in this episode, but also touch on what’s happening in Turkey and Brazil.
Michael and Chris also give an important overview of the difference between liberalism and democracy — and how the two work together to form the system of government practiced in many countries around the world today.
Stay tuned to the end of the episode for more information about Ways&Means, a podcast produced by the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke. The show’s current season is taking a deep dive into the relationship between politics and policy, covering topics like reparations and the decline of local news.
Related Episodes Inside the world’s largest democracy – Vineeta Yadav’s first appearance on Democracy Works
Brazil’s tenuous relationship with democracy
How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt on the “grinding work” of democracy
Episode Credits This episode was recorded at WPSU’s studios and engineered by Cole Cullen. It was edited by Chris Kubler and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
It’s spring break at Penn State this week and we’re going to take a brief hiatus to bring you an episode from a new podcast that’s part of The Democracy Group, our new podcast network.
Swamp Stories is produced by Issue One, a group that takes a cross partisan approach to democracy reform. The podcast follows the host — millennial Republican and former candidate for office, Weston Wamp — as he shines a light on the swampiest practices in Washington that repulse Republicans and Democrats alike: Slush funds in Congress, dark money in elections, gerrymandered districts, foreign interference in our elections, dialing for dollars on Capitol Hill, and more.
The show debuted at the end of January and we are sharing its first episode with you. There are five others available if you want to binge them while we’re away. We’ll be back with a new episode of Democracy Works next week.
Additional Information Swamp Stories website
You can find Swamp Stories and all of our other network shows at democracygroup.org
Super Tuesday is this week, but voters in many states have already cast their ballots for races happening this week and throughout the rest of the primary season. From Florida to Pennsylvania, states are expanding access to early and absentee voting to give people more options to make their voices heard in our democracy.
Sounds great, right? However, early voting is not without its problems for candidates, election officials, and even voters. Daniel Smith, one of the country’s leading elections experts, joins us this week for a look at the pros and cons of early voting, and how it might improve voter turnout among young people specifically.
Smith is Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Florida and President of ElectionSmith, Inc. He is a nationally-recognized expert on direct democracy, campaign finance, and voting rights in the American states. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and his B.A. in History from Penn State.
Stay tuned to the end of the episode for more information about another great higher ed podcast, Ways & Means from the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. The show’s fifth season launched Feb. 19 and covers issues in politics and policy ahead of the 2020 election.
Additional InformationDan’s website: ElectionSmith
Ways & Means podcast
Related EpisodesWhat should voting look like in the 21st century?
Primaries, parties, and the public
Episode CreditsThis episode was recorded at WPSU’s studios and engineered by Andy Grant. It was edited by Mark Stitzer and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Interview Highlights[5:40] What is early voting?There are a lot of different definitions of early voting. The one that Pennsylvania still does not have, and about a dozen states don’t have any form of this, is allowing voters to come in before election day to some type of polling location. It can be at the county level, multiple locations, it might just be the county seat. It allows you to come in, you don’t have to request an absentee ballot, and you prove your identity one way or the other, and are able to vote a regular ballot. The ballot looks just like a ballot you would do on election day in your own local precinct. Those windows might be as much as a month before Election Day.
[7:55] How do states decide to adopt early voting?It could be just the culture that you have the idea that let’s make voting easier, and we’re going to see about making it more convenient for voters so they don’t have to come on that first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and extend the absentee ballot or make it an all-mail ballot election. Others there’s certainly a political game going on, and it’s often on partisan lines, where Democrats generally want to expand the electorate, and make it more easy to vote. One way to do that is to give people more opportunities to turn out to vote, either in person or by getting ’em an absentee ballot and mailing it in.
[9:38] What do we know about people who vote early?Early in-person voting is certainly geared to people who can’t necessarily come out to vote easily on a Tuesday. And so what we have seen is a demographic on those early voting days that isn’t necessarily representative of the overall electorate. It happens to be more people of color, more women, younger voters are often using early in-person voting.
Early in-person voting is different from absentee voting, which is typically seen most among older people, whiter people, more partisans, people who have already made up their decision on how to vote. They don’t need to wait for an eleventh hour surprise, they’re gonna vote a Republican or Democratic ticket.
[18:16] What happened in the early voting program the was piloted at several colleges in Florida?It was fascinating to see the excitement where these students were first kind of curious about the opportunity. And then you started to see the drives of get out the vote efforts by different coalitions. The University of Florida has a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans. And so, it was utilized by both of the political parties at the local level. The students are very energized and organized relative to a lot of other universities so I’m not surprised that we had the high turnout. And I can tell you that if the supervisor of election wanted to eliminate this or the administration wanted to eliminate it, there would be a huge backlash.
[19:22] What will voter turnout look like in November’s election?I think it’s really going to hinge a lot on who the Democratic nominee is. The Democrats certainly have the never-Trumpers who are going to vote for a box of rocks over the incumbent. They’re going to come out regardless. But there are a lot of other folks who are not terribly excited about a potential Democratic candidate. And if you don’t have that excitement and that enthusiasm, we know that it is going to play with respect to younger voters. If they can’t get behind the Democratic candidate, if President Trump does some things that are going to turn off some moderate Republicans, who really don’t like what he’s doing but are going to hold their nose and come out any way, he could still turn them off. They’re not going to come out and vote for the Democratic nominee.
[21:52] Will we see more states adopt early voting between now and November?I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some more legal challenges. Is Pennsylvania going to adopt early in-person voting this cycle? No. But New York did last election cycle. And they had some issues rolling it out, but I think it takes a, a bit of time. But again, New York’s not a competitive state. There’s not going to be a lot of attention. There’s not going to be a lot of money spent there in the presidential election. Turnout is going to be probably a lot lower just because people on either side know that their vote is probably not going to be decisive. And there’s a lot of literature suggesting that that’s one of the things that drives people whether or not that the margins are going to turn out to vote.
As the South Carolina primary approaches, all eyes are on the African American vote. This week, Michael Berkman is taking over the interviewer’s chair for a roundtable discussion on black politics with Ray Block and Candis Watts Smith, who are associate professors of African American studies and political science at Penn State.
Ray is the author of Losing Power: Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics. Candis is the author of Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter and Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics.
They discuss the history of black politics and how it’s evolved in the years since the Civil Rights movement, how President Trump and the Democratic presidential candidates are received by African Americans, and how the Civil Rights movement and Black Lives Matter are informed by broader social and generational trends.
With so much punditry going on around appealing to black voters, we hope you’ll enjoy the opportunity to take a step back from the punditry and look at the broader issues in black politics and how they relate to things like representation and inequality.
Additional Information Ray’s book, Losing Power: Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics
Candis’s books Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter and Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics
Candis’s website
Ray’s website
Related Episodes School segregation then and now
The ongoing struggle for civil rights
Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Craig Johnson at the WPSU studios, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support comes from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Some of the most talked-about issues in Congress these days are not about the substance of policies or bills being debated on the floor. Instead, the focus is on the partisan conflict between the parties and the endless debate about whether individual members of Congress will break with party ranks on any particular vote. This behavior allows the parties to emphasize the differences between them, which makes it easier to court donors and hold voter attention.
Some amount of competition between the parties is necessary in a healthy democracy, but have things gone too far? Frances E. Lee joins us this week to explain.
Lee is jointly appointed in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs. She is the author of Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign and the forthcoming The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era with James M. Curry.
As you’ll hear at the beginning of the episode, we are excited to announce that we are starting a podcast network! We are thrilled to bring together some of our favorite podcasts in democracy, civic engagement, and civil discourse in The Democracy Group. Visit democracygroup.org to learn more about our member shows and sign up for our mailing list to receive updates with new episodes, deep-dive playlists, and more.
Additional Information Frances’s book, Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign
Her lecture at Penn State on lawmaking in a polarized era
Frances’s website
Related Episodes Congressional oversight and making America pragmatic again
Unpacking political polarization
Episode Credits This episode was recorded at WPSU’s studios and engineered by Andy Grant. It was edited by Chris Kugler and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Interview Highlights [8:28] How did we get to the current situation Congress? So we are in a remarkably competitive period in terms of our two-party politics. Now, we’ve been in this era for a long time so that people have sort of come to take it for granted that this is how Congressional elections work that the majority’s in play every two years in the House, and potentially in the Senate. If you reflect back on congressional history, you’ll see that that this is not normal. The Democrats were the majority party in Congress for roughly 50 years in the 20th century between the Great Depression and 1994 in the House of Representatives and 1980 in the Senate.
There was not speculation in the lead up to the 1980 elections that Republicans might take the Senate majority. But when the votes were counted, they did. The same was true in 1994. It was not expected for that Republicans would win in 1994. There was a great deal of complacency about Democrats retaining control, as you might expect considering that it had been more than a generation of the Democrats being in power.
[11:30] What roles to the majority and minority parties occupy in Congress? The American system fragments power to such an extent that there is always ambiguity about who really is in power. Having a presidential election occur separately from Congressional elections means that we regularly have an outcome where you have one party in control of the Executive Branch and the other party in control of Congress. A party may not have full control of Congress, they may have a majority in one chamber but not a majority in the other. And then, of course, there’s always the question of the Senate where a simple majority is not enough to govern in the Senate. One might even ask, does any party ever really have control of American government? It’s a fair question and the answer is not very often.
[14:13] How do the parties talk about compromise and conflict? Party messaging does go out in public and say, “Look at all these great deals that we’ve cut with the opposing party. That, you know, we sat down and worked out things in a reasonable basis, and here’s what we produced working cooperatively together.” That is not how party messaging plays out. The party not in power wants to say that the party in power is doing a bad job. How can it say that if it’s taking credit for accomplishments that were bipartisan? So, it has to say what the majority wants to do is bad, and their agenda is misguided or wrong. They’re continually criticizing one another and party messaging is disproportionately negative.
[20:05] Does the increase in party conflict affect the number of bills Congress passes? The number of bills has come down, so the number of individual laws is less than it was before this highly partisan, closely contested era got underway. But the bills that passed these days are much longer, so they are more omnibus in character so that if we look at the total number of legislative pages enacted in a Congress, it’s not less than it was in the 1980s. So what you tend to see is relatively few bills going through navigating this grueling process, but they pack a lot into them.
[22:55] How does party conflict impact trust in Congress as an institution? They are cognizant of the low level of trust in Congress and it has provoked some reform effort. Right now, there is a select committee on the modernization of Congress, which, you know, sees its mission as to take action to improve public, trust in, in Congress. But these institution-wide incentives are not as powerful as the incentives to gain or maintain majority control. So the second set of imperatives are more driving of behavior. They’re more important to party leaders, to donors. The power struggle takes precedence over these institutional considerations. But the institutional considerations are something they care about.
[24:37] What, if anything, would need to happen to shift this paradigm? You’d have to have one party win firm grip on power, so that the other party doesn’t see an immediate path back in. That would reduce incentives for constantly messaging and seeking a political angle to impeach the performance of the party in power. It would reduce the focus on partisan politics if key questions about which party the public trusted with power were sort of settled. But there’s no sign of that happening. So it really boils back down to the public’s views of the parties. And neither party in American politics is a majority party. They’re both minority parties. And when one party wins power it tends to generate a backlash against that party in power because the public simply doesn’t trust either party with power.
[27:10] Would things be better if member of Congress from opposing parties interacted more socially? What I hear from members and former members is a complaint about not being able to get to know people from across the aisle. They don’t have time. They’re not in Washington very much and when they’re there, they have to meet with constituents or with their party caucuses. And then there’s fundraising, so there’s just not much chance for them to get to know each other. I’ve heard former members complain about how hard it is to be seen as friendly to the other side. To go to dinner is something that can get you in political trouble. Somebody takes a picture, Tweets about it and your constituents see you shaking hands or being friendly and negative feedback in terms of calls coming into the office. I think they feel constrained by their supporters in the electorate to seem more hostile, maybe, than they actually feel.
[28:48] Can individual voters do anything to change the situation in Congress? Voter preferences do make a difference. Now, the individual voter that’s a high bar. But what voters want does restrict what parties do. Republicans struggled to repeal the Affordable Care Act because it was not seen as the popular thing to do. Republican states have expanded Medicaid in wake of the creation of the Affordable Care Act. Even though their voters never approved of Obama, the policy was popular. And so you’ve seen a steady growth in the number of states that have done this. So, there’s a responsiveness of both parties to what voters want. It’s hard for them to buck what voters want, to the opposite of what voters want.
Elections are the bedrock of any democracy. Without confidence in the process or the results, confidence in democracy itself is vulnerable. With the primary season underway and the general election just a few months away, conversations about election security are starting to enter the public conscience. We saw this firsthand in Iowa last week as conspiracy theories about results hacking swirled despite no evidence of malicious interference in caucus results.
Since 2016, states have taken measures to add paper trails, intrusion detection, audit systems, and other measures to safeguard the voting records from voting interference. However, elections are conducted county by county, which means resources are spread thin, and large-scale efforts can be difficult to coordinate. Adding this additional layer of security might also mean longer wait times at the polls on Election Day at a time when turnout is already expected to be high.
Our guest this week is Bill Theobald, a senior writer at The Fulcrum, a news site devoted to covering democracy-related issues. He covers election security and frequently talks with both election officials and security experts about how they are working together to safeguard the voting process and ensure a process the public can trust.
If you enjoy Democracy Works, please take a minute to visit ratethispodcast.com/democracy and leave us a rating in your podcast app.
Additional Information The Fulcrum’s story on election security in swing states
Related Episodes Protecting democracy from foreign interferance
What should voting look like in the 21st century?
Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, edited by WPSU’s Chris Kugler, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Interview Highlights [8:20] What do we know about the extent of hacking of voting in the 2016 election? I believe the public thinks that a lot more happen than really did happen. I think it was so shocking that somebody tried to do this, that the fact that they were unsuccessful sort of gets lost. There are really only two things that we know about in which they actually broke into some particular system. One is the Illinois voter registration rolls and apparently they downloaded some names of people who are registered to vote. Nothing was changed and also there was some attempts and maybe success to break into some election offices, computers in Florida, but there’s not entirely clear what they actually accomplished. And the bottom line is no votes were changed. No voter names were taken off or added to the voting rolls. Again, I think people were so outraged and concerned about it that they think that things were a lot worse than they were.
[10:45] What are states doing to make this year’s elections more secure? They are implementing systems that create a paper record of some sort. When you cast your ballot, you have a piece of paper and they have a piece of paper that shows what you intended to do with your vote. And that way they can check it against what the actual results are and make sure that there wasn’t some problem in the way it was counted. They’re also adding audits, which allows them to go back and actually check the results versus the ballots themselves.
[20:44] Are there specific states leading the charge for reform? The one that I hear the most about is Colorado and the reason for that is that they went to paper ballots or a ballot system or voting system that creates a paper record. And they were one of the first to mandate these risk limited audits after every election. And I think that they’re considered to have a pretty well run operation and a uniformity of belief and a bipartisan support for some of these things. I think the places where this happens where it’s going well are where there’s an agreement that no matter what your political outlook is or what candidate you’re going to vote for or who you support, that we have to come together and make sure that these systems are secure.
[24:05] Has election security managed to stay above the partisan fray? I guess you could say that there’s probably politics and partisan politics these days in almost anything. But it’s among the least partisan of the issues and if anything it’s because of the great level of concern that’s out there. I think there is certainly different policy positions on how to address it, whether to have a consistent funding mechanism from the federal government or whether that should be something that’s left more to the states and the local governments. So one of the things that Republicans as part of their just general philosophy is that they have a concern about federal control of local elections in that they believe that the decision-making should be left at the local level.
[25:55] What changes can voters expect on Election Day? I think one of the things that’s not getting a lot of attention now it’s going to continue to emerge as an issue is that with the additional steps and concerns about security, there’s real and with a huge turnout that’s now sort of being expected you’re going to have a combination of lot of people and longer process, which means a longer wait time to vote if you actually voting on Election Day.
The 2020 primary season officially begins today with the Iowa caucuses, followed by the New Hampshire primary on February 11 and Nevada and South Carolina later this month.
It’s easy to forget that the primaries have not looked like they do now. In fact, it was not until 1968 that things really began to morph into the system of state-by-state contests that we know today. Before that, nominees were largely chosen by party leaders in preverbal smoke-filled back rooms.
While the parties once ruled the primary process, they seem to have lost some of that control, particularly in recent years. Donald Trump, a candidate the Republican Party opposed for much of his candidacy, received the nomination in 2016. Bernie Sanders one of the top candidates in this year’s Democratic candidate field, even though he is officially an independent. What does this change mean for democracy? We explore that question this week.
David Karol is an associate professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. He is an expert on primaries and the role that the political parties play in them and join us this week to help make sense of how we got here and where things might go moving forward.
Additional Information David’s website
David’s book, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform
Related Episodes The case for open primaries
Your guide to ranked-choice voting
How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt on the “grinding work” of democracy
Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, edited by WPSU’s Chris Kugler, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Interview Highlights [7:30] What did the primary process used to look like? The first candidates were chosen by an informal congressional caucus, they had no legal authority, just more like a kind of a parliamentary arrangement. The members of Congress from a party selected the candidate and by the middle of the 19th century that conventions that we know today existed, but the delegates to those conventions were chosen at meetings that were not necessarily so well publicized and the participation while incorporating many more people than the congressional caucus did, it was a relatively small number of people who were involved. It wasn’t very transparent.
By the early 20th century in the Progressive Era, primaries were established. Some candidates entered primaries selectively when they need to show strengths. A really strong candidate could hope to be drafted at a convention, which was kind of a fiction because in fact, they were running for the nomination, but the stronger they were the less visible they had to be in their efforts. That system existed more or less until the end of the 1960s.
[13:17] What happened in 1968? People had for several years seen primaries as part of the process, if not dominant. But in 1968, what happened is President Johnson was being challenged by Eugene McCarthy, the general candidate. Johnson withdraws and Hubert Humphrey, the Vice President, then enters the race and doesn’t run in any primaries because the filing deadlines have passed. At the Democratic Convention, Humphrey had the majority of the delegates. But there were these anti-Vietnam War protestors who as many people know were violently suppressed by the Chicago police. There were big protests at the convention and it was very messy on live television. And to reunify the party, hopefully, Humphrey agreed to establish a commission that after the election would try to reform the process and make it more open and participatory.
[19:05] How did the Republican Party come on board with the changes to the process? There wasn’t a negotiation or a formal agreement at the national level between the parties, but the same trends to decline the favorite sons. The favorite son tradition was already in decline, and that was true in both parties. As I said, Barry Goldwater had run in primaries in ’64, but what happened is, as I said, many states in 1972 and more in 1976 created primaries and that just carried both parties along and it had important implications for the Republicans as well.
[24:00] What role do parties play in primaries today? What’s happened is I think, because to a large extent because of the internet and social media, cable news, other changes in media, obscure candidates can become well known more easily than in the past and can raise significant funds from small donors much more easily than in the past. This open process that party elites had seemingly been able to steer somewhat effectively in the ’80s and the ’90s and the early aughts has become messier. Some of the recent nominees have still been of the story that they don’t hide support from traditional party elites. Hillary Clinton, of course, the most prominent example. I’d also say Mitt Romney, in 2012.
I would say parties have an important role in democracy. And there’s a school of thought that democracy is really people having a choice between candidates and those candidates should be screened by political parties and should represent them. And that the current ethos in American politics though is very populist, very skeptical of elites, any idea that people are, that somebody making a decision for them is a hotly contested.
The Women’s March 2020 was held in cities across the country on January 18. What began as a conversation on social media has evolved into a network of groups and organizations that are united in opposition to the Trump administration.
From 2017-2019, Dana Fisher and her research team interviewed participants at Washington, D.C. protests, including the Women’s March, March for Our Lives, and the People’s Climate March. They asked protesters about their motivations and how marching in the streets translates into longer-term political action. Fisher argues that the groups in the Resistance are the “connective tissue of democracy,” bringing together people who are working to make their voices heard and advocate for the environment, reproductive rights, and other causes.
But will the connective tissue hold through the election in November? What about beyond that? Fisher shares her thoughts based on her research on the Resistance and collective organizing more broadly.
Fisher is Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland and author of American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave, which chronicles the birth and growth of the anti-Trump resistance following the 2016 election.
This episode is a nice follow up to our conversation with Theda Skocpol last week about how the Tea Party transformed Republican politics.
Additional Information Dana’s book, American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave
Dana’s website
Related Episodes How the Tea Party and the Resistance are upending American politics
Grassroots organizing to reboot democracy
Tracing the past, present, and future of protests
Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, edited by WPSU’s Chris Kugler, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Thank you to Meredith Howard at Columbia University Press for sending us a copy of American Resistance and helping arrange an interview with Dana.
Interview Highlights [8:25] How do you define the Resistance? I think of the resistance as a counter-movement to the Trump regime. So, it involves people working individually and through organizations to challenge the Trump administration and its policies. And because it’s specifically about targeting and the Trump administration and its policies, people in the administration who are writing anonymously in the New York Times or publishing books anonymously calling themselves the resistance don’t fit into my definition of resistance.
[10:05] Is there anything that unites the Resistance beyond opposition to the Trump administration? Well, I think that we could say that this movement is unified also in its progressive ideals. One of the things that unifies all the people who participated is their concern about a number of different progressive issues. And depending on the event where I’m collecting data, different issues take precedence. So obviously, women’s rights, reproductive rights are very prominent in the Women’s Marches. But at the People’s Climate March, climate change is obviously a prominent feature. At the March for Racial Justice, racial justice and Black Lives Matter tends to be a prominent issue.
[12:50] Does the initial outrage that takes people into the streets translate into long-term political engagement? At the early marches, like the Women’s March 2017, a third of the crowd reported never having participated in a protest before. And in fact, I got lots of people telling me, “I’ve never done this before, but I had to come out after this election.” And what we saw in the crowd was very much this sense of group therapy taking place at these events. Organizations, be they civil society organizations, social movement organizations, whatever you want to call them, these groups are the connective tissue of democracy in a lot of ways in America because they do a lot of the work of coordinating among individuals. And so in a lot of cases, the people who at first just felt like they had to get out in the streets, and in many cases, they weren’t particularly connected to organizations, then channeled their outrage into real activism through organizations, and in many cases, targeting the election, particularly the midterm election in 2018.
[16:10] Where does the Democratic Party fit in here? In a lot of ways, the Obama administration, the Obama campaign in 2008, masked over a lot of the problems that we saw with regard to real grassroots infrastructure being built at the local level among the Democratic Party or Democratic Party operatives. And so when we get to 2016, resistance groups in a lot of ways formed to fill the void because there are not a lot of opportunities for local people to get involved in progressive left-leaning activities in their communities.
[19:04] What is distributed organizing? Distributed organizing is this new way of coordinating and organizing activism and electoral political activism. Let me say that over again. Distributed organizing is a new way of organizing at the local level, and basically, it’s coordinated digitally. And it means that it’s something new that has only come up as people have become much more connected through all these different technologies that are now available. And distributed organizing means that no longer do people attend meetings and sign up and pay dues to organizations. But instead, they sign up to participate in a specific action, in many cases, a protest, through a website. And all of a sudden, they’re on a list, and they’re considered a member of an organization that was sponsoring this event.
[26;16] What does the Resistance look like after the 2020 election? An optimistic outcome where the resistance succeeds, and there is a Democrat taking office in the White House and continues to be a democratic majority in the House of Representatives and even the long shot democratic majority in the Senate. In that case, I think that it will be a real question about what happens to the resistance, this fragile coalition of organizations that have bonded together and mobilized hundreds of thousands of people across the country to work together across a range of progressive issues will have a very hard time once they’re working within an issue based specific political realm because all of a sudden, they’re going to have to compete for attention and resources in ways that they don’t right now because everybody’s just working on defense.
If President Trump is re-elected, I think that we’re going to see a resistance, a coalition of groups and individuals, who are extremely frustrated with the idea of what will come for the next four years, another four years of retrenchment. I think as a result of that, we’re going to see a resistance that’s becoming increasingly confrontational and reactionary. And I think a lot of the people who are willing to go out into the streets are going to be more interested in something less peaceful and more about pushing confrontation.
Since 2008, the Tea Party and the Resistance have caused some major shake-ups for the Republican and Democratic parties. The changes fall outside the scope of traditional party politics, and outside the realm of traditional social science research. To better understand what’s going on Theda Skocpol, the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Strategy at Harvard and Director of the Scholars Strategy Network, convened a group of researchers to study the people and organizations and at the heart of these grassroots movements.
Skocpol joins us this week to discuss their findings and the new book Upending American Politics: Polarizing Parties, Ideological Elites, and Citizen Activists from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance. Her work in particular focuses on the Tea Party and includes interviews with Tea Party members across the country. We also discuss the Resistance and whether these oppositional forces to the party in power are likely to continue after November’s election.
Additional Information Upending American Politics from Oxford University Press
Skocpol on the Scholars Strategy Network
Related Episodes Grassroots organizing to “reboot” democracy
Salena Zito’s deep dive into Trump’s America
When states sue the federal government
The democracy rebellion happening in states across the U.S.
Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, edited by WPSU’s Chris Kugler, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy. A huge thank you to Abby Peck in Theda Skocpol’s office for arranging the interview and providing technical support.
Interview Highlights [6:45] How did we arrive at our current moment in American politics? Well, I was surprised in the early Obama presidency by the sudden emergence of the Tea Party and perhaps I wasn’t surprised for exactly the same reason that a lot of other people were. First there were some demonstrations, but then there were hundreds of regularly meeting local groups of tea partiers and that attracted our attention because we realized that since the 1960s a lot of the organizing on the civic side in the United States had taken the form of national advocacy groups and maybe some local things, but usually not very connected into anything national.
Then if you fast forward eight to 10 years later, the same thing happened when Trump was elected and in both cases these were presidents that shocked the other side, elected at the same time as Congress was controlled by their own party. And the grassroots resistance emerged even more quickly after the Trump election, which was an even bigger shock to the people on the other side.
[10:01] What was it about Barack Obama’s election that changed the paradigm? It’s in Americans’ DNA to organize when something strikes citizens as needing action and both grassroots tea partiers and the grassroots resisters, now they faced a shocking event and that event is probably very important. I think social movement scholars often don’t pay attention to events. But it’s a pretty shocking thing in American democracy when a president who looks like they’re going to carry through radical changes is elected at the same time as a Congress of their own party.
And in the case of Barack Obama, of course it was an African American. He looked like he was coming to power at a moment of economic crisis that was going to lead to sweeping changes led by Democrats, and at that moment, a lot of grassroots conservatives just said to themselves, we can’t depend on the Republican Party to do anything. We don’t trust the Republican Party. Who’s going to do it? We’re going to do it. And so they started organizing face to face.
[12:15] How does today’s organizing relate to older styles of civic engagement and civil society? In the Tea Party it was more men and women often married couples together, but women were more present than you might think and more present than you would think for conservatives because women tend to do things and these are almost always in both sides people who’ve had experience organizing in their workplaces, their churches, maybe they’ve been part of the local political party or a local civic movement on the left or the right. And so in a way they do remember older fashioned ways of organizing and then they will usually pick up some of the new internet techniques and kind of meld them together with what they know.
[16:46] Tell us about the “uneasy marriage” in the Republican party I personally write about the dual roots of Republican party extremism and they really are quite different. I mean the Koch Network and other multimillionaires and billionaires have organized since 2004 really with roots going back even further than that to try to persuade Republican Party politicians in office or running for office that they should ruthlessly pursue more and more tax cuts that benefit the very, very rich, i.e. the people who are doing the organizing and block any kind of environmental or global warming response through government, disable unions, labor unions, that’s a top priority and deregulate business at all levels.
The Koch network likes immigration, makes labor cheaper, but the grassroots tea parties were angry that Hispanic immigrants in particular, central Americans and Mexicans were coming in large numbers and changing the cultural composition of the society that they thought they grew up in or that they did grow up in.
[21:25] How does Donald Trump benefit groups like the NRA and the Fraternal Order of Police? When Donald Trump appears before actual groups, ongoing organizations, they tend to be the gun rights groups, the NRA, the Christian right conventions or the values summit that the Christian right holds every year. Or we saw that he also visited fraternal order of police lodges where he would routinely give a speech saying those black lives matters. People are being backed by the Democrats to attack our hero policemen and I’m with you and we can be sure that they’re doubling down on all of that. And that’s very advantageous to Donald Trump because it gives him networks that reach into just about every community in every state that he needs to carry in the Electoral College.
[23:06] How does the Resistance compare to the Tea Party? The Resistance and the Democrats face a harder set of tasks. Because the Tea Party, when it organized at the grassroots in 2009 and ’10 it formed probably about a 1,500 groups spread all over the country. They didn’t engage in a lot of voter registration efforts that we could observe at the time. And they didn’t have to because they were older, conservative minded whites, angry at Democrats and an African American president and they sort of knew that their friends and neighbors were going to vote because old people vote in this country and conservatives vote very, very regularly and Christian evangelical conservatives really vote regularly. So it was more a matter of changing the agenda, changing the public discussion, creating a sense of urgency and fear, which a lot of people that were there surrounding them of like minded people already felt.
[26:14] Will organizing against the party in power become the norm moving forward? It’s very likely that if a Democrat wins the White House this time, that the Democrats will hold the house but not take the Senate. And they certainly will not take most of the state legislatures and governorships. So in that scenario, I expect the right not to stand down in any way. We’ll see the same kind of fierce and unremitting opposition that Barack Obama faced. The outcome might be a little different this time because Barack Obama and many Democrats in the Congress spent three years thinking they could work out compromises with people that weren’t about to compromise with them.
This week, we begin a new year and a new season with a look ahead what 2020 will mean for democracy in the United States and around the world. We know that there will be a Census and an election, but will they be carried out in a democratic way? The escalating conflict with Iran is another unknown, but one that will no doubt have ramifications for democracy in the U.S. and abroad.
We also look at how political polarization has changed since 2016 and the implications of that change on just about every aspect of our lives. From impeachment to Iran, we see that Americans are more divided than ever. It’s unclear what that will mean as tensions with Iran escalate.
Underlying some of this polarization is our media environment. Little about the way Americans consume news on social platforms has changed since 2016. Disinformation and fake news are already starting to spread in advance of the 2020 election.
Note: You’ll hear some discussion in this episode about Facebook and deepfake videos. After we recorded, Facebook announced that it would begin taking steps to remove videos that have been manipulated using artificial intelligence, making exceptions for satire, parody, and videos that have been edited solely to omit or change the order of words.
Related Episodes A few of the episodes we reference in this one:
- Protecing democracy from foreign interference
- It’s good to be counted
- Facebook is not a democracy
- The complicated relationship between campaign finance and democracy
- Will Millennials disrupt democracy?
- How conspiracies are damaging democracy
Episode Credits This episode was recorded at the WPSU studios and engineered by Craig Johnson. The episode was edited by Mark Stitzer and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy.
Finally, don’t forget to leave a rating for Democracy Works if you enjoy what you hear on the show. Visit ratethispodcast.com/democracy to give us some stars in your favorite podcast app.
Happy New Year! Our winter break continues with a rebroadcast from fall 2018 with Lara Putnam on grassroots organizing in suburban America. This episode was recorded before the 2018 midterms, but many of the trends we discuss bore out in the election.
Putnam is a Professor and Chair of the History Department at the University of Pittsburgh and co-author with Theda Skockpol of the article “Middle America Reboots Democracy.” in Democracy, a Journal of Ideas and a new book called Upending American Politics. She argues that grassroots work is happening behind the scenes in “purple” suburbs, areas that are ignored in the red state/blue state and urban/rural media narratives.
Grassroots groups like those Putnam observed in western Pennsylvania are mixing traditional organizing tactics with social media to raise awareness and push for change at the local and state levels, far away from the divisions that bog down national politics. To borrow a line from the article, “If your question is how the panorama of political possibility has shifted since November 2016, your story needs to begin here.”
Finally, you’ll hear Michael and Chris talk at the end about”giving us some stars.” Over the holidays, we came across a new site that makes giving us a rating very simple. Visit ratethispodcast.com/democracy to get started.
Additional Information Middle America Reboots Democracy in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Upending American Politics – a new book with two chapters by Putnam
Related Episodes The “democracy rebellion” happening in states across the U.S.
Salena Zito on understanding Trump’s America
Interview Highlights [5:28] As a history professor, how did you come to write about a political movement? Lara: After the 2016 election, I looked around at local politics to see where I could make a change. Based on the national political coverage, I expected to see high levels of energy and organization for progressive politics in the city and little in the suburbs. However, what I found was actually that I was missing the real story. What I saw in these smaller towns was people engaging again in the political process through organization. This wasn’t getting covered nationally. This is where I kicked into historical gear. We know that large scale changes nationally have their roots in local developments. Therefore, it leads us to believe that these changes at the local level should be looked at as the possible motivation behind future national changes. So face to face groups which appear insignificant, can actually lead to large political changes.
[8:35] What does middle America mean to you after your research? Lara: These movements are being started by women. Particularly, women who had already been involved in the political movement prior to the 2016 election. What we mean by “middle America” here is that these democrat movements are taking place not in the stereotypical coastal democrat strongholds, but rather in small rural towns in the middle of the country.
[11:30] Why do you think the national media is missing this trend? Lara: The national media is really obsessed with candidates. While this does impact the spread of movements like the ones we’re seeing, it doesn’t completely stop them. Remember that politics is local. Most political conversations and political knowledge is shared in local conversations such as when people are running errands in town. This is how information is usually shared. The media tends to underreport this type of grass roots kitchen table politics.
[13:30] Do these groups still see support from the Democratic Party? Lara: Part of the story here is that the Democratic Party changed. This is why we’re seeing many of these groups being created recently. The party used to be structured in such as way that you could join it and know your fellow democrats. You had a sense that you belonged to an actual place with real people rather than simply an email list. How the party today has embraced these new organizations has varied around the country. In some places, the local party structure has embraced these new groups while in other places you’re seeing more resistance to bringing them into the fold. Whether or not this osmosis process happens depends a lot on the level of maturity of these groups. What I mean by that is how organized and structured they are. When a group is very structured, it tends to more naturally fold into a larger equally as organized group.
[19:25] Do you think there is room in these left leaning groups for someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but have since changed their minds? Lara: I think there are many different “middle Americas” out there. People are complicated and terms such as progressive means different things in different places.
[23:31] How are these groups communicating and utilizing technology to advance their causes? Lara: Some groups have become hybrids of older and newer models in that they’re utilizing both face to face as well as technological forms of communications. For example, groups will often have several facebook pages. One will be public where as the other will be private. This private page has sort of become the 21st century face to face conversation.
While we enjoy a holiday break, we are rebroadcasting an episode with E.J. Dionne that was recorded in March 2019. The McCourtney Institute for Democracy brought Dionne to Penn State for a talk on “protecting free expression and making America empathetic again.” After spending some with him, it’s clear that he walks the walk when it comes to empathy.
Dionne has the unique perspective of studying the horse race and the big picture of American politics. He writes a twice-weekly column for the Washington Post and appears regularly on NPR, but he’s also a senior fellow at Brookings and professor in Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown University.
We talked with him about the relationship between partisan politics and democracy, the need for empathy across the political spectrum, and a few policy ideas to help make America more democratic. We could have talked all day and hope to return to some of these topics in future episodes.
Additional Information Dionne’s Washington Post columns
Dionne’s lecture at Penn State
Dionne’s paper on universal voting for Brookings
Chris Beem’s TED talk on how young people can improve democracy
Interview Highlights [3:52] In One Nation After Trump, you wrote that a partisan response was required to protect democratic values. What did you mean by that? Trump had done something to our politics that was very dangerous and needed to be reversed, and given that the Republican Party had chosen almost to a person (with a couple of exceptions in Congress) to support Trump, the only way to hit back, to create any sense of accountability, was to give at least one house of Congress to Democrats. There a lot of people out there who aren’t necessarily partisan Democrats, who aren’t necessarily liberals or lefties, who believe that there are abuses here that need to be checked, and that there is a threat to democracy that needs to be reversed, and that’s exactly what happened after the 2018 midterms.
[5:19] Should that approach continue heading into 2020? My view is that the Republican party has moved to a point where it needs a real rebuke in order to look inside itself and analyze where they want to continue to be.
[6:54] ]What happens to the people who are conservative but don’t may be aligned with where the Republican party is currently? I think there are still a lot of conservatives who made a deal that they think is still worth making on behalf of low taxes deregulation and Supreme Court appointments. There is a pattern in which some districts that 30 or 40 years ago would happily have sent a moderate Republican to the house are now sending Democrats.
[11:00] You’ve also called for making America empathetic again. Have you seen any indication that it’s happening? Yes, I have seen it in the reactions of the people when the Muslin ban. The number of people who rush to the airports over the Muslim ban and people who may not have met a Muslim in their life and said “wait a minute, this isn’t who we are.” There is also the reaction of the people to the kids being taken away from their parents at the border. I think we’ve taken some steps forward, but we still have a lot of work to do.
[12:51] What can people do to develop a sense of empathy? Chris Beem gave a TED talk in which he said we need people to do three things. First, people need to tell the truth. Second, they need to engage in democratic humility, and third, people need to join an organization. I think one of the terrible things about the Trump age is that the division is so deep that friends who disagree about politics don’t even talk about politics anymore because they’re afraid of busting the friendship, and that’s a problem.
[14:54] Why do you think it’s so hard for people to have constructive arguments? I think some of it is that our allegiances are all aligned together in a package. So people’s political commitment and people’s party commitments are aligned with their ideological commitments or often aligned with their religious commitments that includes people who are religious or secular combined with where they live. The “big sort” argument and many things combined in one party has come to stand for it.
[16:00] How we can make civil society work given the world we live in today? I think we people need ways in which they can get together face-to-face and do things together. Sports teams are part of that, by the way. There is enormous life in civil society when where kids sports are concerned about it. What I want to tell to my conservative friends is: I’m with you, I want a stronger cvil society, but you have to acknowledge the cost of inequality and the cost of economic collapse.
[19:08] Can you give us an overview of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? We have a problem in our country that’s going to keep growing with the Electoral College. Since 2000, we’ve had just two elections where the Electoral College went against the popular vote. The way in which population is getting concentrated in big states, the over-representation of low population states in the Electoral College will get even greater. This is a problem for democracy and you can’t change it very easily under the Constitution.
[22:26] You’ve also worked on what you describe as universal voting. Can you explain what that is and how it might work? This idea comes from Australia. Australia has compulsory attendance at the polls, but not the United States. I’m working on an initiative with Miles Rapoport at the Ash Center at Harvard on this. We’re trying to see what would this look like If we did it in the United States. Our theory is if you can ask people to serve on juries, if you can ask people for going to say to potentially give their lives in war, then asking people to vote is not an over ask for civic life. It finally reverses the role of local officials. They can’t suppress the vote anymore. Their job is to help make it as easy as possible for all the people in the country to vote.
As we enter the holiday season, Robert Talisse thinks it’s a good idea to take a break from politics. In fact, he might go so far as to say democracy is better off if you do.
Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University and author of a new book called Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place. The book combines philosophical analysis with real-world examples to examine the infiltration of politics into all social spaces, and the phenomenon of political polarization.
In the middle of an impeachment inquiry and with a presidential election looming on the horizon, this might seem like precisely the wrong time to try to balance your political engagement with other things. But Talisse argues developing that sense of “civic friendship” through a sports league, book club, cooking class, or just about any other type of activity that’s not political, can help you see past the partisan identity that’s so prevalent these days.
If you’re looking for a New Year’s resolution, this episode might be a good place to start. We also discuss deliberative democracy and efforts to bring people from across the political spectrum together to find that sense of common ground.
This is our last new episode for 2019. We are going to do a few weeks of rebroadcasts and return in mid-January with a look ahead at what 2020 will have in store for democracy — we have a feeling there will be no shortage of things to discuss.
Listener Survey As we head toward the end of the year, we are conducting a listener survey to find out how we can make the show even better in 2020.
Complete the survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works mug. We’ve already sent one batch of mugs to our listeners around the country and will do another one after the holidays.
Additional Information Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place
Talisse’s TED talk on putting politics in its place
Talisse’s website
Related Episodes Unpacking political polarization
The closing gap between business and politics
Is it time to revive civility?
Interview Highlights [7:17] In the book, you seem to use politics and democracy interchangeably. How do you define each term? I think of democracy as a series of institutional, procedural, constitutional norms that are all underwritten by a more fundamental moral principal. That is, I think that democracy is, at its core, the moral proposition that a relatively stable and relatively just social order is possible in the absence of rulers, and bosses, and kings, and the like. Democracy is also a broader social ideal. It’s the ideal of living together as equals in a political and social context, and what I think that means is that democracy is a moral solution, or proposes a moral solution, to a problem. The problem that democracy proposes a solution to is the problem of severe, sometimes heated, disagreement about politics.
[9:55] How did you arrive at the notion of “overdoing” democracy? I think democracy is a capital social good. However and because it’s a capital social good, we in our roles as democratic citizens have to do some hard work. Democracy requires a lot of us. It’s a demanding social ideal. Don’t want to deny any of that. What I want to push back on the idea that the best strategy that we have for pursuing those lofty social ideals by means of democracy is to perpetually be enacting democracy, perpetually be acting in the role of democratic citizen. I think that if we want to perform well as democratic citizens, and do well by or do right by our goals, our moral goals for a better society, we have to find or as the case may be try to construct venues where we can interact with one another in contexts where our politics is simply beside the point.
[17:46 ] How has politics become a bigger part of our identities? As the country at the macro level has become more diverse, the local spaces we inhabit in our walkabout daily activities have become increasingly homogenous, so in the aggregate it’s a more diverse country, but in our day to day social environment, the atmosphere within which casual, non-planned social interactions occur, this has all become increasingly homogenous and politically homogenous, such that the person sitting next to you on the bus, the person standing behind you on line in the grocery store or in the coffee shop, is increasingly likely to have a political profile that’s just like your own. 25 years ago, workplaces, schools, local parks, beaches, these sort of public venues, these places where people would get together were far more politically heterogeneous than they are today.
[25:49 ] What do you make of efforts to bring people from opposing political perspectives together for dialogue and deliberation? I count myself as a democratic theorist, as a deliberate democrat, so I’m on board with deliberative democracy as a theoretical approach to thinking about democratic legitimacy and political authority, and also to thinking about good democratic practice, so I’m sort of an omnivorous kind of deliberative democrat. I’m on board with the project in the broadest sense, and also I’ve theorized it in some of its particulars in some other work. The dinner table conversations initiatives, initiatives about deliberative polling, and citizen assemblies, and citizen juries, and all the rest, those are all incredibly promising initiatives and the data that come out of those experiments and those endeavors strike me as really, really promising. I am skeptical, though, about the prospects for these kinds of interventions, which I would say are good, necessary steps towards repairing democracy.
[30:24] How do you recommend people “put politics in its place?” What I think the first step is to putting politics in its place is sort of recognizing that your conception of what the people, the rank and file citizens on the other side, are like. That’s the product of these phenomena. Maybe you need to recognize that. It’s part of the profile of this cognitive phenomenon, belief polarization, that not only do you become a more extreme version of yourself, you start to adopt more negative attitudes towards the people who you perceive to be different from yourself, and here’s the crucial part: you also start to adopt an unreasonably monolithic and un-nuanced conception of what the other side is like, and you could even hear this in pronouncements among citizens and politicians. We’re lead to think that there’s just one kind of person on the opposite side of the aisle that is our political rival, and that’s an unduly homogenized conception of how politics works.
Earlier this fall, our own Chris Beem traveled to Notre Dame to appear on With a Side of Knowledge, a podcast produced by the university’s Office of the Provost. The show is recorded over brunch, and this happened to the last meal served at campus institution Sorin’s.
Bacon and eggs aside, Chris talks with host Ted Fox about his most recent book, Democratic Humility: Reinhold Niebuhr, Neuroscience, and America’s Political Crisis, and his current work on democratic virtues. They discuss why democracy runs counter to the way we’re wired, and why it’s so difficult to sustain.
This episode is a cool collaboration for a few reasons:
- Chris is a Notre Dame alumnus — we won’t tell you what year he graduated
- Ted Fox, the host of With a Side of Knowledge, and our own Jenna Spinelle have become podcast kindred spirits since they met earlier this year.
- Tracy and Ted McCourtney are generous supporters of both Penn State and Notre Dame. In many ways, this collaboration would not have been possible without them.
We’ll return to our normal format next week for one final episode in 2019 before taking a holiday break.
Listener Survey We we head toward the end of the year, we are conducting a listener survey to find out how we can make the show even better in 2020.
Complete the survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works mug — the perfect holiday gift for the democracy enthusiast in your life.
Additional Information With a Side of Knowledge
Democratic Humility: Reinhold Niebuhr, Neuroscience, and America’s Political Crisis
Credit: Rachel Franklin Photography/Draw the Lines PA
One of the things we heard in our listener survey (which there’s still time to take, by the way) is that we should have more young people on the show as guests. It was a great suggestion and, after having this conversation, we’re so glad to have received it.
Joining us this week is Kyle Hynes, a junior at State College Area High School and a true advocate for democracy. He is the statewide champion in the youth division of the Draw the Lines PA mapping competition and winner of the Future Leader in Social Studies from the Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies.
Kyle is an expert on the ins and outs of gerrymandering, but he also has interesting perspectives impeachment, political engagement among his peers, and the generational divide in American politics.
We’ve had a lot of guests tell us that they put hope in Generation Z to solve some of the challenges we face. If Kyle is any indication, that hope is in the right place.
Listener Survey We we head toward the end of the year, we are conducting a listener survey to find out how we can make the show even better in 2020.
Complete the survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works mug — the perfect holiday gift for the democracy enthusiast in your life.
Additional Information Draw the Lines PA
Pennsylvania Council for the Social Studies
Related Episodes One state’s fight for fair maps
What can Pennsylvania voters do about gerrymandering?
Generation Z and the future of democracy
Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom
Interview Highlights [3:05] How did you become interested in redistricting? I’ve always been really interested in math. I’ve also been interested in politics for quite a while, and so I’m really interested in the areas where they intersect, where math and politics come together. I feel like gerrymandering is one of those places. Redistricting is a logistical puzzle and you try to put it together. So I’ve always thought this is really interesting, and then when I saw that there was a competition, you can draw your own map, see if you can do it better. I was like, “I want to try that.”
[3:40] Where does your interest in politics come from? Our family’s really politically engaged, and my political interest kind of sparked during the 2016 primaries, where it seemed almost, especially on the Republican side, just because there were more candidates, it seemed almost like a giant game. It’s like the Hunger Games, who can get to the cornucopia first? And it was like, “Is this really how we choose our politicians? Really?” And so that kind of sparked an interest for me, and then it’s kind of carried through ever since.
[6:00] What do your friends think about your involvement in politics? Some of my friends are interested in politics, all have a lower tolerance for politics than I do. But yeah, so sometimes there’s the reaction of, “Oh Kyle, just shut up about the damn politics.” But often sometimes they are interested in politics and stuff like that.
On the one hand, there’s some ambivalence. People think Republicans and Democrats are the same and everyone is corrupt and in it for their own ends. But there’s also a bunch of people, I would say a majority even, among kids my own age who actually do care, and who are actually interested in finding solutions to problems. And I feel like to a certain extent it’s less tribal, especially among high schoolers and young adults. The tribal mentality really isn’t there.
[8:36] What’s been your experience with civics education? I took a civics class in eighth grade, which was pretty good. And then the only thing after that is the AP government class in 12th grade, so both those classes have certainly played a role. I feel like another big contributor to my civics education, my parents are both really politically minded, civically minded, and they both raised me from an early age to care about this stuff.
[10:42] What was your process for creating the district map for Draw the Lines PA? I had certainly seen a lot of alternate Pennsylvania congressional maps that people had drawn saying, “Hey, I can do this better than the politicians in Harrisburg.” And so I feel like I drew some from a lot of those different maps, and different attitudes towards districting. And I feel like I also kind of pulled on my math background, because I wanted to create as many districts that were competitive, for both sides, as possible, and I feel like at some point that was just a pure puzzle. It was just, how do I cobble the precincts together in such a way that you get as many 50/50 districts as you can?
I wanted to use competitive districts, because in my perfect world, if we had an electoral system of my choice, it would be a proportional representation system, so that everyone could actually have a say in choosing the government. But obviously this competition didn’t allow for that, you drew the districts. And so I felt like I wanted to draw a map that gave every single voter as much say as physically possible
[14:20] People often put faith in younger generations to fix what’s broken in politics. Are you aware of that pressure and how do you feel about it? Yeah, sometimes. I feel like the youth in any generation are always the least jaded. As people go through life, they often become more and more and more jaded. But I feel like a lot of the issues that have been prevalent in the past, and even today, there is, like I certainly hope that our generation or generations above us can take care of the issues, because somebody’s got to. So I feel like on the one hand, it’s a little bit of pressure like, “We’re going to give it to the youth, see what they can do with it.” But on the other hand, I think in the future, our generation will end up taking the reins of power, and I feel like, I hope that we can do good things with them.
[15:40] What’s your biggest “OK Boomer” moment when it comes to politics? I feel like it’s tough to answer the question because like a lot of things, even though like almost everything, there are a lot of people in that, a lot of Boomers who agree with what I think, and a lot who don’t. And a lot of people who have been doing things to advance what we need to do in a bunch of these different categories, and a bunch who don’t.
But I feel like of all of the issues that, I feel like older generations, like the one currently in power now in DC has failed in, and this is not a dispersion on any generation as a whole, but just the part of it that is currently in power, is climate change, because I feel like they’ve had a long time, and by they, I mean the caucuses in Washington, a long time to deal with this, and it hasn’t been dealt with. And so I feel like that’s something that’s going to end up being passed down to our generation, which we’re going to have to deal with.
[25:53] What does democracy mean to you? People are only actually exercising democracy when they’re actually making their voices heard. I feel like it goes beyond voting. Sure, the right to vote is a key part of democracy and you can’t have democracy without it, but there’s the right to meet with your representatives. There’s the right to free speech. The right to a free press. And all of these things I feel like are so key to democracy. It’s like it is rule of the people, by the people, but it’s also rule of the people, rule for the people.
So having a system where you can actually talk about what you want to talk about, you can make your voice heard, you can vote in situation where every single person has the same key right to vote, which is really fundamental, and where you don’t have certain people blocking other people’s right to vote or right to vote meaningfully.
Hedrick Smith is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of bestselling books The Russians, Who Stole the American Dream? and many others. Over the course of his nearly 60 years in journalism, he’s interviewed some of the biggest politicians and power brokers on the national and international stage. Now, his reporter’s curiosity has led him to places like Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Hartford, Connecticut to report on efforts to end gerrymandering, remove money from politics, and fight corruption through grassroots organizing.
Smith joins us this week to talk about what he learned from these organizers while filming his latest project, a documentary called The Democracy Rebellion: A Reporter’s Notebook with Hedrick Smith that will air on PBS this January. He says that the grassroots are not nearly as polarized as politicians and political insiders, as evidenced by the fact that many of these pro-democracy ballot initiatives passed with large bipartisan majorities.
Smith also reflects on the state of the media today and why grassroots movements can’t seem to capture the attention that horse race politics do. It’s part of the reason why he’s still out there pounding the pavement as a reporter and getting out of his home in Washington, D.C. to meet people doing the hard work of democracy every day.
Listener Survey We we head toward the end of the year, we are conducting a listener survey to find out how we can make the show even better in 2020.
Complete the survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works mug — the perfect holiday gift for the democracy enthusiast in your life.
Additional Information Hedrick’s website, Reclaim the American Dream
Related Episodes One state’s fight for fair maps
Winning the “democracy lottery”
The complicated relationship between campaign finance and democracy
Interview Highlights [8:26] How did the story of democracy reform come onto your radar? It’s a great story nobody else is covering and that’s always interesting to me. I wrote a book some years ago called, Who Stole the American Dream? that was really about how we got to the terrible economic inequalities we have today, and to the dysfunctional political system we have today. And as I went around the country giving talks about that, people said, “What are we going to do about that?” or “Do you know about this?”And I began to discover there was a lot more going on around the country, at the grassroots, at the state level, and it was totally being ignored by Washington.
[10:20] What motivates the grassroots organizers you met? They’re, they’re angry that democracy doesn’t work right. They don’t feel as though their votes count, they don’t feel as though Washington listens to them. You look at poll after poll and it says lobbyists have too much power, corporations have taken over, Washington, they’ve captured the congress, and our system is broken.
[18:14] How should organizations strike a balance between making changes through ballot initiatives and longer-term political reforms? There is a sense that reform as an issue is something people are looking for candidates to advocate is certainly front and center now. It’s coming, though it’s not yet high enough on the priority list for people to really be concerned about. I mean, you still have people worried, understandably, about jobs, about immigration, about climate change and so forth. So it’s among the top tier issues but it’s not at the top.
[20:09] Is it possible that there could be too many groups competing for money, attention, and other resources? The answer is yes. I did a documentary for PBS Frontline some years ago called Poisoned Waters, which is an effort to look at what happened to the Clean Water Act 35 years later. And when I went into the field, I was just amazed at how many, environmental groups were competing for time, money, and resources. There’s no question that the political reform movement suffers from the same kind of thing. It is sprawling.
[26:11] What happens to the organizers after whatever they’re working toward is successful? Do they move on to other causes or organizations? In a number of states, they fight off the effort of the other side to reverse the reform. So they’re often very engaged in that. Then once they’ve survived that cycle, then they start to look around and see what else they need to do. In Florida, they moved from the gerrymander reform into restoring the, the voting rights of former felons and that kind of stuff. So I think what happens is, not everybody does it, but usually the leaders and some of the people that are important say, “Well this other issue is important to us. Let’s, let’s move ahead on it.” I think there’s a sense that people power can work and does work and we got a victory here and our system is going to be better for it.
[30:50] Why don’t these issues receive more media attention? I think there’s a sense that nothing can be done and it’s all a result of hyper-partisanship. That’s the easy story to tell. Trump news is also big and media outlets are making enormous money off of it. It’s really easy to produce and something I call fire engine journalism. There’s lots of drama but you haven’t really told people anything they really need to know. We’re so caught up in easy reporting and profitable journalism that we’re not doing our job. We’re also very comfortable sitting in New York, Los Angeles and Washington and telling everybody what’s going on in the rest of the country
This week’s episode is a conversation between Michael Berkman, Chris Beem, and Michael Baranowski of The Politics Guys, a podcast that looks at political issues in the news through a bipartisan, academic lens.
Baranowski is an associate professor of political science at Northern Kentucky University. His focus is American political institutions, public policy, and media — which makes him a great match for our own Michael and Chris.
They discuss impeachment from the standpoint of political institutions and the legitimacy of our democracy. Regardless of what happens with the current impeachment inquiry, some of our government’s norms and institutions may be irreversibly damaged, while others may develop in response to the Trump administration.
They also touch on the growing epistemic divide we discussed with Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead in our episode on conspiracies. The Politics Guys is a bipartisan show, but Baranowski increasingly feels like he and his colleagues are talking past each other rather than having meaningful discussions.
Listener Survey As we head toward the end of the year, we are conducting a listener survey to find out how we can make the show even better in 2020.
Complete the survey for a chance to win a Democracy Works mug — the perfect holiday gift for the democracy enthusiast in your life.
Additional Information The Politics Guys
Related Episodes Understanding impeachment — from the Federalist Papers to the whistleblower
Checking the President’s power
How conspiracies are damaging democracy
Ranked-choice voting has been in the news a lot lately. It was adopted in New York City’s November 2019 election, used for the first time in U.S. Congressional elections last year, and will be the method by which at least a few states choose a Democratic primary candidate in 2020.
But, what is it? How does it work? And, is it more democratic than the single-vote method we’re used to? This week’s guest has answers to all of those questions.
Burt L. Monroe is Liberal Arts Professor Political Science, Social Data Analytics, and Informatics at Penn State and Director of the university’s Center for Social Data Analytics. He says ranked-choice voting is generally a good thing for democracy, but not entirely without problems of its own. We also talk about bullet voting, donkey voting, and other types of voting that have been tried around the world.
As Michael and Chris discuss, ranked-choice voting falls into a category of grassroots organizing around pro-democracy initiatives like gerrymandering and open primaries. These efforts signal a frustration with the status quo and a desire to make the rules of democracy more fair and equitable.
If you enjoy our show, please take a minute to leave a rating or review in your podcast app. Thank you!
Additional InformationFairvote, an advocacy group for ranked-choice voting and election reform
Burt’s Google Scholar listing
Related EpisodesThe case for open primaries
One state’s fight for fair maps
Interview Highlights[6:52] What is ranked-choice voting?Ranked-choice voting is used to describe a lot of different systems, but mostly what people mean is something that’s usually referred to as instant run-off. In a traditional runoff election, you vote as you normally would and if no one gets a majority, everybody but the top two is eliminated and you come back in four weeks or six weeks or eight weeks and vote again and somebody has a majority.
Ranked-choice voting does that all at one time. Voters rank the candidates in a pure system from first choice to last choice and the votes are tallied based on the first choices and if no one has a majority, then the last place candidate is eliminated and the voters who had voted for that candidate first, their vote is transferred to their second candidate. And it goes on and on until there’s a majority.
[8:33] Does a voter have to rank all candidates on a ballot?The only place I know of that requires you to rank everybody is Australia, which uses it for their national elections. In most places you can rank as few as you want. If you rank only one, that’s called bullet voting. Most of the U.S. variations of this, you can only rank up to a certain number. The New York one that just passed is five, I believe San Francisco’s three. But you can vote for as many as you like, just as long as you don’t vote more than one for first or second and so on.
[11:24] Does ranked-choice voting change the way a candidate campaigns?This is one of the key points of contention about how this system works. One of the main arguments for it is that it encourages candidates to try to broaden their appeal so they can get those second choice, third choice, fourth choice. And that seems to be largely what happens. Although, there are examples where it didn’t. Fiji uses ranked-choice voting and had a lot of antagonistic ethnic based voting. In that case, the electorate was so polarized that more extreme candidates were able to get more first choices and more moderate candidates were punished and didn’t get enough first choices to stay in the race.
[14:26] How does ranked-choice voting account for third-party candidates?If voters can be more sincere about their true preference for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader or what have you, but those candidates don’t make the cut of on the first choices, their second choices are presumably the one- the more moderate that’s closer to them. It’s very handy for elections that have lots and lots of candidates. For example, New York is anticipating 17 candidates in one of their races coming up for advocate, And so you can imagine if you’re just picking your first choice, with 17 candidates somebody could win with 5% of the vote.
[16:18] Does ranked-choice voting give an advantage to low-information voters?Yeah, that’s definitely a thing. Even in our current system, there’s spoiled ballots that people fill out wrong. But there two ways I’m familiar with that this happens. One is bullet voting that I mentioned earlier, which is just voting for one candidate. Those votes are more likely to be, I think the term they use is exhausted. That is, their candidate gets eliminated and they don’t have a second choice for it to pass to so their vote isn’t used in the final tally. The other one I’m familiar with is Australia where everyone has to fill out he full ranking and there you get a phenomenon called donkey voting where people rank rank just in the order they appear on the ballot paper. So if they’re alphabetical, they vote alphabetical.
[17:58] Is there an impact on voter turnout?It’s always hard to attribute increased turnout in a particular election to one thing because many thing change, but in San Francisco there was dramatic turnout raised in the first election that used this. In some districts, it went from like 17% to over 50%. So really dramatic changes when there wasn’t much obvious else that was different about the election other than the ranked-choice option. The argument is that people want to be able to express themselves and this helps people who might otherwise want to vote for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance or they think doesn’t have a chance.
[28:10] Is ranked-choice voting more democratic?I think the system we have now, there’s so many ways it can elect somebody that a lot of people don’t want. This is a pretty easy change to make to keep some bad things from happening and so I think it’s pretty easy to advocate for.
We’ve talked about immigration several times on this show with good reason. The role that people coming to the United States play in our democracy is an important question and something states, cities, and towns across the country will continue to grapple with as demographics shift.
This week’s guest offers a historical perspective that sets the stage for the debate about immigrants we hear so often today. A.K. Sandoval-Strauss is director of the Latina/o Studies program at Penn State and author of the new book Barrio America: How Latino Immigrants Saved the American City.
In the book, and in this conversation, he argues that immigrants moved into cities like Dallas and Chicago and revitalized downtowns that were beginning to hollow out because of white flight and discriminatory practices designed to keep African-Americans out. The same thing, he says, is happening again as Latino immigrants move into smaller cities and towns from Hazleton, Pennsylvania to Sioux City, Iowa — bringing economic and cultural vitality to places industry left behind.
We also discuss the role that Latinos played in the Civil Rights movement, and how that ties into their complicated identity during the 1950s and 60s, as well as what the future looks like as the Latino population increases while other ethnic groups decrease.
Additional Information Barrio America: How Latino Immigrants Saved the American City
A.K.’s op-ed in The Washington Post
Our sponsor: Penn State World Campus
Related Episodes Immigration enforcement at the border
Immigration, refugees, and the politics of displacement
Interview Highlights [8:12] Latino immigration really started to grow in the 1950s and 60s? How did immigrants at that time view themselves? Did they see themselves as part of the Civil Rights movement? At that point, under American law, they were technically white. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, specified that they were full citizens. However, in actuality they rarely enjoyed full citizenship rights. At the grassroots, there were certainly some sense of commonality in the face of discrimination, but sadly the main Mexican-American civil rights organizations really clung to their status as technically white and often tried to avoid being associated with black people because they felt that that would lead to their being classified as minorities, and discriminated against further. So, there strategy was to really present themselves as like other immigrant stock Americans, and thereby to claim a sort of European ancestry that would entitle them to rights and privileges of whiteness.
[12:40] You devote a whole chapter in your book to the year 1965. Why was that such a big year for this population? Most commonly recognized is the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, which dramatically expanded the range of people who could come to the United States and become citizens, but which also simultaneously in effect, reduced those kinds of opportunities for Hispanics, and people from Latin America. The other reason was that time was the beginning of a series of agricultural crises in Mexico that drove a substantial number of people to migrate to the United States.
[14:21] How did white flight impact Latino immigrant into American cities? I think we have to remember that urban America in terms of the total number of people living in cities and the total amount of economic activity happening in cities really peaks in 1950. It begins to decline thereafter, especially because of white flight. Part of that is the story of simple racism of white residents that will not have even one black family as their neighbor. Even if that black family is of a similar economic background just themselves. And the other part of the story is that the United States government subsidizes suburbanization through a number of enactments from highway construction to the mortgage interest deduction. The result of this is that there are overall fewer people living in cities. Remember also, that the African American great migration comes to an end in about the late 1960s. So, literally there is no American born population that is increasing its presence in cities and there are entire neighborhoods with falling populations. As a result, you have falling rents. And that is very attractive to newcomers who are looking for inexpensive places to live.
[16:05] Does Latino representation in government follow the rate of immigration? As of the late 1960s, at the time of the establishment of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. There are three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. If we want to jump ahead very briefly to the present. Now, where you have four U.S. Senators who are Latino and 39 members of the House of Representatives as a much more commensurate representation. Somewhat less than the 10-11% of votes that are cast by Latinos. And certainly much less than the roughly 17-18% of the population, who are of Hispanic origin.
[19:41] What accounts for the discrepancy in eligible Latino voters and the number of people who actually vote? Some people are coming from countries in which the government is highly corrupt and unreliable and they don’t necessarily see what advantages they would have through voting or supporting particular candidates for president. Others are just part of a lower-income population, so again lower-income people of all backgrounds tend to vote at a lower rate. There have not necessarily been the voter turnout efforts you might expect.
[22:18] You argue that fear of Latino immigrants comes mostly from people who do not regularly interact with those immigrants. Can you talk a little more about what that dynamic looks like? I think it’s very important to remind ourselves that, that initial, initial mythology of the blue-collar revolt simply was not true. Subsequent examination of the actual voter data files show that there was no correlation between people who had, had a factory shut down in their community and voting for Donald Trump. There was no correlation in people being in direct competition with immigrants for jobs and voting for Donald Trump. In fact it was not the poorest members of white communities, but those who were somewhat more well off that were most likely to vote for him. More broadly, it was precisely those people with the most acquaintance with Latino and Latina and other immigrants that were most likely to vote for Hilary Clinton because they simply did not by and large, buy into the anti-immigrant agenda that Trump brought into politics. So, it becomes a sort of cities and inter metropolitan areas versus rural areas divide, whereby those who don’t know very many immigrants were the most likely to want to exclude them
[23:56] Are we now seeing the same population changes happen in small towns that we saw in cities a generation ago? Between about 1970 and the 2010s immigrant Latinos were the single biggest factor in solving a huge problem of 20th century America, the Urban Crisis, and turning the cities around. Now there’s rural areas that are suffering some of those same kinds of symptoms, right? Depopulation, aging of the population, lack of economic opportunities, and a lot of rising drug addiction and crime. When you have declining native-born populations and you desperately need new residents, new workers, new school children, new baseball players that Latinos are the solution to this newer problem as well. And again, ironically, some of the places most dependent upon immigration generally, including Latino immigration, which is the sort of single biggest part of it, are where you see the greatest negative reactions.
[27:18] What’s the way forward from here? I think it’s very important to recognize that, you know, as you say, some of these candidates will be themselves Latinos some will not. So, Mark Levin for example, who is representative the 39th district of California, which is coastline between Long Beach and San Diego, he’s not a Latino guy but he’s part of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus precisely because he understands that part of his responsibilities are looking after his constituents. So, again the GOP had made dramatic strides in that direction beginning with the 2013 growth and opportunity program report also called the, the autopsy of the 2012 election where they said, you know, “We must make progress on courting Latino votes, especially by not being anti-immigration.” One might in the interest national well being, hope to see a return to a more sane attitude toward immigration given the fact that the United States desperately needs more people, but that seems not to have figured into the current GOP strategy.
More than 600 million people voted in India’s most recent election, but that does not mean all is well with democracy there. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP recently won re-election on a platform based on Hindu nationalism. As we’ve seen with other countries experiencing democratic erosion, the people and parties coming to power do not value the liberalism that’s essential to liberal democracy.
But, as our guest this week argues, what’s happening in India is not exactly the same as what we see in places like Hungary and Brazil — or even the United States. Vineeta Yadav is an associate professor of political science and affiliate faculty in the School of International Affairs at Penn State. She studies politics and democracy in India.
Vineeta visited India over the summer and talks about what she saw when Modi and the BJP eliminated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special status to the Muslim-majority state. She also discusses India’s strong civil society and how it’s pushing back against the BJP’s illiberal tendencies.
Additional Information Vineeta’s website
More on Kashmir and Article 370
Related Episodes Viktor Orban’s “velvet repression” in Hungary
Brazil’s tenuous relationship with democracy
Yellow Vests and the “grand debate” in France
Brexit and the UK’s identity crisis
Interview Highlights [6:40] How did India come to be a democracy and how do Indians view democracy? India didn’t really exist as a country before 1947. The British colonized that part of Asia for about 200 years. And when they left that territory was divided up into India and Pakistan. Their leaders gained experience with elections and a Parliamentary system under British colonial rule. And so that was adopted in India in 1950 and India has kept the same constitution and Parliamentary system through its entire post-independence period. One of the unique things about India is that voter turnout is actually higher in rural areas and not just in urban areas. And that tells you something about how deeply democratic values, norms, and practices have really sunk into ordinary citizenry.
[8:50] What does India’s commitment to democracy look like today? I think it’s definitely part of this larger global trend where democratically elected regimes are undoing a lot of the liberal protections and liberal rights, and weakening institutions. In the last I would say five or six years, India has become part of that unfortunate trend. If you look back at history, it’s not the first time this has happened in India. We had a period like this in the 1970s, through the early 80s, but it’s definitely, I would say, declining as a democracy right now.
[10:22] How does Narendra Modi view democracy? So I would say that Norendra Modi, the BJP, and the organizations and the movements associated with them, have a very different vision of what a democratic society should look like in India. They are committed to the processes and procedures of democracy, but not to the values of liberal democracy. Because they don’t think Indians want liberal democracy. They don’t think liberal democracy is appropriate given India’s values. And again, this is their concept of what Indian values are. The BJP’s envisions Indian society and Indian government as being based on Hindu values.
[14:54] What is the BJP’s appeal? What is I think unique about the BJP is they were so effective in projecting this image of competence and being corruption-free and having this coherent agenda. Their support also crossed caste lines. They had people from lower class supporting them and they had people who were highly educated supporting them. They had people from different religious groups supporting them. They had urban and rural groups supporting them. So, they are one of the very few parties in maybe the last three decades, maybe one of two parties, that has been able to develop that kind of coalition that cuts across class and religion and cost in India.
[19:02] Is anyone pushing back against the BJP? India has a very vibrant civil society that’s been its saving grace so far. You have groups organizing on every issue under the sun and from very different angles. These civil society groups really have been the key force of opposition. There are also political parties that exist at the regional level that have defeated the BJP.
[31:33] Where do things go from here? The floor of my expectations would be that India will continue as an electoral democracy. Elections will be held, they’ll be reasonably fair, and people will continue to participate. But I think, unless there is either a single party or a set of parties that really emerges that has the same organizational capacity as the BJP has to mobilize people, we’ll see the what we will see is the BJP remain power and they’ll continue weakening rights and liberties.
Climate change is perhaps the most pressing issue of our time, but it’s so big that it can be difficult to imagine how you as an individual can make an impact — or even know how to talk about it with other people in a meaningful way. This episode offers a few creative suggestions for addressing both of those things.
Our guest is Graham Bullock, associate professor of political science and environmental studies at Davidson College. His work covers everything from public policy to deliberative democracy, and the ways those things interact when it comes to climate and sustainability.
He’s used some innovative methods to break out of traditional modes of argument and encourage his students to think differently about climate and citizenship. We hope this episode inspires you to do the same, whether you are a teacher or simply looking to broach difficult topics like climate change with friends, family, or colleagues.
We also talk with Graham about what it means to be a responsible climate citizen and how that manifests itself in everything from buying sustainable products to attending climate rallies.
Related Episodes Michael Mann on climate activism
Peter Buckland on local government and climate change
Forrest Briscoe on corporate action and corporate social responsibility
Additional Information More on duty-based vs. engaged citizenship
Graham’s book- Green Grades: Can Information Save the Earth?
The Responsible Consumers Club
Penn State’s Mark Kissling, who joined us last year to talk about civics education, has a new article out on how climate and citizenship are taught in K-12 social studies classrooms.
October 21, 2019
Last week, we heard from Andrew Sullivan about the challenges facing the future of democracy in the United States and around the world. This week’s episode offers a glimpse into what can happen when a country emerges from a political crisis with stronger democratic practices in place.
About 10 years ago, Ireland found itself facing an economic recession, distrust in government, and polarization about how to move forward. Our guests this week, David Farrell of University College Dublin and Jane Suiter of Dublin City University, proposed using deliberative democracy to bring citizens and politicians closer together. The approach worked, and it’s garnered attention from other places around the world who want to do the same thing.
Farrell and Suiter are the winners of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s 2019 Brown Democracy Medal, which recognizes new and innovative work in democracy. We are now seeking nominations for next year’s medal; please email democracyinst@psu.edu if you know someone who might be a good fit.Thank you to our sponsor, Penn State World Campus. Learn more about their Master of Professional Studies in the Psychology of Leadership at worldcampus.psu.edu/leadership.
Additional Information * Farrell and Suiter’s project, We the Citizens * Democracy R&D – highlighting deliberative democracy efforts around the world * Farrell and Suiter’s book, Reimagining Democracy: Lessons in Deliberative Democracy from the Irish Front Line * Brown Democracy Medal lecture video
Interview Highlights [7:12] What was the political climate like leading up to the Citizens Assembly Project? Farrell: It was bad. It’s hard to imagine almost a decade later just how bad things were, but it was a severe economic crisis. Almost overnight our unemployment doubled, our national debt just went through the roof, our banks, all our banks collapsed, all international banks just left. Buildings were being boarded up, public employees had their pay cut, private employees lost their jobs, emigration went through the roof, and then major protests against governments. Trust in government plummeted. So this was about as existential a crisis as you can get.
[9:13] What was the reaction when you introduced the idea of a citizens assembly? Farrell: What we were saying at that time, it sounded quite bizarre. We were saying, “Imagine a scenario where you bring a bunch of regular citizens into a room and you give them a chance to talk about the future of Ireland. Why don’t we give that a go, and other’s have done it, why don’t we try it?” We had senior journalists from all the media organizations and many senior politicians saying, “You’re daft, you know. You academics really don’t have a clue. That’s how how politics is run here. We have a citizens’ assembly, it’s our Parliament. Citizens are not for that role, you know. You can’t trust citizens to take tough decisions, that’s the job of professional politicians, so just forget about it.”
Suiter: At the same time, they knew they had to rebuild trust with the citizens It was a real, it was a real moment of crisis, and those crises can go either way. Politicians obviously preferred the shift that could do something positive, that would rebuild relationships, rather than keeping going down the same path increasing distress, marches, and protests.
[12:35] What did citizens think about the idea? Farrell: There was a lot of cynicism and uncertainty, you know. Effectively what you are saying is, “You should trust a regular citizen who’s selected randomly, like jury duty.” We’ve all been through the process of jury duty, where you get picked randomly, and that same principle applies here. You’re saying “We’re going to get a hundred regular citizens into the room together, who’ve never met before, and the only reason they’re in the room is because they run the lottery, they got selected.” They’re not there to represent sectors, they’re not there to represent communities, they’re not there because they got a mandate because they ran for office. There are there as individual citizens just to represent themselves about the issues that they’ve been asked to consider.
[15:45] How did the citizens assembly change the relationship between politicians and their constituents? Suiter: I think that’s really crucial. A lot of the time, politicians don’t hear from regular people about these kind of issues. Someone will contact a politician about their local school, or traffic with the road, but they don’t contact them about these kind of big issues like abortion or marriage equality. On those issues, they hear from interest groups and lobbyists who are quite polarizing. There would have been a very strong pro-life force that would have been campaigning in Ireland since the early 1980s, and unbalance on the media, it would always be somebody from that group who’d be heard against other people. So this gave the impression, I think, to a lot of politicians, that the country was as divided.
[26:20] Were there other factors that made this approach work in Ireland? Farrell: The country’s small size helps, but it doesn’t have to be a factor. The other thing is that you really need a good crisis. We can only hope that you have something that just gives that seed bed for something like this to be tried. You need a receptive year so there was a degree of courage on the part of the leadership of the government in 2011 to go down this road they had no idea where this was going to go, but they, they took a punt with us.
This is one of the most pessimistic episodes we’ve done, but it’s worth hearing. Andrew Sullivan, New York magazine contributing editor, Daily Dish founder, and former editor of The New Republic, is a longtime observer of American politics who does not shy away from controversial opinions. In this episode, we discuss the tension between liberalism and democracy, and how that tension manifests itself around the world.
The way Sullivan sees it, the “us vs. them” rhetoric and attitudes in our culture have gone so far that the moderating values and virtues of liberalism will no longer be able to intervene. We also discuss the relationship between dignity and identity politics, and the parallels between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Thank you to our sponsor, Penn State World Campus. Learn more about their Master of Professional Studies in the Psychology of Leadership at worldcampus.psu.edu/leadership.
If you like what you hear on this show, please take a minute to share it on social media or text it to a friend, family member, or colleague who might enjoy it, too.
More from Andrew Sullivan New York magazine column
His lecture at Penn State on “American Democracy in the Age of Trump”
Interview Highlights [6:18] How do you think about democracy in your work? There are two core types that I think about, liberal democracy and illiberal democracy. Democracy itself I think is a two-edged sword. Pure democracy, Plato would tell you and so would Aristotle, is extremely unstable and the founders certainly believed that as well. They were very cognizant of what happened to the Rome of Republic. Liberal democracy requires certain virtues. It requires the ability to have a deliberative conversation to use reason, as well as emotion, but reason is the core function of it, and openness to other ideas and toleration of radical different world views than you, within the same culture. And that’s hard. It’s really, really hard. It’s harder than we think.
[7:56] Of those things, what concerns you most right now? I think that it is human nature in fast changing societies and fast changing economies and the world is changing extremely fast, to seek security. Democracy’s promise is not ultimately security, it’s freedom. And there are moments in history where freedom is more popular than non-freedom. And I think the massive migrations across the world and the globalizing of the economy has created the seeds for the need for not having every view represented and not being tolerant of everything. And actually stopping things that might otherwise be associated with liberal democracy.
[10:20] What role does dignity play here? I think one of the eternal human demands is meaning and youthfulness. And I think large numbers of people in the West, especially those who are unskilled. Who’ve earned their livings in the past by rather honest labor, but aren’t educated or intelligent or in the new media. I think they’re confronting the fact, and it’s not that they’re inventing this or imagining this. The fact that they’re not really needed anymore for the economy, for the society. And that’s a terrible thing to feel. I think that simultaneously, we see a decline in religion and that also helps people keep it together. You see across the West, but especially in the U.S., a huge crisis in opioid addiction in these very communities that feel that meaning has disappeared.
[13:40] Is democracy equipped to respond to our current political moment? One can certainly hope so. It’s certainly been rather resilient facing other crises, but the last time we had a major, huge global economic crisis, the 30s, it didn’t do too well. And liberal democracy has also been I think held up somewhat by the generations who still remember that and don’t want to return to it. But as generations emerge who don’t remember that at all, liberal democracy will seem like as if, maybe we should do away with this.
That’s why I’m concerned that younger generations seem to have much less support for democracy than older generations. I don’t think they see very clearly, what the alternative actually is, and it tends not to good. I mean, democracies are actually better adapting than authoritarian societies to change. But authoritarian societies can arrest change more successfully. They can seal off a country, they can make it so that, they’re more resilient against it and that changes that are happening also don’t happen there.
[17:54] Can small-scale efforts to reform democracy add up to a greater change? Yes, they do because liberalism is also about the maintenance of rules and norms and institutions that keep a society free and open. And what you saw for example in the decline of the Roman Republic was small, tiny little breaks in tradition. That suddenly created a new baseline for future actions politically. So the minute a consul, for example, overstays his term limit because of some emergency or some question, suddenly the whole idea of term limits is open and the next one will be three year until you get someone with six years as consul. This is laying the grounds for someone permanently in control maybe if that’s the essential question.
[29:40] We’ve identified several problems with the state of liberal democracy around the world. Which one needs to be tackled first? The rule of law. As simple as that, really. And constitutional norms. And you must defend them against these forces that want to undercut, undermine them. The other thing is simply the force of moderation. Liberal democracy emerged as a response to religious warfare, in which groups of people, again, consumed internally with their own cult, their own religion, could not tolerate living with another. And therefore, fought, for hundreds of years, creating incredible change.
It was the moment when western Europe decided, “You know what? We just don’t think it’s worth it. Let’s just live and let live.” That was when liberal democracy began to emerge. If we go back to these warring religions, whether they be political or actually religious, then we’re back to what liberal democracy was supposed to solve. I am not an optimist. Liberal democracy is alien to human nature. It’s existed in a sliver of human history — a few hundred years at most, in only a few countries, with a particular culture. It’s not really what most people find emotionally satisfying.
In about a dozen U.S. states, the only people who can vote in primary elections are those who are registered with a party. Republicans vote in the Republican primary and Democrats vote in the Democratic primary. This leaves out independents, who make up a growing share of the electorate. This week’s guest argues that’s problem for democracy.
Jeremy Gruber is the Senior Vice President at Open Primaries. He is a lawyer, writer, and internationally recognized public policy advocate who has helped enact more than 60 state, federal and international laws and regulations. He joins us to make the case for why all primaries should be open, and how our democracy will be stronger because of it.
But what happens to the parties in an open primary system? We’ve talked on the show before about the role they play as gatekeepers in our democracy and revisit some of that discussion in this episode.
ICYMI, we are holding an event at the National Press Club on October 22. It would be great to meet some of our listeners in the area. More information at democracy.psu.edu/dc.
Finally, thank you to our brand new sponsor, Penn State World Campus. Learn more about Penn State’s online The Master of Professional Studies (MPS) in Psychology of Leadership degree at worldcampus.psu.edu/leadership.
Additional Information Open Primaries website
Interview Highlights [6:10] How do open primaries work? Every state has different election laws, and in most states the primary election, which is the first round of elections that voters have an opportunity to participate in is often times in most cases run by the parties. Even though the tax payers pay for the elections and you, as a voter, experience those elections the same way you do as the general election, the parties are the gate keepers of the primary elections, and they can decide who can and can’t participate.
In a closed primary state, only members of the parties may participate in the primary. In an open primary state, Independents, unaffiliated voters, can participate in the primaries. In some states, like California, Washington, Nebraska, they have a nonpartisan primary system where the parties don’t run the primaries. The state runs the primaries the same way it runs the general election.
[8:35] How many states have open primaries? 38 states have some form of open primary, and that can vary state by state. Most of those states have a traditional open primary, where you as Independent choose a ballot line. Not every primary election in those states are necessarily open, but at least some of the elections are open to unaffiliated or Independent voters. 12 states have a completely closed primary, where only members of the parties may participate in the primary election.
[12:15] How does a state moved from a closed to an open primary? There’s generally three ways that primaries have been opened in various states. The first is through ballot initiative. California, for example, adopted a top two nonpartisan open primary via ballot initiative. Second is is through legislation. Pennsylvania’s legislatures is currently considering an open primary. And finally there’s the parties themselves, because the Supreme Court has ruled in a very important case called that the parties have an absolute right to open their primaries to Independent voters if they choose, without any act of a state legislature or any other body, for that matter.
[13:49] How does an open primary impact voter participation? Open primaries are about enfranchising voters. With 43% of the registered voters being independent, simply allowing them to vote is a critical and perhaps and most important outcome of open primaries is letting every voter vote in every election. Studies have looked at traditional open primary states versus traditional closed primary states have certainly seen an increase in voter participation.
[17:40] What role should the parties have? Parties are going to, to exist, and they do play a role in helping put out the views of their members, and organizing voters and sharing information. There, there’s all kinds of value that, that parties have and they’re important to a functioning democracy. The question is not whether, should there be parties or not? The question is, what is the role of the parties?
When parties play a gatekeeper role, they are changing the relationship between the voters and their democracy. And when parties start to play a gatekeeper role, voters start to lose their power. They start to lose their choice in a democracy, and they start to lose the ability to vote for who they want to in every election. Parties should compete in elections. They should participate in elections, and they should put forth candidates in elections, and all the valuable things that parties do. But parties shouldn’t decide in a functioning democracy, who can and can’t vote.
We bring you special episode of Democracy Works this week that’s all about impeachment. Michael Berkman takes the lead on this episode and talks with Michael Nelson, the Jeffrey L. Hyde and Sharon D. Hyde and Political Science Board of Visitors Early Career Professor in Political Science and affiliate faculty at Penn State Law.
Michael and Michael discuss the constitutional framework for impeachment and what the Framers had in mind when they set it up. They also discuss how impeachment is a unique cooperation between the three branches of government, where the inquiry launched last week against President Trump is likely to go, and what it all means for our democracy.
We recorded this episode on Friday, September 27, 2019. Everything we talk about is accurate as of that recording.
Episode Highlights [1:20] Impeachment in the Constitution
[2:35] “High crimes and misdemeanors”
[6:21] Impeachment in the Federalist Papers
[10:30] Impeachment vs. “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law
[11:25] The role each branch of government plays in impeachment
[12:15] Separation of powers
[15:30] The rules of the Senate, and how those rules change
[19:03] John Roberts and Supreme Court
[21:40] What could an impeachment proceeding look like?
[23:30] Political motivations for launching an impeachment inquiry
[24:53] Why the Ukraine phone call is important to democracy
[28:10] Comparing Trump to Nixon
Immigration is one of the most complex issues of our time in the United States and around the world. Enforcing immigration law in the U.S. involves a mix of courts and executive agencies with lots of opportunities for confusion, miscommunication, and changes in approach from administration to administration. While these things are nothing new, they take on a new dimension when the lives of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers are at stake.
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Founding Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law in University Park, is an expert in immigration law and joins us this week to discuss how discretion, checks and balances, and the rule of law figure into immigration enforcement — particularly in the Trump administration. Her new book, Banned: Immigration Enforcement in the Time of Trump, includes interviews with former immigration officials and people impacted by the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
This episode is a nice compliment to our conversation earlier this year with Jan Egeland, chair of the Norwegian Refugee Council, about the politics of immigration.
Additional Information Shoba’s book Banned: Immigration Enforcement in the Time of Trump
Our interview with Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council
Interview Highlights [6:15] How does the law define immigrants and asylum seekers? Immigrant refers to someone who is seeking admission to the United States permanently. Non immigrant is a label we use to apply to someone seeking admission to the U.S. temporarily. For somebody who is without an immigration status, that person might be labeled as undocumented. However, the status is constantly changing. It’s possible for someone to have entered the United States without papers or cross the border and too many years later be a U.S. citizen.
In terms of where asylum seekers fall into the mix, that’s also a little complicated because you could be in a lawful status and apply for asylum. You could also be undocumented and apply for asylum.
[8:50] How much discretion exists in immigration enforcement? There are a lot of different ways that the law can be enforced. It can be enforced to arrest somebody, interrogate, place somebody in detention, or place somebody in removal or deportation proceedings. So that might be how immigration enforcement happens on an individual level. And then there are these macro decisions that can be made about immigration enforcement. For example, if the enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security, one arm is known as Immigration Customs Enforcement, issues a policy that applies to a whole class of people. So one difference that I’ve seen with this administration is that there is expanded enforcement. Not so much in terms of the resources the government has to enforce the law, but in terms of who is being targeted for immigration enforcement, where, how, and why.
[13:35] What agencies are responsible for enforcing immigration laws? DHS is a large cabinet level agency. It does not house only immigration, but it does house three main immigration functions. One is called Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. They’ve been in the news a lot this past summer, too. They are responsible for enforcement at the border. They also have responsibility for short-term detention. They are the first people that an asylum seeker might interact with if they arrive at the border and they are expressing a fear.
ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is another enforcement arm and it is responsible for investigations, long-term detention of immigrants and families, as well as the actual or physical removal of non-citizens. USCIS, or US Citizenship and Immigration Services, for many years was dubbed as the customer service agency. Until recently, had nation of immigrants in their mission statement. And is responsible for processing applications for asylum, green cards, citizenship. So you can imagine if the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, there’s a lot of room for um, lack of coordination, or discord.
[19:00] Where does the rule of law fit in here? Compassion has always been a- a key component in our immigration system, and discretion is very healthy and necessary because of the limited resources that I just described earlier. I think of compassion and discretion together as the rule of law.I think any discretionary choice made at the macro level, by an administration for example, or a federal agency, or at the micro level towards an individual or a family, should favor the non-citizen. Discretion is a powerful sword, and how it’s used really matters. That’s one reason we’ve seen a breakdown in the rule of law.
[22:54] What’s the argument for moving immigration enforcement out of the Department of Justice? As it stands, the immigration court system is in the justice department. This is a- a bit unusual if we were to compare it to what we think about courts. In that way, immigration courts are not real courts. The federal rules of evidence don’t apply, the judges are not truly independent, they’re not article one judges, they are employees of the Department of Justice. The volume of cases they have to handle are astronomical compared to your federal court judge. In fact, one immigration judge in San Francisco has analogized immigration cases as doing death penalty cases in traffic court.
And there’s a lot of pressure to be compliant with directives from the attorney general. And these directives can sometimes undermine independence too, even though we do have a regulation that favors and supports judicial independence. So there have been many calls over the years, but in particular in the time of Trump, for there to be an immigration court that is independent, that is free of the Department of Justice, where judges can truly act independently.
Today we’re bringing you a bonus episode from Out of Order, a podcast produced by the German Marshal Fund of the United States. Out of Order is a podcast about how our world was, is, and will be ordered.
How do we save democracy, rule of law and global cooperation? Why do some people not want to? Much-maligned experts try to come up with answers here. The Out of Order podcast brings together different international experts from the German Marshall Fund of the United States and beyond to talk about politics, economics, technology and everything else that might help us understand our disordered world.
With election season ramping up and political divisions on display, two veterans of U.S. politics — Margaret Carlson, columnist at The Daily Beast, and Mitch Landrieu, the former mayor of New Orleans and founder of E Pluribus Unum — joined Out of Order for an insightful conversation on the state of U.S. political discourse, how society became so fractured and where some solutions might be found. Above all: Is there a way out of this mess?
You can find Out of Order at gmfus.org or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Larry Diamond joins us this week to talk about the threat China’s model of authoritarian capitalism poses to liberal democracy in the United States and around the world. Economics drives politics, and it’s easy to admire China’s growth while looking past things like increasing surveillance and lack of respect for norms and the rule of law.
We’ve wanted to do an episode on China for a long time, and we are very excited to have Larry Diamond with us to discuss it. China plays an integral role in his new book, Ill Winds and he’s studied the region and its politics for decades.
Larry is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. For more than six years, he directed the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford, where he now leads its Program on Arab Reform and Democracy and its Global Digital Policy Incubator. He is the founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy and also serves as Senior Consultant at the International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy.
Additional Information Larry Diamond’s book, Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency
Interview Highlights [6:15] How does China pose a threat to liberal democracy? China is increasingly trying to become, I think, the dominant power in Asia, the dominant economic, power in the world, the technological leader of the world, and, the geopolitical shaper of the future direction of the world. China is becoming more authoritarian even neo-totalitarian with its social credit system, it’s intense repression of religious and cultural minorities, its tightening repression and concentration of power under Xi Jinping and it’s domineering claims to the South China Sea and other Asian countries buying up ports and, and infrastructure and frankly politicians as well. I think all of these trends have gone from being concerning to being alarming.
[11:24] Why might other countries find China’s model appealing? I think what appeals to people around the world, our public opinion data show, is China’s rapid economic growth, not it’s suppression of religious freedom, freedom of expression, the internet and so on. There’s no way you can sell that to ordinary people as an appealing model, that they want to live under themselves. But the allure is that, somehow, if countries can achieve China’s rapid economic growth and if China can downplay, minimize or mask, which it is certainly trying to do, the intensely authoritarian and in the technological elements I’d say, Orwellian aspects of it’s increasingly authoritarian rule, then that model can be appealing to people around the world because people want to get rich fast, like China did.
[14:10] How is China trying to control the narrative about how it’s perceived? One of the most alarming elements of China’s rising international profile is its accelerating efforts to project sharp power, not the soft power of open and transparent persuasion to it’s culture and it’s model and it’s institutions, but the sharp power of disinformation, deception, coercion, bribery, and penetration of the political and civil institutions of open societies to try and shape the narrative about China. To censor any mention of the dark side of what it’s doing and where journalists and professors are increasingly under rigid monitoring and ideological control. They don’t want people to know about any of this.
[23:12] Are western democracies prepared to deal with these threats from China? I think it’s very hard for Americans to get their arms around this, and there are a lot of people who sincerely have a more benign and sympathetic view of China and think those of us who are ringing these alarm bells now are not new cold warriors. We don’t want a Cold War, we just want a fair, balanced, and transparent set of relations, trade relations, political relations, based some minimal degree of respect for the international rule of law and the human rights and privacy of our own citizens.
[26:20] Will the protests in Hong Kong impact how the west perceives China? I think we’re really reaching a crunch point now on Hong Kong, as the world wakes up to the desperation and passion and commitment of the more than two million people in Hong Kong who’ve come out at one time or another to protest for democracy and against Beijing’s encroachments on the civil liberties and rule of law that, um, have made Hong Kong a distinctive part of the Chinese, firmament. I think the world is waking up to how serious the situation is.
I think the real question now is to what extent ordinary Americans in a variety of institutions that have never found the need to worry that China might be a threat or that China might be seeking to compromise the integrity of our values and institutions. People in local government, state legislatures, universities, the mass media, think tanks, businesses, whether they are going to come to a sufficiently clear-eyed, knowledgeable, and resolute understanding of the rising risks coming from relations with the Chinese Communist Party state, and insist on educating themselves about these risks.
Pennsylvania is one of several states trying to ensure fair congressional maps are drawn after the 2020 Census. As we say in the episode, redistricting is one of democracy’s thorniest problems. It’s easy to say you want a map that’s fair, but far more difficult to determine what that actually looks like.
The Keystone State received a new congressional map in 2018 following a decision from the state Supreme Court. However, that was a temporary fix designed to counter partisan gerrymandering that occurred after the 2010 Census. Since then, several groups have been working to implement a more permanent change for the next map drawing in 2021.
One of those groups is a bipartisan Redistricting Reform Commission chartered by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf. Penn State’s Lee Ann Banaszak, a professor of political science, was part of that commission and joins us this week to talk about how they tackled the question of fairness, and what they learned at public hearings throughout the state earlier this year.
Following in the footsteps of states like Arizona and California, the commission recommended that Pennsylvania create an independent 11-member citizens’ commission to develop maps that would be submitted to the legislature for approval.
The Pennsylvania House State Government Committee will hold a public hearing on the commission’s Sept. 18 at 9 a.m. in the Irvis Office Building in Harrisburg.
One more thing: We are hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, October 22 and we would love to meet our listeners in the Washington area! The featured speaker is Penn State’s Abe Khan, the guest on our very first episode. He will be discussing the “Renaissance of the Activist Athlete.” More information and registration at democracy.psu.edu/dc.
Additional information Redistricting Reform Commission report
Our interview with the Committee of Seventy’s Chris Satullo
Draw the Lines PA
Fair Districts PA
Interview Highlights [7:09] Why is redistricting important to democracy? In our electoral system, we elect people via a process of voters in a district vote for one person in that district. In the course of setting up those districts you determine a lot of how that legislature looks. What you have now in some places are the people who are being elected selecting their voters instead of voters selecting who’s going to represent them. And so the issue is one of representation on the one hand and also of kind of the democratic process of who’s making the decision.
[8:20] What are some of the factors that go into drawing a fair map? The one that people think about most often is equal population, which means that each district is approximately equal size based on the most recent Census. Another important measure is compactness, which means you don’t want to draw districts that have unusual boundaries. One of the most famous examples of this is Pennsylvania’s “Goofy kicking Donald Duck” district that existed prior to the state receiving a new map in 2018. The Voting Rights Act provides representation as another important factor to consider, which connects to communities of interest. Communities that share the same interest and they should as much as possible be represented by the same individual.
[11:15] How did Pennsylvania’s redistricting commission gather public opinion? There was a website where individuals could both answer questions and provide written statements if they wanted to, upload documents. Wee also ran an online survey that people could provide feedback on. And we also reached, tried to reach out extensively to different populations to make sure that we were really hearing all voices.
[12:20] What did you learn from the public hearings? Uniformly, people were concerned about the way the re-districting process affected the way democracy works in Pennsylvania. That is, they were concerned that the current re-districting process created difficulties for voters, created difficulties for candidates and really depressed both turnout but also increased the mistrust of the legislature over the long term. So we heard a lot of those sorts of statements from people who engaged us in the public hearings.
There was a sense that incumbents were determining their re-election and that that was not democratic or a word we heard a lot was “fair.” I think all of that kind of led to an increased mistrust or distrust of the process.
[18:12] Did you hear any differences in the concerns across partisan lines? There were a few differences but what amazed me was the degree to which there was uniformity. Among the ordinary citizens there was general agreement that the process was problematic although they might see different parts of the process as problematic but that the process currently going on is problematic. And secondly, there was uniform support for the idea of an independent Commission somewhere in that process.
There are different parts of the process that people have concerns about so I do think there are Republicans who had concerns about the most recent re-districting by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I think they saw that as problematic. But in terms of creating a normal process by which re-districting could occur, I think there was actually quite a lot of agreement that having an independent Commission somewhere in that process would be good
Last week, we heard from Aaron Maybin about the ways visual art relates to his conception and practice of democracy. This week, we are going to look at the relationship between art and democracy through the lens of music. Music has always been political, but what that looks like changes based on the culture.
Joining us to unpack it is Adam Gustafson, associate teaching professor of music at Penn State Harrisburg. As you’ll hear, Adam is a certified music nerd who thinks deeply about how artists and the music they create influences politics and culture. He’s written about Prince, Ella Fitzgerald, and Aretha Franklin — just to name a few.
In this episode, we talk about everything from disco to bluegrass to EDM and how collaborations between artists and fans coming together at concerts counter some of the narratives we hear about polarization in our lives. We also look at how the ways we consume music has changed — or not — the statements that musicians make through their art.
Additional Information Adam’s articles in The Conversation
You might remember Aaron Maybin from his time on the football field at Penn State or in the NFL. These days, he’s doing something much different. He’s an artist, activist, and educator in his hometown of Baltimore and talked with us about the way that those things intersect.
Celebrities and philanthropists often want to help places like Baltimore, but do so without understanding the needs of the local community. Aaron is in an interesting position because he can talk the talk and walk the walk. To him, organizing is about much more than weighing in on the latest Twitter outrage or showing up at a protest to take a photo for Instagram. The real work begins once the cameras go off and the attention fades away.
Aaron has a really unique— and really inspiring — perspective that might change the way you think about places like Baltimore. A huge thank you to WYPR in Baltimore for letting us use their studio for the interview.
Additional Information Aaron’s website
Art-Activismbook
Interview Highlights [6:25] How did you transition from athlete to activist? From the beginning, my work here in the city of Baltimore wasn’t always a big priority for me. I’m so appreciative of everything that the game has given me in my life, what it’s given my family. But I think that I’m prouder now of the work that I’m doing and the impact that I’m having in people’s lives and on my city in general. I’m proud of then that, that anything that I ever did as an athlete.
[8:41] How does teaching fit into your art and activism? I was doing art workshops and programming at schools all across Baltimore starting in 2009. By 2010, 2011, I realized how naive I was as like a 20-year-old coming into the League thinking that like this contract I’ll get will be enough for me to fix all the problems in my city. It sounds crazy to say, but when you’re that young and ambitious you’re really ignorant enough to believe that you’re gonna be able to do that yourself. So I said, “All right, I’ve got to find a school, one school, that I can plant myself in and actually hammer out this curriculum and see over the course of a year, two years, you know, what we can accomplish with the same group of kids over an extended period of time.”
[14:45] What’s the difference between organizing on social media and the deeper-level work you try to do? If there’s a topic that’s trending, everybody wants to weigh in on it. But at the end of the day, how much do you really think this tweet is getting you? Not much unless you are actually showing up to meetings and getting boots on the ground and staying informed about what’s going on.
[20:33] Do you think that someone needs to be part of a community to affect the greatest change in one? I do think that a person that’s going to create the greatest change is probably going to be a person that comes from there. You know, and that’s not saying that great ideas can’t come from outsiders, bcause sometimes you can get too isolated in your bubble. But I think that too often the people that are in positions to make the decisions that really affect the lives of the people that live in these areas, the constituents that truly need to be represented.
[36:40] What does democracy mean to you? To me democracy is a beautiful idea, but it’s an idea, and with any idea you have to work constantly, constantly to manifest it. And even once some of that work is done and you feel like progress has been made, the beauty of democracy is we have to go back and we have to continuously self evaluate and see if we’re on the right side of history. And I think that um the more that we have a true understanding of what democracy is um the better Americans we’ll all be.
From Pizzagate to Jeffrey Epstein, conspiracies seem to be more prominent than ever in American political discourse. What was once confined to the pages of supermarket tabloids is now all over our media landscape. Unlike the 9/11 truthers or those who questioned the moon landing, these conspiracies are designed solely to delegitimize a political opponent — rather than in service of finding the truth. As you might imagine, this is problematic for democracy.
Democracy scholars Russell Muirhead and Nancy Rosenblum call it “conspiracy without the theory” and unpack the concept in their book A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy. Russell is the Robert Clements Professor of Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth. Nancy is the Senator Joseph Clark Research Professor of Ethics in Politics at Harvard.
As you’ll hear, the new conspiricism is a symptom of a larger epistemic polarization that’s happening throughout the U.S. When people no longer agree on a shared set of facts, conspiracies run wild and knowledge-producing institutions like the government, universities, and the media are trusted less than ever.
This is not one of our optimistic episodes, but it’s one worth listening to.
Additional Information A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy
A look at the science of conspiracy theories from The University of Chicago’s Big Brains podcast
Interview Highlights [5:30] What is the new conspiracism and how does it differ from what we’ve seen in the past? Nancy: In the past we’ve had conspiracy theory. That is an explanation that works the way any explanation works which is in terms of evidence and dots and patterns that often try to make the unbelievable believable and the unconceivable conceivable. What we have now is conspiracy without the theory. That is the two things have become decoupled. And we have claims of a conspiracy that come without the dots, without the patterns, without the evidence, without the argument.
[6:23] When did you begin to see this pattern emerge? Russell: As scholars of parties, we-we kind of take an interest in conspiracism and conspiratorial thinking. Parties were-were thought of as conspiracies before the idea of a legitimate opposite took hold. That’s how parties were-were conceived.
We began to notice that um, that today’s conspiracism involves are assertion, like a one-word accusation like rigged, onstead of an effort to carefully explain the world as it is. It’s more of an effort to impose um, a kind of unreality and idiosyncratic understanding of the world on others, rather than to describe the world as it is.
[10:24] What’s the goal of the new conspiracism? Russell: Often, the goal is certainly not to equip us to really understand our world so that we can navigate our way, you know, control you might say our fate more successfully. Classic conspiracism starts with something in the world that many people have hard time understanding, like the September 11 attacks. If you look at Pizzagate on the other hand, what is that trying to explain? It doesn’t take a world that’s hard to explain and make it more understandable. It takes a world that’s shared, that’s transparent and makes it one that is very disorienting, confusing, and disempowering.
Nancy: The validation of these claims has nothing to do with argument or evidence or dots or patterns. It has to do with the number of followers. And that, I think that explains part of the importance of social media for this kind of conspiracism. It’s obvious that it increases the scope of it and the speed of the spread of these things. But these Tweets and Facebook likes and so on actually allow you to measure that a lot of people are saying this.
[14:46] What is epistemic polarization and how does it relate to conspiracy? Russell: Epistemic polarization bears on whether we think something really happened, or didn’t really happen. It gets at the basic factual question of how many people were there on the Washington mall on that particular day of the inauguration? And once we can’t even agree on the most elemental aspects of our shared reality, it starts to become really hard not just to compromise, it becomes really hard even to disagree intelligibly with each other.
[19:13] Is there an opportunity for things to go in a different direction? Russell: One of things that Nancy and I think is really crucial is that people who really care about politics understand that this, this force the new conspiracism which might seem to help their cause really ends up destroying it. We’re hopeful that if we can reveal how, how universally destructive this is, people will understand that t’s not friendly to any cause, and that partisan officials will be more courageous in standing up to it.
[22:20] What role does the media play in spreading conspiracy? Nancy: I think that what’s important about social media for this kind of conspiracism is, is just the numbers of people who like and retweet and tweet, because it’s what gives, it’s a form of political participation that gives them gratification and it gives validation to these crazy claims.
I will say that there are some studies that show that it’s not just social media, that we shouldn’t put all of our emphasis on it and trying to explain what happens. That Fox News for example has enormous audiences, and enormous audiences of people who aren’t necessarily paranoid and conspiracist or even going along with this stuff. And insofar as this is the news they get, or insofar as this is the discussion or the news that goes on in local, you know channels, where most people still get their news, through these things. It’s, dangerous and unstoppable so long as these privately-owned corporations that find that their profits go up when they do this.
[28:05] Can common sense serve as a counter to the new conspiracism? Russell: If I say, looking back to the dawn of democracy, and Thomas Payne in his essay is that, you know modern democracy was founded on this conviction that the, that they might say, you don’t want to use the word common sense, the epistemic capacities of ordinary citizens are sufficient for, for them to understand the world in a way that equips them to make good decisions. We believe that this basic capacity is, we, we share the faith that is widely distributed across the entire population, and, and that it can prevail. And so we really do want to call on people to use their common sense in responding to things that seem too fabulous to be true. They just very well might be untrue.
We are back with new episodes this week, and we’re starting with an interview that we recorded in New York City earlier this summer. David McCraw is the Deputy General Counsel of the New York Times and author of Truth in Our Times: Inside the Fight for Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts.
The First Amendment and a strong Fourth Estate are essential to a healthy democracy. McCraw spends his days making sure that journalists can do their work in the United States and around the world. This includes responding to libel suits and legal threats, reviewing stories that are likely to be the subject of a lawsuit, helping reporters who run into trouble abroad, filing Freedom of Information Act requests, and much more.
Additional InformationDavid’s book: Truth in Our Times
Interview Highlights[3:30] There was a lot of speculation about the future of the First Amendment after the 2016 election. How are things holding up today?We have a free press if the people want it. It really, in the end, depends on having an engaged citizenry. Donald Trump has talked about changing the libel laws. That doesn’t really worry me a lot. I think it’s a long process, and it’s probably not going to happen. What really is important is whether people, average voters, are going to make use the free press we have.
[5:00] How often does someone threaten a libel suit vs. actually filing one?It’s a really important point, because when we talk about libel, it was originally intended to fix people’s reputations. Somebody says something about you that’s untrue, hurts your reputation, you go to court, you get that fixed. And, that really hasn’t changed much. We get a lot of threats. Not a lot of threats, but we get threats. We get very few lawsuits. But, those threats are really designed to use litigation, the threat of litigation, to get us to say something other than what we think should be said to the American people.
[6:28] How does the New York Times v. Sullivan case impact press freedom?At the end of the day, Times versus Sullivan is really, a fairly simple concept. And that is, a publisher has a right to make a mistake. That if a publisher gets something wrong, and actually, even if that statement hurts somebody’s reputation, that person, if that person’s a public figure or public official, can’t win a libel suit unless the person can prove that the statement was made with actual malice.
[10:40] Where does social media fit into this picture?One of the things that I find very curious about the President is that, in the recent years, when he’s been involved in libel suits, it’s because he’s been sued. And, he’s been sued for things he’s said on Twitter. When he starts criticizing the libel laws, he’s completely lining up on the wrong side of the ball. He should be siding with me, because he needs those defenses.
[13:45] Tell us about the letter you wrote to Donald Trump’s lawyers in October 2016.We published a story in which, two women claimed that they had been inappropriately touched by Donald Trump many years earlier. The story happened right after the controversy over the Access Hollywood tape. Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, had appeared at the debate on a Sunday night and defended his reputation and his conduct towards women. This story followed that. They had posted their demand to us online.
I knew that we were going to post our response online. And so, while I do think I followed exactly what the law says in these situations, and summarized it accurately, it was pointed. And, it was pointed in part because I don’t like to be threatened. It was pointed in part because I think people expect us to stand up.
[17:20] What work do you do with Freedom of Information Act requests?The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law on July 4, 1966 by Lyndon Johnson. And, Michael Schudson at Columbia has a great book about the rise of the right to know, which details this and other parts of the history of that concept, the right to know. But, that was the heart of it, that the public has a right to know what the government’s up to. And, that includes getting documents. What we’ve seen since then is the law being gnawed away until it’s taken much much away from what one would expect to get when filing a FOIA request.
[21:15] Civil servants are often painted with a very altruistic brush. It seems like that might not be the case here.I had this epiphany at the beginning of the Obama administration when I was invited to go to a conference of FOIA officers and speak, therefore, meeting a lot of people I’d written angry letters to. And, it’s a lot easier to write angry letters to anonymous people when you don’t know what they look like. Now, you’re in a room with a bunch of them.
They were conscientious. They didn’t have the resources, and they didn’t have the power to do what needs to be done. What’s interesting is, as I’ve gone around and talked about this with people from other countries is, a country like Mexico actually has an office that overrides agencies, so that it takes it out of the political process, and some independent agency’s deciding. And, other governments, other countries have that same sort of setup.
[27:33] What should people to do protect the First Amendment moving forward?At the end of the day, what I’m really interested in is, seeing an American public that listens to things they disagree with, read things they disagree with, and make discerning judgment. That’s a long ways away from where we are now. It’s hard because there’s so much information out there. But, to me, that’s the only real check is that, people are going to make wise decisions about policies because they’ve made wise decisions about the information they’ve chosen.
Somebody wrote to me, and the email started out with the ominous words, “Why did you write this book?” And, I assume that’s an email that’s going someplace whereas, a sensitive author with thin skin, I don’t want to know. But, it wasn’t. She was right. She’s, “Why did you write this book? Because you should be writing for young adults.” And, that’s really an important point. We need to start much earlier in helping children understand how to read and how to discern, and how to evaluate sources.
Tthe analogy I use is that, the Internet is to information what the Las Vegas buffet is to eating. You walk in, and there’s just incredible choices. Some of them are really bad for you, but they sure taste good for awhile. And, we just need to have people who say, “I’m not going to hang around the dessert table of cable news, and make my entire diet that.”
For the last of our summer rebroadcasts, we are revisiting the conversation with Penn State’s Michael Mann, a world-renowned climate scientist. We’ve just finished the warmest month in global recorded history, so it felt like a good time to share this episode.
We talk with Mann, a Nobel Prize winner and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State, about his journey through the climate wars over the past two decades and the role that experts have to play in moving out of the lab and into the spotlight to defend the scientific process.
Doing so is more important now than ever, he says, as corporation-funded think tanks continue to churn out information that deliberately sows skepticism among the public about our role in climate change. But it does beg the question: How do you reconcile the fact that, in a democracy, everyone’s vote is equal but everyone’s opinion is not?
Mann was part of the team that created the now-infamous hockey stick graph that showed how quickly the rate of warming on the planet had accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century. In the 20 years since graph was published, he’s had his email hacked, been called to testify before Congress, and been hounded by Internet trolls long before social media existed.
He chronicled those experiences in his 2012 book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Despite it all, he’s more passionate than ever about spreading the good word about science and cautiously optimistic that things might turn out ok after all.
Additional Information Michael Mann on Twitter
Michael’s books:
The Madhouse Effect
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
Since we started this show, we’ve had the opportunity to speak with several organizers, from Joyce Ladner in the Civil Rights movement to Srdja Popovic in Serbia to the students involved with the March for Our Lives. Today, we think of protests as a pillar of democratic dissent, but things didn’t necessarily start out that […]
This week, we are revisiting another episode from the Democracy Works back catalog. This discussion is a nice companion to our episode with Timothy Shaffer on civility.
Laurie Mulvey This episode seeks to answer one simple, but very important, question: Why is it so hard for people to talk to each other? There are a lot of easy answers we can point to, like social media and political polarization, but there’s another explanation that goes a bit deeper.
Laurie Mulvey, executive director of World in Conversation, is the perfect person to help us explore this question. World in Conversation has facilitated more than 10,000 dialogues over the past 15 years. They bring people from all walks of life together to have dialogues about important issues from climate change to race relations. In the process, they break down the misconceptions and preconceived notions that often get in the way of one person understanding — and relating to— someone else.
Of course, most dialogues do not happen in a controlled environment with a facilitator in the room. Laurie shares some advice for how to handle your next family dinner or other situation where things might get a little heated. She also shares how the World in Conversation is preparing the next generation of democratic citizens to overcome the partisan divides that bog down political discourse.
As we say in the episode, Laurie raises the optimism quotient of this podcast quite a bit.
Democracy Works summer break 2019 continues with an episode from Politics and Polls, a podcast produced by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. The show’s hosts are Sam Wang and Julian Zelizer. If you enjoyed our conversation with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro about states suing the federal government, you’ll want to check out this episode that dives deeper into the concept of federalism.
In recent history, federalism has been favored by the Republican party, while Democrats have aimed to nationalize certain policies. But given Republicans’ current control of the federal government, progressive Democrats may need to aim to achieve their policy goals at the state level.
Daniel Hemel joins this episode to discuss what he calls “blue state federalism” and how states themselves can be “laboratories of democracy.” Hemel, a law scholar, explains how states can set precedents for the federal government with regard to social issues. For example, Massachusetts did this by legalizing gay marriage and through adopting Romney-care, a precedent to the Affordable Care Act.
Hemel is assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. His research focuses on taxation, nonprofit organizations, administrative law and federal courts.
Additional Information Politics and Polls podcast
Our conversation with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Politics and Polls: Blue state federalism appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Our summer break continues this week with an episode of The Pledge, a podcast about people who are taking an active role in improving democracy in the U.S. The show’s first season features a group of women working in grassroots political organizing in Alabama.
This episode tells the story of Oni Williams. As a resident of one of Birmingham’s poorest neighborhoods, Oni regularly visits barbershops and strip clubs to speak with members of the community, inform them of their rights, and encourage them to speak out. She is a stellar example of what democracy in action looks like.
Since this episode was recorded, Oni announced that she’s running for Birmingham City Council in a special election to be held October 8.
Listen to the rest of The Pledge at thepledgepodcast.com.
For more on the impact of grassroots organizing on democracy, listen to our conversation with the University of Pittsburgh’s Lara Putnam on how middle America is rebooting democracy.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post The Pledge: Are you scared of the cafeteria lady? appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Our summer break continues this week with a rebroadcast of one of our very first episodes, a conversation with How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt. He spoke at Penn State in March 2018. Both the book and the conversation are worth revisiting, or checking out for the first time if the episode is new to you.
Ziblatt has done a lot of interviews since the release of How Democracies Die, the bestselling book he co-wrote with Steven Levitsky. But we asked him a question he’d never gotten before — about a line toward the end of the book when he refers to democracy as “grinding work.”
The idea that democracy isn’t easy is a central theme of this podcast. As How Democracies Die illustrates, it’s much easier to succumb to the power of an autocratic leader than it is to stand up and protect the institutions that serve as the guardrails of democracy. Ziblatt, a professor of government at Harvard, talks about how the book came about and the impact it’s had since it was released.
Democracy Works is taking a few weeks off for the summer. While we do, we are going to share some older episodes you might have missed, along with a few from other podcasts we think you’ll enjoy. First up is our democracy summer reading list, which we recorded last summer but holds up well today. Since we recored this, we’ve been lucky to have a few of the authors on the show — David Frum, Salena Zito, and E.J. Dionne.
Here’s the rundown of the books we discuss:
- How Democracies Die (Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt)
- The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It (Yascha Mounk)
- The Retreat of Western Liberalism (Edward Luce)
- Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency (Joshua Green)
- The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics (Salena Zito and Bradd Todd)
- Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic (David Frum)
- One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported (E.J. Dionne Jr., Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann)
- Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump (Michael Isikoff and David Corn)
- The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels (Jon Meacham)
- The Monarchy of Fear: A Philosopher Looks at Our Political Crisis (Martha C. Nussbaum)
And here are a few others we’ve read since last summer that are also worthy of your time:
- Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy (William Galston)
- Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life (Eric Klinenberg)
- Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President (Kathleen Hall Jamieson)
Finally, if you enjoy Democracy Works, consider checking out The Politics Guys. This podcast is hosted by a bi-partisan groups of academics and other experts who provide a weekly rundown of the biggest news and events in American politics and interview experts from a variety of fields. Check it out at politicsguys.com.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post A democracy summer reading list [rebroadcast] appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Is the United States really a democracy? What will the EU look like in 50 years? What should 2020 candidates be doing to demonstrate civility? Those are just a few of the questions we received from Democracy Works listeners around the country and around the world. We close our third season by answering some of your questions about democracy and the topics we’ve covered on the show.
We’ll be on summer break for the next few weeks. New episodes resume August 12. In the meantime, we’ll be rebroadcasting some of our older episodes you might have missed and sharing episodes from other podcasts we think you’ll enjoy.
Additional Information The Market as Prison article by Charles Lindblum – for more on the relationship between democracy and plutocracy
Books we recommend reading this summer:
- Uncivil Agreement by Lilliana Mason
- The Last Palace by Norman Eisen
- In the Ruins of Neoliberalism by Wendy Brown
- Truth in Our Times by David McCraw
Episodes mentioned:
- Jonathan Haidt on the psychology of democracy
- Using the tools of democracy to address inequality
- Immigration, refugees, and the politics of displacement
- A playbook for organizing in turbulent times
- Breaking the silence in Syria
- The ongoing struggle for civil rights
- School segregation then and now
We tend to think about congressional oversight in very academic terms — checks and balances, the Framers, etc. But what does it actually look like on the ground in Congress? To find out, we’re talking this week with Charlie Dent, who served Congress for more than a decade until his retirement in 2018. He argues that amid all the talk about subpoenas, impeachment, and what Congress is not able to do, we’re losing sight of the things they can do to hold the executive branch accountable.
Dent is a lifelong Republican, but one that does not fit in with the direction the party’s taken under Donald Trump. We talk with him about why so few Republicans are willing to speak out against the Preisdent, and what the party’s post-Trump future might look like. He also talks about the difference between separation of parties and separation of powers — and where he thinks we are right now.
Dent was the chair of the House Ethics Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations committees. These days, he is a CNN political analyst and senior policy adviser at DLA Piper. He was a recipient of the 2019 Penn State Distinguished Alumni Award, which is the university’s highest honor presented to alumni.
Additional Information Charlie Dent on Twitter
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Is there still room for moderates in politics? If so, where can they have the most impact? * What do you make of Charlie’s argument that the U.S. now operates like a Parliamentary system? * What do you think the Republican Party will look like post-Donald Trump?
Interview Highlights [6:00] Can you describe the district you represented and your decision to leave office? I represented a district in eastern Pennsylvania largely the Lehigh Valley for my first four terms and for my, my last three terms, the district included parts of south central Pennsylvania. It was what we’d call a swing or marginal district, had a pretty good mix of urban, suburban, rural communities. It was, in many respects, a bellwether for the country in terms of how it performed from an election standpoint. dI anticipated early on that House Republicans would be in the minority in the new session of Congress that they’re in now. The current administration was also a factor. Just dealing with the never ending drama and chaos.
[9:44] Now that you’ve had some time away, are there things you wish you would have done differently to speak out against things like increasing polarization? I think about that quite a bit. There’s only so much you can do as one person to change the direction that the herd is moving in. Increasingly, Republicans in Congress are hesitant to speak out against President Trump because they’re concerned about a primary challenger, which has created a political paralysis. In my view, we have two political parties now — a pro-Trump party and an anti-Trump party. It’s no longer about ideology or specific policies, which is always what the Republican Party has been known for. It’s now about loyalty to a man. You have to figure out how to manage that and work within it.
[15:38] Have Republicans who oppose President Trump resigned themselves to holding their breath until the next election? Yeah I think that’s true. Although if you’re a member of Congress in a swing district you simply can’t be labeled as a generic Republican or a generic Democrat. You have to develop your own brand. That was always my advice to my colleagues. You don’t survive that way in those types of districts. The fact that these elected officials can’t always be seen as rubber stamps for the President is something we should be talking more about.
[17:06] What does congressional oversight look like in practice? In some respects, oversight is a serious responsibility of Congress, and it’s done on a daily basis. When I was on the Homeland Security committee, we spent a lot of our time really looking at what the department was doing. At that time, it was a relatively new department and there were growing pains so we exercised a lot of oversight. A lot of it wasn’t particularly glamorous or sexy, but it was necessary. Now I find that oversight seems be more about getting your name on television as opposed to the hard, mundane work of analyzing what these departments are doing and how they’re spending money.
[21:05] How do you explain the shift toward prioritizing partisanship over the institution? I believe, in many respects, we no longer have a system of separation of powers, but a system of separation of parties. Whichever party controls the presidency, it seems like their obligation is to protect the president above defending institutional interests. It flies in the face of what Madison intended and it’s been a big problem. They’re behaving, in many respects, as if they’re operating in a parliamentary system rather than this system of separation of powers and checks and balances that we have.
[24:06] Where do we go from here? I would always tell my constituents, “You elected me to be a member of Congress, not to be in the executive branch.” Until voters insist on change, things won’t change. I talk a lot about the pragmatism that’s necessary to get things done. You can be ideologically or philosophically conservative or liberal and and that’s fine, but at the same time, I worry about the capacity to be pragmatic. We need people who can set aside the things they disagree on, find common ground, and move forward.
Jay Yonamine
Some political scientists and democracy scholars think that it might. The thinking goes something like this: inequality will rise as jobs continue to be automated, which will cause distrust in the government and create fertile ground for authoritarianism.
Jay Yonamine is uniquely qualified to weigh in on this issue. He is a data scientist at Google and has a Ph.D. in political science. He has an interesting perspective on the relationship between automation and democracy, and the role that algorithms and platforms play in the spread of misinformation online.
In some ways, this conversation makes the counterargument to our conversation with Penn State’s Matt Jordan about the relationship between social media and democracy. The conversation with Matt is worth revisiting for two perspectives on some of the most complicated questions facing democracy today.
Additional Information Episode with Matt Jordan: Facebook is not a democracy
Profile on Jay from Sync Magazine
The Fourth Age by Byron Reese – a look at the relationship between technology, humanity, and democratic values
Yuval Noah Harari on the relationship between technology and tyranny in The Atlantic
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you see as the relationship between AI and democracy? * Should Google and other platforms regulate the contact that users see? * Do you feel that you have control over the content you see on Google and other sites? * Are you concerned about AI’s impacts on democracy?
Interview Highlights [3:40] How do you define AI? AI is has to be something that’s not just a human brain relying on itself. Most of the time, when folks think about AI, what they mean is computers, which is to say a computer is doing the thinking or doing the analysis as apposed to a human brain. How I think of intelligence is the ability to make nontrivial, falsifiable, accurate predictions. I think most folks would agree that the act of a robot by itself is not necessarily artificial intelligence, but the AI aspect of a robot would actually still be the, sort of computer engine that interprets the world and makes predictions
[6:25] What is the relationship between AI and democracy? A few things have happened simultaneously that might not be as causal as maybe we might believe. There’s definitely been an increase in populist-based politicians in the United States and abroad and a move towards more heavy handed political ideologies. And then of course there’s also been a fairly rapid growth in the prevalence of AI and machine learning in our day-to-day. It’s not clear that those two are connected, but you can see the reasons why people draw their connections. And I think primarily they revolve around news, and around platforms, and around the increase ease of sharing information, and around the increase ease of sharing disinformation.
[8:26] Does one influence the other? What’s interesting to me as a political scientist and someone who has studied the history of political institutions and political dynamics is for almost all of history, increased access to information and increased access to create and assimilate information has almost always driven an increase in what you might call liberal democratic values. Free speech, democracy, things that have generally been held up as good. And it’s almost always been some autocratic force that has fought against the spread of information that’s going back to the printing press.
What’s interesting now is we’re seeing for the first time, the possibility of that actually shifting. We’re now starting to see that the ease of access to information and the ease of creating and assimilating information might actually now be contributing to the spread of more antidemocratic values.
[10:03] Is AI’s impact on democracy being discussed at tech companies? The degree of regulation is definitely a hot issue. It’s an immensely complicated issue and one with no easy answers. There’s folks who are arguing for increased regulation ti decrease the spread of misinformation, create a better informed populous, aversion to some of the antidemocratic stuff that we’ve been seeing.
But the counter to that is that you don’t want some centralized control over what can be shared and by whom. And so there’s definitely merits to that argument as well. And it’s an immensely complicated challenge. If you’ve got a team of experts in the room and, and gave them, a handful of pieces of content, I suspect they would have a hard time even reaching consensus. And then when you imagine that scale that a lot of companies operate at it’s, it’s tens of thousands of hundreds of thousands of millions of pieces of content a day, a week, a month.
[13:24] How are companies balancing these big issues with their day-to-day work? What a lot of companies are trying to do is, hire or create teams and departments and groups whose full time job is just to think about these types of ethical issues. And then create scenarios where those voices have sufficient authority or discretion to actually impact product roadmaps. Companies are big, complex organisms and it’s hard to introduce that type of, of thinking in a really productive way. It’s not like there’s a blueprint where you can say, “Oh, well this is how company A did this in ’98” and now there’s someone who wrote a book on the best practices for introducing ethics and normative guidelines into an AI-based product.
[18:31] How should candidates be talking about these issues in 2020? It’s very easy to be optimistic about the societal benefit of technological adaption here’s the self driving story where it’s feasible to imagine a world where 50 years from now there’s one one hundredth of the car fatalities that there are today. So that I think is a pretty easy, legitimate story to tell about the benefits of innovation. The counterargument is that when someone comes up with some new device, it displaces a meaningful number of jobs and what do you do with those people? To go back to self-driving cars, we could see a very quick reduction in the number of truck drivers that are needed in the coming years, which is a major industry in a lot of places.
The optimist would say that new jobs will be created to do things like work on the self-driving cars and trucks and do additional road maintenance because the quality of the roads will become increasingly important, but it remains to be seen whether that will actually happen and those jobs will actually be created.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Will AI destroy democracy? appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Lindsay Lloyd. Photo by Grant Miller
If Alexis de Tocqueville visited America today, what would he have to say about the condition of our democracy?
We hear a lot in the news and on Twitter about how support for democracy is waning. We’re perhaps even a little guilty of it on this show. But, what do everyday Americans think? Some of the biggest names in politics from across the ideological spectrum teamed up to find out. The Democracy Project, an initiative of the George W. Bush Center, Penn Biden Center, and Freedom House, found that people support the ideal of democracy, but worry that the United States is not living up to that ideal in practice due to factors like economic inequality and the decline of civics education.
Lindsay Lloyd, director Bush Center’s Human Freedom Initiative and part of The Democracy Project, joins us this week to discuss the report and what its findings mean for citizens across the United States. We’ve collaborated with the Bush Center on several projects in the past few months and highly recommend checking out their podcast, The Strategerist.
Additional Information The Democracy Project report
Our episodes on economic inequality and civics education
The Strategerist podcast from the Bush Center
Discussion/Reflection Questions * How does your perception of democracy align with The Democracy Project’s findings? * What do you make of the report’s recommendations for action? * Do you agree with Lindsay that there is strong support for democracy-based initiatives in Congress? * What role should the U.S. play in promoting democracy in other countries? * Have your feelings about democracy changed since 2016? Or 2018?
Interview Highlights [5:19] What is the Democracy Project and how does it relate to the Bush Center’s mission? The Bush Center opened in 2009 and one of the areas we work in is democracy and human rights. Historically, it’s been focused outside the United States. A few years ago, we noticed that something was happening in American democracy regarding partisanship and wanted to see what we could do about it. We partnered with the Penn Biden Center and Freedom House and launched a public opinion project related to American democracy. We did focus groups with constituent groups around the country, as well as a national public opinion poll.
[7:10] How are people feeling about the state of democracy in the U.S.? There was a flurry of articles in early 2017 suggesting that people living in democratic societies were looking for alternatives, particularly among young people. We did not find that in our survey. The people we talked to overwhelmingly felt it was important to them to live in a democracy. On the flip side, our respondents felt that America’s democracy was weak and getting weaker and isn’t delivering in the way it traditionally had.
[9:04] What role do you see the Bush Center playing in addressing the issues identified in the research? The second half of the survey covered perceptions of democracy outside the U.S. We’re starting a bipartisan working group to look at support for democracy and human rights overseas. It’s taken a hit under the Trump administration and we believe it’s important that the U.S. speak out when human rights abuses are happening and continue to support democracy around the world. Our adversaries are advocating for authoritarianism and democracies need to advocate for their point of view. We found that respondents agreed and found that having a more democratic world makes America safer and makes the world safer.
[11:35] Who do you see as your allies in this work? There’s still strong support across party lines in Congress for democracy-related initiatives. The Trump administration proposed cutting the budget for groups like the National Endowment for Democracy and Congress has put it back in and, in some cases, increased funding. Newer democracies are also very interested in this work, countries that were formerly under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
[16:25] President Trump is not mentioned anywhere in the report. Did he come up at all in the focus groups? We intentionally did not ask about approval of the President because it’s not a political poll. He did come up in the focus groups, including one group of people who supported the President in 2016 and another group who supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. His name came up early and often, but nothing particularly surprising. The President has some strong supporters and some strong detractors. But, it’s also important to remember that democracy is about more than what happens in the White House. Democracy needs to deliver at the local level, or else confidence in the system suffers.
[19:58] Did you see any evidence of polarization in your work? Is it still possible to find middle ground? One of the complications is that people think that getting rid of partisanship means everyone needs to agree with them. It’s of grave concern, but we did still hear from people who were in the middle. It’s much less of a concern at the local level, where local officials are often nonpartisan. There’s frustration across the board that Washington can’t solve problems. Ideas are examined based on who’s proposing them, rather than on their merits. In the end, most people don’t care who’s behind a proposal, they just want to see it get done. Both of the parties have seen a hollowing out — the days of Rockefeller Republicans and blue democrats are largely gone. One way people change that is by voting in primaries for candidates who support compromise and trying to find middle ground on issues.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post The 2019 version of Democracy in America appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Neoliberalism is one of those fuzzy words that can mean something different to everyone. Wendy Brown is one of the world’s leading scholars on neoliberalism and argue that a generation of neoliberal worldview among political, business, and intellectual leaders led to the populism we’re seeing throughout the world today. But is it mutually exclusive to democracy? Not necessarily.
Brown joins us this week to help make sense of what neoliberalism is, and where things stand today. We were lucky enough to get an advance copy of her book, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism,which will be released in July. It’s a follow up to her 2015 book, Undoing the Demos, and you’ll hear her talk about how her thinking has changed since then.
Brown is the Class of 1936 First Chair at the University of California, Berkeley, where she teaches political theory. You might also recognize her from Astra Taylor’s documentary, What Is Democracy?If you enjoy this episode, we recommend checking out the Political Theory Review podcast, produced by Jeffrey Church at the University of Houston.
Additional InformationWendy’s books: In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, Undoing the Demos
Wendy’s website
Our episode with David Frum
The Political Theory Review podcast
Discussion/Reflection Questions* What do you see as the relationship between neoliberalism and democracy? * Do you think it’s possible for two to coexist? * What do you see as the future of neoliberalism? Will Millennials and Generation Z move in a different direction?
Interview Highlights[5:45] How do you define neoliberalism and how is it related to democracy?North Americans are a little bewildered by the term, and we don’t have it as part of our everyday lexicon although I think it’s finally beginning to seep in. But having said that, I also want to suggest that we understand it at a social and political level and not just an economic level. We recognize it as the undoing of the Keynesian welfare state and the substitution of free market policies, low taxes, everyone’s responsible for themselves and getting rid of all the social supports except for a bare minimum safety net, but I want to add that it’s also a whole from of governing reason.
[7:45] How does neoliberalism relate to authoritarianism?One of the things I felt compelled to understand with our hard right turn in the West over the last several years with Trump and Bolsonaro and Brexit and so forth was the connection of that to neoliberalism. One thing you can say is rising inequality and open borders produces rage about being at the bottom end of that inequality and also about immigrants, but there was something else on the horizon that I had never noticed, which is that the neoliberal scheme was not just to substitute markets for social policy.
It was also to substitute traditional moral values for understandings of social justice and institutions of social justice. And so part of what we’re experiencing now is what I call the kind of scorpion tail of neoliberalism — the lashing out against the inequality and the continued insistence that traditional morality, moral values, and traditions more generally from white supremacy to patriarchal families, religion in the public sphere, that those are more appropriate governors of human conduct than any state-mandated practices of equality or inclusion.
[11:04] How did neoliberal ideas make their way from academics to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?First, there was a very serious economic crisis often called a crisis of profitability in the 70s that was also often seen as a crisis of the welfare state. Too much taxation, unions that were too strong, corporations that were too large and lazy, and a real problem of stagflation. It was a moment where you could strike with a new set of ideas. At the same time, neoliberalism had already been experimented with extensively in Latin America. The IMF was already solidly neoliberal, so bringing it up to the north wasn’t so difficult once Reagan and Thatcher were in power.
[14:37] What will Millennials and Gen Z make of neoliberalism?Millennials and Generation Z are living in a kind of schizophrenic subjectivity that comes from the rejection of capitalism and the sluggish, dinosaur-like pace of parliamentary or constitutional democracy that is now so deeply corrupted by neoliberal money and corporate power. One of the things I see coming from these generations is the rejection of those two things as the necessary coordinates of the political and economic future, and I think all the hope rests there.
[17:46] Is there a way for neoliberalism and democracy to coexist?Why I’m impatient with a neoliberal conception of democracy as a way to redress either the gross inequality or the serious existential dangers that we face now is that it’s basically saying, “Go join something, go feel like you’re part of something,” but let the major powers that shape our lives run through markets that presumably run through no hands at all. We rather desperately need to get our hands on those powers.
[20:37] Is it possible to move past the neoliberal worldview given that it’s been dominant over the past generation?Yes. The Keynesian system lasted for fifty years. No one thought it could be taken apart and everyone thought it was here to stay. The question for the neoliberals was always to try to figure out how to keep it from getting worse and how to prevent this straight on drive toward complete socialism, and keep some markets in the picture. So, one generation is not a lot of time. The second thing I want to say is that we are obviously in a very serious political crisis where there’s an impatience with the current system and a belief that it’s not serving people or the planet. not just the left and right edges, but left and right mainstreams now um, the impatience with the- with the current system, and the belief that it’s not serving people, or the planet, is very strong.
Patricia Roberts-Miller
When you think of the word “demagogue,” what comes to mind? Probably someone like Hitler or another bombastic leader, right? Patricia Roberts-Miller is a rhetoric scholar and has spent years tracing the term and its uses. She joins us this week to explain a new way of thinking about demagoguery and how that view relates to democracy. She also explains what she’s learned from what she describes as years of “crawling around the Internet with extremists.”
Patricia is a Professor of Rhetoric and Writing and Director of the University Writing Center at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the author of two new books on demagoguery. Demagoguery and Democracy is a short book in the style of On Tyranny that covers the basics of her argument in about 100 small ages. Rhetoric and Demagoguery is a longer, more academic book for those looking for more on the rhetorical roots of demagoguery and its relationship to democratic deliberation.
Additional Information Patricia’s books: Demagoguery and Democracy, Rhetoric and Demagoguery
Patricia’s website
Episode on civility with Timothy Shaffer of Kansas State University
Discussion/Reflection Questions * After listening to Patricia, do you feel better equipped to notice demagoguery in media you consume, or even in your own language and writing? * What do you see as the relationship between demagoguery and democracy? * Do you see parallels between the increase of demagoguery and the decline of civility we discussed with Timothy Shaffer? * Can you think of a time when you’ve tried to appreciate the other side’s point of view in a conversation or something you read? Did doing so change your perspective?
Interview Highlights [5:18] How do you define demagoguery and why is it bad for democracy? It’s useful to think about it as reducing all political issues or even all issues to questions of identity. And specifically in-group versus out-group. And it’s oriented toward providing a lot of certainty and reducing nuance. When you have a culture that is reasoning about everything in that way, you can’t actually explore multiple solutions. What I have to say about demagoguery in politics is pretty similar to what people will say about how a business should come up with a good business plan or how people should make decisions about health. It’s just better decision making.
[7:04] How does the media landscape influence the culture of demagoguery you describe? We’re in an economy of attention and what matters most is w- whether you are doing things that get viewers and get likes, and get clicks and shares, and all that. It’s extremely difficult to do a good argument on Twitter, one that takes into consideration the nuance of a situation, what other people have said, represents the opposition fairly.
[10:44] Why is demagoguery so often associated with political leaders? Because demagoguery is about reducing politics to identity. And so if you’re thinking about politics in terms of identity you’re going to be looking for a person on whom you can blame bad politics. And it better not be you. Right? So I think that’s one reason that we really like that notion the demagogue who is the source of all of our problems. And often when you have a culture of demagoguery, at some point somebody will come up.
[13:14] What are some strategies people can use to identify demagoguery? We assume that demagoguery is going to be vehement, and we assume it’s going to be aggressive. And so we have a tendency to make that judgment on the basis of affect. The affect of the person speaking, but also our own. Do we feel threatened? And if we don’t feel threatened then we’re not likely to think of it as demagoguery. So I think, but what that means is that you don’t recognize the demagoguery on behalf of your in-group. People have to perspective shift and imagine how would we feel about this if we were in the other group? Would we feel threatened by it under those circumstances? How would we feel if exactly that same argument was made about our group? Um, how would we make, how would we feel about that kind of argument? Would we assess it as a rational argument if it was made on the part of the opposition?
[16:16] Is there ever a time when it’s not worth trying to understand the other person or side’s point of view? One of the things you always have to figure out about anyone you’re interacting with is whether they are open to change and persuasion. One of the problems with conspiracy theories is by definition they’re not. They have a way of discounting any kind evidence that doesn’t conform to their beliefs. Often, the people don’t believe in climate change have an almost 19th century notion about a scientist is, and what science is. So if a mechanical engineer tells them that climate change is a hoax they’re like, “There’s a scientist who doesn’t believe in it.” Without understanding that a mechanical engineer is not actually an expert on either of those areas.Sometimes I get really interesting insights into people’s beliefs from doing that. And sometimes it’s sort of like kicking over a rock and just going, “Ew.”
[21:50 ] Do you think we’ll be able to move beyond the “us vs. them” rhetoric to a more deliberative model? I’m really worried, but I’m hopeful that at least Facebook is starting to take this really seriously, and try to think through some better strategies that they have. What we actually need to emphasize is understanding other points of view. Instead of just relying on the facts I’ve been given by my in-group, to see what the facts are on other sides. And to see, especially why they reject the facts.
Laura Rosenberger
By now, you’ve no doubt head all about the report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the drama in Washington that’s ensued in the time since its release. But, if you only focus on the information about collusion and obstruction in the Trump administration, you are missing a whole other part of the story about Russian interference in democracy leading up to the 2016 election. Laura Rosenberger and her colleagues at the bipartisan Alliance for Securing Democracy have been working to raise awareness about this threat since the 2016 election.
Laura joins us this week to discuss what she learned from the report, and where the efforts to combat Russian interference stand. She is our first repeat guest on the podcast. We last spoke with her in the fall of 2018, just before the midterm elections, during a live event at the National Press Club.
Additional Information Alliance for Securing Democracy
Our conversation with Laura in fall 2018
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Whose should be taking the lead on combating Russian interference in our democracy? * What role does the government have to play? Social media platforms? Everyday citizens? * Do you think that Russian interference will influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?
Interview Highlights [5:15] What did you learn from the Mueller report? I think it is one of the most important things to remember is that Special Counsel Mueller was appointed to investigate a number of different things. One of them was Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. We learned through the course of his investigation, including through some indictments that he brought against Russian officials and entities, some of what he was finding, but the report definitely added to that. In many ways, I would say his report and the investigation that he led really built on what we found and saw from the findings of the intelligence community and its own assessment of the Russian interference operations, as well as investigations by a number of bipartisan committees in Congress.
[9:58] Are you seeing any evidence that calls to respond to Russian interference are being heeded? I think we have seen some incremental steps. I think that maybe we are in a slightly better position than we were in 2016, but I think that we have a whole lot of progress that we still need to make if we’re actually going to better protect our democracy against the threats that we face. I think the social media companies need to do a whole lot more to take this issue on in a very systemic way, really going after the root of the problem. I worry right now that some of the approach is too focused on eliminating what they’ve dubbed harmful content.
[11:35] Who do you see as your allies in these efforts? I think there’s a lot of really great folks out there trying to work on different components of this problem. One of them, there’s a really robust community of researchers that have been taking on this problem and trying to better understand it and provide information. I think transparency and exposing these kinds of operations is one of the really important things that we can do to help combat them.
[14:20] Did we see any changes in election security between 2016 and the 2018 midterms? We definitely have seen some steps being taken around the midterm elections, including better information sharing between the federal government and state and local officials, getting more information to those officials to be able to ensure that they understand the threat picture, getting a little bit more funding to them, although the funding that was given to them was really for addressing existing vulnerabilities even before the Russian attempts were made.
One of the things, though, that’s really concerning to me is in the wake of the Mueller Report, one of the things that he had in there that was new was talking about a county in Florida that had it’s networks penetrated by Russian cyber hackers. In the wake of that, there’s been a big dispute between the federal government and the state of Florida about whether that was true, whether there was evidence of that, claims that the FBI hadn’t shared what they needed.
[19:29] What changes do you think we’re most likely to see between now and the 2020 election? Since 2014 we’ve basically seen an ongoing effort by the Russians that has had different chapters at different times. Sometimes targeting different elections and different election cycles, sometimes targeting different issues that are highly divisive in the media. It’s important to understand that these operations are ongoing and they evolve at different points in time. Some of the things that I’m worried about that we might see in terms of evolution targeting the 2020 elections, first is we’ve seen the Internet Research Agency getting even better at insinuating itself to different activist groups. We are a very fertile target surface for our adversaries to take aim at. I think that we’ve got to really turn that table around to ensure that we’re better protected.
[24:01] What would you recommend our listeners do if they are concerned about Russian interference in our democracy? Voting is something everything can do and it’s also really important for people, as on any other issue, for peoples elected officials to hear from them if this is an issue that they’re concerned about. Dozens of bipartisan pieces of legislation were introduced in the last Congress to address these tactics by the Russians, and we have seen none of them become law. It’s also really important for people to engage in critical thinking on any piece of information. That includes online, and that includes elsewhere. It’s really easy in the political campaign context, when people are very emotional and you’re really trying to make a point, it’s very easy to hook onto something that we agree with, that we think is a really solid thing, even if we don’t know who’s saying it or what their interest or motivations may be, or where the information came from.
It’s been 65 years since the Brown v. Board of Education changed public schooling throughout a large portion of the United States. In his opinion, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that public education was important to democratic society and the “very foundation of good citizenship.” Integrated schools, the Court argued, would expose children to new cultures and prepare them for an increasingly diverse world.
How do you balance the public good against the inherent desire every parent has to do what’s best for their children? It’s a question that schools across the country are still wrestling with today.
To help us understand the history of integration and the Brown decision’s impacts on public policy, we’re talking this week with two experts at Penn State. Crystal Sanders is an associate professor of history and African American studies and director of the Africana Research Center. She’s an expert on 20th century African American history. Erica Frankenberg is a professor of education and demography and director of the Center for Education and Civil Rights. She is an an expert on the connection between school segregation and public policy.
Crystal and Erica co-chaired a conference at Penn State on the 65th anniversary of the Brown decision.
Additional InformationBrown@65 Conference
Brown v. Board of Education opinion
Our episode on school boards with Robert Asen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison
A note to our listeners in the New York City area: Jenna Spinelle will be participating in a panel called “Podcasts to the Rescue! An Emerging Medium for Learning About Civics, Government, and the Social Contract” on Thursday, May 30 at the Metropolitan New York Library Council. The event is free and open to the public. We would love to meet you!
Discussion/Reflection Questions* What is the relationship between school segregation and democracy? * Did you attend an integrated or a segregated school? How did that impact you once you finished school? * How should the education system change to become more integrated? * How is the re-segregation that Erica and Crystal affecting students in the U.S.? How is it impacting the country more broadly?
Interview Highlights[5:52] What was the political climate when the decision of Brown v. Board of Education was madeThere were many people on the ground; black teachers, black principals, black parents who had been organizing for generations for quality educational opportunities for their students. Decades prior March 1954, black parents were mobilizing to ensure that their students had the resources to ensure that their students to get to school.
[7:43] How was the Brown decision received?There was a massive resistance at the beginning. The reason because Dwight Eisenhower in 1957 for sending troops to Little Rock was essentially because the rest of the world was watching and laughing at us. We see white parents taking their kids out of public schools, we see entire school system shutting down, as was the case in Prince, Edward County, Virginia. It takes a very long time before we even began to see real implementation. We are seeing now a widespread re-segregation across the country.
[9:37] What are some of the factors that are causing re-segregation?One of the things that most people might not be aware of is that more than 25 states allow communities to secede from a school system and create their own new school system. Across the country, but especially in wealthy suburbs and Southern states, we see wealthy white communities pull out from school systems and create their own new school system that allows them to maintain racial segregation.
[12:24] A lot of the conversation around school segregation focuses on the South. What was going on in other parts of the country?It’s important to think about how School desegregation look different in the South versus the North. In northern states there were a lot of ways in which structures were used to create segregated schools. There was the first two decades after the Brown decision in which there were a lot of questions legally as to how Brown would apply outside of the South. When we think of re-segregation today, whether we’re talking about the north or the south, we have to look at housing patterns. We have to look at the lack of affordable housing and the ways in which we still have very weak fair housing laws, and that has been detrimental to ensuring that our public schools are as diverse and inclusive as they can and should be.
[15:56] What’s the relationship between school integration and the public good?I believe that most Americans still believe that public education is a public good. I don’t believe that most Americans believe integration is a public good. Those are two separate things. There’s still some investment in public education, but there is no investment in integration as a public good.
[17:59] What do we know about the outcomes of integrated schools?There are social and psychological benefits of integrated schools for all students. Students from integrated schools are less likely to have racial stereotypes and prejudice formation. There are important benefits in terms of being more likely to live and work in diverse spaces as an adult. Some research even finds you’re more likely live in more integrated neighborhoods.
[23:11] Are there particular cities or communities that that have been particularly successful at integration?No district is perfect, but some communities are intriguing. Jefferson County, Kentucky had court-ordered desegregation in the 1970’s, and in 2000 the court said they had met the requirements. The Wake County school system in North Carolina has done a phenomenal job by ensuring that they have diverse schools across the district. They created a plan that used race to ensure that all of the high schools in the district had proportional levels of different populations.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post School segregation then and now appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Sarah Koenig spent a year inside Cleveland’s criminal justice system for season three of the Serial podcast. Along the way, she met some interesting people and had a birds-eye view of what justice (and injustice) look like for lawyers, judges, defendants, police officers, and the countless others who pass through the building’s courtrooms each day.
It’s once thing to study criminal justice empirically, as many academics do, but something else entirely to be embedded within the system as Koenig and her team were in Cleveland.
We invited Koenig to Penn State for an on-stage conversation with Democracy Works host and McCourtney Institute for Democracy Director Michael Berkman. They discuss community policing, the lack of data about what works and what doesn’t, and where college students should focus their energy if they’re looking to reform the criminal justice system.
Additional InformationSerial podcast
Cornell’s Peter Enns about the U.S. as the world’s most punitive democracy
UNC’s Frank Baumgartner on race and policing
A note to our listeners in the New York City area: Jenna Spinelle will be participating in a panel called “Podcasts to the Rescue! An Emerging Medium for Learning About Civics, Government, and the Social Contract” on Thursday, May 30 at the Metropolitan New York Library Council. The event is free and open to the public. We would love to meet you!
Discussion/Reflection Questions* If you’ve listened to Serial season 3, what did you find most surprising? * Which part of the criminal justice system do you think is most in need of reform? * How should that part of the system change? * How much discretion should judges have when it comes to sentencing? * What kind of data is needed to understand how to reform the criminal justice system? * What is the relationship between law and justice?
Interview Highlights[2:45] What about this season of Serial do you think captured people’s attention?We tried to do what we know how to do, right? Which is to know how to make it narrative, as narrative as we could, and to introduce difficult concepts kind of slowly and not overload you with information. It’s become a topic that people are talking about and caring about in the last however many years and that’s personally a thrill to me, but I think that helps. The timing of it helped.
[3:54] Does season 3 relate to season 1?A lot of people after season 1 were like “Well, what does this mean about the whole system? Can you extrapolate?” And it felt like, well that, no you can’t extrapolate off of one case that is pretty extraordinary. So it really did feel like, well let’s just go look and see the ordinary stuff. What is the baseline functionality of our system in a very, kind of day to day, mundane way, honestly. Let’s treat the courthouse as an office.
[6:10] What did you learn about the police in Cleveland?So it was just a very typical, I mean if you read about for example, what’s happening in Baltimore, what’s happened in some other places. And it seems like the places where there has been any successful, true successful outcome from those consent decrees, I think Seattle has actually had a pretty good result if I’m not mistaken. It’s where they get buy-in from the police union, and it’s hard. In a place like Cleveland it’s very hard. It’s very old school. It’s very like, “Don’t tell me how to do my job, I put my life on the line every day.”
[9:40] What do people in Cleveland think about the idea of community policing?They see the value of it and they think it’s valuable and they don’t want to be the people who, in a place like Cleveland, all you do is just get in your car and just race from call to call to call to call. And half the time, you’re at a call trying to deal with something and you get a call for a more major thing and so you’re ripped away, so then that person that you’re trying to help is like, there goes my guy. So, it’s bad for everyone, that kind of policing. They, they want it and they want, I think, to be able to have real interaction with people in communities.
[14:03] Judge Gaul comes up in several episodes throughout the series. Tell us about him.His dad had been in county politics. He was getting near retirement age, so he was like mid-60’s. He’d been on the bench a long time, and in Cleveland, in Ohio, you know, county judges have an extraordinary amount of of discretion and latitude.I mean, it’s sort of like a cliché of the courthouse, but like they really do treat it as their own little kingdom. And so he had his style and his way of berating almost every defendant who came before him. He saw it as tough love. That’s how you get elected in Cuyahoga county. No one pays attention to judicial races, so you see the Democratic name, it’s an Irish name, you’re like, it’s vaguely familiar because there’s like ten thousand people named Gaul in the county and you’re like, “Oh yeah, that guy. I’m sure he’s fine.” And so that’s how these people stay on the bench forever.
[20:40] What did you learn about the way probation works in Cleveland?Half the docket when I was watching would be a probation violation. Most of them were for things like staying out after curfew or going out of state for a funeral somebody’s funeral smoking weed. They’re having to come back through the thing and if you piss off the judge, especially, someone like Judge Gaul who has a temper, you can end up incarcerated. Part of the hugely frustrating thing we saw in Ohio, but I think this is again true in lots of parts of the country, there’s no data. We don’t keep data on this stuff. Nobody is tracking outcome say for when is probation is effective and when people start to slide off and violate more.
[27:50] What do you make of the momentum around electing progressive prosecutors to reform the system?The focus that we have lately on progressive prosecutors and the big money that’s going into these prosecutors races across the country is fantastic, but it is one piece of the puzzle. This system is enormous and it has many different machines working at once. They do not often interact with each other well or at all. I get a little nervous when we start saying, “Oh, we’ve, we’ve figured out how to fix it, just elect a bunch of progressive prosecutors.” My fear is, yes, you can elect progressive prosecution, but you can also unelect those same prosecutors. So I would rather see a more systemic change.
[30:15] Where can young people have the biggest impact in criminal justice reform?I would say like those kinds of agencies that are so unsex and it just feels like why would I want to go be a government bureaucrat and like a thankless job? If you’re asking where you can make a difference, boy, wouldn’t it be fantastic to have, um, the smartest, most compassionate, most energetic brains be working on juvenile crime.
We are excited to announce our first ever Democracy Works listener mailbag episode! We’ve covered a lot of ground on the show over the past year, but there’s still many more questions to answer — and we would love to hear yours. We’ll be recording the show in a few weeks and publishing the episode before we take a summer break.
If you have a question about the show or anything we’ve covered, or about democracy more broadly, here’s how to send them to us:
- Email Jenna Spinelle at jenna@psu.edu
- Complete the contact us form
- Send us a voice message
- Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram
If you have a question for a particular guest we’ve interviewed, please send those too. We’ll try our best to get a written or recorded answer from them. Looking forward to your questions!
Timothy Shaffer
There are a lot of calls these days to “revive civility” in politics. While there are plenty of examples of uncivil behavior, there’s far less agreement about what civility should look like in 2019. Timothy Shaffer joins us this week to talk about work being done to create a new definition of civility and a playbook to put that definition into practice.
Shaffer is an assistant professor in communication studies at Kansas State University, assistant director of the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy, and principal research specialist at the National Institute for Civil Discourse. He is the editor of a new book called A Crisis of Civility? Political Discourse and its Discontents.
Additional Information * Kansas State University Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy * National Institute for Civil Discourse * Timothy’s book: A Crisis of Civility? * NPR story on civility in politics * Our episode on the Citizens Initiative Review * Our “conversation about conversation” episode
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think we are in a crisis of civility? If so, does the crisis exist among citizens, politicians, or both? * What do you see as the relationship between civility and democracy? * What do you think is the best approach for making political discourse more civil? * Who do you look to as a model of civility in politics? * What is the right balance between deliberative democracy and policy changes?
Interview Highlights [3:50] How do you define civility? There is no one single notion of civility. In our book, the first chapter puts forward two ways to think about it: civility as politeness and civility as responsiveness. As someone who studies this work and engages it in practical situations and settings, it’s important that we think about civility as being more than just kind of minding your manners or abiding by the rules or the expectations of kind of a dominant society.
[5:48] Given that definition, what does it mean to “revive” civility as we’ve heard people call for lately? I would say somewhat of an analog to that is the language of civic renewal, which gets used quite a bit. If we’re trying to revive something or trying to renew something, it presupposes that there-there was something in the past. And I think part of the Revive Civility campaign, um, from the National Institute for Civil Discourse I think is rooted more in this notion that we have, in recent times, seen the increases in various studies and people’s experience, right? People are recognizing, noticing, that politicians, as well as just folks in their neighborhoods and in their communities, are really ratcheting up some of the-the kinda partisan divisions and rancor.
[14:20] How do you connect exercises in democratic deliberation with more tangible policy outcomes? One example I’ll point to is the Citizens Initiative Review, which creates those kinds of conditions where ordinary people come together and hear expert testimony, wrestle through ideas that are gonna show up on a ballot initiative, and at the end of a few days, they come out and make these statements about how they’ve, have come to a decision. A historical example I’ve researched is a cooperative extension program run by the USDA in the 1930s and 40s. They created these discussion guides on a whole host of topics, things like soil erosion and taxes and imports. They held meetings that gave people in these communities a chance to participate in discussion, but also paired that with formal land-use planning processes.
[18:40] What’s the relationship between civility and free expression? How do you have one without limiting the other? the tension between um, free-speech and this notion of civility I don’t think has to be kind of, it’s, it’s over here or it’s over there. Uh, the, the capacity to create conditions for kind of expression of contentious views is really important. Uh, I think where we start to, to see some rub is the, the expectation of kind of “safe spaces” um, where if, if people are feeling uncomfortable or, or maybe even challenged or attacked, that if you know, we set that as a ground rule, for example, that is going to become a very significant tension that we have to acknowledge.
[22:05] Is there anyone you look to as an example of modeling civility in politics? I don’t have an immediate go-to as kind of like, here’s the classic example of someone who ought to be our kind of exemplar. Given the state of things as they have been recently and it seems like it will continue for a bit, I will point to someone like Senator John McCain. He embodied the notion that you can have your strong views but you can engage and, and recognize when you need to give a little bit or also when you might be wrong.
E.J. Dionne has the unique perspective of studying the horse race and the big picture of American politics. He writes a twice-weekly column for the Washington Post and appears regularly on NPR, but he’s also a senior fellow at Brookings and professor in Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown University.
We talked with him about the relationship between partisan politics and democracy, the need for empathy across the political spectrum, and a few policy ideas to help make America more democratic. We could have talked all day and hope to return to some of these topics in future episodes.
Additional InformationE.J.’s Washington Post columns
E.J.’s lecture at Penn State
E.J.’s paper on universal voting for Brookings
Chris Beem’s TED talk on how young people can improve democracy
Discussion/Reflection Questions* Do you agree with E.J.’s notion that a partisan response was required to protect democracy? * Have you noticed a difference in political argumentation over the past few years? Is it more difficult to have arguments now than it was a few years ago? * What do you see as the relationship between civil society and democracy? How could one help the other? * What do you make of the National Fair Vote Interstate Compact and universal voting?
Interview Highlights[3:52] In One Nation After Trump, you wrote that a partisan response was required to protect democratic values. What did you mean by that?Trump had done something to our politics that was very dangerous and needed to be reversed, and given that the Republican Party had chosen almost to a person (with a couple of exceptions in Congress) to support Trump, the only way to hit back, to create any sense of accountability, was to give at least one house of Congress to Democrats. There a lot of people out there who aren’t necessarily partisan Democrats, who aren’t necessarily liberals or lefties, who believe that there are abuses here that need to be checked, and that there is a threat to democracy that needs to be reversed, and that’s exactly what happened after the 2018 midterms.
[5:19] Should that approach continue heading into 2020?My view is that the Republican party has moved to a point where it needs a real rebuke in order to look inside itself and analyze where they want to continue to be.
[6:54] ]What happens to the people who are conservative but don’t may be aligned with where the Republican party is currently?I think there are still a lot of conservatives who made a deal that they think is still worth making on behalf of low taxes deregulation and Supreme Court appointments. There is a pattern in which some districts that 30 or 40 years ago would happily have sent a moderate Republican to the house are now sending Democrats.
[11:00] You’ve also called for making America empathetic again. Have you seen any indication that it’s happening?Yes, I have seen it in the reactions of the people when the Muslin ban. The number of people who rush to the airports over the Muslim ban and people who may not have met a Muslim in their life and said “wait a minute, this isn’t who we are.” There is also the reaction of the people to the kids being taken away from their parents at the border. I think we’ve taken some steps forward, but we still have a lot of work to do.
[12:51] What can people do to develop a sense of empathy?Chris Beem gave a TED talk in which he said we need people to do three things. First, people need to tell the truth. Second, they need to engage in democratic humility, and third, people need to join an organization. I think one of the terrible things about the Trump age is that the division is so deep that friends who disagree about politics don’t even talk about politics anymore because they’re afraid of busting the friendship, and that’s a problem.
[14:54] Why do you think it’s so hard for people to have constructive arguments?I think some of it is that our allegiances are all aligned together in a package. So people’s political commitment and people’s party commitments are aligned with their ideological commitments or often aligned with their religious commitments that includes people who are religious or secular combined with where they live. The “big sort” argument and many things combined in one party has come to stand for it.
[16:00] How we can make civil society work given the world we live in today?I think we people need ways in which they can get together face-to-face and do things together. Sports teams are part of that, by the way. There is enormous life in civil society when where kids sports are concerned about it. What I want to tell to my conservative friends is: I’m with you, I want a stronger cvil society, but you have to acknowledge the cost of inequality and the cost of economic collapse.
[19:08] Can you give us an overview of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?We have a problem in our country that’s going to keep growing with the Electoral College. Since 2000, we’ve had just two elections where the Electoral College went against the popular vote. The way in which population is getting concentrated in big states, the over-representation of low population states in the Electoral College will get even greater. This is a problem for democracy and you can’t change it very easily under the Constitution.
[22:26] You’ve also worked on what you describe as universal voting. Can you explain what that is and how it might work?This idea comes from Australia. Australia has compulsory attendance at the polls, but not the United States. I’m working on an initiative with Miles Rapoport at the Ash Center at Harvard on this. We’re trying to see what would this look like If we did it in the United States. Our theory is if you can ask people to serve on juries, if you can ask people for going to say to potentially give their lives in war, then asking people to vote is not an over ask for civic life. It finally reverses the role of local officials. They can’t suppress the vote anymore. Their job is to help make it as easy as possible for all the people in the country to vote.
We are excited to bring you an episode from No Jargon, a podcast from the Scholars Strategy Network. Much like Democracy Works, No Jargon aims to break down some of the biggest issues in politics and society in a way that’s not partisan and not punditry. New episodes are released every Thursday, and we hope you’ll check it out if you enjoy this conversation.
We like to think that state governments make decisions based on their particular situations. But it turns out, often that’s not the case. In fact, three large conservative groups have gained massive influence in state houses across the country, working to pass legislation in line with their views and corporate sponsors.
In this episode of No Jargon, Columbia University’s Alexander Hertel-Fernandez explains their rise and strategies, why state governments are so susceptible to their influence, and what this all means for American democracy.
Additional Information No Jargon website
Alex Hertel Fermandez’s book, State Capture
The McCourtney Institute’s John Gastil on No Jargon discussing the Citizens Initiative Review
Joyce Ladner was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement in Mississippi in the 1950s and 60s as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). She was mentored by Medgar Evers, expelled from Jackson State University for participating in a sit-in, and failed Mississippi’s voter literacy test three times. She discusses those experiences with us, along with the disconnect between learning the principles of civics education knowing that some of them didn’t apply to her.
Joyce also describes how Emmett Till moved her generation to action, and how Trevon Martin is doing the same for a new generation of organizers. She visited Penn State to deliver the annual Barbara Jordan lecture, hosted by the Africana Research Center.
Additional InformationPenn State Africana Research Center
Interview Highlights[4:44] What was the catalyst for you to get involved in the Civil Rights Movement?The catalyst for us was the lynching of 14-year-old Emmitt Till in Mississippi
[5:15] How did that make you feel and how you did you translate those feelings into your actions?I remember feeling very very powerless back then. Sort of visceral reaction came when I saw the photograph of Emmett Till on the cover of Jet Magazine. That photograph made me feel that I had to one day do something.
[9:42] Did you see any changes or any integration efforts following Brown v. Board of EducationNo, what happened to the Deep South was that the Southern states immediately after the Brown decision came down rushed to build new schools for black children, so we got a new school.
[14:42] What do you think is missing from how civics education and democracy are being taught today?I took high school history and social science civics to become good citizens. We were informed with a knowledge base in ethics and values, and about what democracy was. I think that one of the worst things that’s happened in subsequent years is the decline of civics education. A lot of social science type courses have suffered tremendously.
[16:55] What do you think about Black Lives Matter Movement?Black Lives Matter is to this generation what’s SNCC was to my generation, and also Trayvon Martin is to this generation what Emmett Till was to mine. Here you have a case of a young man who was just shot and murdered and the response to it is a national outpouring of anger and eventually that anger was channeled by young people (college students and non-college students). I should say is the case in a manner that was very similar. I was so excited to see that finally we have some movement activity.
[20:16] What was the process to become a registered voter?I tried to register to vote three times in Harrisburg, but I failed the voter register literacy test because all black people who went to register were failed. At the same time all white people were registered. I was required to write essays on two questions, one was an interpretation of section in the U.S. Constitution. They never gave us reasons. They just says “you failed to pass this test, you didn’t answer these questions adequately”.
[24:41] Was there something that united all the different organizing that you did, whether for civil rights, voting rights or all of those?Freedom was the reason to do all of this. Equality was later added but freedom remain the constant.
[26:57] What advice did you have to say to young people or anyone who wants to get involved in organizing and trying to impact what they perceive as injustice?Freedom is not free. Each generation has to fight for those same rights all over again because they’re not permanent.
Jan Egeland
From Brexit to Hungary to the U.S. border wall, many of today’s political conflicts center around immigration. Moving people from one place to another is easier said than done, and as we’ve seen around world, there are inherent tensions between people who want to enter a country and the people who are already there. On top of that, climate change will continue to create situations where people are displaced from their homes.
Jan Egeland doesn’t have all the answers to these issues, but he’s committed to figuring them out. He is the Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council and former Special Adviser to the UN Special Envoy for Syria. Despite the challenges that immigration poses, he remains optimistic about the progress the world has made and the power of democratic governments to find solutions.
Jan visited Penn State as guest of the Center for Security Research and Education.
Additional Information Norwegian Refugee Council
Penn State Center for Security Research and Education
Discussion/Reflection Questions * How should governments and organizations address immigration? * What’s the relationship between immigration and democracy? * Did hearing Jan’s interview change the way you think about migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers? * How will climate change affect migration?
Interview Highlights [4:58] What do the terms migrant and refugee mean and how they might differ? Migrants are everyone who leaves a country and goes to another place. Refugees are people who flee from persecution. It could be political, religious, or cultural.
[6:38] What is the Norwegian Refugee Council and how this organization works with these various groups? The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is a humanitarian organization working for both refugees and the internally displaced people providing them relief in the in the form of shelter (housing, water, sanitation, and food). We also provide legal help and legal advice, including civil documentation. There are two main solutions that we seek. The first one is to return the person, but this solution is very difficult when a war is going on. The other one is local integration. It could be that little by little they would be integrated, get their get jobs and education and maybe even citizenship, and the third solution is relocation to another place. Traditionally the United States generously receives more than a 100,000 refugees, but most of the rich industrial countries have become colder places for refugees.
[9:00] When did that that transition start and how has it evolved since then? It’s always been there really in Europe, in the United States, and in places like Japan and in other industrialized countries. We are now in a new period of great difficulty for us who work for and with refugees because there is a wave of nationalism in very many places.
[10:50] What is the right balance between helping refugees and people in need while still paying mind to people who are already living in the countries where the refugees want to go? First of all, we have to recognize that the main solution for people who have fled their homes is to return home. We need to have more work and diplomacy peacemaking conflict resolution to make it safe and protected for people to return home and help them then rebuilt.
[16:15] Do you find that the populism we’ve seen throughout Europe and elsewhere also extends to humanitarian efforts? What I find now is that there is a race to the bottom. Really many countries are willing to give us money if we keep them away from from that country. Europe and North America have been traditionally the most generous places for receiving refugees, but there are many rich nations who are not receiving refugees.
[18:44] There’s a long-term strategy but there’s also a lot of things that come up that you can’t anticipate. How do you account for those unknown elements? We have very good people who in the field try to meet every eventuality. We have preparedness programs as we have prevention programs. But but in the longer term, perhaps the most worrying longer term problem is that many more people will be displaced not by conflict, but by the forces of nature in the age of climate change and we have to be prepared for that.
[19:56] What role does civil society have to play in terms of refugees? The civil society groups play an enormously important role. We work with civil society groups like women’s groups, student groups, church groups, religious groups, and tribal groups. We need to help people who are knocking on our door, we need to help them in their hour of greatest need!
[22:22] How do you see democracies countering these anti-refugee and anti-immigrant policies? There are a few sensational stories about one or two immigrants doing something bad in the media and everybody believes that that immigrants are worse than others, but that’s not what statistics demonstrates. Europeans and the media is in panic with the amount of refugees. For example, Europeans felt overwhelmed when 1 million people came to a continent of 500 million. Let’s imagine you have a school yard of 500 kids and one girl comes in to the school. Should we panic for one to 500? We shouldn’t, but that’s what Europe did.
[25:26] You’ve said previously that you feel the world is getting better for most people. Do you still feel that way? Absolutely, specially in terms of private consumption, public consumption, education, health care, life expectancy, dropping child mortality, equality between the sexes, and opportunity for girls. However, it is worse for those who live in war zone or in areas with gangs. The challenge moving forward will be to maintain this sense of progress and momentum.
Srdja Popovic
20 years ago, Srdja Popovic was part of a revolution — literally. He was a founding member of the Otpor! movement that ousted Serbia Slobodan Milsovic from power in 1999. It’s easy to characterize social movements as a bunch of people rallying in the streets, but successful movements require a lot of planning and a unified vision around a singular goal — things that are often easier said than done.
Srdja joins us this week to discuss why Otpor! was successful and anyone can use the same principles of what we describes as “laughtivism” to fight for change. He is the director of the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CAVNAS) and author of Blueprint for Revolution: How to Use Rice Pudding, Lego Men, and Other Nonviolent Techniques to Galvanize Communities, Overthrow Dictators, or Simply Change the World.
At the end of the episode, Michael and Chris compare Srdja’s discussion of anger and fear with some of the results we’ve seen from our Mood of the Nation Poll.
Srdja visited Penn State as a guest of the Center for Global Studies, the same organization that hosted Syrian journalist Abdalaziz Alhamza in the fall. Our episode with him is a nice companion to this conversation with Srdja.
Additional Information CANVAS website
Srdja’s book: Blueprint for Revolution
A book Srdja references in the interview: The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy
Another Democracy Works episode you might enjoy: Breaking the silence in Syria – Abdalaziz Alhamza
Discussion/Reflection Questions * How did the Otpor! movement achieve its goals? * How should a social movement balance its members individuals goals and views against the larger goals? * How do you see the apathy and fear Srdja described playing out in today’s political climate? * Do you think Otpor!’s approach could be successful in a place like Hungary or Brazil? * What are some recent examples of laughtivism? Are they effective?
Interview Highlights [4:20] What was the the political climate in Serbia when the Otpor! movement began? We started with large students protests. We were occupying campuses and all the intellectuals were there. The first large-scale demonstrations started in Serbia and we figure out that in fact, we can win local elections if opposition is united, but we lost. After three months on the streets every day, we understood that it’s a very stupid way to have everyday protests because are very costly. The movement grew from 11 people into several hundred, then performed a large tactics of recruitment and and grew up up to 70,000. We had a pretty clear vision of tomorrow — we were trying to build unity among the civil sector and the opposition parties. We stayed cool and nonviolent and focusing in low-risk tactics.
[10:15] What are some of the the strategies you recommend for people to build broad coalitions or movements? The first thing is you need to understand what you really want to change. You need to look the terrain and your constituency. Try to listen and try to find the smallest common denominator that will bring groups to your side. Try to figure out why the people who are pro change and against change feel that way.
[13:32] As these movements grow, people come in with their own ideas. How can you be receptive to them without curtailing the main goal? It is really important is to figure out your grand vision and the grand goal. Movements are driven by the people, and the best thing people bring to the movements are their ideas. The way the Serbian movement operated and several other movements we worked in in the past, like Egyptian movement, was to make a highly decentralized structure. That creates a culture in the movement where everybody can become a leader.
[15:16] How do you push forward for social change given the prevalence of nostalgia? When you take a look at the biggest obstacles to the social change of any kind, it’s either apathy or fear, and if you really want to make a change you want to deconstruct these obstacles. The key for change in these cases is to turn up into enthusiasm.
[20:39] How is laughtivism an effective tactic for authoritarian regimes? There are a few reasons why humor is so powerful in these situations. The first reason is that humor breaks fear and makes scary situations look a little less so. The second reason is that humor attracts people and gives them something they can get behind. The third is that it disrupts order, which dictators and authoritarians thrive on.
[25:18] How are these tactics translated into public policy? Some politicians think that democracy is all about winning elections and then winner takes all, but social movements are now taking a new role which they call defending democracy. They are actually defending the courts, defending the parliament, and defending the pillars that are already there.
[32:55] What does democracy mean to you? To me, it means having the right balance between strong and active state and strong and active people to hold the state accountable.
We say on this show all the time that democracy is hard work. But what does that really mean? What it is about our dispositions that makes it so hard to see eye to eye and come together for the greater good? And why, despite all that, do we feel compelled to do it anyway? Jonathan Haidt is the perfect person to help us unpack those questions.
We also explore what we can do now to educate the next generation of democratic citizens, based on the research Jonathan and co-author Greg Lukianoff did for their latest book The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.
Jonathan is social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. His research examines the intuitive foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultures––including the cultures of American progressive, conservatives, and libertarians.
One last thing: This week marks the first anniversary of Democracy Works! We are thrilled that the show has caught on with listeners around the world and are excited to bring you even more great episodes in year two. If you’d like to give the show a birthday present, consider sharing it with a friend or leaving a rating or review in your podcast app.
Additional InformationJonathan’s books:
- The Coddling of the American Mind
- The Righteous Mind
- The Happiness Hypothesis
OpenMind
Heterodox Academy
New York Times article on free play and democracy
Discussion/Reflection Questions* Why is democracy so difficult to sustain? * Does hearing about the moral foundations of politics change the way you perceive people from another political party? * What can each of us to do make better decisions and resist the temptation to follow our inner elephants? * What do you make of the relationship between free play and democracy?
Interview Highlights[4:32] Why is democracy so hard to practice?Haidt: In the 20th century we developed this obsession with democracy and I think it’s because we fought a war to defend democracy and World War I and then we did it again in World War II and we were thinking that democracy is the greatest thing in the world. Then in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapses, It was clear that democracy won and there is no alternative into the end of history and every country as it developed is going to become a free market liberal democracy just like us. And we were wrong we were fooled. Democracy is a lot harder and lot less stable than we thought. Now it’s clear that’s the case.
[7:12] Are there other things about the way we’re wired as people that make it so difficult to carry out democracy in practice?Haidt: Our founding fathers knew we were not rationals and we don’t relate to any people and that’s why you don’t want to have something that’s too, democratic because especially when there are hard times somebody’s going to come along and tell you the reason for our troubles is them, and it’s really easy to rally people to hate them and then attack them and kill them.
[9:42] What motivates people to continue practicing democracy?Haidt: Tocqueville noted how we individualists come together very quickly and easily to solve problems, that was what he noted was really unique about us. So we’ve always been a democratic people in that sense. We’re ready to take things into our own hands, solve problems and, um, America in the, in the, you know, 20th century, we certainly see many cases of activism that were like that and that worked. Um, of course, taking things into your own hands can also lead to riots and violence.
[11:49] Can you talk about how you see the way that we’ve organized ourselves into political parties here in the U.S.?Haidt: I think the worst number of political parties to have in a country is one, but the second worst number is two. Research shows that if you simply have three combatants, then the hatred of each for the other is much less. We have two parties and anyone who was psychologically disposed to leftism or progressivism is now a Democrat, and anyone who was psychologically predisposed to conservatism or traditionalism or stability is now Republican. My colleagues and I came up with a theory called the Moral Foundations Theory, which has five features of every society:
- Care vs. harm
- Fairness vs. cheating
- Loyalty vs.betrayal
- Authority vs. subversion
- Sanctity vs. degradation
[17:12] Where do these moral foundations stand today?Haidt: Moral foundations never change, that’s the whole metaphors at their foundations. A moral or political order is a consensual hallucination. We hallucinate it together. We pretend that it’s real. It becomes real, we live in it, and we get angry within it.
[24:42] What do you think about calls for restoring civility?Haidt: It’s absolutely the right approach, we need to restore that, but just saying it and signing some pledges we are not going to reach a change in civility. We’re not going to get very far by just doing this. I think we’re going to get really far by changing the path that the elephant is on.
[28:01] What’s the relationship between free play and democracy?Haidt: The way to learn social skills that are essential for a democracy is through free play, and it has to be unsupervised. If there’s an adult there to settle disputes, you learn how to appeal to adults instead of learning to figure things out for yourself. Gen Z is the first generation in American history that was deprived of childhood. We freaked out in the 90s and thought even though the crime rate was plummeting and actually the crime wave ended in the 90s. Americans began to think because we’re frightened out of our minds by media, that if we ever take our eyes off our kids outside they will be abducted, and so in the 90s, we stopped letting kids out to play.
[29:35] How will this impact the way Gen Z views democracy?Haidt: I think democracy is or democracy is in real danger now, but when Gen Z becomes more politically active, you know so in the 20, 30s when they’re the largest group let’s say, um I think our ability to govern ourselves will be much harder.
[32:54] What can we do to reverse this trend?Haidt: The first thing is we have to give kids back childhood to create more resilient kids. We have to stop overprotecting kids. We have to let them develop skills. Secondly, I think we have to educate kids as if democracy was fragile. We have to be teaching skills of democratic engagement. I think that high schools should be teaching politics in a very different way. That is, teachers and social studies teachers in particular tend to be on the left. They either don’t teach anything about conservatism or they some of them let their politics intrude um and I think we should be teaching great respect for the long philosophical traditions of left and right, and then teaching skills of democratic discourse.
We are closing out our series on democracy around the world with a bonus episode from Future Hindsight, a show that features deep conversations with guests who are engaged in strengthening our society. This episode is a discussion with Ian Bremmer, author of Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism. Ian is a political scientist and president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory and consulting firm.
In this episode, Ian talks with Future Hindsight host Mila Atmos about populism, authoritarianism, and some of the other trends we’ve heard about over the past few weeks. Think of it as a 30,000-foot view of what we’ve covered in individual countries like Hungary and Brazil.
Future Hindsight is in its fifth season and available at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Here are the episodes from our series about democracy around the world:
- Hungary
- France
- Brazil
- UK/Brexit
Sona Golder
We’re just a few weeks away from the deadline for the UK to reach an agreement on its plan to leave the European Union. Nearly three years after the infamous Brexit vote, things appear to be as murky as ever.
Rather than trying to predict the future, we invited Penn State’s Sona Golder to join us for a conversation about how Brexit originated, and the pros and cons of putting the decision directly in the people’s hands. Sona is a comparative politics scholar and co-editor of the British Journal on Political Science.
Listen through to the end of the episode for information about the Big World podcast, produced by American University’s School of International Service.
Additional Information Sona’s website
For more on UK politics, check out The Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast.
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think that Brexit should have been decided via referendum? * If a second referendum happens, how would you phrase the question and the options people vote on? * Do you see similarities between Brexit and Donald Trump’s election? Or with the rise of authoritarian leaders in places like Hungary and Brazil? * How do you think Brexit will end? * How do you feel about the state of democracy around the world after listening to the past four episodes? Has you opinion changed since the beginning of the series?
Interview Highlights [4:45] How did the original Brexit referendum come about in 2016? When it comes to important EU initiatives, it’s not unusually to have a referendum. There were referenda in at least three countries back in 1992 when they were trying to get everyone to agree to the Maastricht Treaty. France’s treaty just barely passed and was known as the little yes. In the UK, various leaders have proposed having a referendum on whether to remain in the EU over the years but never followed through on it. Given that history, I don’t think it seemed out of place to the citizens of the UK.
[5:52] What was it about 2015-2016 that finally allowed the referendum process to happen? Ever since the Maastricht Treaty was signed, there’s been a group of people in Parliament who are Euro-skeptical. That’s been going on for decades. More recently, countries from throughout Europe joined the EU. The UK was the only country that did not set restrictions on how people could move into the country so the UK ended up with a lot migrants that no one expected. On top of that, the financial crisis happened in 2008. David Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time, went into it thinking he was going to get a better deal from the EU and then there would be a referendum after that. He almost assuredly thought the outcome would be that the UK would end up in the EU.
[7:53] Is Brexit indicative of a larger trend around immigration and economic inequality? One common issue that many countries are dealing with is the financial crisis, which gave people the feeling that they’d left behind and that political leaders on both sides of the aisle were not helping them. This feeling manifests itself in different ways based on the culture of that country. In the UK, people felt like Labour and the Conservatives were not really doing anything and the status quo doesn’t really seem very appealing.
[8:50] Can you give us an overview of the parties in the UK and where they stand on Brexit? There are two main parties. Labour is on the left and is traditionally a socialist party, but you can think of it as akin the Democrats in the U.S. The Conservatives are on the right and are akin to the Republicans. The UK has the same voting structure as the U.S. does so those parties tend to get the most seats and one of them has a majority, even though there are other parties who will have smaller numbers of seats.
[9:45] What do we know about the people who voted for Brexit? People who voted for Brexit tended to be more rural, older, and less educated. They were motivated by frustration with the current parties. Both parties have moved to the center. There was a sense that there was not much difference between them.
[11:37] What was the rationale that each side presented for staying or leaving the EU? The remainers said it would be a disaster for the economy if the UK pulled out of the EU. They might have exaggerated it, but they thought it was so obvious that no one would want leave. The people who wanted to leave felt that the UK didn’t have control over its boarders and all of its policies were being set in Brussels.
[13:23] What are some of the ways Brexit could end? After the referendum, it wasn’t immediate that the UK was going to leave the EU. They had to trigger Article 50, which Theresa May did in 2017. Since then, she’s been trying to negotiate a deal that would set up rules for the new relationship. If that doesn’t happen, there’s no deal and it’s unclear what happens. The UK is an island nation. It’s not clear what happens to goods at the border if there’s no deal in place.
[15:22] What are some of the obstacles to a deal being put in place? Some members of Parliament still don’t want to leave and they’re hoping that a new referendum would be called or it would just be voted in Parliament that they wouldn’t leave. There’s some people who want the hard Brexit. Theresa May is having a hard time trying to build a coalition to back her deal. The people advocating for a second referendum hope that people will have come to their senses and change their mind. But it’s not clear that anything would change. The EU is trying to negotiate a trade agreement that would be beneficial to the countries that remain. My sense is that people will become more open to a deal as the withdrawal deadline gets closer.
[19:25] How does Ireland and the “backstop” figure into Brexit? The issue is over the border between the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the UK, and Northern Ireland, which isn to part of the UK. The backstop is a way of saying the UK can pull out of the EU but not have a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. No one is quite sure how that would happen. The Good Friday agreement of 1998 went a long way toward solving the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. No one wants to go back to that, but it wasn’t a big part of the consideration during the Brexit vote. Most people who thought about the Good Friday agreement were confident that the UK would vote to remain in the EU.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Brexit and the UK’s identity crisis appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Gianpaolo Baiocchi
To say Brazil has had a complicated history with democracy is a understatement. The country has bounced in and out authoritarian regimes for hundreds of years, with democracy never having quite enough time to really take hold. Following the election of Jair Bolsonaro in October 2018, many are wondering whether the cycle is about to repeat itself again.
Gianpaolo Baiocchi is a professor of individualized studies and sociology at NYU, where he also directs the Urban Democracy Lab. He’s from Brazil and has written extensively about the country’s politics and social movements. He joins us this week to talk about Bolsonaro’s appeal, the use of misinformation on WhatsApp during the election, and why Bolsonaro is often called the “Trump of the tropics.” We also discuss Brazil’s history of activism under authoritarian governments and whether we’ll see it return now.
Next week is our final episode about democracy around the world. We’ll be talking with Penn State’s Sona Golder about all things Brexit.
Additional Information Gianpaolo’s website
Urban Democracy Lab
Brazil’s unraveling political institutions – article by Gianpaolo in Democracy Journal
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What is the role of social movements in Brazil? * Do you think Brazil will retreat from democracy under Bolsonaro? * What is the role of the military in Brazil? * How is Brazil politically involved with other Latin American countries?
Interview Highlights [3:07] What is the history of democracy in Brazil? Brazil, a very unequal country, has had this relatively short and checkered history with democracy. Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the world. In 1964, Brazil had a military coup that lasted with a military regime that lasted until 1985. Social movements really played a very important role in the transition to democracy, but also in helping build the institutions of democracy. Brazil’s constitution of 1989 has some very progressive elements in it, has things about direct democracy, has gestures and participation municipalities, and have a lot of power.
[7:08] Where did social movements in Brazil come from? Social movements comes in the mid-1980s. There are urban movements, the movement for the right transport, the movement against poverty, student movements, a lot of movements to the progressive church, so kind of Liberation theology, we have movements very important of patients and users of the health system.
[10:38] Who is Jair Bolsonaro and why was he appealing? People are going to be talking about the Bolsonaro phenomenon for a long time. He’s been a politician for a long time and he’s mostly known for shocking statements. He’s been a guy who likes to say provocative things about rape, about affirmative action, and sort of anti-political correctness. His platform is law and order, it’s about God, it’s against political correctness, and it’s pro-business. He definitely has the elite support in Brazil, but because Brazil is an unequal country, that won’t go very far.
[16:18] Why is Bolsonaro compared to Donald Trump? There are definitely similarities between Trump’s Make America Great Again rhetoric and some of Bolsonaro’s language. They’re both populists and have both been involved in scandals, yet always seem to skate by and remain in power. Trump and Bolsonaro have also sought to undermine democratic institutions. However, the institutions in Brazil were weaker to begin with because democracy does not have the long history there that it does in the U.S.
[19:05] Can you give us some examples of how institutions in Brazil are weaker? The judicial system, the courts begun to play a very openly political role. The Minister of Justice was the judge and prosecutor over Lula, the former president of Brazil, who’s currently under arrest and during the process of the prosecution investigation. This judge was very openly partisan in social media and releasing things and it has given people the sense that the law is just something that you use. One of the things that has happened because of Bolsonaro being elected is that people has a free license to commit hate crimes. The only openly gay member of Brazilian Congress has had to flee the country.
[23:02] Did misinformation play a role in Bolsonaro’s election? Yes. Social media and fake news were a huge part of the election. In particular, a WhatsApp investigation a few days before the election itself revealed that foreign money and industrialists had paid for all these bots to repeat these fake news.
[24:49] How is Bolsonaro playing throughout the rest of Latin America? The balance of the continent has definitely shifted. All eyes are in Venezuela right now and early on in his campaign. Bolsonaro said he would be for a military intervention and I don’t think that’s actually going to happen, but Bolsonaro’s election does feel like the region has definitely turn right and turned authoritarian in a very real way.
[28:44] Social movements have risen up before in Brazil. Do you see the same thing happening again now or in the future? Yes! In the weeks before the election as it look like Bolsonaro was really going to win, people came together in a way that hadn’t really been seen in a long time in Brazil.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Brazil’s tenuous relationship with democracy appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Cole Stangler
This episode is the second in our series looking at democracy around the world. France is the focus this week. Our guest is Cole Stangler, an independent journalist based in Paris who covers French politics.
The yellow vest movement, named for the safety vests that all drivers are required to carry in their cars, began in late 2018 over rising gas prices. The movement succeeded in having the gas tax repealed, but the protestors still took to the streets around the country every weekend. Why? Like a lot of social movements, it’s complicated.
Cole has been on the ground covering the movement and joins to discuss its origins, the reaction from President Emmanuel Macron, and where things might go from here.
Next week, we’ll focus on Brazil for a discussion about the appeal of Jair Bolsonaro, who has been called Brazil’s Donald Trump.
Additional Information Cole’s website
Interview with Cole about French politics on the Commonweal podcast
Story from The Atlantic on the “Grand Debate”
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you think will be the future of the yellow vest movement? * Will the “grand debate” be effective? * What are some of the challenges associated with large-scale movements like this one? * How can the movement overcome those challenges?
Interview Highlights [5:03] How did the debate from Yellow Vest Movement in France come about? And what is President Macron looking to accomplish by doing it? This great national debate was rolled out as one of many concessions that was designed for the yellow vest protest movement. In addition to the government canceling the fuel tax, in response to these mass protests the government also increased a state wage subsidy and some other more modest measures. One of the big measures they design here to deal with that is to meet with Mayors. The government is going to take into account the results of what they’re hearing from from citizens and what they’re hearing from Mayors.
[6:39] France has very high voter turnout levels. Do you think that that level of participation will carry over into this great debate? I don’t think so. In general in France in terms of elections participation is much higher than in United States and over 70 percent was a big deal last year. People are worried about participation dropping below 70 percent, but it was still much higher than that in the United States.
[15:45] What type of backgrounds do protesters have? That’s the huge question because even in France people don’t know exactly who these people are coming from. They seem to be people that don’t have much background in politics. The profile seems to be people protesting core economic issues. People think they are being taxed too much, they think the government is treating them unfairly and being overly generous to the rich and not to themselves.
[22:09] Is there any consensus among protesters about what some solutions to these issues might be? No, but the citizen referendum seems to be the clearest actual coherent demand. In terms of actual coherent demands it remains very vague.
[27:32] Where do things go from here for the movement? It depends a lot on what city you’re in and what town you’re in because this moment varies a lot from place to place. I suspect when the weather gets nicer you could have more people coming. In France, historically students have played a pretty integral part in protests or partisan moments and we’ve seen unrest from students for a variety of reasons. One key issue among others is the government trying to hike tuition fees. I think it’s kind of silly to speculate about the movement because no one knows where this is going.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Yellow vests and the “grand debate” in France appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
This episode begins a four-part series examining the state of democracy around the world. First up is Hungary, a country that’s often referred to in a group of countries in central and Eastern Europe that are seeing authoritarian leaders rise to power. You might have heard of Viktor Orbán or know that the country is in some way associated with George Soros, but beyond that, it’s not a place many of us spend a lot of time thinking about.
We could not have found a better guest to help us make sense of what’s happening there. John Shattuck is the former President and Rector of Central European University, which Hungary’s Prime Minister recently forced out of the country. He is currently Professor of Practice in Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In this episode, John discusses Viktor Orbán’s rise to power, how he is waging war on democratic institutions, and what people in Hungary are doing to fight back.
Additional Information How Viktor Orbán degraded Hungary’s weak democracy – John’s article in The Conversation
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What impact has Viktor Orbán has on democracy Hungary? * Is there anything that the rest of the world can do to constrain Orbán’s actions? * What does the future of democracy in Hungary looks like? * Do you notice any similarities between democratic erosion in Hungary and other countries?
Interview Highlights [6:18] Can you start off by telling us a little bit about Hungary? Hungary is a small country of about 9 million people in the middle of Europe. It’s been for centuries kind of prize for Invaders; Mongols, Turks, Russians, Germans, Habsburgs and the Soviets. It was a strong economy during the Communist period for 40 years. It had a communist government dominated by the Soviet Union and was a member of the Warsaw Pact. It has almost no history of democracy. There have been many people coming in from outside who are mixed with Hungarians, but it’s also fairly monochromatic homogeneous that language of Hungarian is extremely difficult, spoken pretty much only by Hungarians, and are very few people outside of the country who speak it. In 1989, it emerged from the Soviet era the Communist era and became at least initially a democracy and a market economy. And it was performing quite well in the early days of the post-cold war within 15 years that had joined NATO and also became a member of the European Union.
[10:42] Who is Viktor Orbán? Viktor Orbán is a Hungarian politician and was Hungary’s Prime Minister from 1998 to 2002. He did not have a very successful term as prime minister, he was fairly unpopular. He was a moderate at that point and when he was defeated at the polls in 2002, he moved sharply to the right because he began to realize that he had an opportunity to appeal to Hungarian nationalism and thereby increases popularity because the party of the right was rising in Hungary. He turned a country that had the beginnings of the democracy and was doing reasonably well democratically into an authoritarian state by using the levers of democracy, the institutions of democracy, by basically taking over the country and taking over its institutions taking control of the courts, the media, civil society, the legislature, and eliminating checks and balances.
[13:12] What were some of the tactics that Orbán used to can gain power or to assemble the power that he has now? One big factor was the financial crisis of 2009, which hit Hungary harder than almost any other country in Eastern Europe. Other major factor was that after all, Hungary had no previous real experience with democracy. Another factor was the what the isolationist victim mentality aspect of Hungarian culture and society that has been present throughout the country’s history.
[15:55] Was there an element of nostalgia in Orbán tactics? There was certainly an element of that. Hungary after World War I had been divided up, so many Hungarians were no longer inside Hungary and the country have been made much smaller by the peace process in World War One and the Hungarians never forgot that. They felt they had all these Hungarians living in what then became Serbia or Romania or even Germany and other places, but they felt were part of their country. They felt they were victimized by Germany because Germany ultimately let them down and Germany lost the war. All of these feelings were out there for Orbán to be able to pray upon as he began to move into his authoritarian mode.
[21:47] How is Viktor Orbán getting this power? And what is he doing with it? He says he is building and illiberal democracy, but he claims that he is building a democracy and in some ways he has a legitimate claim to that in the sense that he has been elected now, he’s been elected twice actually, three times if you consider his earlier election. He’s using the major institution of democratic governance, which is an election to seize the path to take power legitimately. But then this is where the “illiberal” term that he uses comes in to eliminate what are the basic elements of liberal democracy and that is checks and balances, freedom of the media, independent judiciary, independent civil society, and a pluralist governing system instead.
[31:06] What does civil society look like our people in Hungary starting to fight back or push back against any of these actions? There’s been a lot of coverage of what’s happened in Hungary by the international media, by the American media, and there’s some evidence to suggest that people in Hungary are starting to push back against government actions they don’t like. Orbán has been constantly attacking the higher education, which culminated in the closing of Central European University in Budapest. The University is now located in Vienna and some of the faculty and students from Hungary commute back and forth. It’s another example of the political and intellectual hegemony that is being exercised by this authoritarian regime.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Viktor Orbán’s “velvet repression” in Hungary appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
In his book Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to Our World, James Miller encapsulates 2500 years of democracy history into about 250 pages — making the case that “people power” will always need to be at the heart of any successful democracy.
James is a professor of politics and liberal studies at the New School for Social Research. in New York City. He is the author of Examined Lives: From Socrates to Nietzsche, Flowers in the Dustbin: The Rise of Rock and Roll, 1947–1977, and Democracy Is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. He was recommended to us by Astra Taylor, and you’ll hear some similarities between how James and Astra view democracy and our role within it.
Starting next week, we’ll be expanding our focus to look at the state of democracy around the world, starting with Hungary. We’ve talked in broad strokes about how democracy is on the decline outside the United States and are excited to dive into what’s happening in a few specific countries.
Additional Information Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to Our World
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you make of the notion that democracy is “people power?” * Based on the definition James provides, is the United States a democracy? * What are the origins of democracy? * Where do the ideas of democracy comes from? * What can affect democracy or democratic processes?
Interview Highlights [4:50] In your book you talk about the ideal of democracy survives. What that ideal is and where it comes from? The term democracy comes from ancient Greek and it’s not just cuddly abstract power. It really connotes people who have weapons in their hands and you have to respond to them. A literal translation of the word democracy in the English would be “people power.”
[8:34] What can history tell us about trying to marry this the ideal of democracy with what what it ends up being in practice? It’s very misleading to try to draw direct lessons from history because so much in politics is situational. It depends on the context, on the culture, on the level of development of the people or a group that’s trying to become self governing. In the modern period the democracy is an idea and as an ideology, it’s inherently unstable because there’s a core ambiguity about to what extent it can be realized in practice and there’s a further ambiguity and that it’s proven to be a very powerful legitimating mechanism as an ideologies, and you end up with regimes that talk about democracy but don’t for a nanosecond really mean it and the cases of communist countries like North Korea and China are to most Americans self-evident.
[14:22] Where did the French get their ideas about democracy? They obtained some ideas from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who grows out of a modern Republican tradition and ends up backing into a kind of support for democracy. There is an American version of democracy that does appear in the course of the 19th century and it develops on a different path than democracy in Europe and yet in the United States think we invented democracy. So the one of the more weird facets of the story of modern democracy is America preening itself on being the birthplace of modern democracy, which is false and being a place where the great protector of democracy which we’ve used repeatedly in the 20th and 21st century as a rationale for imposing by gunfire democratic ideals on foreign countries.
[18:40] Can you talk a little bit about what the people’s party and the people’s constitution in Rhode Island look like? At the time of the Revolution after the Declaration of Independence most of the states, the colonies, drafted their own constitutions, but during this whole ferment Rhode Island basically just ratified as Colonial Charter and kept it in. A convention was declared and there’s a draft of the new Constitution which of course by the rules of the state legislature in Rhode Island was illegal. It ends up a short of the Civil War.
[22:11] In the 20th century, public opinion polls enter the picture. How did they impact perceptions of democracy? The conception that allows that to happen is the notion that democracy is ruled by public opinion, and this is proposed as a definition of modern democracy by Woodrow Wilson in writings before he became president of the United States. This nascent science of the monitoring of public opinion takes root in the United States. First of all in commercial applications through market research, but very quickly spreads to politics and emerges as a kind of practices in the 20s and into the 1930s. Finally, in the 1936 presidential campaign for the first time you have newspapers and magazines printing public opinion polls on who supports the different presidential candidates for the first time in history. Is that public opinion polling? It’s a two-way street. You can find out what people think they want and then you can try to manipulate it and you can manipulate it in part by the questions you ask.
[27:29] Knowing what you do about democracy’s history, where do things go from here? The vitality of democracy in a modern setting, in effect, depends on the continued irruption into the public sphere of the voices of ordinary citizens and that this eruption of voices will often be unruly and may even create chaos. That’s the nature of democratic revolts. I have no sympathy for people who keep denouncing what they call populism which to me just means it’s people power that they don’t like. It’s a group of people who are advocating policies they disagree with.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post A brief history of “people power” appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
No matter where you live, chances are that your local government is filled with things like feasibility studies, property tax assessments, and endless meetings governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. It’s difficult to keep track of, but yet could fundamentally impact your day-to-day life in ways that few state or national-level decisions do. This week’s guest says that citizens and the governments themselves have a role to play in changing the conversation.
Peter Buckland is the Chair of the Board of Supervisors in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. You’ll hear him describe the area and the structure in the interview, but really Ferguson Township could be just about any municipality in America. He outlines three ways that citizens and local government can work together to create more informed and more vibrant democracy at the local level:
- Citizens should pay attention to meeting agendas.
- Municipalities should use a variety of communication tools to let constituents know what’s happening.
- Everyone should support local media so it can do its job of reporting on local government.
All of the small places add up and Peter shows how local governments working together can have a big change on national or global issues. Peter lead an effort to adopt a resolution calling for carbon neutrality in Ferguson Township by 2050. It’s easy for a cynic to say that one municipality of 20,000 people can’t change anything, but as you’ll hear, the idea is already starting to catch on.
Additional Information Peter’s op-ed in the Washington Post about Ferguson Township’s carbon neutrality resolution
Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania
Two local government podcasts we enjoy: GovLove and Building Local Power
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What is the importance of the local government? * Why people would be aware of what’s happening in their local government? * Which are the challenges local governments face? * How are local governments related to democracy? * What can people do to be more involved in local government decision making?
Interview Highlights [5:22] Can you tell us who you represent and your municipality fits into the larger structure of state government? I serve as the chair of the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors and we represent the roughly nineteen to twenty thousand people who live in about 50 square miles west of State College Borough.
[9:07]How does being an elected official differ from what you thought it would be as an outsider? Before I ran, I underestimated the slowness and the deliberate transparency. When you’re running, you are excited and you think these people are trying to get something over on me. I could have actually gotten more information than I had before I ran.
[11:19] What are some strategies for how people can find out what their local governments up to? On the citizen side, the agenda of a meeting it is public. It is easy to access I would guess pretty much anywhere in the Commonwealth. So getting those and simply looking through what’s on the agenda, you can see what they’re working on and the stuff that affects your daily life.
[13:42] What can local governments to do connect with their constituents? Something that we do on the township or the municipal side is that every couple of months we do a coffee and conversation. We’re in different parts of the township. We invite citizens to simply come and talk with people who work at Ferguson Township, and we also invite State officials to come, like the local Representatives because they represent to the state.
[17:16] What pressures do local governments face? One of the things that happens at all levels of government is that people are trying to make money no matter what they’re doing. In a way developers can practically capture a department with bags of money, they have a lot that they can do and can overwhelm a local government like that.
[20:17] What can local governments do to try to get issues out in front of people before action is taken on them at a meeting? There are three possible strategies. First, individuals should pay attention to agendas. Second, the township or city or whoever should very deliberately let people know what’s coming do as much as they can to publicize and be transparent about pending decisions.And the third thing is that local media in this country is not doing what it needs to do.
[23:37] What Ferguson Township is done regarding climate change? I took a resolution that Don Brown had authored and I had quasi co-authored and I adapted it for our Township couching it in terms of Article 1 Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which is the green amendments. I said we need to have a net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal by 2050. We’re also working on a solar-powered public works building.
[26:59] It’s easy for for a cynic to say that one small township can’t make a meaningful impact. Does it really matter? It matters hugely. If you can assist in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of all of the individual people within your municipality, that’s good, and if you have 500 of those places doing that, you have 500 times 20,000 what you end up with a million people.
[28:33] Did it take any convincing to get your fellow supervisors on board with this idea? That resolution passed four to one. The lone dissenter is no longer on the board and I think she was ideologically just sort of opposed to it. The other three on the board were open to it. I think one of them might have been a little bit hesitant about it simply because of the potential ideological backlash that we might get.
[29:58] How did you learn all of the information needed to make these informed decisions? It’s a combination of having good training. The regional government trains you in all of the sort of different things that it does and makes these sort of lunch and learns available. When we came on the board the manager of the township. Did a sort of training session with us to take us through the Home Rule charter and that’s my learning zone.
[31:32] Why people should want to be part of their local government? If you care about where you live and you want to improve the quality of life for yourself and your neighbors and you think that someone needs to do that, that person might be you. If you just think “someone has to do something about this,” that person very well might be you.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post The power of local government appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Democracy and inequality have been at odds for as long as democracy as has existed. As the gap between rich and poor widens, so too does trust in political institutions and faith in democracy itself.
Chris Witko, associate director of Penn State’s School of Public Policy and author of The New Economic Populism: How States Respond to Economic Inequality, argues that states can step in to address economic inequality while the federal government is embattled in political polarization.
Witko argues that democracy and capitalism will never fully be reconciled, but lessening economic inequality will go a long way toward strengthening democracy.
Additional InformationThe New Economic Populism: How States Respond to Economic Inequality
The Conversation: States are on the front lines of fighting inequality
Penn State School of Public Policy
Discussion/Reflection Questions* What is the relationship between democracy and economic inequality? * Whose responsibility is it to address inequality? * What policies should be taken in order to reduce inequality? * Do you think that individual states are doing enough to reduce inequality? * Do you think that multiple states adopting politics like minimum wage increases will spur federal action?
Interview Highlights[6:02] Why are income inequality and democracy closely linked?We are going to have some inequality in a capitalist system, but when we are in a democratic capitalist system that assumes some level of equality, there is a concern when you have extreme levels of extreme inequality.
[6:53] Talking about problems of Democracy in United States, do you agree with the statement that we can’t start to fix what is wrong with democracy until we address the issue of inequality?Yes. When you see the extremes of wealth and inequality, you see that wealthy people can use their money for politics, so that generates an unequal political influence.
[7:50] Whose job to fix the problem of inequality?In the United States we tend to think that the public is not concerned about inequality and that’s relatively true in comparison with Europe, but according to survey data, the public is really concerned about inequality and they want the government to do something to fix it.
[10:15] If public opinion really does supports action on inequality, why isn’t it moving forward?The polarization is preventing anything getting done, and when you have big interests and the wealthy has gib influence in politics, that makes it really hard to get any chance of getting any egalitarian policy in Washington DC.
[13:09] How can we use the tools of democracy to fight inequality?We do have in the states that we don’t have in Washington DC is direct democracy, in which desires from majority are expressed, but sometimes terrible policies can restrict rights from minorities.
[14:30] If a state want to take action either in minimum wage or thru the earning income tax, it is a tipping point to take action at the federal level?Yes. We have seen it in the past. A lot os states has a higher income wage than the federal minimum wage an at this point it is natural that there’s not an opposition at the federal level because a lot of businesses are already adjusted to that level of income wage.
[15:17] What is the Earned Income tax Credit? How that it be a solution for that states that are looking to solve inequalities?It’s a tax credit that comes back to workers who don’t earn a lot of money so you can actually end up getting cash back from the government when you file your tax return. That’s something that started at the federal level and then has proliferated down to the states and now the states are doing more to expand their earned income tax credits. It’s another policy tool that you can use in a more conservative area where maybe you don’t want to increase taxes on the wealthy, but you want to bring up the incomes of lower income workers.
[16:49] Can you talk about how populism fits into this inequality conversation?The public is concerned about inequality and a lot of the policies that would actually address inequality or that we’ve used in the past to reduce inequality are actually really popular with the public. Minimum wage increases and tax increases on Millionaires and billionaires are very popular with the public. There are policies that a majority of the people want and we’re not really getting them in Washington DC due to the political dynamics there, but some of the states are actually doing this.
[17:44] What are those points in history that let large-scale changes, like the New Deal, to move forward?What happened during the New Deal is a unique set of circumstances, you had a massive congressional majority of Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt’s terrible economy and people were ready for action, but we don’t want to have another Great Depression. With those political conditions we really did see the federal government pioneering new policies to address problems and we’re not seeing that because you have the the influence of the wealthy and politics in Washington DC, which is similar in some states but not as great in other states, so the states have more room for action and you have the mass of polarization in Washington DC which prevents anything from getting done.
[19:54] Can people try to do in their own way to make progress on some of these issues?Voter turnout is really important to the types of policy. We need to do more to mobilize lower income voters, so any supporting organizations to make that happen is a good idea.
[20:59] Is there any type of ideal that we should be looking for?No. I don’t think we can specify a mathematical point at which we’re good and within 2 percentage of points of this it’s bad, and that’s part of the danger of this situation. You never know when things have gotten too extreme. I don’t think many Americans would support everybody earning the same income or pure equality and that’s not going to happen, but just avoiding extremes of inequalities.
[23:11] How things like the Affordable Care Act and some of the other kind of more drastic proposals like Medicare for All are a factor?The Affordable Care Act is interesting because it is one of the few real major egalitarians policies that we’ve seen enacted. There are some problems with how the ACA was designed. We’re seeing a similar logic where liberal states expanded medicaid right away, but even some of the more conservative states have done so through the particularly, through the initiative, but in some some cases not even through the initiative.
[24:36] Do you think that we can really do anything to move forward on addressing inequality without talking about the current state of campaign finance and the influence of money in politics?Yes. Stricter campaign finance laws would probably be a good thing. The problem is right now the Supreme Court and a lot of state courts are really against regulating money in politics. The other thing we can do is to just try to increase money from other voices into the system.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Using the tools of democracy to address economic inequality appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
We begin our third season with a fundamental question: What is democracy?
Astra Taylor grapples with this question in a documentary of the same name and a forthcoming book. We talk with her this week about what she learned from traveling the world and talking with people from all walks of life. As you’ll hear, she did not set out to make a documentary about democracy, but kept coming back to that question.
Taylor is a writer, documentarian, and organizer. In addition to What is Democracy?, her films include Zizek!, a feature documentary about the world’s most outrageous philosopher, and Examined Life, a series of excursions with contemporary thinkers including Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler, Cornel West, Peter Singer, and others.
A companion book, Democracy May Not Exist, But We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone, was released May 7.
Her writing has appeared in The Nation, the London Review of Books, n+1, the New York Times, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and elsewhere. She is the editor of Examined Life, a companion volume to the film, and the coeditor of Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America. Her 2015 book, The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, won an American Book Award.
Additional InformationWhat Is Democracy?
Democracy May Not Exist, but We’ll Miss it When It’s Gone
The Debt Collective
Discussion/Reflection Questions* What does democracy mean to you? * Does it matter that people have different views of what democracy is? * What do you see as the relationship between equality and democracy? * How do you practice democracy in your day-to-day life?
Interview Highlights[5:36] Why did you want to make a film about democracy? I kept coming back to democracy and I think for me the big takeaway of making this film and writing the companion book that goes with it is that I’ve actually become more of us, more democrat. It’s sort of inspired a deep conviction in the concept, in the practice, and things that bothered me about the term, it’s a vagueness? What does it mean? All sorts of people say that they believe in democracy. I mean North Korea uses the word “democratic,” but it is a vague use of the word.
There’s a sense that democracy was corrupted, that it was synonymous with bureaucracy so I would have been more attracted to words like freedom, equality and justice and even socialism, a revolution. Things are really changing, we are in a very different political moment. We are in a moment when people are feeling we are in a political crisis and democracy we had for granted is declining, and people’s reaction is “I better pay attention to this thing I was ignoring”.
[8:55] Did you see people’s perception of democracy change over the course of making film?The last week of filming was the 2016 election. I filmed for a few days after Trump’s victory and you know like most people I was surprised. I think people became more concerned with democracy. They got more sort of panicked and yet, I think what’s interesting about the film and how it turned out in the editing room is actually the footage that I shot earlier was somehow more power it didn’t lose its relevance because so many problems existed and have existed for decades. The closer we got to the moment of crisis of the election. I found that people almost couldn’t think the interviews weren’t as good because people were just in the state of panic that was not very philosophical.
[11:57] Is it a problem that people don’t have a standard definition of what democracy is?I think the fact people have different answers is a good thing, but I actually I didn’t find that people had answers that were particularly in depth, and actually nobody said democracy was equality to me. That was a word that I sort of expected to hear but it wasn’t something I encountered. So I found that when I really engage people started asking they could have quite interesting things to say about their lives and the political situation, but when I pose directly the question “what is democracy?” their answers could be kind of cursory or there could be platitudes and I think that’s a sign, a symptom that something is wrong. That people can’t really robustly or personally explain this concept that is supposedly so essential to our society. I don’t think democracy is something people really feel they experienced in today. And that’s part of why I think people have a hard time defining it.
[14:14] How does liberalism fit into the definition of democracy?I think at different points there was a lot more about the rule of law and sort of thinking about because I sort of thought about different sort of tensions and democracy as I was going into it and sort of rule of law or the rule of the people rights with sort of and that it just didn’t end up being the most sort of compelling issues, so there is stuff about sort of structure. Nobody uses the word “norms” but there’s stuff about structure and rules will been throughout the film in sort of who writes the rules. Part of my attempt also was to raise sort of these fundamental issues, but in language, that’s not necessarily the typical academic or philosophical language because when regular people meaning just you know, we’re all regular people but meaning non-experts, meaning those of us who read and engage the scholarly literature. I mean people bring up these issues. They just don’t use the academic or philosophical or left-wing rhetoric. I think I feel like it’s sort of hinted at but it’s just in sort of common tongue.
[16:38] Do you have a sense of where the line between democracy and populism is?I’m still thinking through the term populism because I think there’s also another word like liberalism and like democracy. There’s a huge literature around it and it’s up for debate and I think there’s a battle over different definitions of populism and there are attempts to claim populism on the left and the right. I think the right is making them a much more successful pitch. I’ve noticed actually a lot of conservative intellectuals actually calling themselves now populists and which is interesting. This idea of popular sovereignty is in the film.
[21:26] The film spends a lot of time looking at the relationship between inequality and democracy. Did you gain any understanding through the course of making this film about how we might address inequality?I’m definitely of the mindset that you cannot have political equality, that people cannot enjoy the political rights that they have on paper under conditions of extreme inequality. So the question though how to rein in the engines that are producing these conditions and this immense concentration of wealth is a real challenge, so I think part of the film is and that’s the work I do as an activist.
[26:53] After doing all this work for the book and the film, what does democracy mean to you?I think democracy is a promise going back to that. But I think it’s not a promise that the powerful make and then break right, they’re not doing our democracy for us. I really think it’s a promise that can only be fulfilled by the people. Taking the time and thinking, acting, and making it as real as it can be and I don’t think it can ever just be fulfilled. It’s not something that we ever just grasp and then we get to just relax and tweak on the margins. I really think it’s a perpetual struggle. We had our founding fathers, but I think we need to be perennial midwives birthing this democracy into being.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post What is democracy? A conversation with Astra Taylor appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
We’ll be back with new episodes starting next week. This week’s episode comes to you from our friends at Trump on Earth, a podcast that’s taking a closer look at all the changes coming out of Washington on the environment — from what’s happening at the EPA to how our public lands will fare under the Trump administration.
This episode features an interview with sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild about her book Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right,which chronicles her time with conservatives in Louisiana. Hochschild found people there who had become sick from industrial pollution or lost their homes due to an industrial catastrophe yet were resentful of the federal government.
Trump on Earth is produced by The Allegheny Front, a public media outlet based in Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania. All of their episodes can be found at trumponearth.org.
For this week’s rebroadcast, we revisit an episode on the U.S. Census that originally aired in May 2018. New episodes return January 21 when we talk with “What is Democracy?” director Astra Taylor.
Jennifer Van Hook The next census won’t start until 2020, but the U.S. Census Bureau is already hard at work on preparing to count the more than 325 million people in the United States. The census is one of the few democratic norms that’s required by the Constitution, and the data collected has wide-ranging uses.
The normally routine process has been disrupted this year by Trump administration, which is pushing for the reintroduction of a question about citizenship. As you may have heard, there’s a debate going on about whether this question is appropriate, and whether the resource-strapped Census Bureau will have time to implement it before 2020.
Jennifer Van Hook, Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology and Demography at Penn State, served on the Census Advisory Board from 2007 to 2011 and is an expert on how census data is collected, how it’s evaluated, and how it’s used. She talks about the process for creating and testing new questions, the implications of asking about citizenship, and some of the ways you might not realize census data is used.
Additional Information Jennifer’s piece about the Census in The Conversation
2020 Census website
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think it is necessary for a democracy to have this sort of information that the census gathers? * How often do you think the census should be performed? * Do you think the citizenship question should be added to the census? Why or why not? * If you could add a question to the census, what would it be? * Do you plan on participating in the 2020 census? Why or why not?
Interview Highlights [6:06] What do you see as the role the census plays in a democracy? Jennifer: It is fundamental for a representative democracy. The United States was actually the first nation in the world to require that a census be conducted. This was done because they wanted to distribute power according to population within the states. The number of representatives each state gets in the House is proportionate to the population. Therefore, the census is very important.
[7:28] In addition to determining representation in Washington, what are some of the other purposes of the census? Jennifer: One of the other uses is the civil rights legislation that has been passed since the 60’s. This helps tell us if certain groups are under represented. This information can show us if certain groups are being discrimintated against within society. The people conducting the census are expected to be non-partisan. Therefore, they collect the information while not saying anything about the data. They simply give it to the public because they want to stay out of the politics of this information.
[9:20] In the era of “fake news” and people being able to cherry pick their facts, how will the census be viewed and used going forward? Jennifer: The staff that conducts the census takes considerable measures to strip the data of any political leanings. One way this is done is by having multiple authors for all reports to prevent any one bias from impacting how data is reported. They also work in large teams with multiples checks for each bit of data collected.
[10:40] There are reports that the there is underfunding for the census. How will the organization continue to meet its standards with this funding issue? Jennifer: There is no set director of the census bureau. This lack of direction could cause a problem. One of the thing people have been worried about is the ability of the bureau to conduct out reach and inform people about the census. For example, many people don’t realize that the bureau can’t share its information with Ice. This is significant to share with immigrants who might fear participation in the census out of immigration police fears. This goes to the importance of building trust amongst the public to get them to participate.
[12:35] How does the bureau actually go about counting everyone in the country? Jennifer: Everyone gets a postcard in the main informing them they have to participate. If you don’t respond to that, you might get follow up contact. This is the most expensive part of the process. If people don’t respond to the first contact, and they have to be contacted again, this is where the cost can really increase for the census process.
[13:25] How does the bureau use past experiences to improve the process? Jennnifer: They do but it takes a lot of time. They try to improve their operation. However, this is difficult given the size of the debarment. It is difficult to turn on a time and change the way they conduct their business. Any small change takes a lot of time.
[14:30] What goes into deciding on the wording of a question for the census? Jennifer: Every part of the question is tested. The introduction of a new question typically takes several years because of all the test to make sure people interpret the question correctly as intended. We also consider a question from the standpoint of its impact on people’s willingness to participate in the census in light of it. In terms of the citizenship question, this has become more of a hot button topic especially given the anti-immigrant rhetoric in society today. This means that the field test questions done in the past for this topic might have to be changed because we just don’t know how people will respond to it this time.
[16:37] Wilbur Ross has said that he thinks the benefit of the citizenship question will outweigh the potential risks of lower response rates. Do you agree with that? Jennifer: No, I don’t. I don’t think the bureau has shown that this question is really necessary. Typically, questions that make the census form have to be dictated by law as being necessary. So you can’t just add questions because you think they wont’ harm the utility of the census. Every question has to be there because it is required. There is another survey called the American Community Survey. They have been collecting citizenship information for years. This data has been used to enforce the voting rights act. I’m not aware of any problems with this survey being used to gather citizenship information.
[17:50] Can you talk about how this survey differs from the census survey? Jennifer: It is a much longer survey. The questions change from year to year. It is administered to roughly 3.5 million people every year. It provides more detailed information on an annual basis for the population. It provides us with more specific information even down to the county level.
[19:37] How is census information used to impact federal policy? Jennifer: It is particularly useful when we need to know something about the populations health. One example would be looking at the changing life expectancy. This information wouldn’t be known without procedures like the census. It is the backbone of our federal statistical system.
[21:20] What would you say to someone about why they should participate in the census? Jennifer: It is good to be counted because we don’t know about our population unless we measure it.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post It’s good to be counted [rebroadcast] appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Our holiday break continues this week as we bring you an episode with with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro that originally aired in October. Happy New Year!
It seems like every few weeks, we see headlines about states banding together to block actions taken by the federal government. You might even remember former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quipping that he goes to the office, sues the federal government, then goes home.
How do those lawsuits take shape? How does a state decide whether to join or not? How does that impact the balance of power between federal and state governments? This week’s guest is uniquely qualified to answer all of those questions.
Since taking office in January 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has been involved with more than a dozen suits brought against the federal government on matters ranging from family separation at the border to EPA emissions regulations. Though Shapiro is a Democrat, he says his chief motivation in joining these suits is the rule of law and a commitment to do what’s right for people of Pennsylvania.
Whether or not you agree with Shapiro’s politics, he does present an interesting take on the role that states play as a check on the federal government. This power is a unique part of the American experiment and speaks to the power of democracy in the states.
Before the interview, Chris and Michael dive into the origins of federalism, including Federalist 51, the 10th Amendment, and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
Additional InformationPennsylvania Office of the Attorney General
Federalist 51
Discussion/Reflection Questions* What do you think should be the balance between the states and federal government in terms of power? * Do you think states should be active in legal action against the federal government? * Do you think that state attorneys general are becoming too political? * Do you see state as a shield to protect a state’s residents against federal overreach?
Interview Highlights[5:12] When you took this office, did you expect yourself to be this active on federal issues?Shapiro: I said when I was sworn in that if someone was going to try to mess with Pennsylvania that they would have to go through me. I see the constitution as giving the states broad authority. States rights isn’t something progressives have pointed to, but it is something I value. If someone in the federal system is doing something to undermine our rights, I’m going to stand up to take action.
[6:32] How do one of these suits against the federal government get started?Shapiro: The first question is whether the action comports with the rule of law. I put aside what I agree or disagree with personally and instead focus on the law. Once we deem that an illegal action has been taken, be think about what is the best way to file an action to challenge that activity. We discuss whether or not Pennsylvania should be the lead state. There are sometimes strategic reasons why we file a suit in a particular state. What we are not doing is constructing opposition to the president just for the sake of opposing him. What we are doing is organizing ourselves around the rule of law.
[8:43] What issues or possible suits have you turned down?Shapiro: We’ve been involved in about fifteen cases since taking office. I’m very careful about what we engage in on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania. Again, it is not my job just to weigh in whenever I personally disagree with the president. It is my job to weigh in when the rule of law is being threatened.
[9:31] What is the timeline for one of these cases?Shapiro: I spend the majority of my time going around to differnt places listening to people. I think I have a good feel for where the people of the state are. I don’t poll test these issues. Instead, I try to do what is right and what adheres to the rule of law.
[10:36] Under Obama, we saw a lot of states file suits against the federal government much like what is happening now with Trump in office. Do you think this goes to the partisan nature of government?Shapiro: I would actually push back on that a little. Most of what I do is bipartisan. It’s just that the media usually doesn’t report that. The vast majority of the actions we take are really bipartisan.
[12:34] President Trump has stated that he thinks the attorney general office should be more of a political one. What are your thoughts on that?Shapiro: We are above politics in this office. I’m a proud Democrat. People know I have progressive leanings. They knew that when they elected me. However, we check our political views at the door everyday when we come into the office. If you look at our track record, we’ve held democrats and republicans accountable. We do our job in a way that the people of the state can be proud that the justice system is fair. We are diverse in both appearance and thought.
[15:23] What does the term “rule of law” mean to you?Shapiro: It is the very foundation of everything that I do. It helps you be above politics. My job is to understand the law, apply the facts and evidence, then make a decision in the best interest of the people of Pennsylvania.
Shapiro: The tenth amendment makes it really clear that states have a role to play in our democracy. I believe that if the federal government is making an overreach into our state business, then I’m going to be a shield to guard against that. However, states have also at times been the thing infringing upon rights. However, more often than not, they are expanding rights. The fight for marriage is a perfect example of that. Justice Brandies spoke eloquently about states being the laboratories for democracy. That still holds true today. States need to be a shield against overreach and a sword in promoting the rights of their citizens.
While we take a holiday break, we are going back into the archives to rebroadcast a few of our favorite episodes from earlier this year. This one originally aired in September.
Mark Kissling As a piece in The Atlantic recently noted, democracy is not natural. Becoming a democratic citizen involves a set of behaviors that need to be learned and practiced over time. One of the first places for that conditioning to happen is in the classroom. Beyond reading, writing, and STEM skills, students have an opportunity to engage in dialogue and debate facilitated by their teachers and learn what it means to be part of a democracy.
The term most often used to describe this is civics education, which probably brings back memories of learning about the branches of government how a bill becomes a law. As you’ll hear this week, true civics education is about so much more than that. In in a polarized political climate, are teachers afraid to engage controversial subjects? How should they address things like citizenship and patriotism? How do they have time to engage in these wide-ranging discussions given the constraints they face to prepare students for standardized tests? Mark Kissing helps budding teachers find their way — strengthening their commitments to democracy so they can pass that spirit along to their students.
Mark is an assistant professor of social studies education at Penn State. His work focuses on citizenship education, or the practice of preparing civic-minded individuals. We’ve recently seen the importance of civics education play out in the months since the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Our look at Generation Z and the future of democracy earlier this year is worth revisiting as proof that what Mark and his colleagues are teaching is having an impact.
Recommended Reading Mark’s post about the National Anthem ritual on the McCourtney Institute blog
Americans Aren’t Practicing Democracy: Yoni Appelbaum in The Atlantic
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What was your civics education like? Does anything you learned still stick with you today? * What role should the formal education system play in creating civically engaged and aware young people? * How should teachers and the field of education in general react to concepts such as “fake news” and alternative facts? * When a significant current event happens, should teachers and professors take time away from the structured curriculum to address it? * Given the access that students have to information outside of the classroom, how should a teacher handle a student who brings in a theory or an idea into the classroom from the internet? * What role should parents have in deciding how controversial subjects are addressed in the classroom? * People often complain today about the state of political rhetoric. What if anything can be done within K-12 education to help change this for the future generations?
Interview Highlights [4:34] What do you think an education in civics looks like? Mark: In school, social studies usually has a civics education built into it. This fusion came about in the early 20th century. I tend to think about it in terms of teaching about a civic society and what it means to be a participatory citizen. It does include the basic stuff about how government works. However, I think it also entails an introduction to how citizens interact with that government in a democratic system.
[6:12] What does the idea of citizenship education actually look like in the classroom? Mark: For me, I think it involves looking at where teachers and students are in terms of their own lives, such as where they’ve been and the circumstances of the places they live. Then consider what participation with society looks like in these areas under theses circumstances. That is then pulling in history and other factors. Importantly, this is place based education.
[7:08] As a social studies teacher yourself, how did you approach this in your classroom? Mark: One of the courses I taught was a street law course. I taught the class in Framingtown Massachusetts, which was the largest town in America at the time. Therefore, most of our issues were centered around local town government. I think this focus on place occurred naturally at this time. However, I’m more continuously aware of place today.
[8:45] Today, the political climate is very polarized. We also have concepts such as “fake news” and “alternative facts”. How do you prepare teachers to address and handle these issues with their students? Mark: How one would address that in their class would be molded by where that course is physically. For example, these issues would be handled differently between a rural school as compared to a more urban located school.
[9:40] Do you find that your students are receptive to this notion of place? Mark: They are immediately receptive to it. However, their broader schooling experiences don’t lead them towards being receptive to it. There is a really big gap between the lived experience of a particular area and the curriculum students are provided with. One of my missions it to ground social studies in the context of the experience of where the students in a particular school actually live.
[10:45] How do you balance providing students both local and national awareness in a field like social studies? Mark: It would be a mistake to focus only on the local issue and ignore the broader national and global context. However, it’s typically the other way around in that were focusing on the national or global perspective and ignoring the local perspective. I certainly think there is a need to traverse across those scales. For example, when talking about something like patriotism, we should talk about what it means both in the context of protests around the world as well as local instances such as the national anthem issue at the local Spikes game.
[12:00] Do you think teachers should sort of play the role of a journalist in that they stick to the facts and keep any personal opinions out of their lessons? Mark: I think there is an expectation of that. Also, they’ve been schooled that way. I actually had an instances recently with a group of soon to be teachers following the events in Charlottesville. I asked them how they’d be handling this situation in their own classrooms. Most of them said that they wouldn’t address the issue at all. Part of this game from a fear of lack of information as to what was happening. There is also a political charge to it that teachers often feel worried about taking on in front of their classes. However, if we want to take on schooling as a community based effort, we have to be willing to engage with students on these difficult current event issues. We have to have conversations across these divides.
[14:35] What is your advice to those teachers who said they wouldn’t address this issue with their own classroom? Mark: My comment is that you are taking it up by not addressing it up or pushing it to the side. Any statement, including the lack of a statement, is a message that you send to students. In the absence of a class discussion about Charlottesville, you’re being socialized not to talk about difficult issues like that. That’s troubling. We need to also consider treating the classroom as a place where students can engage, often for the first time, in difficult dialogue on challenging issues, such as what took place in Charlottesville.
[17:00] How do you balance dialogue on current events with the increased focus on “teaching to the test”? Mark: It is a little different in social studies as compared to other subject areas because this field isn’t tested nearly to the degree of other topics. I do think standardizing education is important. I work with teachers to find the balance between engaging students on controversial current events while also ensuring that they’re prepared for these standardized assessments.
[19:30] Everyone is familiar with the image of the angry parent beating down the door after a controversial topic is address in a class. How do you prepare future teachers to handle something like that? Mark: I think it is important to listen and understand what the parent is saying. It is important to build your justification for how you structure your classroom and properly present this to the parents. It can be a slow and brutal process. However, I think it can be a very productive exercise.
[20:50] In light of the events at Parkland, have you seen a change amongst your students in terms of an increase interest in taking on some of these more controversial civic topics? Mark: I think the civic engagement of the Parkland students themselves will have a big impact on my students. I think this is something I’ll see reflected in them this coming semester. I also think that my students have some sense of fear of living in a school on lock down. There is also the teacher side of this. How does a teacher handle teaching in an environment where being on lockdown is becoming more of a norm?
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom [rebroadcast] appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Michael Berkman
From gerrymandering to record voter turnout, it’s been a busy year for democracy. This doesn’t mean that everything has been positive, but there’s certainly plenty to reflect on. This week, Michael Berkman and Chris Beem take a look a look back at some of the biggest democracy-related stories of the year and look at what’s in store for next year.
Chris Beem Thank you to everyone who supported Democracy Works this year. The show has been more successful than we ever imagined. If you like what you’ve heard this year, please take a minute to leave us a rating, review, or recommendation wherever you listen to podcasts.
We are excited to bring you more great discussions about all things democracy in 2019. New episodes will begin in mid-January. If you have suggestions for episode topics or guests, we would love to hear them! Email us at democracyinst@psu.edu or complete our contact form.
Related Episodes * Checking the President’s power * What can Pennsylvania voters do about gerrymandering? * Generation Z and the future of democracy * Facebook is not a democracy
```
Share
```
Tweet
Google Plus
ShareThe post 2018: The year in democracy appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Caroline Hunter
In the United States, voting is a very private act. You step into the booth alone and, for a lot of people, it’s considered taboo to tell someone who you voted for. Campaign donations, however, are a different story.
The Federal Election Commission, an independent regulatory agency established after Watergate, collects donor infomration from candidates, makes it available to the public, and enforces federal campaign finance laws. Anyone can go online and look up records to see who gave money to a particular candidate — to a point, anyway.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that political spending was protected under the First Amendment. The decision opened the door to “dark money” groups that allow corporations and other organizations to give to a Political Action Committee (PAC) that in turn backs a candidate. Much of this spending is not publicly disclosed and it added up to more than $500 million in the 2018 midterms.
FEC Chair Caroline Hunter joins us this week to explore the relationship between campaign finance and democracy. Hunter has been on the commission since 2008 and has seen the impact of the Citizens United ruling firsthand. She makes an interesting connection between PACs and political polarization — and how it all ties back to democratic participation.
Caroline is a Penn State alumna and, prior to joining the FEC, she worked for the Republican National Committee. The FEC is a bipartisan commission with three Republicans and three Democrats, though two positions are currently vacant. Caroline talks about how that bipartisan nature might expand to other parts of the government and who reads FEC filings.
Additional Information Federal Election Commission website
Citizens United v. FEC
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What impact do you think the Citizens United ruling had on campaigns in America? * Should people be able to donate to a particular issue group without their names being made public? * Would the public sharing of donors names prevent you from giving to a particular campaign? * Are you worried about “dark money?” * What changes, if any, would you like to see made to campaign finance regulation?
Interview Highlights What is the mission of the FEC? Hunter: Many think that the Federal Election Commission has control over election administration, which it does not. State elections are run by state and local governments.
What does the day to day work of the commission look like? Hunter: It receives many complaints from the public about things people see in campaigns around they country. When we see a case that seems to have merit, we’ll investigate and come to a determination as to whether or not campaign laws were violated. This is really the bulk of our work.
What sorts of things do you tend to see in these complaints? Hunter: There are trends in each cycle. Two cycles ago we got a lot of complaints regarding presidential hopefuls who weren’t properly reporting their campaign fundraising. We’re still actually working through some of those now.
What is the time frame from the filing of a complaint to an official ruling from the commission? Hunter: There is a statutory 60 day deadline to get the investigation conclusion back to the public. If it’s a matter relating to a campaign, we have to provide result within 30 days. The enforcement division takes more time. It can take up to several years. This time spans is due to due process protections afforded the accused. This can included responses from the accused and additional investigations. These investigations can take a good period of times.
In some of the longer investigations, it could be the case that a candidate has already won the race. How does this factor in to eventually punishing someone who violated campaign laws? Hunter: It’s difficult to come to a conclusion on a complaint before the end of the race because so many are made right before the end of the election. Therefore, many times the race will have ended before we come to a conclusion on a particular complaint.
There are currently open seats on the commission. How does this vacancy impact the work that you do? Hunter: The commission has three members of each party. For anything to happen, you must receive court votes from these six people. This means the decision has to be bipartisan. I thin this is good because it prevents one party from taking over the commission. It is something the federal government should consider doing in other parts of the government. Most of our decisions actually come to a bipartisan result. Only rarely do we see a three to three split.
How has your work changed since the Citizens United ruling? Hunter: That ruling and others have enabled more people to become involved in politics. The citizens ruling enabled corporations to engage more by running commercials for or against candidates. When people think of a corporation, they often imagine a massive company like Starbucks. However, included under the title of corporations are interest groups and grass roots movements that are often coded under the tax law as corporations. I think this is a good thing for democracy. While they are limited as to what they can do, they are now able to engage more in the political process.
Do you worry that some campaigns are becoming too large to effectively regulate? Hunter: There certainly has been an increase in the amount of money raised. However, I don’t think this is necessarily a problem. Much of this money is raised from individual donors through the campaigns website. You could look at this as increased democratic participation. However, one concern that many have is that these groups will get so large that they won’t really be impacted by the fines that we may place upon them.
The commission is about 40 years old. Do you think it has kept with the world around it? Hunter: I think we have. Our mission of highlighting who is donating to federal elections has not changed and we’re still effectively accomplishing that. When you talk to people from other countries, they’re amazed at our systems and what we’re able to do
Is there an organization similar to the FEC that follows complains about voter suppression and voter fraud? Hunter: There is sort of a group that does that work. It is called the Election Assistance Commission. It doesn’t have a lot of power. It is still really run by the state governments. I think it actually makes sense to keep this policing power at the state level rather than have the federal government get involved with policing state elections.
A term we hear a lot is “dark money.” Can you explain what it is and how it relates to the FEC? Hunter: After Citizens United, people were concerned that there would be basically unregulated money flowing into campaigns. However, every dollar that goes into super packs is registered with us. Also, corporations have to report all political spending they engage in within two days of doing so. Your “dark money” is coming from 501c(4) groups. They’re able to spend politically where as they weren’t able to before this court ruling. Again, I think this is good for democracy because it enables greater participation in the political process. The reason these donations are referred to as “dark money” is because the identification of donors to these groups is not reported to the commission. The reason for this is that they’re not political committees. They are referred to as issue advocacy groups, like the NRA or the Sierra Club. Groups like this are seen as not existing primarily for the purpose of political activity. This is actually the topic of serious debate within the commission.
Could this be the future of political donations? Hunter: I think it could. One reason is that people would like to donate to a particular cause without facing public harassment. There is a wave of hostility right now from a particular side of the isle where there is blowback on someone if they give to a certain organization.
Do you have any interaction with members of Congress? Hunter: In my experience, those in Congress are not very interested in talking about campaign finance law. This is largely due to the fact that we regulate all of their campaigns.
Do you think that relationship has an impact on democracy? Hunter: While I don’t think it necessarily impacts democracy, I think it would be useful to have the two sides be in closer communication.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post The complicated relationship between campaign finance and democracy appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Eric Plutzer
We end almost every episode of the show with four questions that come from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s Mood of the Nation Poll. Rather than simply addressing people agree agree or disagree with a particular point of view, the poll uses open-ended responses to understand why people feel the way they do. Every poll asks respondents to describe in their own words what makes them angry, proud, worried, and hopeful about politics and current events.
We interview a lot of smart people on this show and it’s not surprising the they have interesting and thought-provoking responses to these questionsl. We revisit some of those responses in this episode and hear from Eric Plutzer, the poll’s director, about how what our guests say matches up with what everyday citizens say in the poll.
Responses in this episode Anger [2:30] Rebecca Kreitzer, University of North Carolina
[5:02] Brad Vivian, Penn State
Pride [8:14] Forrest Briscoe, Penn State
[10:19] David Frum, The Atlantic
Worry [13:42] Robert Asen, the University of Wisconsin
[16:24] Lara Putnam, the University of Pittsburgh
Hope [20:10] Sophia McClennen, Penn State
[20:43] Michael Mann, Penn State
Additional Information Mood of the Nation Poll
Land-grant universities were once known as “democracy’s colleges,” places where people who were not wealthy elites could earn the education necessary to make better lives for themselves and contribute to the greater social good in the process. The The United States does not have a national university, but the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 established a public university in each state.
Penn State, Pennsylvania’s land-grant university, is the home of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and this podcast. We invited Nick Jones, the University’s Executive Vice President and Provost, to join us this week for a conversations about the tension between staying true to the land-grant mission and ensuring that the university remains financially stable as funding from the state remains flat or declines.
We also talk about the the skills needed to be good democratic citizens and the skills needed to obtain a high-paying job — and why land-grant universities in particular must pay attention to both.
Recommended Reading Chronicle of Higher Education article on the role of universities in a democracy
Land-Grant Universities for the Future
Land-grant universities as “democracy’s colleges”
Why doesn’t the United States have a national university?
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you see as a university’s key responsibilities? * How do you think the role of university has changed over time? * Do you think schools have done a good job making their case as to the importance of higher education? * What do you think is contributing to the trend of many seeing higher education as being less valuable than it once was? * Do you fear that universities will be poisoned by the level of political polarization that we’ve seen take hold of so many institutions over the last few years? * How can universities address the problems pointed to in the last two questions? * If you are either a current student or a college graduate, do you think you’re getting a good return on your investment?
Interview Highlights Land grant universities have often been referred to as ‘schools for the people’ in the sense that they’re accessible to the pubic. To what extent do you think this label still applies to such institutions? Nick: I absolutely believe that view of land grant institutions still applies. One of the key tenants of a democracy is an educated and informed citizenry. Our mission here is to ensure that we’re helping to produce that educated citizenry to enable democracy to function.
Penn State manages many things that don’t directly relate to education, such as arenas and medical facilities. How does this tie into its mission as a land grant institution? Nick: The service duties of institutions like Penn State have changed since their founding as land grant institutions. Today, in 2018, providing medical services is seen as one of these duties of an institution like Penn State. Doing things like managing concert venues goes to another part of our mission which is to expose those in the commonwealth to the arts.
What goes into the process of deciding to increase the offerings of Penn State? Nick: First and foremost, I think it is critical that we always stay focused on our mission as a university. It truly is the case that all of my decisions are made through the lens of the mission statement of Penn State. Whenever a new project or opportunity is presented to us, we always ask ourselves whether this is vital to our mission as a land grant university. If the answer is yes, we do it. If the answer is no, we don’t.
How do changes in funding from the state impact your decision making process? Nick: When this process first began of the state reducing their level of financial support, it was ok because tuition costs for families was still relatively low. However, as support has continued to decline, the burden on students and their families has continued to creep up. This increased burden occupies a lot of our time. We spend a lot of time thinking about how to ensure that a valuable Penn State education remains accessible to all types of people across the commonwealth from all walks of life.
Do you see a change amongst the students as to how they view a degree? For example, do they see it as simply a requirement for getting a job or as acquiring a tool to enable them to contribute to the public good? Nick: We want to ensure that we’re preparing students for life as well as for a career. We are mindful of ensuring that an education from Penn State prepares them for both aspect of the future in a balanced way. We want students to be successful both in their personal career lives as well as in their lives as part of the community.
We’ve seen a trend as of late of devaluing the idea of a liberal education. In part due to a conflation of the idea of a liberal education as being a politically biased education. Do you see this trend as being a problem? How does the university address it? Nick: We do hear that a lot. We firmly believe that creating students who can address issues analytically is really important. We fundamentally believe in the importance of an educated citizenry.
Do you worry that higher education is going to get caught up in the political polarization that has crept into nearly every part of our lives? Nick: We do worry about that a lot. We need to ask why this is happening as well as what we can do to address this. We also have to take ownership of our role in contributing to this problem. We need to again make the case that higher education is important to society and make a significant contribution in a democratic society. One example of a place where I think we have made progress in this regard is in the area of agriculture.
As we’ve previously discussed, there are a lot of books about democracy filling book store and library shelves right now. Norman Eisen could have written a book in the vein of Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky’s How Democracies Die or David Frum’s Trumpocracy, but chose to go in a different direction.
In The Last Palace, he tells the story of the Petschek Palace, where he lived while serving as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic. The palace and its residents sought to defend liberal democracy throughout both world wars and the Cold War. The book, which one review calls a “love letter to liberal democracy,” also shows the ways in which ambassadors do the hard work of democracy abroad.
Eisen describes the cycles of democracy that occurred as public support waxed and waned over the years. He says that we are now an inflection point that will determine support for liberal democracy moving forward. Ever the optimist, he’s confident that democracy will come through this seemingly dark period to triumph once again.
Eisen is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings and chair of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. Prior to becoming ambassador, he advised the Obama administration on ethics — a job that earned him the unofficial title “ethics czar.”
Additional Information Norman Eisen’s book The Last Palace: Europe’s Turbulent Century in Five Lives and One Legendary House
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you think is the role of an ambassador? * What impact do you think corruption has on democracy? * Where do you see democracy being harmed by corruption around the world? * There have been claims that corruption is harming democracy here at home. Do you agree? * During the interview, Norman Eisen spoke to the ability of democracies to be strong and fight back against corruption. Do you think the United States is in a good position to be able to fight back against efforts to undermine our democracy both at home and abroad? * What do you make of the large number of vacant ambassadorships currently in America?
Interview Highlights [5:20] What made you want to tell the story that you tell in your book The Last Palace? Eisen: There were multiple objectives in wanting to tell this story. Before even arriving, I heard so many stories about the residence itself. I continued to collect such stories while I was there, and I thought these would be something people would like to hear. However, I also thought there was a larger story about democracy itself in this place over the last hundred years. I wanted to tell that story as well. So the book is really a story of five people, an amazing house, and the history of transatlantic democracy itself.
[6:00] There is a quote on the back of the book of a love letter to liberal democracy. Was that your intention with this book? Eisen: I didn’t realize the story of democracy that would come out of the research of past ambassadors and the unique residence. By the time I finished the book, yes, I intended it to be a love letter.
[7:40] In your book you take about the ebb and flow of democracy over time. Where do you think we are at right now? Eisen: We’re at an inflection point. There have been three great surges of democracy in the past century. One was the post-WWI boom that included the founding of the League of Nations. The second was after WWII when the modern security structure of NATO was established securing Western Europe. The third was the post-cold war era. We had hopes after this third boom of greater growth of democracy into Eastern Europe and maybe Russia itself. However, unlike following WWII, we didn’t create anything like the Marshal plan to ensure growth of democracy into these new territories. Also, the United States looked away. One of the key stories of this century is when the United States looks away, trouble brews. That is where we are now with Putins rule and his partner Donald Trump.
[10:02] Your book tells the stories of ambassadors who have lived in the Petscheck Palace. What lessons can we take from their stories? Eisen: One story is that democracy has endured in the face of much greater challenges than we face today. However, another important takeaway is that we can’t assume this will happen on its own. Over the last hundred years, it makes all the difference when the friends of democracy fight for democracy. We need to continue to fight that good fight if we want democracy to succeed.
[11:40] Has our ability to fight for democracy become weaker than that of past generations? Eisen: In the initial days of the Trumps administration, those same tools of social media which he utilized to win office served as a vehicle to bring people together. Hopefully, these tools will lead to greater oversight of the president with the new Congress. Our polarization is no worse now than it was following the Civil War.
[14:00] We currently have many ambassador positions that are not filled. What impact does that have on the role of promoting democracy that ambassadors do? Eisen: The fact that this administration has failed to at least nominate people for some of the most important ambassadorships does lead to a democracy deficit. It is incredibly important to have some sort of head executive, confirmed by the Senate, who can work on the behalf of our values and democracy in a foreign capital city. They are there to speak up for our Wilsonian post 1918 idea of western values. Having an ambassador established in a foreign nation enables us to work with civil organizations to promote all of the core tenants of a democratic society.
[16:00] What is the relationship you see between authoritarianism and corruption? How does that impact democracy? Eisen: It is a problem that authoritarians, including our own president, always see it as part of their initiative to get control of the public’s purse. We’ve seen this through world leaders such as with Mr. Putin who some have said has become the worlds riches man through corruption. We’ve also seen this with President Trump who has tried to benefit himself and his family. That is a sign of autocracy.
We are heading the first ever case in which a judge has found a cause of action for accepting forbidden government cash benefits relating to the president. This has helped established a climate in the public where people are now keeping an eye on these issues. Another key part of this effort to control corruption is the Muller investigation. We are now awaiting his report as to whether the president obstructed justice or not. I think the rule of law system is working as it should.
[19:30] In your book, you show how you’re more optimistic while your mother is more pessimistic. Do you think democracy works better when both points of view are represented? Eisen: Perhaps if we had been a bit more pessimistic following the Cold War we would have put in place some sort of Marshal Plan for Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time we have to be aware of the profound difficulties we’ve overcome. It all fits in together. I try to lay out this balance in the book.
[22:00] Can you expand further on the dangers posed to democracy by corruption? Eisen: Corruption in a democracy infringes upon the voting freedoms as well as others that are critical in a democracy. You can see this playing out here in the form of campaign contributions. The special interests have more money to spread around than average people. They spend more on elections, they get people elected, then they call in favors of those they helped get elected. This is legal corruption.
Robin Teater
It’s not the Powerball or the Mega Millions, but this democracy lottery does give people the chance to directly impact information that appears on the ballot in their state. Like a lot of things we talk about on this show, the Citizens Initiative Review (CIR) is not easy, but as you’ll hear from this week’s guests, is work worth doing.
CIRs, which organizers called the “democracy lottery,” bring together groups of voters in an intensive four-day, jury-like setting to research the basic facts of initiatives and referenda on the ballot. These citizen panels draft joint statements that provide clear, concise, and accurate information to their fellow voters, removed from campaign messaging and financial influence. It’s been implemented in Oregon, Arizona, and California, and is currently in a pilot phase in Massachusetts. Our guests have been at the forefront of making this process happen.
John Gastil Robin Teater is the Executive Director of Healthy Democracy, an organization that designs and coordinates innovative deliberative democracy programs. The organization helped implement the CIR process and remains committed to helping it expand across the United States.
John Gastil is a Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at Penn State and an expert on deliberative democracy. He’s studied CIRs throughout the United States and Europe. His research gauges how effective CIRs are at making voters more informed, and how being part of a CIR impacts participants.
This is our first show on deliberative democracy. It’s a topic we hope to return to soon.
Additional Information Healthy Democracy
John Gastil’s work on the Citizens Initiative Review
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think the Citizens Initiative Review is an effective way to educate people about complicated or numerous ballot initiatives? * Would you prefer to read the measure yourself or have a summary provided for you? * Do you trust the process as described as being non-partisan or free from the influence of interest groups? * Could the CIR process work in your state or country? Why or why not? * What other applications do you think this program could have beyond its current use in the area of ballot initiatives?
Interview Highlights [5:00] What is a Citizens Initiative Review? Robin: It involves a randomly selected group of registered voters between the ages of twenty and twenty four. They’ll spend roughly four days measuring a ballot measure. They’re selected based on demographics of a particular state. The relevant factors are age, party affiliation, gender, and geography. They’re job is to be representatives for their fellow voters throughout the state they’re in. The final result is a summary of the key facts concerning the ballot initiative. They also produce arguments for and against the ballot initiative.
[7:00] What are the motivations people have for wanting to do this? Robin: Reasons why people respond to our recruitment mailer include curiosity amongst others. Also, there is a stipend paid to participants. We also have some young people who are either looking for the money or who are getting pushed to do it by their parents while they’re home from school.
John: We’ve also heard from mothers who participate that it is a chance for them to get away from the home for a few days. There are also some who admit that they participated because of the financial incentive.
[8:50] Can you speak to the need for this program and how this program fits a need? John: We wanted to bring about a more deliberative democracy. However, you can’t ask all voters to be engaged in deliberation on ballot measures. What we know is that those people in the electorate who have the time and willingness to deliberate can do a very good job. In just a few days, people can say very insightful things about random topics such as highway budget planning measures. This was a good place to start because legislatures realized that the voting public was at a loss as to these long ballot measures that voters had to make a quick decision on when in the booth. Some people got the ball rolling independently in Oregon, and here we are.
[11:50] What does the relationship with special interests look like since this program has been operating? Robin: It is tricky because they make enormous investment into their own messaging. They realize that this program is a great opportunity to have influence on how people see initiative as well as to get feed back from actual voters.
John: These are professional campaigners who spend a lot of money crafting very detailed messages. They also have almost no control over this program. They can bring a good message to our participants, but they have little to no influence after that.
[13:35] On the first day, participants listen to presentations from groups on measures. How do you go from this first day to the final product? Robin: Even before the first day, participants are engaged in training to teach them how to ask good questions and get the relevant information they need in order to make good decisions. Part of this process is just making sure these participants are comfortable working in such a diverse group. After that, they hear the opening statements from the campaigns on each side of the ballot issues. The next day is a question and answer panel with the campaigns. The panelists actually rank their questions ahead of time before asking them of the campaign representatives. This is then followed by a panel of policy experts. Day two ends with a discussion with the participants trying to glean from them the information that stuck with them from the presentations throughout the day. Day three is a series of editing groups. Participants look at the written claims of the campaigns of each issue and decide what should make the cut for the final summary and what shouldn’t. At the end of this day, we do a key vote on the findings. This includes the eight most reliable comments on a particular ballot measure. Day four is all about writing the pro and con aspects of the measure.
[21:21] Where else has the CIR been used? Robin: Massachusetts, learning from the mistakes of Oregon, passed legislation to fun the program through state funds. We’ve also been in Arizona which is publicly funded by the elections commission. They are the first state to publicly fund the CIR. We’ve also done pilots in Colorado and California.
John: There was also legislation in the state of Washington, but it didn’t come to a full vote. The program has also been talked about in other nations. One example is England to run a possible re-vote of the Brexit measure.
[22:50] How do you measure whether voters were impacted by the CIR or not? John: We’ve had funding from a number of sources which enable us to conduct polling on voters responses to this program. We poll people who read the ballot initiative both with and without the CIR summary. What we find is that those who read the measure along with the CIR summary are more knowledgeable on the issues. They have a better factual grasp of the issue.
24:30: What is the process to get people to believe what they see on the CIR?
Robin: It is baked into the process because the panel is randomly selected. The also can’t have any ties to campaigns or interests groups. This enables us to tell the voters that the summaries they’re reading are by accurate representatives of the people. Our tag line is that this is work by the people for the people. There are other entities that produce good summaries of these measures, but they aren’t completely unbiased. They still have a stake and an angel on the issues. The credibility to these reports is strengthened by the diversity of the participants in the program. It is also strengthened by the fact that these are not professional consumers of this sort of information.
John: The average voter seeing this page on the ballot gets the general idea that this was prepared by a body of citizens.
[27:20] How can this program develop in the future? Can it become a mechanize for candidate selection? John: That is something that has been experimented with here and abroad. This has considerable applicability in terms of candidates in the primary races where someone can’t just pick the republican or democrat as they normally would in a general election. This is also the situation people face in many judicial races or places where candidates don’t have an official party endorsement. Therefore, I think this process could be very powerful in the lower visibility elections.
Robin: I agree. I think there are infinite applications of this program.
Gen. Wesley Clark
We observe Veterans Day this week, a time when people across the United States remember and thank those who have served in the military. While the military remains one of the most respected institutions in the U.S., it’s also one of the most misunderstood.
Active duty service members represent less than one percent of the U.S. population and service has increasingly become something that is limited to the communities that surround military bases and the families who live there. As the military’s makeup has shifted, so too has it ideology — to one that is increasingly focused on combat rather than diplomacy.Things didn’t always used to be this way. Up until the end of the draft in the early 1970s, service provided an economic opportunity for millions of Americans and shined a light onto what it meant to serve the country with duty and honor.
With more than 30 years in the military and a subsequent career in politics, Gen. Wesley Clark has a unique perspective on this transformation, and some ideas about how to bridge the empathy gap between soldiers and civilians. We also talked with him about veterans running for political office, his support of Colin Kaepernick, and whether democratic dissent has a place in the military. Clark visited Penn State to promote Renew America, a new nonpartisan organization aimed at reducing polarization and ideological divides in America.
Recommended Reading Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military — by Kori Schake and Jim Mattis
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think military service has changed in America? If so, do you think that change is good or bad? * Do you think it’s a problem that a vast majority of our military comes from a shrinking portion of society compared to when a draft was in place? * General Clark speaks about the importance of all young people being involved in the protection of the nation or service in some way. Do you think this is something we should require from young people? * General Clark also speak about the need for national service in terms other than military. Can you think of any way to implement such a program? * Do you agree with General Clarks’s stance on this and his support of Kaepernick? * During the episode, the issue of a “warrior ethos” is brought up where the military is becoming more combat minded. What do you think about this? * What changes would you make to the military today to improve it?
Interview Highlights [4:30] What inspired you about Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “Duty, Honor, Country” speech? General Clark: Just before I attended West Point, General MacArthur made what would be his final public speech. When my class arrived in 1962, we got a printed form of this speech. When you read it, it just made you shiver. He talked about what it was like to be a solider and a soldiers responsibilities. He spoke about how soldiers were supposed to win the nations wars and not question policies. It was incredibly inspiring.
[7:00] We hear a lot about an empathy gap between different parts of society. Does such as gap exist between those within the military and those outside of it? General Clark: Oh absolutely. People don’t serve the way they used to. Back during the draft, if you went to a land grant institution like Penn State, you knew you were going to be in ROTC. You were a part of the nation defense. If you look at these schools now, there is not this military participation. Something changed in the way we serve following the end of the draft. A few years ago I was teaching and some students expressed concern that the volunteer service wasn’t representing the nation. I think when young people who didn’t serve offer thanks to those who did, they don’t get it. That isn’t what serving is about. That doesn’t really help. We should all be in this together. We should all share this duty and this sacrifice.
[10:13] What is the solution to closing that gap? General Clark: We need to pull the country together. What I’d like to see is real national service. This country needs major work done, such as our infrastructure system. If young people could come together for a year with those different from them socially and economically, they would be greatly enriched. The military is also becoming less representative of society. Children often follow their parents. Therefore, if your parents didn’t’ serve, you’re unlikely to do so.
Another change is the mindset of those in the military. There used to be an idea of the solider as being thoughtful and well read. However, we have now moved towards a warrior ethos. This change occurred in the 90’s. Today, the Army is very focused on winning its mission at the tactical level. This drives a wedge between different generations of the military.
[14:00] What does that change of ethos towards a warrior mentality mean for democracy? General Clark: When these men come out of the military after several tours, they simply can’t give it up. There was just an article recently about how former military were being hired as mercenaries to kill political opponents. That is very disturbing when you take those skills out of the service and apply them for financial gain.
[15:00] Did you see this shift happening during your career? General Clark: I just saw the beginnings of it. It was really the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation that brought about this change. Some of this change was good. There were some changes that needed to take place to prepare people to fight. You also need a form of outreach to the American people, and it can’t just be about your favorite gun.
[17:00] What do veterans bring to the table as elected officials? General Clark: First off, it really depends on the person. What you’d hope to see is someone with a better understanding of the military and an appreciation for sacrifice. Many of these veterans are just as indoctrinated as those who haven’t served.
[18:36] It seems as though democrats have struggled to get veterans out as a voter group for them. Why do you think that is? General Clark: If you look at veterans holding elected office today, roughly two thirds of them are republicans. Today, the democrat party has become the “mommy party” and the republicans have become the “daddy party”. Democrats stand for fairness while the republicans stand for security.
[20:00] We’ve seen a decrease in support amongst veterans for Trump. How do you balance following orders from someone you may disagree with? General Clark: There is no tension. You follow the orders; period. People asked this of me when Clinton was in office. Until he is removed from office, he is the boss.
[21:12] Do you think that democratic dissent has a place within the military? General Clark: No. I think that if you get an illegal order, then your obligation is to not follow it. If you get an order you don’t like, you can disagree with it, but don’t expect your boss to agree with you. You always have the right to speak up, but you then have to face the consequences. This isn’t to say those in the military can’t vote. However, voting is private. You don’t bring that back into your job.
23:00: What went into your decision to come out in support of Collin Kapernick? General Clark: I’m one of the few people to be at the top of the military, political, and business world. When you get to see things from that perspective, you see that there is a lot of injustice. Sometimes we don’t live up to our values. This stems back to our founding in our founding documents. I think treating people with respect is the absolute foundation of democracy. So when Collin Kapernick took a knee, I didn’t see that as an insult to the flag or the military. I saw that as standing up for the values we fought for.
[25:16] We have seen many military figures serving positions within the Trump administration. How do you see this impacting how government works? General Clark: I think General Mattis is proving to be a very solid Secretary of Defense. H.R. McMaster was very capable, but he wasn’t prepared for the position he was put into. Any White House is difficult to work in due to conflicting agendas. This is a situation unlike the military where doing a good job can get your promoted. In the White House it is more of a popularity contest. John Kelly is also in a difficult position, but he is taking his challenges head on. He also has to deal with ethical issues, such as Trumps children receiving Secret Service protection while conducting private business in the Middle East.
[30:01] You are starting an organization called “Renew America.” Tell us a little about that. General Clark: We’re trying to engage with young people interested in renewing the country. Politics today is a very nasty and dirty business. If you look throughout history, politics goes through cycles with different focuses, such as economic and social policy concentration. You have to see the big picture then break through the entertainment news cycle. I’m hoping that we’re going to mobilize a core of young people who are going to demand answers from people running for office. If you’re asking real questions you will change the political system.
[31:00] How do you think Renew America fits in with similar efforts to increase youth engagement in politics? General Clark: We are interested in working with everyone. We make no claim to have a monopoly on this effort. We simply want to offer a platform for people to speak with others who are likeminded on a nonpartisan basis. There are many similar groups, but they are partisan. We are not.
Laura Rosenberger
With the midterms this week, all eyes are on the threat of election hacking and interference. Electoral integrity is important, but as you’ll hear in this week’s episode, the threats to American democracy go much deeper than that to the very basis of information and conversation. Laura Rosenberger has been one of the most important voices in the efforts to combat this interference and ensure that democracy becomes even stronger and more resilient.
Laura is the director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy and a senior fellow at The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Before she joined GMF, she was foreign policy advisor for Hillary for America, where she coordinated development of the campaign’s national security policies, messaging, and strategy. Prior to that, she served in a range of positions at the State Department and the White House’s National Security Council (NSC).
She describes the lack of response to foreign interference prior to 2016 as a “failure of imagination” and, through her work at the German Marshal Fund, is determined to ensure that imagination does not fail again. Laura is a Penn State alumna and a member of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s Board of Visitors.
This week’s episode was recorded live at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Additional Information Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian Influence Operations on Twitter
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you believe that Russia and other foreign entities are trying to interfere with our democratic norms and institutions? Why or why not? * How much damage do you think these attacks can have on our country? * Do you think you’ve come across any Russian “bots” on social media? * During the interview, Laura stated that she wants social media companies to take more action to prevent these attacks. Do you think they have a responsibility to take action? If so, what should they be doing? * Are you concerned that in an effort to limit the effectiveness of these attacks we might infringe upon our own rights such as freedom of speech? * Do you think our institutions will survive these attacks going forward?
Interview Highlights [3:25] What are you hoping to accomplish with the Alliance for Securing Democracy? Laura: It is a bipartisan effort founded a little over a year ago. Some are surprised to see a volunteer for Hillary Clinton and a volunteer for Marco Rubio work together in an organization like this. My response to that is that if we can’t work together to defend democracy, then we’ve really lost a lot. We disagree on many issues, but it takes a health and safe democracy in order to be able to have a place to have those debates. Jamie and I realized that we some times have to tend our own garden so to speak. This is the idea that our own democracy needed some work. We have to actually defend it because it can be undermined by those who want to weaken us. From a national security perspective, we think it is incredibly important that we understand how foreign powers are trying to undermine our institutions. We also must build resilience into our democracy. Entities such as Russia are exploiting our weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
[5:37] What is Hamilton 68? Laura: The names comes from the Federalist papers. Specifically, number 68 where Hamilton warns about the threat to our democracy from foreign powers. Today, this situation with Russia seems to have jumped out of a spy novel. Many people still ask if this is something that is really an issue. The idea of foreign threats to our democracy, and the importance of guarding against them, is a core aspect of the birth of the nation. The founders warned about this very threat. What the dash board does is track Russian backed social media accounts and the messages they are pushing out into the public. These accounts have taken a position on a wide range of issues. Also, they will often take both sides of an issue so as to creat as much division as possible. With the use of bots, which are automated social media messages, these foreign entities can manipulate the online information ecosystem and make certain issues appear more prevalent and important than they really are. We have used this tool to educate policy makers and journalists about the actions of these foreign entities.
8:35: What is the intended use of this tool? Laura: It was designed to be a very publicly accessible tool. When we launched this program, many of the media companies were still refusing to acknowledge that there was this foreign misinformation effort on their platforms. So the intent early on was to bring attention to the fact that this issue was still a problem. While we’ve usually talked about this misinformation campaign effort in terms of the elections, many of the issues we see these accounts engage in are not election issues. We really just wanted to expose these actors and bring attention to them. If we can educate people as to the tactics used by these foreign entities, maybe we can get people to be more cautious when seeing certain information online.
[11:04] Looking to the upcoming midterms, how likely do you think it is that we wake up on the day after the election and realize that something is not right? Laura: It is important to remember that many of these efforts by foreign actors are not about elections. While there is electoral interference efforts here, there are also broader long term democracy interference efforts going on. I see the election interference efforts as one part of this larger effort to attack democracy. Given how important elections are for a democratic system, they are ripe targets for those trying to negatively impact democratic nations. There were also several attempts to probe state election infrastructures. The efforts here aren’t so much about actually changing specific votes, but to attack things like voter roles to get people off of them to prevent them from being able to vote. These efforts can also do something very damaging, which is cause people to doubt the legitimacy of elections. This distrust can spawn conspiracy theories. Such developments are dangerous for a democracy.
One possible scenario on the day after the election is even just a story that a states infrastructure was hacked. The validity of this claim is irrelevant in terms of the damage such a story could do. It could take months to investigate such a claim. We also could see fake protests where these Russian accounts essentially goat people on both sides to participating in a fake protest. If you push fake stories about a hack and create fake protests pushing for violence, you’ve then create complete and total madness into the system.
[16:30] How has you imagination about what is possible in terms of threats to our democracy changed? Laura: The report on the 9/11 attacks spoke about the failures which enabled the attack as failures of imagination to potentially see such an attack be launched. For me, what we saw around the efforts in 2016 was also a result of a failure of imagination. When we saw these actions being taken in Ukraine, we thought it was a regional effort and not a test run for similar attacks on us here at home. Social media companies didn’t realize that the platforms they used to connect us could be used by foreign entities as weapons to turn ourselves against each other. It is important for us to both understand what happened as well as to understand what is still possible in the future.
Another concern I have in terms of potential future threats involves artificial intelligence and machine learning. A specific concern amongst tech companies is something called “deep fakes”. Essentially, this is manipulated and augmented video and audio content using artificial intelligence tools. With these tools, seeing may no longer be believing.
[19:36] Should we be worried about China? Laura: Yes, China in engaging in political interference in places around the world, such as in Australia. However, it is important to know that China is a very different actor from Russia. In part, due to the different strategies they utilize. There are still many unknowns as to Chinese interest in interfering with us. In terms of China, I’m more concerned about the long term political covert efforts they tend to engage in.
I have one last point I want to make. The vice president recently stated that China in interfering with our election because they don’t like the president, and I think that is very dangerous. We can’t politicizes this idea of democracy interference. When we start to think this is about one party, we lose our ability to mount a united fight against these efforts to undermine our institutions. They care about attacking us as a nation, not any particular political party.
[25:10] How have the Russians changed their approach given that we’ve started to catch on to what they’re doing? Laura: One change we’ve seen is that these Russian actors are putting much more effort into making their outreach on social media appear real. Rather than putting out rather basic recruitment posts for protest or counter protests, they are now actually contacting certain activists and trying to get them to buy into their efforts. They are embedding themselves more into real communities in America. This does two things. First, it makes it harder for companies to detect these fake Russian accounts. Second, this makes it more difficult for companies to choose to remove the content because they’re also removing content from real users who the Russians have attached themselves to. This also has the effect of casting doubt on democratic efforts such as protests. People don’t’ know if you’re there to honestly advocate on behalf of something or if you’re simply some fake Russian effort to undermine the country.
[28:30] What are some things that we should be doing to combat these attacks? Laura: One thing is that we have to come together as a nation on this. We’ve got to get out of the partisan trap on this issue. I think we are capable of doing this. We could also benefit greatly from a bipartisan commission similar to the one we had after the 9/11 attacks. Government and the private sector needs to take action. Also, citizens themselves need to take action to fight back.
Stella Rouse
From cooking to shopping to getting around town, disruption is the name of the game for Millennials. Will they do the same thing to democracy?
Millennials, or those born between 1981 and 1996, are now largest generational group in the United States. There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether these 20 and 30-somethings will vote in the 2018 midterms. This episode touches on that, but also explores some of the reasons why Millennials feel disengaged from voting and other traditional forms of political engagement.
Our guest this week literally wrote the book on this topic. Stella Rouse is co-author of The Politics of Millennials, which draws upon existing data about Millennials, as well as surveys and focus groups that Stella and co-author Ashely Ross conducted. They found that events like 9/11 an the 2008 financial crisis profoundly shaped the way Millennials view the world and their place within it — views that run counter to older generations and their views of democratic engagement.
Stella is an Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Politics, Director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship, and Associate Director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll at the University of Maryland.
Additional Information The Politics of Millennials
Can young people revive civic engagement? A conversation with Peter Levine of The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think Millennials are politically active? * If so, do you see them engaged more traditionally in campaigns and voting or non-traditionally in the form of protests? * How do you think Millennials world views will translate into public policy? * If you are not a Millennial, what is the biggest difference you see between this younger generation and your own? Also, what similarities do you see? * What do you think the political views of this generation will look like in 20 years?
Interview Highlights [4:49] How do you define a millennial and what about them made you interested in studying their generation further? Stella: Generally the accepted timeframe is those from the late 80’s to the late 90’s. Millennial are those who grew up mostly around the turn of the century.
[5:30] What are the identity characteristics of this generation? Stella: It’s composed of a number of factors. Most notably, it is a very diverse generation in American history. They’ve lived around different races and ethnic groups more so than any other generation in the nations history. They are also the first “digital natives”. They don’t know what it’s like to be without the internet or a cellphone in their pocket. This impacts how they experience politics and communicate with others. Also, the events of 9/11 is a significant aspect of this generation in terms of how it views the world around them and the role of America in it.
[7:30] How to millennial see themselves as citizens? Stella: Millennials are more engaged in non-traditional forms of engagement such as voting or working on campaigns. People look at this and then see the generation as being apathetic politically. However, this doesn’t take into account their engagement in more non-traditional political formats such as protests and rallies. They are also more engaged in the local level than the national level. The key question is how is this activity translated into voting. I don’t have a straight answer for that. A lot of it involved getting them into the habit of voting.
[10:08] Do you sense any momentum on the part of this generation to shape the political system to fit to its interest rather than it adapting to the current political climate? Stella: Yes. We are seeing a lot of Millennials run for office. Particularly, minorities of this group are running for office. I think in the next few years we’re going to see this continue. Then, once in office, they’ll be able to shape the political landscape to better reflect their world view.
[11:10] This generation also identifies at a greater rate than those before them as global citizens. How does this square with their involvement in local political issues? Stella: When I say local I don’t mean they’re voting at the local level. Where the participate traditionally is still higher at the national level than the local level. One thing about this generation is that they’re very distrustful of institutions. This includes political parties. This makes sense given the fact that their time has been filled with the greatest partisan divide in American politics in generations. Therefore, they are much more likely to identify as independents. Their lack of identification along party lines leads to lower levels of traditional political engagement in the form of campaigning and voting.
[13:00] We’ve talked about the separation of liberalism and the democratic norm of institutions. Do you see this divide growing as this generations comes into political power? Stella: It could be, but the jury is still out on this. They have an internal conflict that they distrust institutions but they know they have to play by the rules in order to change it. It’s not clear if they’ll play the game and try to bring about change from the inside or whether they’ll maintain their outsider status and try to change things from the outside.
[14:35] We saw Obama and Sanders as two political figures who resonated with this generation. What about them do you think made them so appealing to this generation? Stella: They spoke to the issues they cared about. Particularly, Obama really addressed them in the mediums they cared about, such as social media. Even though he is not a millennial, he became the millennial president.
[16:09] How does Donald Trump play among Millennials? Stella: Not too well. He is not very popular amongst them. That’s not to say there isn’t a segment of the generation who support him, but about two thirds of the generation don’t support him or his policies. His policies related to immigration and diversity go against the preferences of millennials.
[17:02] Is there anything to suggest that millennials will become more conservative as they get older? Stella: That is a really good question. An important point we try to make is that this group is not monolithic in that they aren’t all liberals. On a number of policies they are more liberal, but on others, they look a lot like older more conservative generations. One particular issue is abortion. Their numbers on this issue look more like those of generation X or the baby boomer generation. This is also repeated when it comes to issues of the economy. They aren’t some socialist block. However, they are very liberal on issues such as healthcare where they think it should be a government protected right. This has a lot to do with the time in which they came to age. Especially on issues such as student loan debt which is another issue area where they’re very liberal. It remains to be determined whether these positions will drift to the right as they get older.
[22:32] What do the older generations need to know in order to work better with Millennials? Stella: I think one reason why those in government don’t’ reach out to millennials is because they don’t’ see them as an electoral threat because of their low voting numbers. To reach out, they have to meet them halfway. They need to acknowledge that millennials have a lot to say. However, they have to reach out to them in their preferred medium. Ultimately, I don’t think we’ll see politicians change their approach until millennials force them to by showing up on their radar as an electoral issue.
[24:00] What role does the financial situation of this generation have on their willingness to engage politically in more traditional formats? Stella: Economic power speaks to political power. Their inability to acquire economic power due to unemployment or underemployment prevents the acquisition of this power in order to challenge political leaders. However, we’ve always had this issue amongst the current young generation at any given time.
[28:00] What do you expect to see in terms of Millennial turnout in the 2018 midterms? Stella: I suspect that we’ll see higher rates than we’ve seen in previous elections. Whether this motivation actually translates to votes is still open to debate. If I had to guess, I’d say we’ll see an increase in voter participation amongst this generation.
Around the McCourtney Institute, we like to say that we’re “partisans for democracy.” We can think of few people who better embody that notion today than David Frum. He was among the first people to talk about the Trump administration’s impact on democracy and remains one of the loudest voices defending democratic norms in the United States. David is a longtime contributor to The Atlantic and author of Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. The book was part of our democracy summer reading list and we invited him to speak at Penn State earlier this fall.
In many ways, this conversation speaks to the very idea of this podcast. Democracy, no matter where it’s happening in the world, is most successful when people come together to build something greater than the sum of its parts. As you’ll hear, David is a strong advocate for joining organizations that require deliberation and working with people who might hold different political beliefs than you do — in person and away from social media.
The gradual shift away from those habits of democracy is one of the things that paved the way for the Trumpocracy that David writes about in his book. Rebuilding those habits, he says, is part of the cure for what ails democracy and must happen in tandem with voting to restore faith in democratic institutions and reduce polarization.
For more on democratic erosion, listen to our interview with How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt.
Additional InformationTrumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
David Frum’s writing at The Atlantic
Interview Highlights[6:06] Was Trump’s candidacy the reason you started righting about the state of democracy in America?David: It was a catalyst in the sense that a catalyst triggers a response between elements that were already present. In the spring of 2015 I was doing a story in Hungary where fascism has been on the rise. However, that story was cannibalized due to the fact that what we had observed over there was starting to happen here. I was sort of ready for what we’re seeing now.
[7:29] Can you explain your journey from being a well known conservative to someone who voted for Hillary Clinton?David: I remain a very conservative person today. When the question next comes up in an election, people might be surprised to see me retain those conservative views. However, these values have to be able to play out in a stable democratic framework. The lessons of Europe should teach us that the institutions that we see today as being rock solid look a lot less solid today. It is important to protect these democratic institutions in part because of how this instability can impact global economic markets
[8:50] Would you say that is the through line that unites yourself and other conservatives who have come out against Trump?David: Yes. But it is also a throughline which explains why this has become an international issue. Studying the European examples is very useful. Democratic institutions aren’t doing as good of a job producing for voters. This has led to a bit of a crisis around the developed world. This can lead the population to lean towards less democratic forms of government. While this is happening to the ideological right here and in Poland, it can also happen to the left, such as in England and in Italy.
[10:09] Do you feel like the message is being received that fascism could take root here?David: It is happening here. We always think that when a reaver spreads that we in America will get it last. This is not just an American problem right now. In nations around the world, democratic institutions are weaker than they were just ten years ago. A country like Turkey which was clearly a democracy ten years ago is now an outright dictatorship.
[11:30] Who do you think is the leader to be able to bring back these democratic norms?David: The search for leaders is the problem. The problem is that we have these charismatic figures popping up saying that they alone can solve the problem. When young people ask me how they can help, I tell them to join something. Join something that has meetings. This helps develop the habits of democracy. Social media is important here. What it offers and delivers is a completely personalized experience. You only see what you like and agree with. Actual politics couldn’t be more different. You have to be able to work with people who are different than you and who disagree with you.
[16:33] What do you make of some of the civic renewal efforts to get people engaged again such as with voting?David: This is super exciting and important. The more local, the better. Also, don’t be consumed with the national questions and issues that you disconnect from the local situation. If following stories is distracting you from stories about local issues such as budgets, then it is becoming harmful.
[18:43] What do the “guardrails of democracy” mean and where do they stand today?David: This is about a series of restraints that we imagined were there to protect democracy that have since been crashed through. One of the keys guard rails is the concept of ideology. What we thought years ago was that each side (liberal and conservative) were being more ideologically extreme and that ideology was mattering more and more. What this meant is that we were demagogue proof in that a candidate had to stand for something in order to get enough support to win. But in 2016 with Trump, we learned that ideology doesn’t matter that much. He routinely broke perceived ideological norms for conservatives.
[20:40] Does this action by Trump explain the split in the GOP between those who stuck with the party and Trump and those who broke away?David: I don’t think so. One example is the issue of international trade. The support for open international trade has been a hallmark of republican ideology since Reagan. When Trump came out against this idea, I wondered if this would jolt the Republican Party out of support for him. It has not. In fact, he is changing the positions of the Republican Party.
[21:58] Why are these people going against the party norms and embracing ideas they opposed just a few years ago?David: Because once you get on board with Trump, you’re a prisoner. You have to go wherever it goes. The farther you go and the more awful things you accept, the more you have to defend the driver to defend yourself. People say don’t condemn Trump supporters. When people do something, we should seek to understand it. However, we need to recognize that Trump succeeds by appeal to what is bad about people and what is cruel about the. This is also part of the story. However, it is wrong to then look down upon someone as a child given this reality. Instead, when we see someone who agrees or identifies with something that is brutal or cruel, we should seek to understand why that concept or position resonates with that person.
[25:22] Do you think there was ever a time in our nations history were we had a sort of peak of democracy?David: I don’t think we should ever look back. This is our time. There is a lot to learn from the past, but the past also has deep flaws. We should focus on making it better. For example, one of the biggest tells for whether or not someone voted for Trump was their level of social isolation. If you were a member of a stable family, you were much less likely to be a Trump voter.
It seems like every few weeks, we see headlines about states banding together to block actions taken by the federal government. You might even remember former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quipping that he goes to the office, sues the federal government, then goes home.
How do those lawsuits take shape? How does a state decide whether to join or not? How does that impact the balance of power between federal and state governments? This week’s guest is uniquely qualified to answer all of those questions.
Since taking office in January 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has been involved with more than a dozen suits brought against the federal government on matters ranging from family separation at the border to EPA emissions regulations. Though Shapiro is a Democrat, he says his chief motivation in joining these suits is the rule of law and a commitment to do what’s right for people of Pennsylvania.
Whether or not you agree with Shapiro’s politics, he does present an interesting take on the role that states play as a check on the federal government. This power is a unique part of the American experiment and speaks to the power of democracy in the states.
Before the interview, Chris and Michael dive into the origins of federalism, including Federalist 51, the 10th Amendment, and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
Additional Information Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General
Federalist 51
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What do you think should be the balance between the states and federal government in terms of power? * Do you think states should be active in legal action against the federal government? * Do you think that state attorneys general are becoming too political? * Do you see state as a shield to protect a state’s residents against federal overreach?
Interview Highlights [5:12] When you took this office, did you expect yourself to be this active on federal issues? Shapiro: I said when I was sworn in that if someone was going to try to mess with Pennsylvania that they would have to go through me. I see the constitution as giving the states broad authority. States rights isn’t something progressives have pointed to, but it is something I value. If someone in the federal system is doing something to undermine our rights, I’m going to stand up to take action.
[6:32] How do one of these suits against the federal government get started? Shapiro: The first question is whether the action comports with the rule of law. I put aside what I agree or disagree with personally and instead focus on the law. Once we deem that an illegal action has been taken, be think about what is the best way to file an action to challenge that activity. We discuss whether or not Pennsylvania should be the lead state. There are sometimes strategic reasons why we file a suit in a particular state. What we are not doing is constructing opposition to the president just for the sake of opposing him. What we are doing is organizing ourselves around the rule of law.
[8:43] What issues or possible suits have you turned down? Shapiro: We’ve been involved in about fifteen cases since taking office. I’m very careful about what we engage in on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania. Again, it is not my job just to weigh in whenever I personally disagree with the president. It is my job to weigh in when the rule of law is being threatened.
[9:31] What is the timeline for one of these cases? Shapiro: I spend the majority of my time going around to differnt places listening to people. I think I have a good feel for where the people of the state are. I don’t poll test these issues. Instead, I try to do what is right and what adheres to the rule of law.
[10:36] Under Obama, we saw a lot of states file suits against the federal government much like what is happening now with Trump in office. Do you think this goes to the partisan nature of government? Shapiro: I would actually push back on that a little. Most of what I do is bipartisan. It’s just that the media usually doesn’t report that. The vast majority of the actions we take are really bipartisan.
[12:34] President Trump has stated that he thinks the attorney general office should be more of a political one. What are your thoughts on that? Shapiro: We are above politics in this office. I’m a proud Democrat. People know I have progressive leanings. They knew that when they elected me. However, we check our political views at the door everyday when we come into the office. If you look at our track record, we’ve held democrats and republicans accountable. We do our job in a way that the people of the state can be proud that the justice system is fair. We are diverse in both appearance and thought.
[15:23] What does the term “rule of law” mean to you? Shapiro: It is the very foundation of everything that I do. It helps you be above politics. My job is to understand the law, apply the facts and evidence, then make a decision in the best interest of the people of Pennsylvania.
Shapiro: The tenth amendment makes it really clear that states have a role to play in our democracy. I believe that if the federal government is making an overreach into our state business, then I’m going to be a shield to guard against that. However, states have also at times been the thing infringing upon rights. However, more often than not, they are expanding rights. The fight for marriage is a perfect example of that. Justice Brandies spoke eloquently about states being the laboratories for democracy. That still holds true today. States need to be a shield against overreach and a sword in promoting the rights of their citizens.
Peter Enns
The problems with the prison system in the U.S. have been well documented, but what’s not talked about nearly as often is how things got this way. Why does there seem to be such enthusiasm for putting people in jail? One answer might be the shift toward “risk management policing” that Frank Baumgartner described in last week’s episode, but there’s something else at play — and that’s what we explore this week with Peter Enns.
Peter is an associate professor of Government at Cornell University and author of Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. Peter argues that, since the 1970s, media coverage has shaped public opinion about incarceration, which lead to an increase in people going to prison even as the crime rate went down. This created a vicious cycle of people seeing news about crimes, becoming more supportive of punitive measures, and a shift away from viewing prison as a rehabilitative experience.
Much like we heard from last week about the empathy gap in policing, a similar gap exists between the people going to jail and the people watching or reading news stories about the criminal justice system. Peter taught in Cornell’s prison education program and saw firsthand what daily life looks like for inmates and the possibilities that exist for prison reform programs.
One final note: We added a new voice into the mix this week. Andy Grant, our audio engineer, had some questions for Peter that you’ll hear toward the end of the interview.
Additional Information Peter’s book, Incarceration Nation
Cornell Prison Education Program
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Why do you think the general public has largely supported more punitive measures over the last several decades? * Do you think the saying ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ holds true? What role do you think media has here? * What other changes would you make to the current criminal justice system? * Is it antithetical to a democratic society to have so many people incarcerated? * We have a very high recidivism rate. This means once you’ve been to jail, you’re likely to end up going back due to a parole violation or another violation. How do you think the system can better prepare convicts to get out and stay out? * Going forward, do you think our incarceration rate will decrease?
Interview Highlights [4:58] Why do so many people in the United States want others to face jail time? Peter: A Key to this study is noting how public opinion has shifted on this issue over time. The trend towards supporting incarceration really picked up across the sixties through to the nineties. A large factor in this trend was how media covered crime.
[5:38] How do you think the media contributes to how the public perceives the issue of crime where they live? Peter: There are two aspects of this. One is the “if it bleeds, it leads” aspect of media coverage of crime. Also, the number of crimes committed by racial minorities are largely over reported.
[7:15] How have things changes over time? Peter: This is really interesting because the crime rate has actually been decreasing since the 90’s but many people aren’t aware of this. The public has become less punitive as crime rates have gone down. However, the trend is not in line with the rate in decrease of crime. While the trend in public opinion is starting to change, the problem is that there is such a massive system in place that it is difficult to reverse this high incarceration rate. It is not as simply as turning off a switch. However, some meaningful changes have been occurring.
One example is that there has been a lot of discussion recently around the cash bail system and how strange it is. The way this works is that if you’re arrested and can’t afford your judge set bail, you’re going to stay in jail until trial. Many localities are revisiting this. The decriminalization of drug offenses is also a massive development impacting the incarceration rate.
[9:45] How does the prison experience impact ones views on government when they eventually get out of prison? Peter: A large role in how we view government is our interaction with aspects of government such as the DMV. Imagine being in prison and having life as a prisoner being your main interaction with a government entity or structure. That tends to have a negative effect on levels of political participation amongst those who have been previous locked up.
[11:53] Is there an empathy gap where those who are in power are not aware of the problems in the criminal justices system? Peter: Absolutely. Another important aspect of this is to remember that those who have been convicted are being judges based on likely the worst thing they’ve ever done. Imagine how we’d feel if we were publicly evaluated over and over again based on the worst thing we ever did.
[12:50] Could you tell us about your work with the Cornell prison education program? Peter: Most recently, I was teaching a course in Auburn correctional facility. What the program does is teach college level education courses to those in maximum security prison in the middle of New York State. The course I thought to the convicts was the same one I thought as part of a senior seminar for government students. The students did a great job and it was a phenomenal experience.
[13:58] In this program, did you see a difference in the way the inmates were handling the course as compared to Cornell students you had lectured in the past? Peter: I would say there was a higher level of maturity amongst the students. A large misconception that I came into contact with is the idea that inmates have a ton of free time to just sit around and read. However, many of them are assigned work detail within prison. In this sense, they are a lot like your regular college student who also has a part time job they have to juggle along with school work.
[16:00] How do you think the public’s attitude towards incarceration match with its position on other issues? Peter: A key concept here is how someone will reintegrate with society. The vast majority of those incarcerated right now will be released back into society. Regardless as to ones political association, data shows that we all want people to be successfully introduced back into society once released from prison. However, this common interest is over powered by the punitive state. A major problem here is the parole board system
We know there is a high recidivism rate. A large portion of this is due to technical violations of parole terms. Such as the use of drugs of those who are addicted to drugs. If someone relapse, which is very common amongst addicts, will end up in someone out of parole ending up back in prison. One way to address this could be to provide a better support system for those leaving prison. For example, people who I know who have been in prison faced living in a homeless shelter the first night out because there was no structure to hell them integrate back into society.
[21:00] There have been more discussion around this administration about prison reforms. Where do you think these conversations are heading? Peter: I think we’ve seen an increase in efforts because of the role of public opinion, which as the data shows is trending towards a decrease in support for heavy incarceration. However, due to high level of political polarization at the federal level, most of the actual legislative progress that we’ve seen has been as the state and local level. A perfect example of this involves discussion to close Rikers Island in New York. The debate now is just how quickly it will be closed. It is sort of stunning think about this ironing symbol of incarceration in America facing closure.
[22:30] Do you think our criminal justice system is more structured as a punitive or rehabilitative system? Peter: I think the balance has shifted over the course of time. Right now, I think it is shifting away from a punitive minded system. However, right now I think the system is certainly more punitive orientated.
The lights flash in your rearview mirror as the police car comes up behind you. A sinking feeling forms in the pit of your stomach as the officer approaches. Sound familiar? However, this is where the story can differ greatly depending on who you are and where you live. If you’re African-American or Latino, you are much more likely to be searched or have your vehicle searched — and much more likely to be pulled over in the first place, according to research conducted by analyzing data from millions traffic stops in North Carolina over more than a decade.
Frank Baumgartner, Robert J. Richardson Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, lead the team that analyzed the data published the book Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race.” In the book, Frank and his colleagues make the case that an empathy gap exists between people with political and social power and the people who are most likely to be pulled over. The result is that segments of the population who are already disenfranchised become even more distrustful of the police and the government and less likely to vote and otherwise engage with democracy.
We’ve long heard that racially-motivated police violence is the result of a few “bad apple” officers. However, the data from North Carolina show a much more pervasive suspicion from police officers about young men of color. Combined with a move toward what Frank describes as “risk management” policing, the result is a clear pattern of behavior that has direct implications on democratic participation.
P.S. A huge thank you to everyone who supported us in the 2018 Podcast Awards. We are incredibly humbled and grateful to have won during our first year.
More Information Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race
Frank’s profile on the Scholars Strategy Network
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you believe that there is racial bias in policing in America? * Based on your own experience with law enforcement, do you trust the police? * Do your interactions with law enforcement impact your view of the government and your willingness to engage in democracy? * Do you think the aim of police should be to solve crime or try to prevent crime? * Do you think policing in America is getting better? Why or why not?
Interview Highlights [3:41] How did you come about the data for this book? Frank: An investigative reporter in North Carolina conducted an investigation into possible racial profiling in the police department in 1996. This was also a time when people were becoming growingly concerned with racial profiling by police. At this time, North Carolina became the first state to mandate the recording of data about traffic stops, including the race of the individual stopped. I was then invited to look at the information they had collected in the early 2000s as part of a task force.
[5:25] Can you walk us through how a traffic stop experience might differ along racial lines? Frank: As a middle class white man myself, I have very few interactions with the police. But when I do, it is always very respectful and by the book. It is extremely rare for someone in this demographic to get pulled over by the police. For someone of color, it would be frustratingly common. These traffic stops usually lead to no citation or ticket. However, such stops are more likely to extend into a search of the vehicle.
[6:54] What did you find to be the cause of this variance in frequency and nature of stops? Frank: We think party of the problem is that police officers are usually dealing with a low information situation when making a stop. Too often, they rely on visual cues to evaluate whether someone is a threat or not. And under the law, which has been confirmed mostly by middle class white men, it assumes that these stops will only be temporary inconveniences. However, as the data showed, these stops are not that uncommon. There is also an empathy gap where white people have a difficult time understanding the situation faced by minorities in terms of traffic stops.
[9:18] In the book you refer to “risk management policing.” Can you explain what that is? Frank: In the 1960s the focus of policing used to be reactionary in the sense that they used to simply work to solve crimes. However, there has been a shift where as police now are working to try to prevent crimes using methods such as profiling. Policing is now more proactive and aggressive. This system didn’t happen to white people. This happened on the other side of town to minorities. It happened to people who themselves were seen as likely criminal elements.
[14:24] What impact do these stop rates have on the level of democratic participation among minorities? Frank: Just a single traffic stop can reduce the odds of that person voting by as much as ten percent. We found that in areas where black people have greater political power, the percentage of blacks that are stopped is considerably lower. There is a national effect. Unjustified stops do alienate people and cause them to not trust the government. In Fayetteville North Carolina, they instituted some policy changes. What resulted was that there were fewer stops. Also, the number of calls to 911 that actually resulted in a crime being committed went up. This showed that people who were no longer being wrongfully stopped began to trust the police more and were willing to reach out to them when they actually needed them.
[18:21] We often hear during the more salient cases that this is simply the result of a few “bad apple” officers. Is this the case or is this a more systemic problem impacting more officers? Frank: The short answer is that it’s both. In our research, we were able to categorize and study the stop of every officer by their badge number. We did find many officers who showed trends of discriminatory trends in stops. The racial disparity were highest amongs men. While there are bad apple officers, there also is a more systemic problem.
[22:20] What impacts have your findings led to? Frank: Many police leaders have started looking at their own statistics more closely. When these departments have done this internal investigation they have often found that they have discrimination problems. Ferguson, Missouri is just one example. While Ferguson is seen as the epicenter of bad policing, the situation in many others communities is not really that much better. We have to recognize that the data and the patterns are clear and consistent. It is time to question whether we are getting the right bang for our buck out of the random traffic stops as a mechanism to fight crime. This is alienating people without having much good to show for it.
We’ve talked before on this show about the importance of a free press, but this week’s episode brings a whole new meaning to the term. In 2014, Abdalaziz Alhamza and his friends started social media accounts to document the atrocities being committed by ISIS in their city of Raqqa. They called themselves Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently (RBSS) and their work quickly grew into a website and a social movement that garnered international attention.
RBSS brought the work of citizen journalists to a global audience and helped provide a counter to increasingly sophisticated ISIS propaganda. Their work was chronicled in the 2017 documentary City of Ghosts. Aziz visited Penn State for a screening of the film sponsored by Penn State’s Center for Global Studies, which is lead by friend of our podcast Sophia McClennen.
ISIS was removed from Syra last year, but that does not mean life in Raqqa has improved. Aziz and his colleagues are now working to report on the Asad regime and militias who are trying to take power from it. They are also working to empower citizen journalists in other countries and help defend the free press at a time when “fake news” has become a rallying cry for authoritarian leaders around the world.
Additional Information Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently
City of Ghosts documentary
Discussion/Reflection Questions * How significant do you think groups like Aziz’s were in pushing back ISIS? * Given their access to information locally in the city, do you think they are a better new source than a foreign outlet such as CNN? * What was your initial reaction with Aziz mentioned that friends and family had been killed while trying to do their work as citizen journalists? * Does what they went through and are still going through change your view of journalists? * Does listening to the struggles of Aziz and his organization change your perception of democracy in America? * Would you be willing to take on the challenges and risks of covering the actions of ISIS if you were in Aziz’s situation?
Interview Highlights [5:50] What has happened in Raqqa since the end of the film? Aziz: A campaign began to defeat ISIS. However, this brought with it a lot of violence. Nearly 80% of the city has been destroyed. Most of the people have been displaced. The media stoped paying attention once ISIS was pushed out of the city. This is why we kept out campaign going to continue to share information about the city. There are still a lot of things happening in the city. For example, people are still being killed every day. They are still finding bombs in the city. Also, they are finding mass graves at different parts of the city.
[7:29] How have the conditions there changed the work that you’re doing? Aziz: We do have more freedom now, but we still can’t do our work legally because we’re considered terrorists by some. If we can survive ISIS, then we can survive working around other groups. We have started an online program to teach people how to become activists and how to start their own movements.
[9:10] What was your motivation for starting this movement? Aziz: Before the revolution, I wasn’t involved with politics at all. When everything started, I had that thing inside that motivated me to get up and do something. We started by filming protests. When ISIS started taking control they prevented media from covering what was happening in the city. At this point, we felt we had a duty to do something since we were all from Raqqa. None of us had any journalist education at all. We got some training, but now we actually work to train others to be journalists.
[11:20] How do you manage still covering Raqqa while also trying to expand your coverage beyond the city? Aziz: Cellphones are the magic. We can do most of our work remotely. They are both tools for communication as well as tools for learning stuff.
[12:46] What do you share with those you’re training to become activists themselves? Aziz: We have gone through many mistakes getting to this point that we try to help others avoid. We teach them how to handle a brutal regime or movement such as ISIS. For example, I went to Columbia to help activists there. They didn’t know what encryption was or the idea that the government could track their actions and communication without encryption. Some of the mistakes we’ve made have cost us the lives of friends, so we don’t want anyone to go through those mistakes like we did.
[14:30] Do you feel the work you did have an impact to ISIS ultimately being defeated in Raqqa? Aziz: The war with ISIS was not like a regular war with militaries. It was a war fought online. Therefore, they worked hard to shut us down. They threaten us and killed family members. To get this reaction from ISIS showed us that we were doing something meaningful. They are still talking about us. To ISIS, we are the bad boys. ISIS didn’t want any other alternative media sources like us for the people to learn from. They just didn’t expect a group of teenagers being around and doing this stuff.
[16:27] How did you combat ISIS as they improved their propaganda efforts? Aziz: They spent way too much money on the media. For example, they spent millions on one media office in one city. Media was how they recruited fighters so they put a lot of money into it.
[18:25] Did you ever question if you were the right guys to do this? Aziz: Yes, at the beginning. However, this changed once our friends started to be killed. Since that, no one is second guessing this movement.
[21:50] How do you feel when you hear the term “fake news”? Aziz: It has become a huge problem even here in the United States. One network will say one thing while another will say the opposite. People get lost within all of these platforms and don’t know who to follow. We try to simply things and always provide evidence. I don’t think there is a way to kill fake news, but provide evidence is a good way to combat it.
[23:00] Do you videos that you use come from members of your group or do you get them from citizens? Aziz: They are mostly from our members, but we do get some stuff from other citizens. Even taking a photo is very dangerous. It is punishable by death. One of the first things ISIS did was try to scare people. They would have public executions in the middle of town. Because of this, people were afraid to gather information about them such as taking photos or videos.
[27:00] You have lost friends and family members through this effort. What is it like receiving that information? Aziz: It was scary when I would wake up and have to check my phone. I would wake up and pray to God that nothing bad had happened. I would feel powerless, but that didn’t last long because I knew there was something we should do about it. We knew that ISIS was killing us because they wanted us to stop our work. So we couldn’t stop and give them what they wanted.
[29:00] What does democracy mean to you? Aziz: It means people being able to express themselves without being afraid. For those who are used to it, they don’t understand that people are dying around the world to try to get democracy.
As a piece in The Atlantic recently noted, democracy is not natural. Becoming a democratic citizen involves a set of behaviors that need to be learned and practiced over time. One of the first places for that conditioning to happen is in the classroom. Beyond reading, writing, and STEM skills, students have an opportunity to engage in dialogue and debate facilitated by their teachers and learn what it means to be part of a democracy.
The term most often used to describe this is civics education, which probably brings back memories of learning about the branches of government how a bill becomes a law. As you’ll hear this week, true civics education is about so much more than that. In in a polarized political climate, are teachers afraid to engage controversial subjects? How should they address things like citizenship and patriotism? How do they have time to engage in these wide-ranging discussions given the constraints they face to prepare students for standardized tests? Mark Kissing helps budding teachers find their way — strengthening their commitments to democracy so they can pass that spirit along to their students.
Mark is an assistant professor of social studies education at Penn State. His work focuses on citizenship education, or the practice of preparing civic-minded individuals. We’ve recently seen the importance of civics education play out in the months since the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Our look at Generation Z and the future of democracy earlier this year is worth revisiting as proof that what Mark and his colleagues are teaching is having an impact.
Recommended Reading Mark’s post about the National Anthem ritual on the McCourtney Institute blog
Americans Aren’t Practicing Democracy: Yoni Appelbaum in The Atlantic
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What was your civics education like? Does anything you learned still stick with you today? * What role should the formal education system play in creating civically engaged and aware young people? * How should teachers and the field of education in general react to concepts such as “fake news” and alternative facts? * When a significant current event happens, should teachers and professors take time away from the structured curriculum to address it? * Given the access that students have to information outside of the classroom, how should a teacher handle a student who brings in a theory or an idea into the classroom from the internet? * What role should parents have in deciding how controversial subjects are addressed in the classroom? * People often complain today about the state of political rhetoric. What if anything can be done within K-12 education to help change this for the future generations?
Interview Highlights [4:34] What do you think an education in civics looks like? Mark: In school, social studies usually has a civics education built into it. This fusion came about in the early 20th century. I tend to think about it in terms of teaching about a civic society and what it means to be a participatory citizen. It does include the basic stuff about how government works. However, I think it also entails an introduction to how citizens interact with that government in a democratic system.
[6:12] What does the idea of citizenship education actually look like in the classroom? Mark: For me, I think it involves looking at where teachers and students are in terms of their own lives, such as where they’ve been and the circumstances of the places they live. Then consider what participation with society looks like in these areas under theses circumstances. That is then pulling in history and other factors. Importantly, this is place based education.
[7:08] As a social studies teacher yourself, how did you approach this in your classroom? Mark: One of the courses I taught was a street law course. I taught the class in Framingtown Massachusetts, which was the largest town in America at the time. Therefore, most of our issues were centered around local town government. I think this focus on place occurred naturally at this time. However, I’m more continuously aware of place today.
[8:45] Today, the political climate is very polarized. We also have concepts such as “fake news” and “alternative facts”. How do you prepare teachers to address and handle these issues with their students? Mark: How one would address that in their class would be molded by where that course is physically. For example, these issues would be handled differently between a rural school as compared to a more urban located school.
[9:40] Do you find that your students are receptive to this notion of place? Mark: They are immediately receptive to it. However, their broader schooling experiences don’t lead them towards being receptive to it. There is a really big gap between the lived experience of a particular area and the curriculum students are provided with. One of my missions it to ground social studies in the context of the experience of where the students in a particular school actually live.
[10:45] How do you balance providing students both local and national awareness in a field like social studies? Mark: It would be a mistake to focus only on the local issue and ignore the broader national and global context. However, it’s typically the other way around in that were focusing on the national or global perspective and ignoring the local perspective. I certainly think there is a need to traverse across those scales. For example, when talking about something like patriotism, we should talk about what it means both in the context of protests around the world as well as local instances such as the national anthem issue at the local Spikes game.
[12:00] Do you think teachers should sort of play the role of a journalist in that they stick to the facts and keep any personal opinions out of their lessons? Mark: I think there is an expectation of that. Also, they’ve been schooled that way. I actually had an instances recently with a group of soon to be teachers following the events in Charlottesville. I asked them how they’d be handling this situation in their own classrooms. Most of them said that they wouldn’t address the issue at all. Part of this game from a fear of lack of information as to what was happening. There is also a political charge to it that teachers often feel worried about taking on in front of their classes. However, if we want to take on schooling as a community based effort, we have to be willing to engage with students on these difficult current event issues. We have to have conversations across these divides.
[14:35] What is your advice to those teachers who said they wouldn’t address this issue with their own classroom? Mark: My comment is that you are taking it up by not addressing it up or pushing it to the side. Any statement, including the lack of a statement, is a message that you send to students. In the absence of a class discussion about Charlottesville, you’re being socialized not to talk about difficult issues like that. That’s troubling. We need to also consider treating the classroom as a place where students can engage, often for the first time, in difficult dialogue on challenging issues, such as what took place in Charlottesville.
[17:00] How do you balance dialogue on current events with the increased focus on “teaching to the test”? Mark: It is a little different in social studies as compared to other subject areas because this field isn’t tested nearly to the degree of other topics. I do think standardizing education is important. I work with teachers to find the balance between engaging students on controversial current events while also ensuring that they’re prepared for these standardized assessments.
[19:30] Everyone is familiar with the image of the angry parent beating down the door after a controversial topic is address in a class. How do you prepare future teachers to handle something like that? Mark: I think it is important to listen and understand what the parent is saying. It is important to build your justification for how you structure your classroom and properly present this to the parents. It can be a slow and brutal process. However, I think it can be a very productive exercise.
[20:50] In light of the events at Parkland, have you seen a change amongst your students in terms of an increase interest in taking on some of these more controversial civic topics? Mark: I think the civic engagement of the Parkland students themselves will have a big impact on my students. I think this is something I’ll see reflected in them this coming semester. I also think that my students have some sense of fear of living in a school on lock down. There is also the teacher side of this. How does a teacher handle teaching in an environment where being on lockdown is becoming more of a norm?
Rebecca Kreitzer One of the biggest headlines to emerge heading into the 2018 midterms is the record number of female candidates in local, state, and national races. While it’s easy to point to this a post-Trump reaction, there’s much more that goes into persuading women to run and helping them raise the money and build […]
Paul Clark
This week, we are rebraodcasting our conversation about public sector unions from earlier this year with Paul Clark, director of the School of Labor and Employment Relations at Penn State.
Paul talks about how these unions exist at at all levels of government — from bureaucrats to bus drivers. Many could find higher wages in the private sector, but are drawn to civil service out of a desire contribute to the public good. Public sector union participation is higher than it is in the private sector, but in some cases the bargaining power those unions have is limited. Despite that, Paul says that these union members are finding creative ways to make their voices heard, which one of the fundamental elements of a democracy.
This episode was recorded before the Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Supreme Court decision in late June. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that public sector unions that collected dues from non-members were violating the First Amendment by doing so. The impacts of the ruling mostly have yet to be seen, but as Paul explains, the loss of revenue could further weaken unions moving forward.
Last week, we heard from Salena Zito about the segments of middle America who supported Donald Trump after voting for Barack Obama. This week, we talk with another Pittsburgh resident, Lara Putnam, about a different version of Middle America — the college-educated, middle-aged suburban women who have dusted off the organizing skills honed through decades of volunteering to affect change in their communities.
Lara is a Professor and Chair of the History Department at the University of Pittsburgh and co-author with Theda Skockpol of the article “Middle America Reboots Democracy.” in the journal Democracy. She argues that grassroots work is happening behind the scenes in “purple” suburbs, areas that are ignored in the red state/blue state and urban/rural media narratives.
Grassroots groups like those Lara observed in western Pennsylvania are mixing traditional organizing tactics with social media to raise awareness and push for change at the local and state levels, far away from the divisions that bog down national politics. To borrow a line from the article, “If your question is how the panorama of political possibility has shifted since November 2016, your story needs to begin here.”
Thank you to WESA and WYEP in Pittsburgh for allowing us to use their community studio to record this interview with Lara.
Additional Information Middle America Reboots Democracy in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What is the relationship between social engagement and political engagement? * How does the populism Salena Zito described differ from the populism behind the groups Lara observed? * Lara argues that local grassroots groups have been overlooked by the media and national political parties. Do you agree? If so, why do you think it’s happening? * Both Republican and Democratic grassroots appear to want to make America great again. Can both visions of America coexist? Is there a possibility that these two less ideological groups merge into a new political coalition? * Lara said that many of the grassroots groups she observed are lead by middle class women. Do you think the tone or activities of these groups would be different if they were run by younger women? Or by men?
Interview Highlights [3:28] As a history professor, how did you come to write about a political movement? Lara: After the 2016 election, I looked around at local politics to see where I could make a change. Based on the national political coverage, I expected to see high levels of energy and organization for progressive politics in the city and little in the suburbs. However, what I found was actually that I was missing the real story. What I saw in these smaller towns was people engaging again in the political process through organization. This wasn’t getting covered nationally. This is where I kicked into historical gear. We know that large scale changes nationally have their roots in local developments. Therefore, it leads us to believe that these changes at the local level should be looked at as the possible motivation behind future national changes. So face to face groups which appear insignificant, can actually lead to large political changes.
[6:35] What does middle America mean to you after your research? Lara: These movements are being started by women. Particularly, women who had already been involved in the political movement prior to the 2016 election. What we mean by “middle America” here is that these democrat movements are taking place not in the stereotypical coastal democrat strongholds, but rather in small rural towns in the middle of the country.
[9:30] Why do you think the national media is missing this trend? Lara: The national media is really obsessed with candidates. While this does impact the spread of movements like the ones we’re seeing, it doesn’t completely stop them. Remember that politics is local. Most political conversations and political knowledge is shared in local conversations such as when people are running errands in town. This is how information is usually shared. The media tends to underreport this type of grass roots kitchen table politics.
[11:30] Do these groups still see support from the Democratic Party? Lara: Part of the story here is that the Democratic Party changed. This is why we’re seeing many of these groups being created recently. The party used to be structured in such as way that you could join it and know your fellow democrats. You had a sense that you belonged to an actual place with real people rather than simply an email list. How the party today has embraced these new organizations has varied around the country. In some places, the local party structure has embraced these new groups while in other places you’re seeing more resistance to bringing them into the fold. Whether or not this osmosis process happens depends a lot on the level of maturity of these groups. What I mean by that is how organized and structured they are. When a group is very structured, it tends to more naturally fold into a larger equally as organized group.
[17:25] Do you think there is room in these left leaning groups for someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but have since changed their minds? Lara: I think there are many different “middle Americas” out there. People are complicated and terms such as progressive means different things in different places.
[21:31] How are these groups communicating and utilizing technology to advance their cause in 2018? Lara: Some groups have become hybrids of older and newer models in that they’re utilizing both face to face as well as technological forms of communications. For example, groups will often have several facebook pages. One will be public where as the other will be private. This private page has sort of become the 21st century face to face conversation.
In the effort to understand the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, a style of reporting has emerged that Chris Hayes recently described as “Trump pastoral.” You might not know the phrase, but, but you’ve probably read a piece or two like this in the past few years:
Salena Zito A reporter from a national media outlet based in a big city visits a small town in a rural community and spends a little bit of time there trying to understand the people who live there and why they are attracted to Trump. That sounds great in theory, but the life of an urban media professional and a small town working-class person can be pretty different, which makes it difficult to build the trust needed for a true window into emotions and motivations.
Salena Zito is trying to change that. She grew up in Pittsburgh and splits her time between small-town events and CNN’s airwaves. Along the way, she’s learned a thing or two about what caused parts of the country to vote for Donald Trump after voting for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. She captures those stories in a book called The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, which was part of our democracy summer reading list episode.
We traveled to Pittsburgh to talk with Salena about how she gets to know people and what everyone can learn about trying to understand those who live different lives than we do. The lessons she’s learned apply far beyond journalism. We also talked about the coalitions that Salena and co-author Brad Todd argue helped Donald Trump become president, and whether they will remain in tact moving forward.
This is the first episode of two that will look at what’s going on in “Middle America.” Next week, you’ll hear from Lara Putnam, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who offers a different take.
Additional Information Salena Zito’s book, The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Many of the voters Salena interviewed said that the 2016 election was about something more than Donald Trump. What were those bigger ideas? * Did Trump create the new coalition Salena describes, or was he in the right place at the right time? * What does the new coalition Salena describes say about the future of political parties in the U.S.? * Think about a time when you went outside of your comfort zone to attend an event or have a conversation. How did you feel and what did you learn? * Will Trump be re-elected in 2020?
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS
4:40: What motivated you to write this book?
Salena: We wanted to look and see if the Trump victory was a fluke or an example of a more significant change within the country. I went out to the five Great Lake states that voted for Obama twice then switched to vote for Trump. We wanted to get beyond the media stereotype of what a trump voter was. What we found is that these voters we much more complicated and diverse.
6:04: How did you get people to trust you enough to be willing to open up to you and explain their voting decision?
Salena: This is where my geography and upbringing helped me greatly. I live in Pittsburg. With this more Midwest background, I was able to connect with these people better than say someone who came to them from New York or Washington.
7:13: Did you have anyone skeptical of you and asking if you were part of the “fake news”?
Salena: The shocking thing I found was that democrats have the same misgivings about the news media as republicans do. They also have the same sentiments about larger institutions as republicans. I think this new populism is a healthy pushback to all things big across media and business.
8:08: Have you kept in touch with those you interviewed?
Salena: Yes, we have. Also, no one has changed their position on who they supported from 2016. An interesting development we saw was how these people reacted to the media’s coverage of events in the administration thus far. Specifically, I’m referring to Trumps tweets. What we hear from these people is that they’re sick of the cookie cutter politicians statements. While Trumps comments aren’t clean and crafted, they are more representative of how normal people actually speak. This is something that those we spoke with could identify with. I think sometimes my peers have a hard time understanding this largely because of geography. They aren’t from these types of places.
10:35: You sort of exist in both words by interviewing these people in middle America while also appears on CNN panels as part of the media cloud. Do you see yourself as sort of an ambassador for middle America?
Salena: I want to help people understand that just because someone consumes things different than you do doesn’t make them your enemy. They just have a different life. We don’t allow people to coexist.
12:25: Fox News was mentioned many times in your book. Is that something that came up a lot in your interviews?
Salena: There was a cross section of what these voters watched as far as news. However, most of these people get their news from their local stations.
14:30: We talk a lot about a split happening between classical liberalism and populism. How do people you speak with see the recent electoral developments in middle America?
Salena: I think those in this coalition see it as still the idea of classical liberalism that we’ve always see in American democracy. This is the first time we’ve seen a new major coalition form probably since the new deal amongst democrats. I think that coalition broke apart in 2012. This happened in part because of the push from the left of ideas like multi culturalism and the idea of global citizenship. People on the coasts simply missed this realignment.
16:52: What do you think these new coalitions look like?
Salena: The new coalition within the republican part has a lot of the old new deal democrats. This means that things like entitlement reform aren’t happening in this generation. The suburban voter is still in the republican tent. However, what matters here is where your suburb is.
18:22: Those who study democracy have been looking at Trump as a new sort of autocrat. Do the voters see him that way?
Salena: They don’t see that at all. While people in the press take him literally, the people I spoke with simply don’t. While they take him seriously, they don’t take him literally.
21:11: You’ve been able to get to a deeper level of dialogue with these people by cutting under the rhetoric at the national level. What is your advice to those who wish to do the same?
Salena: Challenge yourself by exposing yourself to something or a situation that you aren’t familiar with and that you don’t know. First, step back and just be an observer. Then watch how people interact with each other. This gives you a better understanding of people and who they actually are. This will help prevent a snap judgment about them.
24:10: Do you think that anyone you spoke with would vote for a democrat?
Salena: As the party exists right now, no. They would have to make some fundamental changes. The thing about this coalition is that they simply don’t feel welcomed by the current democrat party.
Matt Jordan
We have access to more information now than at any other time in history, but we trust that information less than ever before. A Gallup survey recently found that 58 percent of respondents felt less informed because of today’s information abundance. As with a lot of things in life, too much of a good thing might not be so good after all.
If you’ve followed any of the recent news about Facebook — from Mark Zuckerberg’s comments about Holocaust survivors to the decision to ban InfoWars — you’ve probably heard the company make claims about giving its community a voice and other things that sound very democratic. However, as Matt Jordan explains in this episode, that is not the case at all.
At the end of the day, Facebook is a company and its goal is to make a profit. The result of that, Matt argues, is an algorithm-fueled avalanche of information that mixes news with opinion and fact with fiction to reinforce existing thoughts and feelings rather than exposing us to new ideas and perspectives.
Matt has also spent time studying the history of the term fake news and found that it goes back much farther than Donald Trump. He talks about how fake news in 2018 looks different than it did in 1918 and what responsibility journalists and news consumers have to push back against it.
Matt is an associate professor of media studies at Penn State and co-director of the Social Thought Program. For a look at how journalists are working in this media landscape, check out our interview from last season with Halle Stockton of PublicSource, a nonprofit news organization in Pittsburgh.
Note: This episode was recorded before Alex Jones and InfoWars were banned from Facebook, YouTube, iTunes, and other platforms.
Recommended Reading Matt’s article on the history of fake news
How can democracy thrive in the digital age? From the Knight Foundation Commission on Trust, Media, and Democracy
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think that Facebook’s mission of building community is a cover up for collecting and selling data? * Have the scandals surrounding Facebook and other social media over the past year changed your view of the platforms or how you use them? * What role should social media play in a democracy? * Do you think we’ll ever move away from a scenario where people use social media as their primary news source?
Interview Highlights [3:23] How did you get drawn towards studying the concept of fake news or fake information? Jordan: I’m always looking to see how structure of media are impacting cultural conversations. This concept of fake news has become a coercive presence in our media that has continued through 2016 and into 2018.
[4:20] Has the impact of fake information and news continued to today? Jordan: It has continued through the body of the car into the interior.
[4:35] Can you tell us about your work chronically the history of the term “fake news”? Jordan: Despite Trump claimed the credit for creating the term, which is a very “Trump” move, it actually came about with the end of the 19th century as a way to lie in media. It was a creation of the muckrakers who used misleading and fake information in the media to impact how the conglomerates at the time controlled media. They came up with this term to discredit both completely fake reporting as well as reporting that left out important information on a particular report. Therefore, the label of “fake news” became something that liberals and progressives used to discredit the large for profit news sources.
[6:00] Are there examples of the use of fake news in this manner today? Jordan: I think you can look at Fox News and use the label of “fake news” to describe what they do. For example, they often times omit important information from their daily coverage. There will be a major story of the Mueller investigation but Fox will spend their time covering a small student protest on a college campus and the push back they got from liberals as an example of liberals not allowing free speech on campus.
[7:40] Media has changed considerably over the last one hundred years. What impact has sea ranch engines like Google had on the development of fake news? Jordan: One example of how these creations have impacted our media consumption is a term that Mark Zuckerberg likes, which is information that is “relevant to us”. This is information that we would be predisposed to believe gives our personal sensibilities and opinions. This creates feedback loops where we’re just being exposed to information that we tend to believe or agree with ideologically. The new profit incentive is to keep us interacting.
[10:41] How do media outlets balance this dedication to the truth while allowing all people to access their platform? Jordan: Facebook is shrewd enough that all of their talking points are related to democratic ideals. For example, their use of the term “voices” referees to the democratic ideal that we should allow more voices into the public discussion on an particular issue. This is a struggle for people to talk about democratic theory. While we say we are going to have “voices” involved in a conversation is not to say that this is inherently going to lead to a fruitful or productive conversation on a topic just because more sides are represented. Do we need more wars? Do we need more Alex Jones out there? Probably not. It is important to remember that outlets like Facebook benefit form having more Alex Jones type characters getting people going emotionally. This makes the media more sticky. It is interesting when they use these democratic ideals of “voices” to cover up their own interests, which is to create more emotional news which increase their profits.
[12:33] Given that, what do you see as the path forward? Jordan: Whenever you have an explosion of new media formats and sources of information, you’re going to have an explosion of misinformation and fake news. At each time this has happened in history, the government has had to come in and regulate who can use the platforms to spread information. Therefore, those who say that the market can help clean up these news sources are simply wrong. Mostly because the markets have little financial incentive to limit certain sources of media as part of cleaning it up.
[15:36] In the Trump administration, do you see a place where government oversight can take place? Jordan: The only way this would happen is if the democrats sweep in the midterms and the Trump administration ends up on the back end of the national mood. This would mean they would want to limit messages to try to get on the right side again. I simply don’t see this happening. The right has done a good job of making people think that regulation is simply bad across the board. It is going to be a difficult battle to get people to warm up to the idea of introducing government regulation to current mass media platforms like Facebook. The system we have today of fact checking media simply can’t keep up. For example, I heard in a recent sort of ad hoc way that we receive more information today than those alive in the 15th century would receive in an entire lifetime.
[19:17] What responsibility do journalists have in these situations? Jordan: They have a huge responsibility. The purpose of freedom of the press has always been to limit the ability of those in power to get away with lying to the people. However, in order for them to get the public’s trust back, they have to show that they are working to find the truth rather than to protect the interest of their shareholders. The future for these journalists is at the local level. People really love their local news. While national coverage is an emotional wrestling match, it is the coverage of local affairs that people can relate to which gets them to come out and get involved in government. I think local media that can inform people of things that directly relate to them in their communities is how journalism can lead the fight against the current media climate that fake news is flourishing in.
This weekend marks the one-year anniversary of the Unite The Right rally and counter protests in Charlottesville, Virginia that claimed the life of Heather Heyer and set off a firestorm around President Trump’s remarks about who was to blame for the violence. One year later, the Robert E. Lee statue at the center of the controversy is still there, and it seems the conversation about what it stands for has stalled.
Brad Vivian The Lee statue is part of a complicated public memory about the south’s Confederate past. These shared stories of the Civil War and what it means make it difficult to change the conversation and have a productive dialogue about how to move forward.
Joining us to unpack the public memory around Charlottesville is Brad Vivian. He is the director of the McCourtney Institute’s Center for Democratic Deliberation and a professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State. Brad studies public memory, particularly around Confederate iconography. He also grew up in the Charlottesville area and recounts some of his experiences there during the interview.
We are excited to begin the second season of Democracy Works with such an important and timely topic. If you like what you hear, make sure to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts.
Recommended Reading Brad’s op-ed about Charlottesville and democracy in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Vinegar Hill neighborhood, by the Virginia Foundation for Humanities
History of Market Street Park, now known as Emancipation Park
Brad’s book, Commonplace Witnessing: Rhetorical Invention, Historical Remembrance, and Public Culture
Discussion/Reflection Questions * What are your memories of the events in Charlottesville in the summer of 2017? * Do you think that the national narrative following the events was focused on the right issues? * What do you think leads to the development of an inaccurate memory of past events? Especially ones that tend to look at past actions through rose colored glasses? * How do you think the concept of public memory relates to democracy? * What do you think we can do to ensure that the story of past events maintains more truth over the years?
Interview Highlights [2:20] What was it like growing up in Charlottesville and what went through your mind as you watched the events unfold there last summer? Brad: It is sort of a closely held secret. It is a great college town. It has sort of this small town living with a sort of metropolitan feel to it. Sort of like State College. The town is part of this growing corridor from DC down to Richmond Virginia. A lot of those coming here to study from Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey are turning a once red state into a purple or even a light blue state.
[3:50] While you were growing up there, was the Robert E. Lee statue something people would talk about? Brad: Everyone knew it was there but it wasn’t really a part of the discussion in the circle I was in, which consisted of the university. Surprising, after the riots, we didn’t really talk much about the statue. What we did talk about was Thomas Jefferson and his legacy there.
[6:20] What is public memory and how does it form? Brad: It’s really a metaphor. For example, people say we have a collective memory of what the civil war was like. The way this is formed of long ago events is how they’re talked about in the immediate aftermath by those who experienced them. This then gets carried on throughout the ages. Part of these stories might have some accuracy to actual historical fact, but they don’t have to in order for this memory to form and take hold. There is a lot of fact but also mythology here. This sense of memory is very important in that it creates a personal connection to the event.
[10:00] What many don’t realize is that these statues didn’t go up until long after the end of the war. How does this speak to your concept of a public memory? Brad: Public memory can become very political when a certain group wants to change the way that a particular story is told in public. In my view, this can be a very anti-democratic practice especially when this group tries to use the threat of force to effect this change.
[11:50] How do you have conversations around something like these monuments when so many have personal connections to wanting to protect and keep them? Brad: One of the reasons this is so difficult to do has to do with the way the main stream media frames discussions. What the media does is light of these sorts of events is put attention towards what power holders say. In the case of Charlottesville, it was the comments by Trump that got all the attention and drove the narrative of the discussions after the event. Another problem is the softer mythology of the Civil War and its figures, such as Lee. For example, the textbooks in the south portrayed the war as a battle between two honorable sides. This is not a good framework for having a discussion as to what these statues actually mean. In order to get to important conversations such as what these statues really mean in terms of southern pride, we have to break the trend of the media coming in and setting the narrative around comments of those holding power.
[15:00] Where can people go to get these conversations away from the established narrative from the media? Brad: One place to go would be southern black communities. There are millions in this community that don’t identify with the idea of confederate pride image of southern pride. We need to acknowledge that the south is a rather diverse place with different ideas of what the culture is and what pride of the south is.
[16:20] At what point does public memory start to form? For example, when will the memory of the events in Charlottesville begin to form? Brad: I think it will be a relevant point for a while. Especially in black communities. I’m still concerned that we aren’t going to be able to have important conversations, such as one about the events in Vinegar Hill around the issue of desegregation. I think the people in the city will be debating this issue for a long long time. I know the city is still divided over it.
If you’ve been to a book store or the library lately, then you’ve probably seen at least a few books on democracy on the shelves. The 2016 presidential election spurred a lot of conversation about the current state of our democracy and where things go from here. These books are not what most people would call beach reading, but they are important to understanding what’s happening in the U.S. and around the world right now.
We know you probably don’t have time to read all of them. Hopefully this episode will help you choose one or two to tackle. Here’s the rundown of the books we discuss:
- [2:51] How Democracies Die (Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt)
- [5:35] The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It (Yascha Mounk)
- [11:36] The Retreat of Western Liberalism (Edward Luce)
- [16:32] Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency (Joshua Green)
- [21:40] The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics (Salena Zito and Bradd Todd)
- [30:23] Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic (David Frum)
- [35:36] One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported (E.J. Dionne Jr., Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann)
- [39:44] Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump (Michael Isikoff and David Corn)
- [43:04] The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels (Jon Meacham)
- [45:37] The Monarchy of Fear: A Philosopher Looks at Our Political Crisis (Martha C. Nussbaum)
And here are a few others we recommend but didn’t have time to discuss in this episode:
- The List: A Week By Week Reckoning of Trump’s First Year (Amy Siskind)
- The Common Good (Robert Reich)
- Suicide of the West (Jonah Goldberg)
- Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want (Frances Moore Lappe and Adam Eichen)
- Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism (Ian Bremmer)
- Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism In America (Cass Sunstein)
- Ratf**ked: Why Your vote Doesn’t Count (David Daley)
- Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It (Benjamin I. Page)
Thank you to everyone who supported us on the first season of Democracy Works. Season two will begin in mid-August with a look at Confederate monuments and public memory on the anniversary of last summer’s riots in Charlottesville.
If you need a sense of hope about the future of democracy, you’ve come to the right place. Stephanie Keyaka, editor-in-chief of The Underground and one of the McCourtney Institute’s Nevins Fellows, is spending the summer interning for Zeke Cohen on the Baltimore City Council. She believes Baltimore is on the cusp of something big and is doing everything she can to help bring that change to fruition.
Stephanie’s spent her summer canvassing in support of an amendment that will give the council and the city’s residents more control over its budget and answering calls from city residents who are looking for help for problems ranging from the serious to the mundane. During the course of those conversations, she’s had the chance to deliver some optimism about the city’s future.
The Underground is an all-digital news platform at Penn State that covers campus and community events through a multicultural lens. Stephanie sees firsthand the power of the free press in a democracy and tries to instill a sense of passion and tenacity in the reporters she oversees.
Stephanie, like all of our Nevins Fellows, is extremely bright and very well spoken. It’s hard not to feel at least a little hopeful about the future of democracy with people like her poised to take the reins.
This is one we’ve been wanting to do since we started the podcast. The term constitutional crisis is frequently used but often misunderstood. Like democracy, it’s hard to define but you know it when you see it.
If anyone can provide a definition, it’s Jud Mathews, an associate professor of law at Penn State. He has a law degree and a Ph.D. in political science. Jud says we’re not in a constitutional crisis yet, but that constitutional norms — much like democratic norms — are eroding more and more each day.
Jud also cautions against using the term constitutional crisis too loosely because of the “boy who cried wolf” problem that we’ll become so desensitized that we won’t recognize one when it actually occurs. Beyond being a legal scholar, he has made the Constitution his life’s work. He’s passionate about what it represents and understandably upset to see its force as a roadmap for the country called into question.
If there’s one bright spot to take from this conversation, it’s that there are many dedicated public servants throughout the government who are committed to upholding constitutional norms and preventing a crisis from occurring.
Discussion/Reflection Questions* Do you think were currently in a constitutional crisis? * If so, what role do you think citizens play in solving it? * In a situation similar to that described above where one branch ignores the constitutional order of another, how should we go about enforcing the rule of law? * Are you concerned that the pace at which current events develops today will prevent us from either identifying a constitutional crisis or being able to handle it when we spot it? * What role do you think the rising polarization of politics will have in being able to handle and correct a constitutional crisis if one were to develop?
Interview Highlights[3:00] What is a constitutional crisis?Jud: You can think of the constitution as a road map. One way to think about a constitutional crisis is that the government is going off the road or off the rails. Such a situation could be the fault of the public or it could be the fault of the document itself. For example, we might face a situation that the constitution does provide guidance for. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen very much in our system. It is also possible that the constitution does provide clear guidance, but we have a single actor who simply refused to follow this guidance and do what they want.
[4:30] Are there examples where we’ve been in such a situation in the past?Jud: I think the biggest example that people would look at would be the secession preceding the Civil War. The constitution doesn’t really tell us what to do when a state wants to leave. This arguably led to a war over this issue. My definition is rather strict. Therefore, I wouldn’t say we’ve face many constitutional crisis type situations. One reason I’m strict on my definition is because of a potential “boy who cried wolf” problem. Here, someone complains of so many false emergencies that no one listens when there is an actual crisis. Another reason for the strict definition is that being in a crisis situation leads to serious uses of force potentially.
[7:15] We’ve heard people around the president say that he is above the law. Do you have any thoughts on that?Jud: There is a strong respect within the constitution for the idea that while the president isn’t completely above the law, he is subject to it only through his own actions in executing the law. Under the constitution, the executive is charged with ensuring that the law is effectively carried out. Because of this, there is little the other branches can do to control the executive. While this does not mean that the executive is above the law, it is not the place of another branch, such as congress, to appoint a prosecutor to investigate the executive. Given this level of power, it’s incredibly important that the executive respect the law. To ensure this is done, there are many norms in place to sort of curtail the actions of the executive. What concerns me with this administration is at best an indifference and at worst a hostility towards these constitutional norms.
[9:42] What happens when these norms are violated?Jud: There isn’t law about what happens when these norms are violated. However, elections can serve as a control when these norms are violated. When an executive violates a particular constitutional norm, they can be voted out of office in a following election. There is also the impeachment process. This is largely a political control option. While the constitution does spell out specifically what can be the ground for impeachment, whether the house goes through with filing charges or not is largely a political decision.
[11:00] Another view of a constitutional crisis is when one branch doesn’t follow order from another. Could you speak to a situation like this in terms of a constitutional crisis?Jud: I think something like this with the executive not following an action by the legislative, such as overriding a presidential veto, absolutely is a constitutional crisis. However, it is possible that this stems from a legitimate dispute between the branches as to what the constitution requires. This is also a situation where there is not really a great solution or end game. Here, one branch is going to have its power limited and look inferior to another. However, if nothing is done, then we all loose as the constitution is disrespected. Something similar to this happened during the Civil War when Lincoln disregarded an order by the Supreme Court to honor the right to habeas corpus. Eventually, the country fought through it and got past it. However, the court perhaps lost some power and legitimacy as a result of the executive never really being held accountable for this.
[14:00] Today we see the events in the news greatly outpace development of the law. How do you see this impacting respect for the constitution and law?Jud: It seems as thought our political life is on fast forward right now. I think this has a numbing effect on those who watch the legal actions of the administration.
[15:00] As a constitutional scholar, how does it make you feel to see constitutional norms being eroded?Jud: It does make me concerned. One thing I think the president has yet to understand and respect is the fact that we have a set of legal norms to protect the proper role of constitutional governance. Many of the factors that influence constitutional governance will never see the inside of a court. These important matter will be decided by those in the administration. To ensure that these decisions are proper and respect the constitution, there is a large number of procedures in place. The president simply doesn’t show a lot of respect for these procedures. That being said, I’m confident because there are still a lot of very talented dedicated public servants in departments all around the government.
Earlier this year, images of teachers protesting for higher wages in Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma flooded the airwaves as teachers took action against years, if not decades, of stagnant wages being asked to do more with less in the classroom. Teachers are one visible example of a public sector union, but many other state and federal employees from bus drivers to accounts are part unions, too.
Paul Clark In fact, public sector union participation is higher than it is in the private sector. In theory, this means that public employees can advocate for the resources they need to make public life better for everyone. However, only about half of the states give their employees the right to unionize, and unions within the federal government are limited in what they can bargain for.
Those bargaining rights could become even more limited as the Supreme Court prepares to rule in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which will decide whether people who are not members of these unions have to pay union fees.
To help sort through this, we talked with Paul Clark, the director of the School of Labor and Employment Relations at Penn State and an expert on unions. This is a wide-ranging conversation that covers everything from the history of public sector unions (they’re newer than you might expect) to the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Janus case.
We also talked with Paul about the impact that public sector unions have on democracy and what happens if they continue to weaken. Even unions that don’t have the ability to bargain over wages have managed to get creative about making their voice heard, but that can’t last forever. These are some of the people who are out there every day doing what it takes to make democracy work, and any efforts to curb their collective power could weaken their ability to do so.
Recommended Reading Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court ruling
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you support the idea of public sector employees being able to unionize? * Why do you think they should or should not have this right? * Do you think there is something uniquely different between private and public sector workers that impacts whether or not they should be able to organize? * Given that tax payers pay the salaries for public workers, should they have a seat at the table when dealing with public sector unions? * Paul discussed a pending Supreme Court case where public employees may no longer be required to pay membership dues to unions that they don’t want to join. Where do you fall on this issue? * Do you think union membership will increase or continue to fall going forward?
Interview Highlights [6:00] What types of public employees unionize that people might not think of naturally when they think of public unions? Paul: Unions represent public workers at all levels. This means there are public unions at the federal, state, and local level. There is a wide array of services provided by people who are member of public workers unions.
[7:00] How did those groups come to be unionized? Paul: Private sector workers got the right to organize and strike in the 1930s. Public workers were specifically restricted from getting those rights. This meant that public workers salaries lagged behind those of private sectors because private sector salaries increased as a result of being able to unionize. However, in the 60s, as part of other social movements, we saw public sector unions finally get the same rights to organize as those in the private sector. This was done at the state level. However, even today, only about half of the states extend this right to public employees. At the federal level, these rights are limited.
[8:40] In the time since public workers could unionize, have their salaries caught up with those in the private sector? Paul: These public unions have been successful in improving the conditions of their workers in the states where workers have been able to organize. Pennsylvania is a good example as they were the first state to allow public workers to organize and strike. Here, you can track the improvement in benefits of these employees since the 70’s.
[10:00] There is the idea amongst the public that going into public work is almost altruistic because such workers can usually make more in the private sector. Does this play into union efforts of public workers at all? Paul: Yes, it does. But just because these workers feel the need to bargain for better wages to support their families does not mean there is any less of a sense of service in doing what they do for the public.
[11:40] In the private sector, union fights are seen as the people against “the man”. How does this relationship look in the public sector? Paul: Just like in the private sector, the managing director in public positions make the critical decisions for those workers. Much like a democratic system, unions work to ensure that all the power isn’t held by a small few over the masses. Unions bring this democracy to the workplace.
[14:30] We’ve heard a lot about a decline in private sector union membership. Is this trend reflected in public sector unions? Paul: One reason we’ve seen private membership decrease is that private companies have decided to take them on and limit their power. In 2010, we saw these efforts to limit private sector being turned towards public sector unions because public membership was on the rise. The first battleground for this was Wisconsin. There, we saw a number of laws passed aimed at limiting the power of public unions. This turned into a wave within other states to limit the ability of public unions to operate effectively. The result is that we’ve seen considerable decline in public union membership. The next step in this effort to weaken public sector unions is a Supreme Court case that could prevent unions from being able to charge all of those receiving benefits under it four dues to the union.
[19:14] In Arizona, we saw a teachers union endorse a political candidate. Can you speak to this new growth in the political activity of public unions? Paul: Many aspects of public workers careers are impacted by public laws. Therefore, they have a strong incentive to become active in the political process. The interesting thing about the developments in Arizona is that this is a state where public workers aren’t able to organize. While there are technically workers unions in that state, they can’t be involved with setting salaries in any way. As a result tax cuts have passed unchallenged and the about of tax dollars going towards education has decreased over the years.
[22:00] Do you think it’s possible for a new public sector union to develop in 2018? Paul: This would be a very ambitious goal given the current political climate. However, even without formal unions, you have individuals who can use their voice to advocate for these types of things. I think these cases are instructive in showing the importance of these unions. There is a correlation between states with the best education standards and the best benefits for their teachers.
Polarization is a term that’s thrown around among political pundits as one reason for the decline of American democracy — often without an explanation of what it really means. We’re even guilty of it on this show.
To set the record straight, we talk with Boris Shor, an assistant professor at the University of Houston and an expert on political polarization. Boris breaks down what polarization means, and how it looks different in the legislature and in public opinion. This is an important distinction that is often lost in the efforts to frame the narrative in a tweet or a soundbite.
He also argues that polarization is not always an negative, especially at the state level, and that it might not be time to blow up the entire party system just yet. While we hear a lot about polarization in the media and from politicians (who themselves are polarized), the rest of the country might be more in the middle than you think.
This conversation was recorded at the 2018 State Politics and Policy Conference, which was hosted by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and brought more than 100 political science scholars to Penn State.
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Have you seen politics become more polarized where you live? * Do you think one side has become more polarized than the other? * Do you think this is a dangerous trend in politics? * Have you either questioned or changed your party identification recently due to increased polarization? * What do you think is responsible for the increase in political polarization in American politics? * Do you think this problem will get worse in the years to come?
Interview Highlights [4:00] What is political polarization? Boris: Primarily, it is an ideological separation between two sides. This can also mean that the division within a particular party is decreasing. This means that the party is becoming more homogenous in terms of ideology. The internal division of ideology within parties goes away as polarization becomes more severe.
[5:50] Do we see this pulling apart happening within the political parties? Boris: We are seeing this happen in the legislature. IT has been happening for a while now. It is less clear if this is happening in public opinion. In the area of public opinion, we are seeing people be more set in their parties. For example, those who may have been republicans but shift over to the Democratic Party are now much more likely to remain in the Republican Party.
[7:00] What does this polarization mean for democracy? Boris: We’re concerned specifically because of how many veto points there are within our system. At many points, opposition can shut down certain initiatives. As the two sides become more polarized, the chances of government shutting down become greater. This is usually from a small group. One example is the freedom caucus within the republican side of Congress. This is a very small portion of the body, but one that can shut down legislation. Things operate a little differently at the state level where they are fewer such veto points. Also, we have fewer super majority requirements at the state level. Another important aspect of state politics is that you often have single party dominated states. For example, California is dominated by democrats. Therefore, if you’re a democrat, you like polarization in California because that means you can pass more progressive policies easily.
[10:30] Officials in California changed their primary process. What this an attempt to curtail polarization? Boris: Yes, it was. Those leading the effort, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, were concerned about not having a political home given that they were moderates. The idea was to get away from the party controlled primary process which usually gives us very partisan candidates in the general election. Under the new system everyone runs together. We studied this system to see if it really had a moderating effect. A problem we’re seeing is lower voter turnout in the primaries. In order for this new system to work, you need higher turnout. We’re also seeing the problem of lockouts where the party splits their vote between multiple candidates and end up without a candidate getting to the state of the general election. Our study shows that this process worked for democrats in California but not the republicans. However, where it has been successful in increasing competition.
[13:50] How does this new type of system work in a more polarized public? Boris: We know that polarization is significant at the primary stage of elections. We know that there are usually Marco movements in political opinion within the public. For example, we’ll have a long run of leadership of one party or the other, but then people will simply want a change and go with the other side. Overall, I think public opinion is more moderate that that of elites in politics.
[16:00] What effect does gerrymandering have on polarization? Boris: It probably has less of an impact on polarization than people would expect. A good example of this is the US Senate. These state boundaries have been set for a long time. However, we still see these elected officials being more and more partisan. The point of gerrymandering is to create districts where your party firmly controls. This should actually lead to the majority party in a certain district having to moderate itself a little since they’re trying to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate. So I don’t think polarization is the chief concern as it relates to gerrymandering.
[18:00] How can states ensure that those in office truly represent those who live there? Boris: Part of the problem is that we don’t know all of the relevant factors impacting political polarization. While we might not be able to impact the causes, we may be able to limit the effects, such as gridlock often caused by polarization. One way to do this would be eliminating the supermajority requirements in legislatures. However, this then leads to a debate about federalism and the idea of elections having consequences in that the majority who won gets to pass the policies they were elected to implement.
[20:00] What factors lead to “party switchers” which is someone moving from one party to another? Boris: Party switching can be dangerous because you simply make a lot of enemies. What I think it points to is the importance of ideology. The increase in this phenomenon is a result of the parties becoming more and more polarized. Now we see moderates who simply don’t fit within what the respective parties have become.
[23:00] Following the 2016 election, some have proposed simply blowing up the traditional party structure. What do you think about that? Boris: There is a reason we have two parties. This is due to the structure of our electoral system. What I’m more interested in is internal changes within the parties along ideological lines. For example, within the Republican Party, we’re still waiting to see if its going to become the party of Trump. There is reason to think this won’t happen given how trump candidates have faired in state elections. Switching over to democrats, here we are seeing the party becoming more polarized with prospective 2020 candidates now all supporting Medicare for all or single payer healthcare.
Across the U.S., the process to register to vote and cast a ballot is different in every state. And we’re not just talking about minor details. The entire registration process and timeline can vary widely from one state, as do the regulations surrounding campaign finance and electoral maps.
Pennsylvania tends to fall on the more restrictive side of things, and Governor Tom Wolf is trying to change that. Earlier this year, he announced the 21st Century Voting Reform Plan, which includes same day voter registration, changes to the absentee ballot process, as well as campaign finance reform.
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar traveled to each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties to build consensus the plan. We talked with her about using technology to increase voting access without compromising voter data in the process, and about the criticism from Pennsylvania Republicans that the voting reform plan is a convenient tactic for a Democratic governor in an election year.
While this episode talks specifically about Pennsylvania, the compromises that must be made across counties and municipalities exists everywhere and is indicative of why states are sometimes referred to as “laboratories of democracy.” It’s also an insight into the hard work that it takes to make large-scale change to one of the most fundamental parts of democracy.
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Are there any problems that you’ve noticed in your state’s voting procedures? * If so, what improvements would you like to see your state enact? * As voting systems move more towards technological advancements, are you worried about data security? * Do you think the systems we currently use have been influenced by foreign entities? * Do you think there is a political motivation behind the efforts in Pennsylvania to changing voting procedures including the redistricting campaign?
Interview Highlights [4:30] What do you think of when you hear the term “electoral modification”? Kathy: We have a chance to advance both our technology as it relates to voting, as well as enabling more people to get to the polls. One example is the replacement of our aging voting machines. Also, we want to improve the way in which we register people to vote.
[5:40] Can you talk a little about how the governor’s voting plan came about? Kathy: The governor is dedicated to ensuring that everyone has access to vote. Globally, we actually have a very low level of voter turnout. This plans includes not just the effort to increase vote turnout but also to address campaign finance reform and redistricting efforts. So there is a lot of work to do.
[6:30] Is there something you’re trying to tackle first? Kathy: Absentee voting is one area we are addressing now. The State department has been working with the counties to work on improving this process, such as not requiring an excuse to be able to vote absentee. The way people travel and commute has change. We think this should lead to an updated voting procedure. We think we can really streamline the entire process
[8:00] It sounds like a daunting task. What do you think has contributed to the inability to make these changes in the past? Kathy: There are many important partnerships between the state and local municipalities. This change doesn’t happen in a vaccine and requires cooperation with all of these small local governments.
[9:00] Do you find that concerns are different throughout the state, such as between urban areas like Philadelphia as compared to more rural areas?
Kathy: Every county is different from the next. Due to this, we aren’t going to find a magic solution that makes everyone happy. Therefore, coming to an agreement is going to require a lot of give and take between everyone.
[10:30] Do you look around the country and see the process of any particular state as a goal to reach here in Pennsylvania? Kathy: All of the aspects of the plan we’re trying to instill have been introduced in other places. I’ve spoken with those in other states to discuss what they’ve done to improve their operations, such as updating the voting machines. Another example is same day registration, which has been adopted by many other states including D.C. This gives us a lot of great models to work from.
[11:30] Some have expressed concerns about Russia being able to hack the older voting machines. Is this a concern of yours? Kathy: What a lot of people don’t realize is just how many security measures we have in place to protect the election. Also, that we are constantly expanding these. It is actually very difficult to conduct wide spread hacking of our system because of these checks. However, another problem is the age of our machines. One problem this brings is that newer operating systems may not be supported by these older machines going forward.
[13:20] Can you speak a little about the redistricting effort that we’ve seen? Kathy: I think it’s becoming rather clear that the way in which these lines have been drawn does not reflect the intentions of the founders. Also, it doesn’t serve the best interests of the voters themselves. Therefore, we strongly support a change of the procedure to put the decision making in the hands of those who aren’t directly invested in the outcome of the redistricting. We also support not having political considerations involved in the process of drawing the lines. These efforts should get us back to the original intentions of having nice square districts that group similar communities together.
[15:00] How do you strike a balance between using technology to advance the system while also keeping voter information safe? Kathy: Data security is going to be an issue we have to worry about for a long time going forward. This impacts every area of our life from medical information to our voting information. In terms of voting information, it is important to remember that there are many checks in place protecting your information. Also, it is important that people know that their voting results are never connected to the internet. Our systems are never linked up to any network. All results are personally delivered to the higher ups who officiate and confirm the election results.
[17:20] Republican opponents of the governor have claimed that this effort he is engaged in is simply a political move. Could you speak to that a little? Kathy: The governor has been dedicated to this effort for decades well before he became governor. At the same time, we’re realistic about the political climate here and we realize that this won’t all pass this year. It is important to start this conversation. Given that we’re a battle ground state, it is concerning that we rank around the middle of the pack on voter turnout.
[21:00] What motivates you in this work? Kathy: You never feel more connected to the idea of democracy than when you’re working to expand those who participate in the process via voting. The conversations with the individual counties is absolutely a part of that process in Pennsylvania. The people involved in this are very committed to making sure every vote is counted.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post What should voting look like in the 21st century? appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
What is the role of a corporation in a democracy? If you asked Milton Friedman, the answer would be none at all. He famously said in the 1970s that the only corporate social responsibility a company has is to turn a profit for its shareholders.
Forrest Briscoe Some 40 years later, the answer to that question looks very different. Companies are increasingly stepping up to fill what they perceive to be a void left by polarized and paralyzed government. In the past year, we’ve seen Patagonia advocating to protect national parks from the Trump administration and Dick’s Sporting Goods banning the sale of assault weapons after the Parkland shooting. These organizations wield a lot of power, both financially and in swaying public opinion.
Forrest Briscoe, a professor of management in Penn State’s Smeal College of Business, has been studying the gradual closing of the gaps between business, government, and civil society and talks with us about what it means for employees, for companies, and for consumers.
The echo chambers we experience among our friends and our media may be bleeding over into the workplace — which has some serious implications for democracy. In a tight job market, a company’s political beliefs may even be a deciding factor when someone is considering multiple job offers.
The space between business, government, and civic life is closing faster than you think. We argue that it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but something that we should be aware of as workers, consumers, and democratic citizens.
Interview Highlights [5:00] How have we gone through this change of corporations being single minded on profit to now being concerned with activism? Forrest: We’ve come from a time where the idea of business doing something other than business would detract from their efforts of profit. A key characteristic which has changed over time is the fact that business and government aren’t these completely separated spheres like they used to be years ago.
[6:36] What are the factors that would impact a businesses decision to get involved with a certain cause? Forrest: Sometimes companies will be forced to change because they’re being targeted by activists. However, we’re now seeing those at the top of companies wanting to actually reach out to these social movements. So we’re seeing effects work in both directions. Also, companies might see profit opportunities by embracing a certain cause or campaign. Another persuasion tactic is this use of benchmark competition that some movements have tapped into. For example, we see that LBGTQ groups have created rankings of the most friendly companies to their cause. This touches upon an driving interest amongst businesses, which is to beat their competition in some benchmark test.
[13:00] Do you think there is a danger in companies becoming too homogenous in political views as they get more and more involved in politics? Forrest: Yes, and this is something we’ve been trying to study in our research. Any institution can have a varying amount of diversity along lines of political ideology. If this is paired with functional communication, it can be productive like a democracy. However, without the right culture, you can have a Balkanized effect where the company struggles with constant conflict along these ideological differences. I also worry about companies becoming too aligned with partisan ideas. If this continues, we could see a worsening of the partisan divided if our companies join the divide along with those in government.
[16:00] Can you address the consumer side of this issue? Forrest: With boycotts, I think their increased numbers, but remoteness as to actual buying habits could reduce their overall effectiveness. There is also a new phenomenon known as “buycotts” where people are supporting those who they agree with ideologically by only doing business with the.
This episode is not about climate change. Well, not directly, anyway. Instead, we talk with Nobel Prize winner and Penn State Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Michael E. Mann about his journey through the climate wars over the past two decades and the role that experts have to play in moving out of the lab and into the spotlight to defend the scientific process.
Doing so is more important now than ever, he says, as corporation-funded think tanks continue to churn out information that deliberately sows skepticism among the public about our role in climate change. But it does beg the question: How do square the idea that in a democracy, everyone’s vote is equal but everyone’s opinion is not?
Mann was part of the team that created the now-infamous hockey stick graph that showed how quickly the rate of warming on the planet had accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century. In the 20 years since graph was published, he’s had his email hacked, been called to testify before Congress, and been hounded by Internet trolls long before social media existed.
He chronicled those experiences in his 2012 book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Despite it all, he’s more passionate than ever about spreading the good word about science and cautiously optimistic that things might turn out ok after all.
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think we have a problem in America with having rational and logical fact based discussions? * If so, why do you think this has grown to be a problem? * Do you think your political affiliation impacts your opinion on this issue and whether or not you’re willing to change your position on it? * Can someone subscribe to an ideology yet disagree with that ideology on this particular issue or any particular issue?
Interview Highlights [6:00] In 2012, you wrote a book where you expressed cautious optimism that we were heading in a positive direction on climate change. Do you still have that same level of optimism? Michael: Even today when there is cause of pessimism in the area of climate science, we are seeing progress on this issue at the state and local level. Also, we’re seeing progress on this issue of climate science in the private sector where corporations are taking it upon themselves to improve their practices. For example, when Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement, state and local leaders joined a pledge signifying there were still on board with the initiative. Given all of these efforts, we would still likely meet the goals under the initiative regardless as to whether we officially leave the agreement or not. However, meeting the Paris agreement is not enough to control global temperatures below dangerous levels. In order to accomplish this, we’ll have to do even more. However, we are starting to see a positive bend downward in global temperatures.
[9:00] In an era of government gridlock, we’ve seen an increase in private activism from companies and individual activist. Can you speak more to this? Michael: This is perhaps the primary reason for optimism. In this atmosphere of hostility towards fact based discussion and action, we’ve seen a rebirth of citizen engagement on this issue. The science march in DC is a good example of this. We can’t just sit back after publishing the articles and let the government sort of figure it out. That doesn’t work anymore.
[10:30] You talk in your book about scientists having to come out and be advocates of facts. Can you speak more about that challenge? Michael: I would have been happy to have been left alone in the lab doing what I love to do, which is scientific study and solving problems. The last thing on my agenda was the idea that I’d get in the debate over human caused climate change. It is not what I signed up for. However, whether I liked it or not, I was thrust out into the public arena when we published the hockey stick graph. It is an uncomfortable place to be. Partly because this isn’t what we’re trained for. We are trained to live in a world where facts and logic rule the day. When you leave this sphere, the rules of engagement are completely different. Here, facts and logic don’t play the same role as they do in the field of science. Here, rhetoric wins over logic. If you’re going to succeed as a scientists in this political sphere, you have to adapt how you convey information to the public in an adverse atmosphere. Over time, I’ve become comfortable in this role.
[14:00] What is the Serengeti Strategy? How was it used against you and then how did you turn it back against those who disagree with you? Michael: It is an analogy for how critics of climate science attack those who stray from the pack of climate science. I coined that phrase after a trip to the Serengeti where we say a group of Zebras lined up side to side. Our guide informed us that this is a strategy for confusing predators. With a wall of stripes, the predators don’t have a single target to lock in on. Essentially, it is a defense strategy. The critics know they can’t take down something like an entire government panel on climate change, but they can single off a particular scientist and go after them.
[16:45] At any point during the attacks you experienced did you question what you were doing? Michael: I was very confident in our science. Also, the fact that dozens of other studies have supported our original findings, I’m even more confident in the work we were doing at that time.
[17:30] In light of the Serengeti Strategy, is there a belief within the scientific community that you have to sort of present a unified front? Michael: I don’t think so. There is robust within the field about different approaches to study and to solving the problem. Scientists spend most of their time arguing about advancing the science between what is known and what isn’t know. It is by disagreeing and challenging popular opinion that advances and new discoveries are reached. This is also how people get funded. However, this is often used by opposition to argue that we’re just in this for the money. That is just not the case.
Another important thing to point our is the significant of a scientific organization coming out with a definitive statement about the impact of climate change. Usually, the scientific communities strays from such strong statements. The fact that there is enough agreement from a diverse field for an institution to make this statement is something people should take note of.
[20:40] Do you have an opinion on the idea that in a democracy all votes are equal but opinions are not? Michael: There is an attack on expertise and fact based debates. While this is a new issue broadly speaking, this is something we in the climate science community have been dealing with for years. All of the tools used against our research years ago are the same ones we’re seeing be employed today along a broad range of topics at the national level. What I think we’ve seen is that the environment around discrediting our work has metastasized to infect our entire body politic.
[24:00] What do you think is the treatment or cure for some of the problems we’re seeing in fact based debate nationally? Michael: Ultimately, the only real solution is democracy and the democratic process. This includes people getting out to vote. If we allow special interests to continue to outweigh the voters, we’ll see a continued push back against our efforts.
[26:00] Can you speak about a time where you saw someone’s opinion on climate science change after speaking with you? Michael: There have been some great examples. An employee of the AEI, which is a Coke brothers front group, came to the realization that he had been fighting for the side of evil. He is still a republican, but he is now trying to be on the right side of the science. I’ve come across many skeptics, which is not inherently a bad thing. All good scientists are skeptics. However, being skeptical in the fact of overwhelming evidence is not good skepticism. There have been many instances where I’ve had people come to me after a lecture and tell me that they are a least questioning their prior position. This is all we can ask for. We can’t want to replace one sort of evangelism with another. We want people to be able to critically evaluate the evidence. We have to help them to be able to do that.
Peter Levine is one of the country’s leading scholars in the area of civic engagement. He is the Associate Dean for Research and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs in Tufts University’s Jonathan Tisch College of Civic Life and author of “We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America.”
The very idea of civic engagement has changed drastically in the past decade or so as communities form online instead of in person. Does this mean young people are more likely to become engaged in civic and political issues? And, will that engagement translate into votes? Peter and his colleagues study these questions and will be watching closely heading into November’s election.
The interview with Peter also touches on what today’s young people can learn from their predecessors 50 years ago. We heard from Tommie Smith about the struggles he faced in 1968; Peter reflects on how civic engagement looks different today and how students today can keep activism alive.
For more information on Peter’s work, visit the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at civicyouth.org or his website at peterlevine.ws.
Interview Highlights [7:00] What do you think about the activism of Generation Z? Peter: I am excited about what they’re doing. I would attribute a lot of this to good civil education. I also think its relevant that they’re coming to age in an era of political energy and engagement. While I wouldn’t say this is exactly the dawning of generation z, I would say it is the beginning of a very interesting time in American history.
[8:15] How can people find a common ground to facilitate discussions on difficult topics? Peter: I wish I had a good answer for this. For example, the gun debate is a good one to have but I’m not sure how much change it can lead to. I think the kids protesting for gun control have the right to do that. However, they shouldn’t be carrying the burden to do so. Also, it isn’t their responsibly to lead a balanced debate on the topic. They are allowed to advocate for their specific stance on the issue.
[11:00] We are in a very important anniversary year of 1968. What can youth activists learn from their predecessors fifty years ago who found themselves in a contentious time? Peter: The most inspiring stories to me are the high points of the civil rights movement during that time. There is also a lot to be learned from that movement. For example, it’s important to teach students that Rosa Parks wasn’t just some tired old woman who had simply had enough. We should teach kids that in fact she was a long time activist with the NAACP, and that this was a planned political action. This teaches kids how to operate activism today.
[12:20] How do you ensure that proper history is being thought to kids? Peter: There are several problems with ensuring accurate teaching of this history. One problem is that its presumed that this civil rights movement was led by a relatively small number of individuals. Most of them being men. Also, it is incorrectly described to children as a rather spontaneous movement and development. When it reality, it was a long fight that is still being fought today.
[13:00] Do you thin that social movements today still need the sort of big movement leaders of the 60’s? Peter: This is difficult to balance. Especially given the fact that we’re in a time of celebrity politics where our president is in the position due mostly to his celebrity status before taking office. On the other hand, we have social movements that are almost allergic to any one figure being the leader. They don’t’ like to structure themselves with strong leaders. Occupy Wall street would be a good example of this disdain for structured leadership within a movement. There is absolutely a less prominent role within these movements than the movements of the 60’s. It feels like a rapidly shifty terrain where we have an increased value of celebrity along side of movements that are focused on not having specific leadership structures.
14:30: Another key question about youth engagement is whether or not they’ll vote. What is your take on this aspect of the issue?
Peter: I do think they’ll boost youth turnout. However, it will be an increase from a terrible point in the last election. This turnout will also make a difference in terms of who will win these races. For example, the different results in the 2006 and 2014 midterm races can be explained by the variation in youth voting. I think the Parkland kids have a potential to impact turnout by a few percent specifically because of their focus on getting out the vote.
[16:10] Why do you think the youth turnout in the 2016 race was the lowest we’ve ever seen? Peter: It had been pretty bad for a long long time. There are many relevant factors leading to this. Part of the problem is that there isn’t a concerted effort to getting out the youth vote. Many tend to ignore the youth vote. While we see good youth turnout in the presidential races, this dips considerably in mid term races. This is due partly to the fact that smaller local races don’t have the resources to target the youth vote. Also, it is easier for young voters to get to the information they want without having to come in contact with information about their local races. This negatively impacts their interest and therefore their participation in these races. Also, young people are less connected to large institutions that would have informed them of these local races.
[17:45] Do you see anything coming up to replace these traditional institutions that used to get the youth involved in voting? Peter: I think there is a variety of possible replacements. From social media to apps, there are many places for young people to gather. However, none of them have the infrastructure or business model of the traditional media outlets or churches from the 50’s. It is mostly a question of how to transform these possible replacements into more substantive long term institutions. I don’t think we have that yet. The channels available now weren’t designed specifically to be these new institutions. This is also causing a problem.
We love talking with scholars and thought leaders on Democracy Works, but we’d also like to bring you the everyday stories of democracy in action. This the first installment in that series.
We visited the central Pennsylvania chapter of Moms Demand Action and heard how they are using the power of conversation to reframe the gun debate and reinvigorating a sense of civic engagement among members. A recent meeting also included a “government 101” presentation that covered the basics of how a bill becomes a law and the best way for someone to contact an elected official.
In this mini episode, you’ll hear from Lori Wieder, who is a founding member of the central Pennsylvania Moms Demand Action Chapter, and from Katie Blume, deputy political director for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Both Katie and Lori are firm believers — as we are — in the power that can come from everyone exercising their power as small-d democrats regardless of political affiliation.
Do you have a story of democracy in action? Drop us a line at democracyinst@psu.edu; we’d love to hear about it and consider it for a future Democracy Works episode.
This week’s episode seeks to answer one simple, but very important, question: Why is it so hard for people to talk to each other? There are a lot of easy answers we can point to, like social media and political polarization, but there’s another explanation that goes a bit deeper.
Laurie Mulvey, executive director of World in Conversation, is the perfect person to help us explore this question. World in Conversation has facilitated more than 10,000 dialogues over the past 15 years. They bring people from all walks of life together to have dialogues about important issues from climate change to race relations. In the process, they break down the misconceptions and preconceived notions that often get in the way of one person understanding — and relating to— someone else.
Of course, most dialogues do not happen in a controlled environment with a facilitator in the room. Laurie shares some advice for how to handle your next family dinner or other situation where things might get a little heated. She also shares how the World in Conversation is preparing the next generation of democratic citizens to overcome the partisan divides that bog down political discourse.
As we say in the episode, Laurie raises the optimism quotient of this podcast quite a bit.
Interview Highlights [6:06] Why is it so difficult for people to engage in dialogue today? Laurie: What I think happens is that we end up needing facilitators. Just like in sports we need referees. Here they would be dialogue referees.
[6:55] What are the elements of a good dialogue? Laurie: Candidness and disagreement with respect is important. Having mutual respect is especially important. When we don’t talk with an understanding of each other’s positions they aren’t as productive and they don’t show us as much.
[14:00] What impact do you think social media has had on our ability and willingness to engage in dialogue? Laurie: Personally, I don’t notice much of a difference. We actually have a lot of conversations. However, they’re either with like minded people or they are a “hit and run” type conversation with people who don’t think like us. The only change that social media has brought is that we’re doing this with people from our living rooms.
[15:40] We have seen our culture become more polarized politically. Have you seen this reflected in the conversations you lead? Laurie: We try to find polarizing topics and get different sides represented in our conversations. Therefore, I’m not sure if we see an increase in the extent of the polarization. Actually, we try to get people in our conversations to say the things that are controversial. At this point, the polarization becomes apparent. However, I don’t think this is real. I dont’ think most people live in this polarity that we like to talk about.
[17:40] How can we take the work you’ve done working with conversations and apply it in the real world such as at dinner table talks? Laurie: It is important to be in the mindset for listening. The mindset you need to be in is ‘tell me something I dont’ already know’. However, I strongly believe that even in these settings we need a facilitator to help navigate the conversation.
[19:24] What skills does someone need to be a good facilitator? Laurie: Fundamentally, you have to be able to talk all sides. You have to find what is true in all sides of a conversation. As long as you can do that, you can sort of fumble through everything else.
[20:22] Is there a certain point in a conversation where you would advise people to end a conversation? Laurie: I think we all know intuitively that there is a time to end a heated conversation.
[21:30] Given all of the conversations you’ve been a part of, are there any memories that really stick out? Laurie: There was one conversation between Israelites and Palestinians where one guest from Palestine said he couldn’t even go in the room. But by the end of his time working with me his greatest challenge was that he came to understand so much about the Israelis perspective that he wasn’t sure what it meant given his position as a Palestinian. I do the work because the people who have the hardest positions will get the most out of it.
One of the things we talked about in our episode with How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt is the “grinding work” that it takes to make a democracy function. School board meeting rooms around the country are some of the places where that happens at the grassroots level.
If you’ve ever been to a school board meeting, you know that they’re not always exciting. However, the work that these boards do directly impacts the schools, the children who attend them, and the community at large. Board positions are not full-time and the people who hold them are rarely career politicians. Rather, they’re everyday citizens who want to make an impact — exactly the type of people come together to make democracy work.
We talk about the role that school boards play in a democracy with Robert Asen, a professor of rhetoric, politics, and culture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Asen is the author of Democracy, Deliberation and Education, which is based on a yearlong study of three school boards in Wisconsin. While the examples he references are specific to Wisconsin, it’s easy to hear the conversations and deliberations playing out at schools across the country.
Asen visited Penn State to deliver the 2018 Kenneth Burke lecture in the McCourtney Institute’s Center for Democratic Deliberation.
Interview Highlights [6:00] What are the factors that motivate people to join a school board? Robert: What connects people to these groups are often times their own experiences, including those with their children. There were others who didn’t have children at the school, but saw the school board as an opportunity to get involved with their community.
[7:30] Did you find that people joined the school board because there was a particular change they wanted to see? Robert: It wasn’t the case for everyone, but there were some who wanted to see particular policy be passed. Across the districts we looked at, there was a more general sense of bringing about change in an effort to improve the schools. They were more focused on improving the lives of students rather than any one particular issue.
[8:40] While these board members are voted on, they are not what we would think of as politicians. How does this play out? Robert: One of the things that separates these governing boards from other types of elected positions is that these members are not politicians. They don’t have dedicated staff or resources. Many of these members also worked another full time job. This was an additional burden they decided to take on. There are many democratic institutions in our society run by people without formal government education or training. However, they manage to succeed nonetheless. There really is a strong sense of connection to community here. These board members very much see themselves as part of the community working to improve things for citizens.
[11:10] How are these members successful without being career politicians? Robert: What I mean when I say they succeed is that they are able to make what they believe to be the best decision for the community moving forward. To be successful in this type of setting is to have a sense of what is it that they want to achieve. In this case, they succeed because they’re in communication with education professions and are able to reach their collective goals.
[12:30] Surely there is a good amount of compromise being reached in order to get things done. Can you speak to this in your research? Robert: There was one example in particular that comes to mind here. One district was considering a proposal from a student group to create a gay student alliance. One board member spoke about his personal experience with this group given that his own son was friends with one of the students trying to create the group. He described him as just your average kid. He described them as normal good kids rather than some political revolutionaries looking to upend the community. He also talked about his own teenage years and how he and his friends might have acted inappropriately around this subject. He spoke about how times are changing and the fact that these kids just wanted a way to meet and be recognized in a group. Here, it was more about practicality winning in the end.
[14:50] What about school boards enables them to tackle difficult issues that other institutions can’t? Robert: School boards certainly do struggle with deliberation and decision making. However, there are different approaches taken here to solve difficult problems than say within state and federal institutions. The way that polarization manifests at the local level is much different than at the state or national level. We know that communities can sort of segregate themselves naturally along racial and economic lines. This leads to small or medium school districts that may be completely contained within these homogenous areas along what can be rather divisive lines. There is also a unique sense of community. These members feel as though they are a part of the communities that they are impacting with their decisions. This goes a long way towards these bodies reaching important decisions for their institutions.
[19:20] How do school boards work with district administration? Robert: That is usually the most important and difficult relationship for a school board. When these two work together, a lot can be accomplished. However, when they’re at odds, that can undermine all of the decisions within a district. Everyone has to negotiate their roles. When these relationships begin to break down it is because of a collapse or misunderstanding of each others roles.
Jennifer Van Hook
The next census is just around the corner 2020, and the U.S. Census Bureau is already hard at work on preparing to count the more than 325 million people in the United States. The census is one of the few democratic norms that’s required by the Constitution, and the data collected has wide-ranging uses.
The normally routine process has been disrupted this year by Trump administration, which is pushing for the reintroduction of a question about citizenship. As you may have heard, there’s a debate going on about whether this question is appropriate, and whether the resource-strapped Census Bureau will have time to implement it before next year.
Jennifer Van Hook, Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology and Demography at Penn State, served on the Census Advisory Board from 2007 to 2011 and is an expert on how census data is collected, how it’s evaluated, and how it’s used. She talks about the process for creating and testing new questions, the implications of asking about citizenship, and some of the ways you might not realize census data is used.
Additional Information Jenny’s piece about the Census in The Conversation
2020 Census website
Discussion/Reflection Questions * Do you think it is necessary for a democracy to have this sort of information that the census gathers? * How often do you think the census should be performed? * Do you think the citizenship question should be added to the census? Why or why not? * If you could add a question to the census, what would it be? * Do you plan on participating in the 2020 census? Why or why not?
Interview Highlights [6:06] What do you see as the role the census plays in a democracy? Jennifer: It is fundamental for a representative democracy. The United States was actually the first nation in the world to require that a census be conducted. This was done because they wanted to distribute power according to population within the states. The number of representatives each state gets in the House is proportionate to the population. Therefore, the census is very important.
[7:28] In addition to determining representation in Washington, what are some of the other purposes of the census? Jennifer: One of the other uses is the civil rights legislation that has been passed since the 60’s. This helps tell us if certain groups are under represented. This information can show us if certain groups are being discrimintated against within society. The people conducting the census are expected to be non-partisan. Therefore, they collect the information while not saying anything about the data. They simply give it to the public because they want to stay out of the politics of this information.
[9:20] In the era of “fake news” and people being able to cherry pick their facts, how will the census be viewed and used going forward? Jennifer: The staff that conducts the census takes considerable measures to strip the data of any political leanings. One way this is done is by having multiple authors for all reports to prevent any one bias from impacting how data is reported. They also work in large teams with multiples checks for each bit of data collected.
[10:40] There are reports that the there is underfunding for the census. How will the organization continue to meet its standards with this funding issue? Jennifer: There is no set director of the census bureau. This lack of direction could cause a problem. One of the thing people have been worried about is the ability of the bureau to conduct out reach and inform people about the census. For example, many people don’t realize that the bureau can’t share its information with Ice. This is significant to share with immigrants who might fear participation in the census out of immigration police fears. This goes to the importance of building trust amongst the public to get them to participate.
[12:35] How does the bureau actually go about counting everyone in the country? Jennifer: Everyone gets a postcard in the main informing them they have to participate. If you don’t respond to that, you might get follow up contact. This is the most expensive part of the process. If people don’t respond to the first contact, and they have to be contacted again, this is where the cost can really increase for the census process.
[13:25] How does the bureau use past experiences to improve the process? Jennnifer: They do but it takes a lot of time. They try to improve their operation. However, this is difficult given the size of the debarment. It is difficult to turn on a time and change the way they conduct their business. Any small change takes a lot of time.
[14:30] What goes into deciding on the wording of a question for the census? Jennifer: Every part of the question is tested. The introduction of a new question typically takes several years because of all the test to make sure people interpret the question correctly as intended. We also consider a question from the standpoint of its impact on people’s willingness to participate in the census in light of it. In terms of the citizenship question, this has become more of a hot button topic especially given the anti-immigrant rhetoric in society today. This means that the field test questions done in the past for this topic might have to be changed because we just don’t know how people will respond to it this time.
[16:37] Wilbur Ross has said that he thinks the benefit of the citizenship question will outweigh the potential risks of lower response rates. Do you agree with that? Jennifer: No, I don’t. I don’t think the bureau has shown that this question is really necessary. Typically, questions that make the census form have to be dictated by law as being necessary. So you can’t just add questions because you think they wont’ harm the utility of the census. Every question has to be there because it is required. There is another survey called the American Community Survey. They have been collecting citizenship information for years. This data has been used to enforce the voting rights act. I’m not aware of any problems with this survey being used to gather citizenship information.
[17:50] Can you talk about how this survey differs from the census survey? Jennifer: It is a much longer survey. The questions change from year to year. It is administered to roughly 3.5 million people every year. It provides more detailed information on an annual basis for the population. It provides us with more specific information even down to the county level.
[19:37] How is census information used to impact federal policy? Jennifer: It is particularly useful when we need to know something about the populations health. One example would be looking at the changing life expectancy. This information wouldn’t be known without procedures like the census. It is the backbone of our federal statistical system.
[21:20] What would you say to someone about why they should participate in the census? Jennifer: It is good to be counted because we don’t know about our population unless we measure it.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post It’s good to be counted appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Political satire has been around nearly as long as politics itself and can provide a much needed laugh in times of crisis.
But, as you’ll hear from our guests this week, it’s much more than that. Satire is a check on people in power and helps to engage the public around issues that might otherwise go unnoticed — both of which are essential for a healthy democracy.
But, are we reaching a place where the comedy has become the news? The success of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and most recently John Oliver suggest that we might be heading in that direction. What about fake news? It’s all fun and games until you can’t tell the real news from the satire, and that’s concerning.
On the bright side, people who consume satire tend to be more well-informed about politics than those who do not, suggesting that one needs a solid foundation of what the news actually is in order to get the jokes that are being made about it.
We discuss the current state of political satire and where it might be heading with Sophia McClennen and Steve Brodner.
Sophia, a Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at Penn State, writes regularly for Salon and recently appeared on StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Steve is a cartoonist at caricaturist who has drawn every president since Ronald Regan. His work has appeared in The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, and The Washington Post just to name a few.
Interview Highlights [7:02] What is the role of satire in a democracy? Sophia: It doesn’t have that big of a role because it usually comes into the picture when things aren’t going that well. Satire emerges in moments of crisis. Today it is playing an extremely big role. Largely because the news media has shifted in how it informs the public.
[8:01] What about the nature of a crisis makes satire more popular and come out more in political conversations? Sophia: Satire tends to come about when people are faulty or are doing stupid things. Satire is typically a contrarian position.
[8:42] What are creators of satire trying to accomplish? Sophia: Satire is typically used to get the audience to think critically. The idea is to get people out of the binary option mindset. Many see the satirist as someone trying to tell them what to think. However, what they’re actually doing is trying to call out the way in which a conversation it being framed and recommend a change to that.
[10:05] What do we know about the types of people who consume satire? Sophia: People who consume satire tend to be smarter. They also seem to be more creative on average. Part of the reason for this is the fact that satire depends on irony, which is art of playing with language. In terms of irony, the ability to hear a word and be able to comprehend that it has multiple meanings is a sign of an ability to be brighter and more creative.
[12:07] Is there a “my team, your team” dynamic in the application of satire to politics? Sophia: It is suggested that we have a better ability to detect irony if it confirms our political positions.
[12:38] Where does the First Amendment fit into the creation and use of satire in politics? Sophia: Following the ruling in the Falwell v. Hustler case, satirists were found to be protected under the First Amendment under a particular clause of creativity. This differs from what a newspaper might be able to get away with. A key component is how the creators frame their comment. A key in Huslter was the fact that the intent of the offensive comment was to make fun of the individual rather than attempt to make a factual claim regarding their actions.
[15:38] What other effects have you seen satire bring about? Sophia: Satire does have “boundary heightening effects”. This is the idea that it is ok to make fun of certain groups depending on ones particular membership in that group. When you cross into different groups, this can anger members of that group, or supporters of a particular individual that those members support. Therefore, one downside to satire is that it can deepen certain political gaps.
17:20 Would one then be accurate in saying that satire increases political polerization?
Sophia: Yes, this will absolutely happen. Satire does have a blowback effect on those who think the system is working. This is because the purpose of satire is often to attack the current system and the norms in which a particular issue is addressed in. However, there is research that suggests that the use of satire can create political energy and momentum and a shared narrative.
[19:40] Have you done any research looking at how satire has evolved? Sophia: While it has changed, I’m not sure I would use the word evolved because that suggests that it is getting better. In light of the changes we’ve seen, it might be nice if there was still a difference between the news and satire. One measurable change is how news gathering and satire have merged. Today, many people use satirical displays and shows as their first source of news. Memes are also shaping public narratives. This mergering of news and satire is one that isn’t going away. In fact, it is increasing.
[21:00] Do you have any thought on where political satire might go from here? Sophia: One problem going forward will be the relationship between satire and “fake news” because satirical headlines, if not understood as satire, can become taken as hard reporting and as factual. For example, the top shared “fake news” of last year was a headline that read “Pope Francis Endorses Trump.” We’re in a situation now that things are being shared around for the reason of tricking the audience come dangerously close to looking like satire news headlines. Years ago John Stewart on the Daily Show was referred to as creating “fake news”, and that wasn’t an insult at the time.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Satire is good for more than just a few laughs appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Tommie Smith is a true living legend. He won a gold medal in the men’s 200 meter event at the 1968 Olympics, setting a world record in the process. When he took the medal stand in Mexico City that day, he made history again by raising a black-gloved fist during the National Anthem.
As you’ll hear, Tommie didn’t grow up in a political family and didn’t see himself as an activist when he enrolled at San Jose State University. That changed when he met Dr. Harry Edwards and became involved with Olympic Project for Human Rights, where he found his voice and used it to speak out against racial segregation in sports and elsewhere.
When Tommie and teammate John Carlos raised their fists on the podium in Mexico City, many interpreted the gesture as a symbol of the Black Power movement. However, as Tommie says, the action was not necessarily about one cause or movement. Rather, it was a symbol of a broader struggle for power and equality.
Tommie visited Penn State as part of a yearlong look at the events of 1968 organized by the College of the Liberal Arts.
For more on the relationship between athletes and protests, check out our episode with Abe Khan, who has studied this topic extensively and draws comparisons between Smith and modern-day athletes like Colin Kaepernick.
Interview Highlights [5:10] What was your family like? Did you come form a political family? Did you talk politics at dinner or attend political rallies? Tommie: No, Just the opposite. My family was a sharecropper background. My father actually had no education. My parents met in Texas and we were just sharecroppers. We had no political background, but there were issues in society and the system that we knew nothing about because of where we were. We worked from grass roots up until I got to the junior or senior year of high school, and that is the time social change began. I was just in time to see it. Before I read about it, I lived it. When I read about it, I remember those times. Not in the south, but in California which shadowed the south in terms of the field work.
[6:52] Were you drawn there (San Jose State) because of Dr. Edwards? How did all of those pieces come together? Tommie: There were many colleges looking to recruit me. The last two colleges out of about thirty six were San Jose and USC. I visited USC. It was a little big. They shouldn’t hav taken me to Disney Land. It scared the heck out of me. I’m used to two story buildings and that was really high up. I’m from the area of cabins and not buildings. They put me on a blind date which was a no-no. San Jose State was what I wanted academically because I wanted to become a school teacher. So I made a trip to San Jose. It was simple and the buildings were short. It was also a small city.
[8:29] Tell me about meeting Dr. Edwards and making this transition into becoming an activist. Tommie: Once I started school, he was one of the first people I met at San Jose State. He was a senior as I was coming in as a freshman. The first thing he told he was that there’s no way you can come here with me being here and not carry a book. Whenever I see you, carry a book even though you don’t read just so I think you’re reading. So I got a feel for him and his educational power when I first got there. That helped me tremendously. So I started carrying a book. Then I started carrying two books. Then I started reading the first one. Then I began to read the second one, and they would become interesting because he would start asking me questions. I was a fast learner because I had to be because I didn’t know very much once I got to San Jose State. Believe in something bigger that you that way you wouldn’t have any problem learning because someone else would help you. That faith of believing in rather than doing myself was my shot right there.
[9:56] Given that you came from this simple background and your parents weren’t very political, what did they think as you started to take on this more activist role and become more political yourself? Tommie: My mom and my dad didn’t know enough about the educational process, especially on the political side to ask me questions about what I was doing. They heard about it. There were people in town who would let them know that Tommie is doing pretty good. The town was a predominantly white town and they (the family) would receive a lot of threats because of what there son was doing and saying. I heard these things through my younger brothers and sisters. I was trying to make a decision as to what I should do. I learned how to take shots and how to take abuse on both ends and still make a path in the center and that’s what made me stronger in my competitions and my academic needs while in college.
[11:47] Jumping forwards to the 1968 Olympics, can you talk about some of the different pressures you were facing going into that final meet? Tommie: My personality was very quiet in college. I talked very little unlike now. Sometimes I didn’t talk at all during the day even in class. When I started talking, that was freedom for me because I became free to do things, which moved me into using competition and athletics to expound upon my feelings and the necessity in society for equality. Because of my athleticism, I had a platform to speak sensibly because I had a background of doing to others as I wanted done to me. Unfortunately, this was not the situation so I had to fight for that equality. This took me to the Olympic Project for Human Rights which was started by Dr. Edwards on the campus of San Jose State. I was recruited to talk about competitions, but this also gave me the opportunity to talk about the advancement of man equally. And that it what got me in trouble. But those getting in trouble for this are some of the most important people you can be around. This brought the pride of not being afraid to talk about those things. That’s highlighted a lot of issues even today. Today, young people are standing up because they’re no longer afraid.
[14:25] Do you think it’s easier today for young people to stand up and make their voices heard than it was for you and your colleagues? Tommie: There is not such thing as easy because it saddens the human being to think that you’re being overlooked. There is also a sacrifice in speaking out for young people because they are being disallowed to do things because they’re standing up for the right of students to move forward. My personal thought, you can’t turn back. There is no relaxing. You have to continue. Those who are being active just to cause problems must be outnumbered by those looking to use this to make advancements socially in life to take the whole rock and move forward.
[17:10] The National Anthem is not a short song. What was going through your mind during that? Tommie: It is an hour and a half long. That is what it felt like. I was praying during that time. Even though you’re praying and hoping people see this as an ultimate value through sacrifice, that thought doesn’t help that tired arm sticking in the air with the glove on it. This implied the power that is needed for us to move forward as a society. This was not about black power or black panther. This was about human rights. The black love indicated a sight of power. The ramification of that particular move ratifying it as a positive gesture, not a gesture of hate. It takes too much energy to hate. The idea of the glove represented power. Being a black athlete, they saw it as black power. Fine, but it was not “black power” in the sense of implicating voice. The rolled up pants with the socks represented poverty and the need to end poverty. The bowed head represented prayer. I did what I did because I thought there was a need for me to do it.
[21:54] Do you think that the needle on politics crossing over into sports has moved at all over the last 50 years? Tommie: Politics has been a part of sports since people started sitting down and watching it. If you don’t think that sport has a place for politics then you’re missing the excitement of sport because sport is politics even more so now. At the olympics the flag of each nation was shown. That was a prideful thing because you got to meet other athletes. Athletes then were used for the sensation of making money for the olympic committees. They (heads of committees) were driving nice cars while the athletes were suffering for their lunchmeat at school. Even those on full scholarship like I was. Avery Brundage was a racist person, but he didn’t know anything else to do.
[27:15] What was it like for you emotionally to go from being vilified to being praised and honored? Tommie: I’m from an area where I was vilified as a child in the fields seeing my parents taunted. My mother died in 1971 because of pressure from that and other things around her. Vilification came way before Mexico City. So when I was vilified following the games I just resorted back to how I handled it back then.
Over the past few months, the members of Generation Z have combined the tenets of traditional social movements with the power of social media to reimagine what it means to protest in a democracy. That energy was on display during the March for Our Lives events held around the world on March 24.
Kayla Fatemi speaks at the State College March for Our Lives event. We interviewed several students from State College, Pennsylvania (where our podcast is based) who attended March for Our Lives events locally and in Washington, D.C. They speak passionately and articulately about what they believe in and how they’re working to carry forward the energy they’ve create
In this episode, you’ll hear from:
- Kyra Gines and Kayla Fatemi, high school students who organized the March for Our Lives in State College.
- Lilly Caldawell and Lena Adams, who organized a walk out at their middle school.
- Hannah Strouse and Cian Nelson, who attended the March for our Lives in Washington, D.C.
If what we saw and heard from these students is any indication, the future of our democracy looks very bright.
Interview Highlights [6:34] Kyra on activism and motivation for the march for our lives event. With everything happening this year, it felt natural to set up these events and continue to make our voices heard. I want to do what I can within my constraints. I can’t vote for a number of years, but I can work with those who can and who set up events like this I can go up there, I can make a speech, and I can make my voice heard. I will continue to do so until I can hear and see change.
[7:48] Kayla on activism and the movement towards creating change. One good thing about the United States in the right to free speech and the right to express ourselves and to vote. Democracy for us is voting in those who will be advocating for our lives. This was something I felt I had to do. I think many other students had the same feeling after watching the Parkland students who are our peers. We are a different generation than the millennial generation. We are a lot more vocal and a lot less afraid. We’ve seen a lot of things happen (school shootings) and if something is going to happen we are going to have to do it ourselves. Our generation is finally becoming old enough where we can go out there and do these sort of things. We are continuing to work on voter registration. We also have another school walkout scheduled for April 20th, which is not sponsored by the school.
[10:19] Lena Adams from Delta Middle School on how students created a similar march at their school. We worked really hard at getting to participate in the walkout without any school suspensions. The majority of our school walked out to support changes in gun legislation and to memorialize the victims (Parkland). I thought that was really cool.
[10:48] Lilly Caldawell on the student protest at Delta. After Parkland, I had heard about the walkout and I wanted to start something similar at our school. I’ve seen some of my friends here today which is awesome. I think it’s amazing that it is the youth, even middle school students who are really starting to notice and take action. This will bring attention to politicians that they need to take more action. We can’t just say ‘thoughts and prayers’ in hopes that will fix the situation.
Interview with Hanna Strouse and Cian Nelson [11:48] Can you describe your first impression of the March For Our Lives in Washington D.C.? Hanna: I had been to the Woman’s March before so I sort of expected a large crowd, but I thought it was actually tighter when I was actually out there in it, which I was not expecting at all.
Cian: There were just so many people. It made me feel good to be around people who shared my opinions. It made me feel good to stand up for something I believe in for once.
[13:44] As you’ve had a chance to reflect on your experiences, are there any moment in particular that stand out to you? Hanna: All of the speakers were amazing. I respect them so much. They’re my age and they’re speaking infant of 800,000 people. To be honest, all of them are doing outstanding things, and that is really resonating with me. Our generation is going to be the one that really hammers hard on this whole gun control thing. We are going to be the ones really standing up for this change.
Cian: It made me feel really good to be a part of generation Z. The one speech that really stood out to me was from Emma Gonzalez and her six minutes of silence representing all the time it took for those seventeen lives to be taken. It was sort of outstanding and horrifying at the same time.
Hanna: It (six minutes of silence) felt awkward. I was confused, but when she said this was the amount of time it took for seventeen of her classmates to die I realized that was no time at all. It felt like forever when it was silent. Imagining your in a classroom where you have to stay quiet during that amount of time is terrifying.
[15:53] Is there any characteristics of your generation that you think will maybe take things in a different direction or reach progress we haven’t seen thus far? Cian: Generations are becoming more progressive over time in my opinion. Our generation is the tech generation. We’re the only generation to not remember a time before the internet. We know how to utilize it. We’re set to become the most educated generation yet.
Hanna: I also feel that we’re fed up with the things that have been happening. I’m 18 and I know so much about what is happening in our government, and it is making me angry that nothing is being done to prevent things like Parkland. It just makes us angry. With this digital age, we have this opportunity to put out our anger for more people to see, which is really helping.
[17:12] So tell us about your family growing up. Are you from political households and have you guys talked about politics a lot? Hanna: So my family is very political. My dad is involved in the local government, so I started to get really into it. I wanted to know what he was talking about so I would research what he was saying and I made my own opinions. My family is very liberal, but I feel that we do have some differences in our opinions and in how we approach things.
[17:56] Have you noticed in these past couple of weeks since the shooting any change or increase in activism amongst your friends or other people at school?
Hanna: There are first time protestors, but I feel like it hasn’t changed very much. Our generation is stigmatized for being lazy and unengaged. But I feel like we have that stereotype because we are afraid to engage because everyone tells us we can’t.
[21:16] Do you sense any division among your generation about the best way to move forward and see the change you want to have happen? Hanna: There are some divisions. I know there are some people calling for a total gun ban. I know others who are calling or an assault rifle ban. I know some who are just calling for background checks. I feel any of those options would do amazing things, and would save so many lives. It’s just a matter of how far you’re willing to push it.
Cian: This might be unrealistic, but I think we should go as far as Australia and Japan.
Hanna: Also, the say they (Australia and Japan) handle giving guns is very interesting. If you look at Japan, they have to go through a background check, a physical health screening, a mental health screening, and then they do classes. They then have police who make sure you’re storing them correctly. Why don’t we do that here. It has saved so many lives in Japan.
[22:48] Did being at the march and hearing from the students talk about the communities who are not represented make you reconsider your own background and your own privilege? Hanna: I know that I’m have a lot of privilege because I’m a white American. While, as a woman, I couldn’t walk a city street at night, I could do it during the day time. I wouldn’t be shot for walking down the block. I know that this is a really big problem for people of color. Many of them don’t feel safe in their cities. That is so saddening to me. I have no idea how that must feel,
Cian: I know that I’m a white straight male. I feel like I don’t have any right to complain about anything and that I should just let minorities do the talking. I agree with that because they’re the ones experiencing these tragedies and inequality.
Hanna: I do think it’s amazing that the face of this movement is a bisexual Cuban female. That just speaks volumes at to how diverse the movement is going to be. The fact that we have someone not male, white, or straight as the leader is kind of amazing.
Daniel Ziblatt has done a lot of interviews since the release of How Democracies Die, the bestselling book he co-wrote with Steven Levitsky. But we asked him a question he’d never gotten before — about a line toward the end of the book when he refers to democracy as “grinding work.”
The idea that democracy isn’t easy is a central theme of this podcast. As How Democracies Die illustrates, it’s much easier to succumb to the power of an autocratic leader than it is to stand up and protect the institutions that serve as the guardrails of democracy. Ziblatt, a professor of government at Harvard, talks about how the book came about and the impact it’s had since it was released earlier this year.
This episode also starts a new feature on the podcast, where we end with a lightning round featuring our Mood of the Nation Poll questions. The poll is open-ended and allows Americans to respond in their own words to questions related to American politics. Some questions vary based on what’s going in the world, but we always ask these four:
- What makes you angry?
- What makes you proud?
- What makes you worry?
- What gives you hope?
We were very fortunate to speak with Daniel and encourage everyone to pick up a copy of How Democracies Die.
Interview Highlights[5:40] How did this book come about?Steve and I, we teach together, we’ve taught lots of courses together, graduate courses on democracies and crisis, democratic breakdown and democratization around the world, I work on Europe and he works on Latin America. We haven’t primarily focused on the United States in our work, but during the course of the 2015-2016 campaign season, really the republican nomination process, we kept running into each other and talking about the tenor of the political rhetoric.
[7:02)] Where does Donald Trump fit into all of us? Did this process of democratic erosion that you describe in the book, did it start before Trump? Or was he kind of a symptom of it?In many ways I think that there’s a tendency to focus on Donald Trump, the spectacle of Trump and the latest offensive Tweet and whatever people respond to, but really one of the points of our book is to say that these dynamics long preceded President Trump.
[8:14)] What role do you see parties playing in this process of democratic decline?Parties are really at the center of the story for us. One of the lessons from the book is that throughout American history there’s been around, at least in the 20th century period for which we have opinion poll data, there’s been around 30% of the American electorate that supports demagogic type of politicians.
[11:10] Can you talk a little bit more about what role you see the assault on the press playing?In one of the chapters in our book, we lay out the strategies authoritarian inclined politicians have used around the world, and this is, again, drawing in lessons from other countries, and once in office, elected authoritarians often, we kind of have a sports metaphor; they try to capture the referees of the the court system, sideline the opposition, and go after the free press.
[13:39] One of the counter arguments to all this is that Trump is all bluster but no action and people on the left are ringing their hands over nothing. What would you say to that?In our book we have this what we call an authoritarian litmus test, which is a set of indicators, which are questioning the legitimacy of the media, questioning elections, threatening violence or condoning violence; these are all things that candidate Trump rhetorically embraced before the election.
[18:04] You also say in the book that democracy is “grinding work” which ties back to the whole theme of this podcast, Democracy Works, so can you talk about what that phrase means to you?It’s important to have big goals and big vision in politics, but it’s also about behaving in responsible ways. It’s a distinction between process and policy. At the end of the day, one has to remain committed to the process and forge alliances with people they may disagree with. That’s hard work and it’s grinding work.
Chris Satullo
Pennsylvania received a new congressional map earlier this year, closing the books on what was widely considered one of the most egregious examples of partisan gerrymandering after 2010 census. Chris Satullo sees that decision as winning the battle against gerrymandering, but not the war.
Satullo, a civic engagement consultant for the Committee of Seventy, is involved with several initiatives to sustain the changes that were enacted this year and ensure that a fair map is drawn after the 2020 census.
The Committee of Seventy works closely with two organizations, Fair Districts PA and Draw the Lines PA. Fair Districts is a nonpartisan grassroots advocacy group working to ensure that the map doesn’t revet back to a gerrymandered state in 2021, while Draw the Lines aims to “fix the bug in the operating system of democracy” by empowering students and other groups to draw new maps.
We talked with Chris about how Pennsylvania’s map became so gerrymandered, what drove the desire to change it, and how people across the Keystone State can get involved with the effort to create a better map. In many ways, this effort embodies the essence of Democracy Works — people coming together build something that’s greater than the sum of its parts.
For more from Chris, check out his podcast, 20 by Seventy.
Interview Highlights [5:50] What are Committee of 70, Fair Districts Pennsylvania, and Draw the Lines Pennsylvania, and how do those groups work together? The Committee of 70 is a non-profit that is Pennsylvania’s oldest “good government group” founded more than 100 years ago in Philly. Fair Districts PA is a grassroots organization that was formed about a year and a half, two years ago, to work specifically on the redistricting, anti-gerrymandering front. Draw the Lines PA is a new initiative of us here at Committee of 70 which looks to connect with and support and sustain the work of Fair Districts PA.
[8:04] Why did it take so long for this effort to come to fruition, to get the map changed? What changed dramatically in the last twenty years is the advent of computer technology and big data. Mapping software and big data about individual voters buying habits, not just election and political habits.
[9:44] If the 2016 election had gone a different way, would we be sitting here talking about this right now? I’d like to assure you that Committee of 70, and I personally would’ve been talking about this issue because, it’s been a concern of mine as a journalist covering these legislatures for a long time.
[12:34] So what are you hoping people will do [with the map tools]? Why should people want to take part in this work? What we want to show people is that, if you have the right tools in your hand, it is not difficult, in fact it is relatively easy, to draw a common sense map of Pennsylvania.
[15:06] How does the product of all this work make its way to the people who are responsible for what the states new map will look like? A big focus of Draw the Lines will be getting this opportunity and this software and these tools into classrooms across Pennsylvania, both secondary school and colleges, professional schools, law schools and the like.
[19:40] Do you think we’re heading for a crazy decade ahead of maps changing all the time and all these challenges, and people not knowing what’s what or where their districts are or where things stand? In the short term, yes, a lot of confusion. In the long term, I think what we’re seeing is the first glimmers of voters beginning to realize how significant this issue is in how disappointed and frustrated they are with what they get out of their State governments and out of Washington D.C.
[21:00] If people only have to time to do one thing, what should that be? Right now they should contact their representatives in the State Legislature, both Senate and House, and tell them they want them to vote for the Constitutional Amendment.
Can philanthropy save local journalism? Are the calls of “fake news” from Washington impacting the work of journalists in other parts of the country? We discuss those questions and the role of the free press in a democracy with Halle Stockton, managing editor of PublicSource in Pittsburgh.
Halle Stockton PublicSource is a nonprofit journalism organization in the style of ProPublica, funded primarily by Pittsburgh’s foundation community. Halle talks about how PublicSource’s funding model impacts its reporting, ways that the organization is breaking the fourth wall to engage with readers, how the team responds to allegations of “fake news” while doing in-depth reporting, and why they’ll never write clickbait.
Halle is a Penn State alumna and was the 2018 Hearst Visiting Professional in the Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications.
Interview Highlights [6:00] What is PublicSource and what is your role there? Public Source is a non-profit independent, digital first media organization, so in human speak that means that we are focused on in depth and investigative journalism in the Pittsburgh region.
[7:37] How does PublicSource fit into Pittsburgh’s media landscape? Public Source is fitting in in a way that people are seeing it as a more straightforward platform for the type of news that they’re not getting elsewhere and the type of voices they’re not getting elsewhere.
[8:48] What role does the community itself play in that, in terms of feedback you get? We engage with the community quite a bit via social media but also in person. A couple of the ways that we interact with people, are one, through educational events we call citizens tool kits.
[13:35] How do you strike the balance between catching people’s attention and writing hard-hitting stories? We’re never going to fall victim to clickbait. That’s just something that we’ve decided we cannot do. We firmly believe that people’s stories, seeing other people going through things is catchy enough.
[14:50] Are you and your team feeling the impact of the attacks agains the media that are coming from Washington? Surprisingly enough, even in Pittsburgh, it started off as sources kind of laughing about it like “oh are you the fake news?” but even in the past few months when we’ve had some really important stories drop, those institutions who we’ve pressured in those stories through our reporting, we have heard rumors about them trying to cast us as fake news.
[16:38] What role do foundations play at PublicSource? There’s a firewall between, just like in newspapers, between business and news, there’s a firewall between foundations and news, although it’s not totally the same.
[19:06] What impacts have you seen from your reporting? One of the most recent ones was with Chatham University, it’s a small university in Pittsburgh, it used to be all female, and recently moved to co-ed, and we reported on a policy in their honor code. It was a policy that treated self-harm as a disciplinary matter. The stories of students who had been expelled or dismissed from campus housing for incidents of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicidal attempts , those had been never told.When we put tit [the story] out, within 24 hours the university launched a task force to review it [the policy].
[21:18] Where do you see PublicSource going looking forward? There are a lot of opportunities. Right now, we’re really focused on the Pittsburgh region. I think in the future there’s opportunity and possibility that we could have somebody in Harrisburg covering state governmental issues in the Public Source way.
From Watergate to Benghazi to Robert Mueller, U.S. history is full of congressional hearings. You’ve no doubt heard about them in the news, but do you know what those House and Senate committees actually do and what their role is in a democracy?
Doug Kriner We address those questions and more with Doug Kriner, professor of Government at Cornell University and co-author of Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power. Doug studies the impact of congressional investigations as a check on the executive branch, and how committee activity differs when the government is united and divided.
Following the interview, Michael and Chris discuss how congressional investigations tie back to separation of powers and why the ability for one branch to check another is critical to democracy.
Interview Highlights [7:46] Your research shows that there were 12,000 days of these investigative hearings. What were they doing during that time? Sometimes they were listening to themselves talk, which is what we often sort of derive from when we watch these things. It’s supposedly questions, and mainly the member talking for most of their time, and they get a little bit of response from the witnesses. But I think that’s almost exactly what they’re for.
[9:00] How much leeway do these committees have? Committees have very significant leeway to investigate almost anything they want, which is why the Benghazi investigation is a great example.
[10:31] Can you give us some examples of when those checks by the legislative to the executive have been successful? So back in the 1970’s, we were having a policy debate that’s immediately relevant to what’s going on right now. This was the Church committee, which was founded to investigate abuse in the intelligence agencies.
[12:00] Why should my taxpayer dollars go to fund these things as opposed to things that might have a more direct impact on the average citizens day to day life? We know what Congress’s approval rating is, it’s abysmal, and it’s almost always been abysmal. It’s almost always been lower than either of the other two branches. So what is the public view on investigations? We went into the field with another survey in which we basically just asked the question about whether Congress should investigate, and whether people support this idea.
[15:18] Why would there be a need for the House and the Senate to both investigate the same issue? Inter-chamber rivalry, right? The fact that “I’m a member of the House, why on Earth would I want to let the Senate do this? I want my own input.” And vice versa.
[17:06] How do the House and Senate investigations on Russia differ from the work that Robert Mueller is doing? It’s very interesting, and it’s a matter that’s continually being litigated. What areas does Congress want to punt on, and leave to the special council, versus where do they think duplication, even, can be profitable?
[21:59] Do you, in this climate that we’re in, do you think that we’ll see an independent council come back around again? It’s interesting. The number of Republicans who have expressed publicly support for the idea of legislation protecting Bob Mueller, essentially post ex-factum, making him an independent council, yet I don’t see any calls by really by many on either side of the aisle for reinstituting the independent council statute so I doubt that we’re going to see that.
[22:40] What is the difference between open and closed testimony? The use of closed sessions, the frequency of it has been going way down over the years. The intelligence committees though are always the exception. It’s because of the act creating them after the Church committee that sort of gave members of the intelligence committee access to different folks within the intelligence community and different levels of classified information that other members are not able to, that they’ve always conducted a bit more of their business in secret than other committees.
[24:35] What do these committees look like moving forward? You’re exactly right. If you look at time diaries of members of Congress they’re spending a lot less time on committee and a lot more time raising money, and fundraising and campaigning. That said, one of the beauties of investigations for the people who end up spearheading it is that, it might serve their reelection prospect.
Share
Tweet
Google Plus
Share
The post Checking the President’s power appeared first on Democracy Works podcast.
Abe Khan
No matter how much of a sports fan you are, you probably remember seeing Colin Kaepernick kneeling during National Anthem. President Trump took the debate to a whole new level when he said that anyone who does not respect the National Anthem and the flag should be fired.
Kaepernick and those who followed him are the most recent example of athletes using their sports as a means to protest, but history is filled with others who have come before them.
In this episode, we talk with Abe Khan, assistant professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and African-American Studies at Penn State, about the impact Kaepernick’s actions had on NFL culture and the broader role that protest plays in a democracy.
Michael Berkman and Chris Beem draw parallels between modern-day sports protests and Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights protests, and discuss the public’s feelings on protests as reported in the McCourtney Institute’s Mood of the Nation Poll.
Interview Highlights [6:28] Help us remember what happened with Colin Kapernick and where the issues have gone from there: Kapernick’s first kneel came at the end of August in 2016, it was actually at the end of a preseason football game. It actually didn’t start as a kneel.
He used two phrases that came, at least in my mind, to define the substance of the protest. One is, bodies in the street.And the other is people getting away with murder.
[8:54] How did the protest spread after Kapernicks initial demonstration? So I’ll admit to being surprised about how quickly the Kapernick situation spread, but the number of athletes included 48 NFL players, 8 NBA teams, 14 WNBA players, including the entire squad of the Minnesota Links, a gold medal swimmer, 45 high school teams, 22 colleges, a middle school, and a youth football team in Beaumont Texas. 34 states, 4 countries.
[10:10] To wrap up this section about the history of the protest, where do things stand now? One thing that emerged immediately after this was of course huge outrage, especially among NFL players.
Where were at is essentially a split in the players coalition, because I think that the NFL saw that the players coalition as an opportunity to co-op the force of the protest. Eric Reid (one of the earliest players to join Kapernick) and Michael Thomas (player for the Miami Dolphins) left the players coalition after the NFL promised to spend 100 million dollars promoting an agenda on criminal justice reform. This was seen as a bribe.
[12:03] Let’s talk about that, NFL culture. Sports is is kind of the one non-partisan place in our society. The problem is, is that all of the political place in sport had been consumed by simplistic and idealized images of the nation, especially in the 1980’s and 90’s. There’s been patriotic symbolism in sports forever.
Patriotism and nationalism frequently get coded as a-political. That underwrites a form of attack on the method of protest. So to the extent that the anthem ritual is apolitical, disrupting the ritual will always be seen as an inappropriate intrusion of politics into sport.
[13:04] Who were some of those [athlete protesters] that came before him [Kapernick]? Athletes have always used moments of patriotic ritual to express dissent. Of course the most famous example is John Carlos and Tommy Smith at the 1968 Olympics.
[14:40] Kapernick and these other athletes are effectively “on the job.” What effect, if any, do you see this having on their actions? The recognition that athletes are on the job is often used as the ground from which to criticize the protester.
[17:13] Do you think that Kapernick and those who have followed him were successful in making their points? I think that the answer there is yes but I can understand those who say no.
[18:38] How do you think history will look back on Kapernick and the impact that he’s had? It’s true that the problem of police violence and accountability got lost in the shuffle about free speech and angry screeds about patriotism but that, it seems to me, is a limited metric of success.
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State, this is Democracy Works. In this episode, hosts Michael Berkman and Chris Beem take a few minutes to explain why we wanted to start this podcast and what we hope to achieve through our interviews and conversations.
They also explain the meaning behind the name Democracy Works. It’s about people coming together to build things that are greater than the sum of their parts. Much like workers throughout Pennsylvania’s history built ships and trains at iron and steel works, each of us has a role to play in building and sustaining a healthy democracy.
Building and sustaining a democracy is hard work. It’s not glamorous and often goes unnoticed in the daily news cycle. On Democracy Works, we talk to people who are out there making it happen and discuss why that work is so important. Each episode include an interview about an issue and discussion about what that means for democracy.
We are excited about launching this podcast and hope you’ll join us to see what’s in store.