Mediaboss Marketing

If you listen to some leading liberal voices, the Senate defeat of the Freedom To Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts could sound the death knell of American democracy.

In a Wednesday speech held before the Senate votes, President Joe Biden warned of future stolen elections: the prospect of [an election] being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed. Mother Joness Ari Berman, a leading journalist on the democracy beat, argued that the Senate is killing the Democrats last, best chance to protect American democracy.

Biden and Berman are right that American democracy is heading toward some sort of crisis, and theres good reason to think these bills would have improved the long-term outlook. But the reality is that the bills Democrats sought to pass were hardly the last, best chance to act in democracys defense.

For all the good they would have done, the bills would only have had a limited effect on the biggest short-term threat to American democracy: election subversion, in which partisan political actors distort or outright disregard legitimate election results. The battle against these tactics was always going to take place in multiple arenas, most of which are outside of Washington.

Across the country, at the state and local level, Trump supporters are volunteering or running for local positions that would put them in charge of the mechanics of elections. According to an NPR analysis, at least 15 Republicans who doubt or deny the legitimacy of Bidens election victory are campaigning for state secretaries of state. For anyone concerned with American democracy, defeating these candidates should be a priority.

At the federal level, Republicans have signaled openness to reforming the Electoral Count Act (ECA) the obscure federal law that opened the door to then-Vice President Mike Pence potentially overturning the 2020 election at Trumps behest. The reform isnt perfect but its worth pursuing, especially since a bipartisan coalition in the Senate might be willing to consider it.

These fights contesting thousands of local elections and passing less ambitious but bipartisan reform legislation may not be as emotionally satisfying as landmark elections overhaul. They wont address voter suppression and gerrymandering, which still pose challenges for American democracy. But they do move the needle in ways that the doomsaying this week can obscure.

The Democrats two bills would have addressed some large and significant problems, most notably state laws to suppress the vote and extreme partisan gerrymandering. These state efforts tilt the playing field in the GOPs direction and create significant burdens on groups attempting to get voters from minority communities to the polls; there is a reason why leading experts on democracy widely supported the Democrats voting rights proposals.

And yet the impact of these bills failures might not be as significant as some fear, at least when it comes to the next election cycle.

Studies suggest that voter ID laws, for example, dont significantly depress minority turnout. It doesnt make such laws okay, of course they sap valuable activist resources and theres little doubt about their racist intent but its worth noting that the evidence suggests their effects on election outcomes is fairly limited. Partisan gerrymandering remains a problem, particularly at the state legislative level, but the current round of House redistricting is turning out far less tilted in the GOPs direction than Democrats had feared.

Republicans are certainly still working to erode Democrats access to the ballot box, in ways that really do threaten American democracy. But their work has not been quite as effective as some dire analyses assumed (including my own), giving reformers more time to come up with solutions before the system is past the point of no democratic return.

The story is different when it comes to election subversion. Anti-democratic forces are moving to seize control over the system more swiftly than even some of the most pessimistic analyses had feared.

Election subversion can happen in different ways at different points in the byzantine American electoral process. During the actual vote count, partisan local election officials could deem Democratic ballots illegitimate on specious grounds or invent Republican ones. If this fails, Republican state election officials could refuse to certify a Democratic victory. Even if a presidential election is certified, a GOP-controlled state legislature could send an alternative slate of electors to the Electoral College. And if Democrats are still winning, a GOP vice president or Congress could assert power to overturn the election on their own.

None of this is hypothetical: The Trump campaign and its allies tried every one of these tactics in 2020, and failed over and over again because public servants at key points in the system did their jobs. But the former presidents camp is working assiduously to improve their chances in 2024.

Across the country, Republican partisans motivated by Trumps lies are flooding precincts and contesting election administration positions. Georgias new election law, SB202, gives the Republican legislature power to seize partisan control over local election administration. The Republicans that held the line against Trumps attempt to decertify elections in 2020 like Michigan Board of State Canvassers member Aaron Van Langevelde are being sacked by their own party. Many Republican candidates for state secretary of state in 2022 have publicly advanced Trumps Big Lie; several have reportedly formed an informal coalition aimed at rewriting US election rules in their partys favor.

And all of this is backed by a Republican base that overwhelmingly believes Trumps lies about a stolen 2020 election and a propaganda network, ranging from Fox News to Steve Bannons War Room podcast, aimed at ensuring their minds are never changed.

The voting rights legislation would have helped address some of the concerns about voter suppression. The Freedom to Vote Act, in particular, included chain of custody provisions that make it harder to outright manipulate vote counts and safeguards against state governments from removing election officials from their positions absent good cause.

But even if these provisions worked as intended a big if given GOP control over federal courts they dont go far enough. They do not prevent Republicans from refusing to certify election results, sending an alternate slate of electors to Washington, or otherwise seeking to overturn the results in January.

If you look at 2020, we came much closer to a successful subversion of the election results than a lot of people understand, Rick Hasen, an election law expert at University of California Irvine, told my colleague Fabiola Cineas. The bills that failed in the Senate would not have done much on the issue of election subversion.

If the 2024 election is close, American democracy is heading toward a potential crisis.

But lets not mistake that dismal assessment as the epitaph for democracy.

In their book Dictators and Democrats, political scientists Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman analyze what causes countries to transition from democracy to autocracy and vice versa. One of their core findings is that, when a democracy is tottering, laws provide less of a bulwark on their own than most people think. Rules need people to help enforce them; when it comes to democracy, one of the laws best guarantors are the citizens themselves.

The key to nearly every effective subversion strategy is control over institutions: when Trumpists are in positions of power, they get to set the rules of the game. If Democrats, non-partisan actors, or principled Republicans hold key jobs, as they did in 2020, the Trumpists cant break the system.

So in 2022, many of the biggest fights for democracy are hyper-local: races for county executive, judgeships, election administration positions, and statehouses. If pro-democracy candidates can win these races in large numbers, they will collectively pose a significant barrier to an election subversion campaign in 2024.

There is a nascent infrastructure for competing in such races. Run For Something, a liberal group that encourages young candidates to run for state and local office, has launched a multi-million dollar effort to contest positions that relate to local election work a direct effort to fight back against election subversion. Amanda Litman, the groups founder and executive director, told me that she is hoping to field candidates in roughly 2,000 such races in 2022 alone.

But they need more people to run in these races. And Run For Something candidates, in turn, need volunteers and donors who can power their races against anti-democracy, pro-Trump candidates.

This is the kind of effort liberals need to look toward today. Paradoxically, the failure of voting rights bills in Congress could give this cause a boost by directing activist energy away from Washington.

Democrats and liberals in general look to and make demands of the White House and DC when they have officials in power there, says Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist who studies political movements. That is actually a weakness, because the focus needs to remain bottom up.

But Washington cant be ignored entirely. Some election subversion problems most notably, a repeat of Trump and congressional allies effort to overturn the election on January 6, 2021 can only be solved at the federal level.

Some of the most important vulnerabilities can be addressed by reforming the Electoral Count Act, a confusingly worded law from 1887 that currently governs the final stages of presidential elections. The law sets the procedures by which Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College tally, allowing simple majorities in both houses to reject the electors if they so choose. It also does not clarify the vice presidents constitutionally mandated role in supervising the certification process, opening the door to Trumps effort to pressure Mike Pence to reject the election results.

The congressional count creates an obvious point of vulnerability in a presidential election: a malign party that controls both houses could, in theory, overturn the results of a legitimate election. But at the same time, it is also a bulwark against some state-level election subversion a statehouse deciding to appoint its own competing slate of electors to the Electoral College. The Electoral Count Act would allow Congress to reject the statehouse-appointed electors and replace them with ones who actually reflect the will of the voters.

Reforming the Electoral Count Act thus means striking a balance between blocking undemocratic action at the federal level while preserving a bulwark against it at the state level. But legislators can craft a reform that addresses these nuances. The Washington Posts Greg Sargent reports that Sen. Angus King (I-ME) has a draft of an Electoral Count Act reform bill that would address these concerns by clearly prohibiting vice presidents from going rogue, requiring a supermajority to reject electors in Congress, and creating a judicial review mechanism that could block state legislatures from sending their own electors to Washington.

Something like Kings bill has a chance. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have signaled openness to fixing the Electoral Count Act; a bipartisan group of about 12 senators is currently meeting to discuss a potential bill. Its at least worth seeing if this yields something real.

Neither of these courses of action, contesting local and state elections and reforming the Electoral Count Act, are as satisfying as passing a landmark bill. Nor do they address the threats to democracy posed by voter suppression and gerrymandering. For Democrats, its less hitting a home run than a series of singles.

Ballgames can still be won with bloops and base hits. And Americans who care about their democracy still have agency; there are things they can do that really matter.

The future looks grim for American democracy. But liberals shouldnt allow realistic pessimism to shade into resignation or despair. Democrats in Washington may have squandered an opportunity to safeguard future elections, but many of the key battles to protect our democracy have yet to be fought.

Read the rest here:
Democrats voting rights push in Congress is over. The fight for democracy isnt. - Vox.com

The ongoing war on voting rights isn't new or even particularly originalit neatly follows the blueprint that's been wielded ever since emancipation. A poll tax is a poll tax, whether it's levied in the form of a $1 fee, or an eight-hour wait in a voting line. In fact, even accounting for inflation, at a full day's wages we're charging more than ever for the ballot.

The attendant violence isn't new, either. I've seen white police officers beating marchers demanding the vote as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. I saw rocks thrown at children integrating schools. Closer to home, my childhood eyes saw cops viciously beat a neighbor while arresting him for outstanding parking tickets. I heard his cries, saw his head bleeding and saw their red faces twisted in rage. It was Derek Chauvin's white rage: casual murder, delivering 9 minutes and 29 seconds of torturesimply because he could.

All of it, the laws, and the lynching, don't just disenfranchise voters and cast a specter of terror, they fundamentally degrade our government. As states continue to shutter polling places, gerrymander districts and pass laws with no purpose other than to disenfranchise citizens, faith in government teeters on the brink. On the far-right, elected representatives are openly musing about civil war, and a recent study found that only 20 percent of Americans are very confident about the integrity of our elections. To be frankly, count me in that fearful 80 percent.

Democracy depends on people's belief in its legitimacy. If that trust is shattered, we will tumble further into a vicious cycle of violenceas people reject the validity of governance and force becomes the only way to induce compliance to our social contract.

But if our nation's history provided the roadmap for stealing folks' ability to vote, it also offers a prescription for how we can restore that sacred right. My great-uncle George Jordan lived on Sunflower Street in Ruleville, Miss. around the corner from Fannie Lou Hamer. An ordinary man, raising a family and working a couple of jobs to pay his mortgage, he walked with her up and down dirt roads and into town to register people to vote. And he kept at it even when he was threatened with violence; even when the bank threatened to take his house. He knew that he was a child of God, he knew his neighbors were, too. He saw injustice and saw the vote as the way to claim his humanity.

One of the most basic lies people tell about the civil rights movement is the pretense it was primarily driven by soaring rhetoric from folks like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The truth is the power came from the legions of people standing behind him who demanded this country make good on its promise of democracy.

When Dr. King spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on May 17, 1957, and condemned how, "all types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters," it was the crowd around him that lent those words strength. When he proclaimed, "The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal," it was the anguished howl of people whose freedom was withheld that forced the government to listen. When he demanded, "Give us the ballot, and we will no longer plead to the federal government for passage of an anti-lynching law; we will by the power of our vote write the law on the statute books of the South and bring an end to the dastardly acts of the hooded perpetrators of violence," it was the courage of ordinary people that transformed oratory into legislation.

You and I might not feel we have the justice-warrior skills of Martin Luther King, Bayard Rustin, John Lewis, Ella Baker or Fannie Lou Hamer. But here is the thing: They were ordinary folkslike us, like my great-uncle Georgewho saw wrong and sought to right it. You are the only person standing exactly where you stand, seeing precisely what you see, from your vantage point, through the lens of your story. And you have the power to make the government listen. We are the midwives to help our democracy give birth to its better self.

We must meet the hatred that would erode our rights with fierce love. That means love in the form of looking at folks with whom we have enmity and seeing that their thriving and surviving is connected to ours. Love in the form of a mission to cut through the noise of toxic politics and legislate policies that serve all our children well. Love in the form of putting our own bodies in the street to demand a just societythat refuses to let political saboteurs steal the votes people died to win. The only way we can restore faith in our democracy is to ensure every person shapes the way they're governed. To change the narrative, we must demand Congress pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. We are the ones we've been waiting forauthors of a new American story.

The Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis is the first female or Black senior minister at the historic Collegiate Churches of New York City, an Auburn Senior Fellow and the author of Fierce Love: A Bold Path to Ferocious Courage and Rule-Breaking Kindness That Can Heal the World (Penguin Random House 2021).

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read more here:
Democracy Is Ours to Demand | Opinion - Newsweek

More than 1,400 people have been killed by Myanmars military in the past eleven months. After ousting a democratically elected government in February 2021, the military employed widespread violence and brutal counterinsurgency tactics against local populations. Soldiers have run over protesters with military vehicles, burned civilians alive, and tortured prisoners in interrogation centers. The United States has consistently condemned this violence and called for a restoration of democracy in Myanmar. To put pressure on the military government, the Biden administration has imposed several rounds of sanctions on military leaders, their businesses, and their associates. However, experts debate the effectiveness of these sanctions, which have thus far resulted in few tangible gains.

As the one-year anniversary of the coup approaches, the United States needs to revise its approach to Myanmar. Recent U.S. legislation called for policymakers to support and legitimize [] entities promoting democracy in Burma, while simultaneously denying legitimacy and resources to the [sic] Myanmars military junta. This goal will be difficult to achieve if the United States continues to ignore some of the strongest and most important actors in post-coup Myanmar: ethnic armed organizations.

About 20 ethnic armed organizations are currently active in Myanmar. While these groups are part of a decades-long insurgency, they also maintain political wings, hold territory, and provide health care, education, and other administrative and social services. Several are oriented against the current military government, and some have supported dissidents and democratic activists. The United States has been understandably wary of providing any of these groups with financial or military support. However, other forms of engagement, including public recognition and relationship-building, could help the United States support a more sustainable democratic solution in Myanmar. Not all ethnic armed organizations are viable partners, but some could be useful allies.

U.S. policymakers should start building public ties with select ethnic armed organizations in Myanmar for three reasons. First, any democratic transition in Myanmar will undoubtedly involve these groups. They are too embedded in the countrys politics to be ignored. Second, the ongoing efforts by the exiled National Unity Government to outline a democratic framework for Myanmar will only be sustainable and inclusive if the ethnic armed organizations participate in negotiations. U.S. policymakers could encourage this cooperation. Finally, working with the ethnic armed organizations can potentially alleviate a growing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. These groups have the capabilities to deliver much-needed aid to vulnerable populations in conflict-affected areas.

Myanmars Civil War and Ethnic Armed Organizations

The democratic crisis in Myanmar has developed in parallel with the countrys civil war. Myanmar enjoyed a parliamentary democracy after gaining independence in 1948, but its democratic trajectory soon reversed when the military took control of the government in 1962. Grievances among minority ethnic groups living in the countrys periphery helped fuel growing instability. Members of several of these ethnic minorities took up arms in pursuit of greater political independence, clashing with state forces.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Myanmar developed into a closed state under strict military rule. Internal threats multiplied as ethnic armed organizations splintered and new factions joined the conflict. As the war progressed, some ethnic armed organizations revised their demands for independence into calls for a federal democracy. In 1984, an alliance of ethnic armed organizations known as the National Democratic Front publicly demanded the country adopt a federal democratic framework with autonomous ethnic states. However, the military government refused to concede any of its centralized authority. It banned the word federal from any negotiations with ethnic armed organizations: Simply using the term could reportedly lead to imprisonment. A series of bilateral ceasefires between 1989 and 2010 aimed to stabilize the country, but these agreements did not address underlying political grievances held by many ethnic armed organizations.

In 2011, the military ceded some of its power to a civilian administration, which quickly initiated a peace process with several of the active ethnic armed organizations.The negotiations produced the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, which called for all parties to establish a union based on the principles of democracy and federalism. The agreement set out a framework for an ongoing political dialogue between the government and the ethnic armed organizations, which was used to negotiate the specifics of a federal democratic system. Eight groups signed the agreement in 2015, and two more joined in 2018.

When the Myanmar military ousted the civilian government in the February 2021 coup, this political dialogue ceased. The bloc of ethnic armed organizations negotiating with the government fractured, and the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement effectively died. A new wave of violence, initiated by the military government to root out internal dissent and consolidate its control, shook the country.

The ethnic armed organizations are now some of the most influential players in post-coup Myanmar. These groups are stronger and more organized than the loosely controlled forces of the exiled National Unity Government. For example, the strongest of the ethnic armed organization, the United Wa State Army, operates near the Myanmar-China border with 20,000-30,000 soldiers, heavy artillery, and armored vehicles. Along the border with Thailand, the Karen National Union controls territory and governs approximately 800,000 people. The group is highly organized, holds regular elections and internal congresses, and maintains separate political and military hierarchies.

The Ethnic Armed Organizations as Potential U.S. Partners

While the United States has met with the exiled National Unity Government, it has avoided forging relations with the ethnic armed organizations. Policymakers may see these groups as a potential liability for the United States. Some like the United Wa State Army and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army maintain ties to China, while others including the Arakan Army and Shan State Army-North have allegedly engaged in the illicit drug trade or have forcibly recruited civilians.

Other ethnic armed organizations, however, have more robust records of advocating for human rights and democracy. This includes many of the ten signatory groups to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. After the coup, these groups affirmed their support for the exiled civilian government and its efforts to establish federal union through the struggle for democracy. Additionally, groups like the Chin National Front and the Karen National Union have made public commitments to protect children in armed conflict, prohibit sexual violence, and include women in decision-making processes.

Critics may argue that this commitment to democracy and human rights is performative, aimed to attract the support of international audiences. But it is, at least, longstanding. The time-consuming peace process of the past decade revealed that these groups are willing to exert significant effort to support the development of a durable democratic system. They have also devoted considerable resources to maintaining relationships with local populations and providing important community services. For example, the Karen National Union organized its own Karen Education and Culture Department to administer, standardize, and fund local schools. The Karen National Union also, along with other groups like the New Mon State Party, created health organizations to provide health care to ethnic communities.

Ultimately, U.S. policymakers need to recognize that not all ethnic armed organizations in Myanmar are alike. The United States should rightfully steer clear of relations with groups that abuse civilians, support the military government, or profit from illicit drug trade. However, the United States could benefit from allying with organizations that do not engage in these activities and that have a track record for supporting democratic negotiations and aiding local communities.

The Way Forward

To secure a successful transition to democracy, U.S. policymakers should publicly engage with ethnic armed organizations. First, policymakers should support the ongoing efforts of the National Unity Government to outline the details of Myanmars future democratic system in conjunction with ethnic stakeholders. As of November 2021, eight ethnic armed organizations were participating in the National Unity Governments negotiations. However, if previous negotiations are any hint, disagreements among the negotiating parties may create obstacles to reaching a consensus.

U.S. policymakers can help sustain this cooperation. The public support of the United States would give the ongoing dialogue legitimacy and could attract new organizations to the negotiating table. If U.S. policymakers wanted to go further, the United States could offer ethnic armed organizations non-lethal, non-pecuniary aid, such as intelligence on the militarys positions, in exchange for their continued partnership with the National Unity Government.

A working relationship with the ethnic armed organizations will also help the United States address Myanmars impending humanitarian crisis. Since the coup, more than 280,000 people have been displaced by violence and insecurity. The average household has reported a 23 percent drop in income, and low COVID vaccination rates could lead to a lethal fourth wave of cases. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stressed that better access to vulnerable populations was critical for the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance.

As well-established local actors with the ability to enter conflict zones, ethnic armed organizations are good candidates for delivering necessary humanitarian aid. Many ethnic armed organizations have long histories of providing services and public goods to local communities. Through their health organizations, these groups could help distribute clean water, medical supplies, and COVID vaccines to vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations. Working with these organizations to deliver aid would also help the United States avoid giving humanitarian assistance directly to the military government, which risks enhancing the militarys legitimacy. The United States should coordinate withinternational nongovernmental organizations and local civil society organizations to determine what type of assistance is most needed and how best to distribute it.

The current U.S. policy to impose top-down sanctions on military officials will do little on its own to achieve a lasting democratic solution and avert a humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. These objectives require the cooperation and support of local actors. As the first anniversary of the coup approaches, the United States needs to engage more directly with ethnic armed organizations, some of Myanmars longest standing and most influential political actors.

Kaitlyn Robinson is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Stanford University. Her research examines patterns in the emergence, evolution, and behavior of non-state armed groups, including those operating in Myanmar.

Image: Xinhua (Photo by U Aung)

See more here:
To Support Democracy in Myanmar, Engage with Ethnic Armed Organizations - War on the Rocks

(Wikimedia Images/TapTheForwardAssist)

On Jan. 6, 2021, an armed mob, fueled by former President Donald Trumps false claims of electoral fraud, launched an attack on Capitol Hill which left five people dead and our democracy on a knifes edge.

Many corporate and industry political action committees (PACs) such as Toyota, Cigna and AT&T publicly pledged to stop donating to elected GOP officials supporting Trumps election fraud claims. Yet, these corporate PACs reneged on their commitments in only six months, a reflection of pay-to-play politics in the U.S, where companies help fund the campaigns of elected officials for preferential treatment. By backing the campaigns of seditious GOP politicians, corporations demonstrate their willingness to chase their bottom lines, even at the cost of our democracy. Such a relationship leaves the American public feeling unheard and resentful. To weaken the sway of corporations over elected officials, states should adopt a democracy voucher program.

The pay-to-play nature of our politics undermines democracy by warping the relationship of politicians with their constituents, policy and broader U.S. ideals. Politicians should serve the people who elected them, and corporations should compete in the marketplace. In reality, companies and special interest groups intercede. Under the highly controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the Supreme court found that the government cannot cap independent campaign expenditures by corporations. This led to the creation of super PACs, which can receive unlimited funding from corporations, labor unions or individuals for independent political activity.

Before Citizens United, the government actively prevented collusion by prohibiting corporations and unions from donating or advocating for candidates. Now, outside interest groups use the opportunity to accrue unprecedented political influence. Despite the requirement that super PACs disclose their donors, many donors come from dark money groups that mask the funds origins and leave voters unaware about donors with ulterior motives of prioritizing corporations.

Both at the state and federal level, we should implement a new tool known as democracy vouchers to weaken the influence of companies over elections. Democracy vouchers were first implemented in Seattle to encourage people to participate in the democratic process in state elections such as legislators, officers and even federal offices such as the House and Senate. Through this program, voters are permitted to set aside funds to donate to their preferred candidates. In taking such a step, states could counter corporate political influence by raising voters confidence in our democracy and giving them an opportunity to directly support their preferred candidates, rather than ceding all power to corporations.

Donations from companies leave candidates beholden to their donors after taking office, influencing campaign platforms and political careers. Inequality in this country is not just increasing in financial terms. Thanks to PACs and super PACs, the wealthy and corporations hold a significant sway in politics and undermine our democracy. While limiting expenditures of super PACs is unfeasible and would violate the Citizens United decision, democracy vouchers publicize all funds received by each candidate and allow citizens to take back some degree of control in the politicians that eventually hold office.

If we want to live up to our democratic ideals, federal and state governments should implement democracy voucher programs and trust-building campaigns to match. The profit incentives of corporations often contravene the public interest, so we must return political power in this country to where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.

The above editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheels Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is composed of Rachel Broun, Kyle Chan-Shue, Sophia Ling, Demetrios Mammas, Daniel Matin, Daniela Parra del Riego Valencia, Sara Perez, Sophia Peyser, Ben Thomas, Chaya Tong and Leah Woldai.

Read more:
Fight corporations sway over elections with democracy dollars - The Emory Wheel

The anniversary of Jan. 6 was a grim reminder of our democracy in crisis. Instead of hoping that the upcoming midterm elections will be a period of convergence on kitchen-table constituent priorities, we have ample reason to fear greater division.Recent election cycles have escalated polarization and mistrust.

Our dollars are adding fuel to the fire. We have too much money in politics and not nearly enough money in democracy.

The 2020 election cost over$14 billion, the most expensive on record.Already, nonprofits like OpenSecrets and other campaign spending watchdogspredict that 2022 will set new spending records. At the same time, Americas multiracial democratic experiment, following five decades of declining public trust in government, stands at a crossroads. Organizations likeInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance have labeled the U.S. a backsliding democracy, andThe Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School released anational poll of Americas 18- to 29-year-oldsin December that indicates a majority of young Americans believe our democracy is in trouble or failing.

Many people who care about improving their communities choose to donate to political elections as their primary strategy to advance preferred policies. That is logical, of course, but insufficient.

A healthy democracy itself is essential for our system of self-government to function and rise to the challenge of tackling major challenges like public health, economic security, and education. It requires an engaged citizenry with civic knowledge, mutual trust, and a sense of community responsibility regardless of political affiliation.

Donors need to rebalance their portfolio for short-term investments in elections together with long-term investments in our democracy.

If we cant trust our elected representatives to express the will of their constituents, it wont be solved by one more election. It requires strengthening through bottom-up investments in our local civil society and democracy, with an eye towards early intervention in our civic infrastructure.

Young people, who will inherit our democracy, know this well. I had the opportunity to speak with a young woman from Rhode Island recently, who told me When you take a group of young people and talk to them about what is possible in their community, they start to believe they are capable of creating long-lasting and necessary adjustments for the betterment of society in all spaces.

Investing in real-world democracy education for our nation's young people is the high-impact, long-term investment our democracy needs now.

For a fraction of what is spent in a few months for an election, civics education organizations deliver high quality, project-based civics lessons to tens of thousands of students each year.The future of our institutions and systems belongs to millions of young Americans who see our collective challenges and are wondering if they might suffer them or solve them. We know that when young people are not just spectators to civic chaos, but active change makersit benefits them and sets us on a better path forward.

Starting at the school and neighborhood level, students can identify issues that matter to them and engage in deliberation, participatory research and community problem solving. This makes them agents of change, not just spectators of political bloodsport.

At Generation Citizen, a national civics education nonprofit, weve seen positive civic learning exemplified through nonpartisan, student-led projects that build on U.S. History classes. A class of 8th grade students from Fall River, Mass., was interested in protecting marine wildlife from plastics pollution, and wanted to beautify their city so that young people like themselves could take pride in their community and want to build their lives there. Students deftly grabbed local media attention and testified before the city councils ordinance committee, successfully advocating for the reconsideration of a plastic bag ban.

Our communities and our students need these initiatives, which unlock a sense of agency in young people and a sense of hope in ones community. Today,the investment helping young people get on the first rung of democracys ladder is too small, and the investment in hyperpolarized elections is too large.

Elizabeth Clay Roy is CEO ofGeneration Citizen, an organization working to transform civics education through working with thousands of young people every year.

Read more from the original source:
Too much money in politics, and not enough in democracy | TheHill - The Hill