Mediaboss Marketing

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America think tank and one of the organizers of New Americas Statement of Concern, wrote by email:

A longstanding finding in political science is that it is elites who preserve democracy, and elites who destroy democracy. Overwhelming majorities of voters support democracy in the abstract, but if they are told by elites that the other party is trying to destroy democracy and these emergency measures are needed to preserve democracy by keeping the other side out of power, most partisan voters are going to follow their leaders and support anti-democratic changes. This is especially the case in a highly polarized binary political system in which the thought of the opposing party taking power seems especially odious and even existential.

Like many of the co-signers of the Statement of Concern, Drutman has no expectation that the Supreme Court would step in to block states from tilting the partisan balance by tinkering with election rules and procedures:

The conservative Supreme Court has given states wide latitude to change electoral laws. I dont see how a 6-3 conservative court does much to interfere with the ability of states to choose their own electoral arrangements. The conservative majority on the Court has clearly decided it is not the role of the Supreme Court to place reasonable boundaries on the ability of partisan legislatures to stack elections in their favor.

Laura Gamboa, a political scientist at the University of Utah, is less harsh in her assessment of the citizenry, but she too does not place much hope in the ability of the American electorate to protect democratic institutions from assault:

I dont think Americans (or most other people) have a normative preference for dictatorship. Overall, people prefer democracy over authoritarianism. Having said that, polarization and misinformation can lead people to support power grabs. Research has shown that when a society is severely polarized and sees the out-group (in this case out-party) as enemies (not opponents), they are willing to support anti-democratic moves in order to prevent them from attaining power. More so, when they are misled to believe that these rules are put in place to protect elections from fraud.

More important, Gamboa argued that the corrosion of political norms that protect democratic governance

can definitively evolve into a broader rejection of the rule of law. Institutions do not survive by themselves, they need people to stand by them. This type of manipulation of electoral laws undermines the legitimacy of elections. Rules and norms that were once sacred become part of the political game: things to be changed if and when it serves the political purpose of those in power. Once that happens, these norms lose their value. They become unreliable and thus unable to serve as channels to adjudicate political differences, in this case, to determine who attains and who does not attain power.

The fact that public attention has been focused on Trumps claim that the election was stolen, the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and Republican stonewalling against the creation of a commission to investigate the attack on Congress help mask the fact that the crucial action is taking place across the country in state capitols, with only intermittent national coverage, especially on network television.

These Republican-controlled state governments have become, in the words of Jacob Grumbach, a political scientist at the University of Washington, Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding, the title of his April paper.

Grumbach developed 61 indicators of the level of adherence to democratic procedures and practices what he calls a State Democracy Index and tracked those measures in the states over the period from 2000 to 2018. The indicators include registration and absentee voting requirements, restrictions on voter registration drives and gerrymandering practices.

Grumbachs conclusion: Republican control of state government, however, consistently and profoundly reduces state democratic performance during this time period. The results, he writes,

are remarkably clear: Republican control of state government reduces democratic performance. The magnitude of democratic contraction from Republican control is surprisingly large, about one-half of a standard deviation. Much of this effect is driven by gerrymandering and electoral policy changes following Republican gains in state legislatures and governorships in the 2010 election.

In terms of specific states and regions, Grumbach found that states on the West Coast and in the Northeast score higher on the democracy measures than states in the South, which lost ground over the 18 years of the study. At the same time, states like North Carolina and Wisconsin were among the most democratic states in the year 2000, but by 2018 they are close to the bottom. Illinois and Vermont move from the middle of the pack in 2000 to among the top democratic performers in 2018.

Grumbach contends that there are two sets of motivating factors that drive key elements of the Republican coalition to support anti-democratic policies:

The modern Republican Party, which, at its elite level, is a coalition of the very wealthy, has incentives to limit the expansion of the electorate with new voters with very different class interests. The G.O.P.s electoral base, by contrast, is considerably less interested in the Republican economic agenda of top-heavy tax cuts and reductions in government spending. However, their preferences with respect to race and partisan identity provide the Republican electoral base with reason to oppose democracy in a diversifying country.

At one level, the Republican anti-democratic drive is clearly a holding action. A detailed Brookings study, Americas electoral future: The coming generational transformation, by Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira and William Frey, argues that Republicans have reason to fear the future:

Millennials and Generation Z appear to be far more Democratic leaning than their predecessors were at the same age. Even if todays youngest generations do grow more conservative as they age, its not at all clear they would end up as conservative as older generations are today.

In addition, the three authors write, Americas youngest generations are more racially and ethnically diverse than older generations.

As a result, Griffin, Teixeira and Frey contend,

the underlying demographic changes our country is likely to experience over the next several elections generally favor the Democratic Party. The projected growth of groups by race, age, education, gender and state tends to be more robust among Democratic-leaning groups, creating a consistent and growing headwind for the Republican Party.

From 2020 to 2036, the authors project that the percentage of eligible voters who identify as nonwhite in Texas will grow from 50 to 60 percent, in Georgia from 43 to 50 percent, in Arizona from 38 to 48 percent.

As these percentages grow, Republicans will be under constant pressure to enact state legislation to further restrict registration and voting. The question will become: How far are they willing to go?

I posed that question to Terry Moe, a political scientist at Stanford. His reply:

As for whether this electoral manipulation will devolve into a broader rejection of the rule of law, I would say that the Republican Party has already crossed the Rubicon. For four years during the Trump presidency, they defended or ignored his blatant abuses of power, his violations of democratic norms, and his attacks on our democratic institutions, and they routinely circled the wagons to protect him. They had countless opportunities to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law, and they consistently failed to do so.

See the rest here:
Opinion | How Far Are Republicans Willing to Go? Theyre Already Gone. - The New York Times

The voters have spoken.

And after Tuesdays primary, the voters have chosen former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Delegate Hala S. Ayala and Attorney General Mark R. Herring to carry the Democratic Party banner into Novembers election for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, respectively.

These are safe choices for Democrats, who will face a well-financed set of Republican opponents in what is likely to be a highly contentious general election in the fall.

The GOP contender for governor, businessman and Trump acolyte Glenn Youngkin, has raised nearly $16 million already in his bid to become the states chief executive. About $12 million of that is loans he made to himself, according to campaign finance reports made public last week.

Mr. Youngkin spent millions to win a GOP nomination contest held in a multi-site convention. But the latest reports show that, as of the end of May, he has $4.4 million on hand going into what is certain to be an expensive general election seeking the hearts, minds and votes of Virginians.

Mr. Youngkin has said he intends to turn Virginia red in the fall, meaning he wants to carry us back to what Republicans see as the good ol days. The retired co-CEO of the private equity giant Carlyle Group aligned himself with President Trump as he sought to beat out six others for the GOP nomination, and he campaigned with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a prominent Trump backer who espouses the Big Lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from the former president.

Mr. Youngkin is quietly trying to walk away from Mr. Trump. He has no voting record to scrutinize because he has never held elective office. But his GOP sidekicks, former Delegate Winsome Sears and Delegate Jason Miyares of Virginia Beach, who are running for lieutenant governor and attorney general, are out-and-out Trump backers. During her campaign, Ms. Sears highlighted her work as national chairperson for Black Americans to Re-Elect President Trump.

By contrast, Mr. McAuliffe has a progressive record we are more familiar with because of his four years in office. He served as Virginias governor from 2014 to 2018 and pushed the state closer toward expanding Medicaid health insurance to cover hundreds of thousands of uninsured Virginians, which was blocked at the time by a Republican-controlled General Assembly. Also, despite GOP efforts to shut him down, he restored the voting rights of more than 173,000 felons who had served their time.

Mr. McAuliffe is ready to take on Mr. Youngkin in the next few months. He raised $12.1 million in donations during the primary, according to campaign finance reports, and had $3.2 million on hand at the end of May.

Nearly a half million voters 488,000 cast ballots in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. And while that is only 90 percent of the total vote cast in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2017, it signals the willingness of Virginia citizens to make their voices heard.

We have no doubt that the best thing that could have happened for Virginia voters of all stripes took place in 2019, when Democrats took control of the General Assembly for the first time in decades. Had Virginia voters not booted Republicans out of office in November 2019, we likely would find ourselves going into Novembers election with new restrictions limiting voter access and early voting like Texas and Florida, including such draconian provisions as making it illegal to give out water or food to those standing in line to cast a ballot.

The Virginia primary took place in an orderly and efficient manner, while the nation as a whole is embroiled in desperate struggles to protect the right to vote. This should remind us once again that voting is important. It is the backbone of democracy and critical, especially in these times when conservative and Trump forces are mounting assaults on voting rights across the country.

Tuesdays primary also highlighted the seriousness with which we must act to protect our democracy, no matter who is in office.

Obstacles to reasonable access to the polls, false claims of stolen elections, failed court challenges and even armed insurrections attempting to overturn valid and fair elections should make us willing to rededicate our efforts to safeguard the sanctity of voting, access to the ballot and the protection of our freedoms.

We, the voters, are the defenders of democracy, and it is imperative that we take this responsibility seriously.

Excerpt from:
Voting and protecting democracy - Richmond Free Press

Jim Ryan and Melody Barnes, Opinion contributors Published 6:01 a.m. ET June 5, 2021

Higher education must lead. Together, we need to engage even more people in discussion and debate about our countrys future, on campus and beyond.

Supporters of President Donald Trump scale the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.(Photo: Jose Luis Magana, AP)

Five months after the insurrection of Jan.6, the country is still waiting for answers. How could this have happened and why? Who should be held to account for an attack on the heart of our government? Were mistakes made in preparation or response?

These are important questions that demand a reply. But our inability to answer or even debate them reflects the deepening chasm in our democracy and raises even more urgent issues.

What must we do to protect and strengthen the principles that define and guide our American experiment? How can we build a democratic culture that bolsters our institutions and ensures they work effectively for everyone? How can we repair damage thats already been done?

This, of course, is the responsibility of every citizen. But its also a special responsibility of institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to nurture democracy, and to strengthen the norms and cultural beliefs that are necessary for it to function.

America Talks: Should the U.S. have stricter laws on the sale of guns?

As leaders within higher education, we also cant deny that some people think universities are part of the problem instead of a part of the solution. We have our own work to do in rebuilding trust and credibility with all Americans, especially the skeptics who portray us only as instruments of liberal indoctrination or protectors of ingrained systems of power.

Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan commission to study the U.S. Capitol riot in January. Partisanship was the reason Republicans opposed it. USA TODAY

The good news is the most valuable work universities can undertake to support democracy is purposeful and non-partisan. And there is plenty we can and should contribute.

At its heart, a university creates knowledge and pursues truth through scholarship and research. It encourages and facilitates civil debate. It brings together people with different experiences and points of view and through university life and thoughtful engagement in the surrounding community positions them to interact, compromise andbuild the relationships necessary to foster respect. We wont always agree, but our democracy compels us to learn how to disagree without destroying each other.

As it turns out, our institution has been at this for some time. Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia in 1819 with a mission of educating citizen leaders who could contribute to the functioning of what was then a very young American democracy.

America Talks:Do you approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as president?

That founding purpose animates us today, some 200 years later now including, of course, women and people of color who were excluded for more than a century.

Our own experience shows how important it is to sustain founding principles that are indisputably good education to prepare citizens to serve as guardians of their own rights, for example while ensuring theyre applied for everyones benefit.

The same is true of a healthy democracy. This is a time when we need to discover or rediscover ways to protect and strengthen our system of government so that it works for everyone.

Higher education must lead. Together, we need to engage even more people in discussion and debate about our countrys future, on campus and beyond. Universities should assertively lead the way forward in research and analysis of democracy itself, identifying its successes and shortcomings, and addressing challenges head-on.

Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan commission to study the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot. Partisanship was the reason Republicans gave to oppose it.(Photo: Getty)

Hand-in-glove with discussion and debate, higher education must also be a place for action.

Theres a long history of impact-oriented work at colleges and universities. Many of the strategies and tactics used to dismantle legal discrimination were crafted and refined in the halls of Howard University School of Law, where leading civil rights lawyers like Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston were trained or taught.

Stanford University helped breathe life into Silicon Valley and the technological advances that have changed the world. Across higher education are voluminous examples of invention, serviceand outreach that have improved the lives of all Americans.

But we also believe theres far more to be done. The challenges facing our democracy demand that we place a big bet on the work that higher education can and must do to help solve them. That requires that we continue the pursuit of new knowledge and translate what we learn so it can be used by policymakers, practitioners, private sector leaders and the public.

To support that work, weve committed to invest $100 million in the study, teachingand promotion of democracy, made possible by a $50 million lead gift from Martha and Bruce Karsh establishing the University of VirginiaKarsh Institute of Democracy.

The institute will be non-partisan, public facing and impact oriented, providing opportunities for our seven existing, democracy-focused schools and centers to collaborate doing work they couldnt do alone and launching its own signature initiatives focused on shoring up Americas wobbling democracy.

In another six months, the attack on the Capitol will command even less of the countrys interest. New crises will emerge, as they always do, and consume our attention.

But we cant forget about the bigger questions raised on Jan.6. The stakes could not be higher. The health and strength of our democracy demand our attention, and higher education must answer the call.

Jim Ryan is president of the University of Virginia. Melody Barnes is executive director of the university'sKarsh Institute of Democracy, J. Wilson Newman Professor of Governance at the Miller Center of Public Affairsand former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under President Barack Obama.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/06/05/democracy-danger-heres-how-universities-can-help-protect/7546343002/

Go here to see the original:
American democracy is in danger. Here's how universities can help to protect it. - USA TODAY

Fights over the filibuster. Tensions over Israel. Bickering over police funding. And grumbling over immigration policy.

As Congress heads into a hot summer in Washington, discord among Democrats has begun to bubble up, putting a dent in the armor of party unity just as leaders will need it most to pass a series of prominent reform bills they've promised their voters.

The party has razor-thin majorities in both the House and Senate, requiring virtual unanimity on major legislative priorities that have not, or will not, attract support from across the aisle.

But the low simmer of internal disagreement is heating up heading into the short summer session, rattling the lid of party harmony and threatening to spill over in a rolling boil that jeopardizes both Biden's agenda and the Democrats' prospects for keeping the House and Senate in next year's midterm elections.

Amid the frictions, defiant Democrats are insisting the flare ups are merely a routine part of any legislative debate and that they'll be unified when it comes time to vote on specific proposals.

What we show is that there's democracy inside the Democratic Caucus, said Rep. Sheila Jackson LeeSheila Jackson LeeWray grilled on FBI's handling of Jan. 6 California comes to terms with the costs and consequences of slavery Democrats claim vindication, GOP cries witch hunt as McGahn finally testifies MORE (D-Texas).

I have no argument with healthy democratic actions, skepticism, criticism within the Democratic tent, she continued. It's healthy, and then we come full circle and we get a resolution.

Such predictions may prove to be prescient yet, as Democrats charge ahead in the coming months with efforts to adopt a huge infrastructure package, overhaul national policing practices, strengthen voter protections and stabilize a volatile economy just emerging from the shocks of the coronavirus pandemic. To accomplish those things, however, they'll have to quell the conflicts within their diverse and restive ranks conflicts that have surfaced in highly public fashion in both chambers in recent weeks.

Manchin has gone a long step further, opposing voting rights legislation and threatening to oppose any other major proposal, including infrastructure spending, that lacks bipartisan support. The combination of line-in-the-sand positions has infuriated fellow Democrats in and out of Congress, who are accusing the centrist senators of rewarding Republican obstructionism.

We have to dial this in. We have to recognize that waiting for Republicans to come along is like waiting for Godot: it's never going to happen, said Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalHouse Democrats push Garland for immigration court reforms Progressives rally behind Omar while accusing her critics of bias Bipartisan talks sow division among Democrats MORE (D-Wash.), who heads the Progressive Caucus. We're going to sit under the tree and wait every single day, and they're not going to show up in the numbers that we need in order to pass something with 60 votes.

Rep. Madeleine DeanMadeleine DeanThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Democrats' agenda in limbo as Senate returns House Democrats to Schumer: Vote again on Jan. 6 probe Democrats claim vindication, GOP cries witch hunt as McGahn finally testifies MORE (D-Pa.) offered a similar warning.

It would have been nice to have bipartisan support, she said. But let it be known that this administration and our caucus can move forward and do big things for America without bipartisan support.

Some of Manchin's Senate colleagues have been even more biting.

If you can figure out what Joe Manchin is about, let me know because I can't, said one Democratic senator.

The cracks are showing in the House as well.

Last month, Democratic leaders struggled to pass what they thought would be an easy lift: legislation to boost security funding at the U.S. Capitol following the violent mob attack of Jan. 6. Instead, a small group of liberal lawmakers, known collectively as the squad, threatened to sink the proposal, saying the police need more accountability, not more funding.

The proposal ultimately squeaked by, 213-212, after three of those liberals agreed to vote present. But the episode emboldened progressives who are fighting racial bias in law enforcement and highlighted the difficulties facing Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump DOJ seized House Democrats' data from Apple Biden administration releases emergency temporary standard for healthcare facilities Progressives rally behind Omar while accusing her critics of bias MORE (Calif.) and other Democratic leaders as they seek to move contentious legislation with the slimmest of majorities.

More recently, some Democrats particularly members of the Hispanic Caucus were up in arms after Vice President Harris went to Central America and urged would-be Guatemalan migrants to forego any effort to enter the United States. Do not come, do not come, she said.

Harriss impetus was clear: The United States has seen an increase in migration at the southern border, and the Biden administration is under heavy criticism from Republicans blaming his policies for the rise.

We cant help set someones house on fire and then blame them for fleeing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezProgressives rally behind Omar while accusing her critics of bias Omar: I wasn't equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries Ocasio-Cortez rips Democratic critics of Omar MORE (D-N.Y.), a liberal firebrand with Puerto Rican roots, wrote on Twitter.

The latest internal clash featured a Democrat whos grown accustomed to them: Rep. Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarProgressives rally behind Omar while accusing her critics of bias Pelosi, leaders seek to squelch Omar controversy with rare joint statement Omar: I wasn't equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries MORE (Minn.), a Somali refugee and one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress. On Monday, Omar took to Twitter to lament the unthinkable human rights atrocities committed by a series of actors, lumping the United States and Israel in with Hamas and the Taliban on her list of targets.

The tweet incensed a number of Jewish Democrats, who responded late Wednesday night with a statement condemning her offensive and misguided message. They called for a clarification, which Omar provided Thursday afternoon. I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems, she said.Yet Omar also took an unveiled shot at the dozen Democrats who'd criticized her, accusing them of promoting islamophobic tropes a message of censure that was endorsed by other liberals in the caucus, many of them minorities.

The tense back-and-forth prompted Pelosi to issue a rare joint statement with her full leadership team that sought a delicate balance, at once promoting the right to legitimate criticism of U.S. and Israeli policy while condemning false equivalencies between those nations and terrorist groups. Their statement did not mention Omar's charge of harassment against her Democratic critics.

We welcome the clarification by Congresswoman Omar that there is no moral equivalency between the U.S. and Israel and Hamas and the Taliban, the statement read.

To be sure, the recent disagreements have been relatively minor for the Democrats, who like to boast a big tent and seem to revel in the occasional discord stemming from the diversity in their ranks. But they've also exposed tears in the fabric of Democratic unity at a crucial juncture, when Biden is seeking big victories on major legislation, including proposals around police reform and voting rights that touch on the very issues of race at the root of the Omar uproar.

Nothing has changed. We have the same slim majorities that we had at the beginning of the year. We know how challenging that is, she said.

What we need is for the president to do what he did with the American Rescue Plan, which is to lean in heavily and say, This is my vision as president, as the leader of the Democratic Party, she continued. And if we don't deliver, it is people across the country swing voters, surge reporters who really believe that even though they gave us three branches of government that we can't get anything done. Just like Republicans want people to believe.

Follow this link:
Simmering Democratic tensions show signs of boiling over | TheHill - The Hill

Theres both a pattern thats familiar and specific parallels. First the pattern: the familiar pattern is that you had the enfranchisement of new voters during Reconstruction. It was black voters who turned out in record numbers and were elected. Then you had efforts at violence, fraud, and intimidation to try to suppress black votes. That worked for a time, but when black voters were disenfranchised it was really through legal means like literacy tests, poll taxes, and things like that, which happened when states changed their constitutions a while after the end of Reconstruction. Reconstruction is often thought to have ended in 1877, when Rutherford B. Hayes pulled federal troops out of the South, but blacks still voted in a bunch of states in the South through that period. It wasnt until Mississippi adopted its constitution to disenfranchise black voters in 1890 that Southern states tried to figure out a way to completely disenfranchise them through what were thought of as legal means.

That same kind of process is playing out today: you had the enfranchisement of new groups, manifested in higher turnout in 2020, and you had an attempt to try to overturn the election through extralegal means, including an insurrection. Then, in 2021, you have the so-called legal means to try to disenfranchise people through changes to election law. Those are the big-picture similarities.

The more specific similarities are, number one, the language: Jim Crow never actually said we want to disenfranchise black voters. It was technically race neutral, its just that everyone knew who the target was. The same thing is happening today. Georgia Republicans arent saying we want to disenfranchise black voters, but everyone knows thats their target, because thats the strongest constituency of the Democratic Party. Number two, even back then you had Southern white Democrats in Mississippi because remember that Democrats were the segregationist party back then and Republicans were the party of civil rights, and thats flipped who were arguing that they were expanding voting rights. They either argued they were expanding voting rights or they argued they were protecting the sanctity or purity of the ballot. That same language is being used by Republicans today.

The last thing is that in the nineteenth century they also made it easier to overturn elections by taking away power from bipartisan election officials, and either gave it to partisan election officials or took power from voters to appoint their election officials. That kind of pattern is playing out in states like Georgia and Texas today. So there are big picture parallels, but also a lot of specific similarities in terms of the nature of the laws themselves.

Go here to read the rest:
There's Less Than Two Years to Save American Democracy - Jacobin magazine