Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Starting to rebuild political institutions can uphold democracy even as discord rules

Merrick Garland

Merrick Garland, now President Biden's nominee for attorney general, was a pawn in the escalation of norm-breaking gamesmanship.

Ura is a political science professor at Texas A&M University and Theriault is a government professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

Americans' distrust in their federal government has steadily declined in the last half-century, and the last presidential election did little to restore that confidence.

Although "democracy has prevailed," as President Biden said during his inauguration, a recent Marist College poll found that one-third of the country believes the presidential election was "not legitimate," including 75 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents.

Moreover, the Capitol insurrection by pro-Trump rioters highlights a disaffection with the federal government that threatens the nation's constitutional government.

It's tempting to blame Donald Trump and his allies for this crisis. When it served their interests, they repeatedly manipulated or ignored the institutions and standard practices of American politics. That includes filling senior executive roles with interim appointees, such as Chad Wolf at the Department of Homeland Security, to evade the Senate's "advice and consent" on who should fill high-level roles; issuing executive orders, like the travel ban from majority-Muslim countries, without following lawful procedures; and refusing to keep official records of conversations with foreign leaders.

But Trump's political appeal was fertilized by a preexisting distrust in the nation's governmental institutions and the political establishment that operates them.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

As political scientists who study the courts and Congress, we think reversing Americans' alienation from the political system requires a deeper understanding of some first principles.

What leads people to be loyal to political institutions even when they don't get what they want from them? Established rules and institutions project legitimacy.

Americans generally accept outcomes of just institutions, even if these results don't always match their preferences. People, for example, might think taxes are too high or speed limits are too low. But if the procedures used to set these laws are fair, studies show people tend to accept those policies.

When institutions are unfair, the system breaks down. Citizens who are unfairly denied the right to vote, for example, or who are abused by police, might take to the streets in protest. People led to believe an election was decided by fraud might reject its conclusions and attack officials for certifying its results.

A fair amount of the declining trust in government rests with political elites who avoid rules or change them when they are inconvenient for their side.

The partisan battle over the appointment of federal judges during the last three administrations is a case in point.

When Senate Democrats obstructed some of George W. Bush's nominees, Republicans threatened to end the filibuster — the procedure that attempts to block or delay Senate action on a bill or a nomination by debating it at length.

Senate Democrats followed through on that threat, getting rid of the filibuster for all nominees other than to the Supreme Court, when Republicans blocked Barack Obama's judicial nominees. Republicans escalated the conflict even more when they refused to hold a confirmation vote for Merrick Garland, Obama's pick to fill the election year Supreme Court vacancy created by Antonin Scalia's death. And they later confirmed Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death within days of the 2020 election, another norm-breaking move.

Americans can reasonably mistrust institutions and rules that are frequently altered for political convenience. It's only a small step further to believe the entire constitutional system is without value.

Repairing this damage involves rebuilding the impartial cooperation that holds political institutions together.

In a healthy political system, rules are consistent and consistently applied. And political leaders defend the nation's political institutions in both victory and defeat.

Politicians committed to repairing American democracy are attuned to attacks on political institutions from within their own parties. This promotes trust and confidence in government.

In Congress, here's what this would look like: Calls to end the filibuster would be resisted. Colleagues who use the filibuster to stall executive and judicial appointments are rebuked.

Significant challenges remain.

Even after the Capitol attack, two-thirds of House Republicans and one in six Senate Republicans continued to back Trump's false claims of a fraudulent election. Those stark numbers suggest there is a constituency for leaders who evade or undermine the nation's governing rules and institutions for their own political purposes.

The situation is not hopeless, though.

Many Republican leaders — including former Vice President Mike Pence, a minority of House Republicans and a majority of Senate Republicans — joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues to defeat baseless objections to accepting Electoral College votes.

By breaking with Trump and his congressional supporters, these Republicans took a first step toward rebuilding the legitimacy of America's core political institutions.

Democrats could likewise take a step toward them by rebuilding the rules and institutions that Trump disparaged instead of damaging them to suit their political desires.

These moves can start a shared process of recommitment to the institutions that once made the American political system the envy of the world.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less