Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

More excessive partisanship will make wound from Capitol siege even worse

Donald Trump, before the Capitol riot

By inciting a riot, President Trump gave Democrats the chance to transcend the gamesmanship they helped to create, writes Salit.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
Salit is president of Independent Voting, which works to promote the political clout of unaffiliated voters, and the author of "Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

My father, a Navy veteran of World War II, just celebrated his 94th birthday. He is one of the estimated 300,000 living veterans of that war and he is healthy, mobile and active, with a wicked sense of humor. His memories are sharp, his voice raspy, and he offers colorful reflections on almost a century of American life.

Last weekend, I asked what the country was like when he was in college during and after the war. If you were in uniform and hitchhiking on leave, he said, drivers stopped and said they would take you wherever you wanted to go. In a bar, you couldn't pay for a beer or a meal. The country was united and he was so proud.

Then he paused. When he watched the events at the Capitol, he said, suddenly grim, he wished he was still in uniform. He wanted to be there to defend our democracy, to repel and punish those who would attack it. His voice was choking.

My heart ached. His pain and anger were palpable, even over Zoom. Yes, it was about the sordid events at the Capitol. But it was also about how much the fabric of the country had unspooled in his lifetime.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Like many, I watched members of Congress forced to evacuate after a failure by law enforcement to create a sufficiently secure perimeter around them or put a visible and well-equipped anti-riot force in place, as had been done before a thoroughly peaceful anti-racism protest the Rev. Al Sharpton led on Capitol Hill last summer. This double-standard must be investigated.

Eventually, last week's violence was ended. Debate resumed. Objections were heard, the separate houses debated. After courts had dismissed more than 60 lawsuits claiming fraud, after states conducted recounts that produced no different outcomes, Congress affirmed that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had the necessary electoral votes to be sworn in next week.

For my money, the democratic process held. The perpetrators who committed violent acts and brought lethal paraphernalia are being hunted down, arrested and charged. I disagree with those who breathlessly proclaim our democracy is fragile. In the face of ceaseless legal, political and procedural challenges culminating in this violent disruption, democracy looked pretty sturdy.

But what does seem fragile? The institutions that mediate and control the American people's relationship to our democratic republic. Here I refer to the two dominant political parties, the massively over-endowed and overreaching mechanisms of the exercise of political power.

Full disclosure: I'm an independent. I dislike the political parties and what they breed. They are dedicated to the proposition that their self-preservation, separately and together, is equivalent to the national interest. There are moments of upheaval where those can appear to be the same thing, but that is momentary.

This is part of the terrible pain of the moment. The vacuum in political leadership in America is wrenching. After a brutal election season — in which $15 billion was spent by both sides getting Americans to hate and fear each other — 41 percent of the electorate chose to identify with neither party. Declaring oneself a political independent is their statement of non-compliance with a wretched culture.

The House decided that an unprecedented second impeachment was the best way to sanction Trump, and 10 Republicans joined the Democrats to charge him with "incitement of insurrection" Wednesday. I sorely wish that partisan Democrats hadn't used the impeachment gambit once before, and with an almost totally party-line outcome.

It would have been better to tie the president's hands for his final days in office by having Vice President Pence and the Cabinet (what's left of it) invoke the 25th Amendment — followed by Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Kevin McCarthy standing together to promise a peaceful transition of power.

But I don't get to decide. I'm only one citizen, one who's sick and tired of being force fed a toxic brew every time something happens.

Trump, in his infinite narcissism, did more than incite a riot. He handed the Democratic Party a golden goose: the chance to ring the bell for democracy, to transcend the gamesmanship they helped to create.

In an Ipsos poll taken last weekend, 58 percent of independents said Trump should be removed from office before his term ends — surely the most nonpartisan view on that question. But the same poll found only half the country believes Democrats can be counted on to protect our democracy. Many independents are asking whether Democrats will champion the necessary political reforms to reverse the incentives driving partisanship. I have not seen evidence they will.

Meanwhile, Republicans are deservedly in chaos. Those high-minded government officials turning in their resignations have me laughing. Someone once said, when government officials talk about principles, hold on to your wallet. I just locked mine in a drawer. The GOP is assessing a vote to convict Trump in the Senate followed by a vote to bar him from any future office. A healthier option would be opening all the 2024 presidential primaries to all voters. Independents voted against Trump by 13 points in November, delivering the Democrats the White House and, later, the Senate. Trump could not survive an open primary in four years. The American people would be the deciders.

Perhaps the worst thing is that it's so hard to know what anything means. The 18th century philosopher Bishop Butler opined that everything is what it is and not another thing. Wishful thinking? Did the Democratic leadership pursue impeachment because they have the votes to stay Trump's hand? Or do they want to force the GOP to cast damaging votes? Are the resignations an "every man for himself" act of desperation? Or an act of conscience? Was the scene at the Capitol an actual insurrection or a crazed display of deformed defiance, with criminal acts that should be prosecuted?

Are all these events, and so many others, only one thing?

America is in crisis. Where do we go from here? The widening gulf between the positive traditions of our democracy, however flawed, and the current culture of partisan politics will have to be engaged. We can't continue as we are. This we know because we feel it in our gut.

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