The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
The latest interview of this series took place with Francis Johnson, the founding partner of Communications Resources, a public affairs organization, and the former President of Take Back Our Republic. This non-partisan organization advocates for conservative solutions to campaign finance reform. A veteran of Republican politics, Francis has been at the forefront of structural reform efforts, including initiatives like ranked-choice voting.
I’ve been talking to Francis as part of the work I’ve engaged in, leading convenings and conducting research on exploring a conservative agenda for elections and democracy. One theme that has emerged from our conversations is the challenge of defining democracy itself—a point that Francis has consistently pushed me to consider more deeply.
One recurring issue when discussing democracy with “pro-democracy” advocates is the perception that supporters of former President Trump are inherently hostile to democratic principles. The prevailing logic suggests that Trump’s supporters either disregard democracy entirely or prioritize everyday concerns—like the rising cost of living—over preserving democratic norms.
However, I have come to see this interpretation as overly simplistic. Many Trump supporters actually do view themselves as defenders of democracy, aligning their support for the former president with a commitment to protecting the republic. For instance, when the Trump administration challenges judicial decisions, many see it not as undermining democracy but as affirming the executive’s leadership. This concept can be known as "vertical accountability"—the idea that elected leaders, rather than unelected judges, are directly accountable to the people. This perspective mirrors strategies seen in authoritarian contexts, but its roots are in a belief amongst voters that democracy means fulfilling the mandate given by voters.
My intention here is not to argue whether these beliefs are right or wrong but to acknowledge their existence and influence. Framing Trump supporters as fundamentally anti-democratic is probably counterproductive to the broader goals of the pro-democracy movement—even if advocates do believe that the Trump Administration’s actions are anti-democratic.
That’s part of the reason I talked to Francis, who is broadly supportive of the Trump Administration, and has dedicated his career to the pro-democracy ecosystem. I do feel that there is a need to engage a diverse array of individuals wide and far to better understand this moment and explore pathways forward, and appreciated Francis’ perspective, which does run counter to many I’ve talked to in the series to date.
You may not agree with all of Francis’s reflections, but they’re worth taking stock of.
His main reflections included:
- Conservatives and progressives mean different things when they say “democracy”: As political discourse has grown more polarized, even the definition of "democracy" has splintered. Sometimes the response to this reality that I hear from advocates is something to the effect of “We’re so polarized that we can’t even agree that democracy matters.” The divide, however, is deeper and more ideological.
According to Francis, when some conservatives insist that the United States is not a democracy but a republic, they are focusing on the primes that our system designed for representative governance through mechanisms like the Electoral College. This distinction underscores a broader philosophical gap.
Francis contends that conservatives prioritize “procedural mechanisms and institutional stability over expansive participatory models of democracy,” emphasizing order and structure. Progressives, by contrast, often view democracy as “a dynamic, evolving process of continuous empowerment and structural change, rather than a static institutional framework.” This divergence is not simply rhetorical; it shapes how each side approaches governance, accountability, and reform.
The key takeaway is that when conservatives and progressives advocate for democracy, they are often speaking past each other—grounded in fundamentally different conceptions of what democracy should achieve and how it should function
- Progressives are seen as weaponizing “democracy”: The idea that the political left uses democracy as a proxy for progressive policy is a critique that emerges in a few conservative circles. As Francis notes, “the pro-democracy movement must also… distinguish between policies they disagree with and the actions that generally threaten the democratic principles.”
Francis does not think the movement has successfully done this to date; rather, “the community is dominated by progressive activists and funders that are pushing a partisan agenda under the guise of protecting democracy.” He also argues that this type of movement “lacks real grassroots support.”
We can argue about whether these arguments have merit, but the idea that progressives have used the term democracy for partisan interests clearly has traction.
- Federalism and civics education offer opportunities: While progressives and conservatives may not be able to agree on the definition of democracy itself, amidst increasing polarization, Francis argues that issues like federalism and civics education provide the opportunity for potential bipartisan compromise.
While federalism has historically been seen as more of a conservative issue (partially because of the connotations that come with the very notion of states’ rights), there is currently more interest on the left in preventing executive overreach and ensuring states and localities can set more of their own policies. As Francis notes, “I think the success of American democracy really depends on maintaining that delicate balance between that national unity and State autonomy.”
Similarly, there seems to be more of a bipartisan consensus that more civics education is needed for young people to understand the parameters of government and how to participate effectively. I know from experience that “civics education” means different things to different people—often a distinction between an emphasis on knowledge and experience.
However, an opportunity remains to attempt to bridge a consensus, Francis argues. “I think there should be more collaborations between conservative and left-leaning pro-democracy advocates. I think we really need to increase the emphasis on civics education to reduce political polarization and really try to put together programs to rebuild trust in elections.
I appreciated Francis’s willingness to share his perspective and hope advocates can take his arguments in good faith.Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
Scott Warren i s a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
“What’s So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding” by Adam Cvijanovic