Political violence is rising in the United States, with Republicans and Democrats divided along racial and ethnic lines that spurred massive bloodshed and democratic collapse earlier in the nation’s history. The January 6, 2021 insurrection and the partisan responses that ensued are a vivid illustration of how deep these currents run.
How did American politics become so divided that we cannot agree on how to categorize an attack on our own Capitol?
Sen. John Thune speaks at a press conference after being elected the majority leader on Nov. 13.
In September, I wrote, “No matter who wins, the next president will declare that they have a ‘mandate’ to do something. And they will be wrong.”
I was wrong in one sense.
Now, I still think the idea of mandates are always conceptually flawed and often ridiculous. The only relevant constitutional mandate Donald Trump enjoys is the mandate to be sworn in as president.
Think about this way: Trump’s coalition together contains factions that disagree with one another on many things. Assume that self-described Republicans are Trump voters. According to the exit polls, about a third (29 percent) of voters who support legal abortion voted for Trump, while 91 percent of those who think it should be illegal voted for him. There are similar divides over support for Israel, mass deportation of immigrants and other issues. Heck, 12 percent of voters who think his views are “too extreme” nonetheless voted for him. Five percent of the people who would feel “concerned or scared” if he were elected still backed him at the polls.
In short, whatever Trump believes his mandate is, at least some of the people who voted for him will have different ideas. Save for dealing with inflation and righting the economy, there’s very little that he can do that won’t result in some people saying, “This isn’t what I voted for.” (Even if you believe in mandates, how big could Trump’s be given it’s tied as the 44th-best showing ever in the electoral college?)
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
None of this is unique to Trump. Presidential electoral coalitions always have internal contradictions. FDR had everyone from progressive Blacks and Jews to Dixiecrats and Klansmen in his column.
Many people seem to think that politics is what happens during elections. But politics never stops. Once elected, the venue for politics changes. Presidents believe, understandably, that they were elected to do what they campaigned on. The challenge is that Congress and state governments are full of people who won an election too. And they often have their own ideas about what their “mandate” is. Postelection politics is about dealing with that reality.
Which gets me to what I got wrong. Although voters generally may not have spoken with anything like one voice on various policies, Republican voters voted for Republicans who would be loyal to, and supportive, of Trump. In other words, whether it fits some political scientist’s definition of a mandate, Republican senators and representatives believe that they have a mandate to back Trump.
The jockeying to replace Mitch McConnell as majority leader in the next Senate makes this so clear, it’s not even subtext, it’s just text. The three Republican contenders, John Thune of South Dakota, John Cornyn of Texas, and Rick Scott of Florida, fell over each other to reassure Trump and everyone else that they will do everything possible to confirm Trump’s appointees with breakneck speed.
Thune, who won the job last week, said in a statement, “One thing is clear: We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s cabinet and other nominees in place as soon as possible to start delivering on the mandate we’ve been sent to execute, and all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments.”
Thune was playing catch-up to Scott, who’d already signaled that he’d be Trump’s loyal vassal in the Senate. This earned him the support of Elon Musk and other backers who want Trump to be as unrestrained as possible.
An honorable and serious man of institutionalist instincts, Thune is simply dealing with the political reality of today’s GOP. The argument that anyone inside the Republican Party should do anything other than “let Trump be Trump” is over, at least in public.
Given that only 43 percent of voters said Trump has the moral character to be president (16 percent of his own voters said he doesn’t), this could lead to some challenging political choices for the party.
Once again, a victorious party is sticking its head in the mandate trap. In the 21st century, Yuval Levin writes, presidents “win elections because their opponents were unpopular, and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists’ agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.” This is why the incumbent party lost for the third time in a row in 2024, a feat not seen since the 19th century.
Hence the irony of the mandate trap. In theory, Trump could solidify and build on his winning coalition, but that would require disappointing the people insisting he has a mandate to do whatever he wants. Which is why it’s unlikely to happen.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
The term “realignment” gets used and abused a lot, because people have agreed to use it without agreeing on a definition. Traditionally, realignments are said to have occurred when majority and minority parties switch places. Starting in 1932, FDR pulled blacks and working class and immigrant whites into the Democratic Party, making it the majority party for generations. It’s a sign of how massive that coalition was that it’s been shrinking since the 1960s without Republicans ever becoming the clear majority party, though the story gets complicated with the rise in voters calling themselves independents.
For the last 20 years, the parties have essentially been tied, and it seems unlikely that will change anytime soon. But there’s still a whole lot of realigning going on. Donald Trump has accelerated the trend of the white working class fleeing the Democrats. Meanwhile, college-educated and suburban voters have moved significantly toward the Democrats.
In other words, while the parties are stuck in a logjam, the coalitions making up the parties are changing dramatically.
And that’s where the inconsistency and hypocrisy come in. Parties reflect the interests of their electoral coalitions. You can see signs of the adjustments all over the place. Republicans such as JD Vance sound a lot like anti-war Democrats from 20 years ago, railing against warmongers, chickenhawks and “neocons.” Democrats haven’t changed as dramatically, but they are far more comfortable talking about American global leadership and the importance of our alliances than they used to be.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Parties also reflect their candidates, which is why the party of philandering Bill Clinton now talks a lot about good character while Republicans fawn over Trump’s alpha dog “manliness.”
Democrats have been far more consistent on abortion, because in a post-Roe environment it’s a winning issue. But Trump has moved the GOP toward a de facto pro-choice position, denouncing “heartbeat bills” while also insisting that states should be free to do what they please on abortion.
Neither party is coherent — or good, in my opinion — on trade and industrial policy, but Trump has definitely made the GOP more protectionist and dirigiste than at any point in my lifetime. Given the movement of rank-and-file members of private sector labor unions toward the GOP it’s not hard to imagine a new partisan divide between public and private sector unions.
The most interesting change might be on the issue of democracy itself. I don’t mean the arguments about Trump’s pernicious election fraud lies (the sorts of lies once associated with left-wing Democrats like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), but the broader debates about the Electoral College and so-called “voter suppression.”
For decades, both parties shared the flawed assumption that higher voter turnout mostly benefited Democrats in national elections. (Democrats had the opposite view in big city elections.) Voter ID laws and tighter restrictions on early and absentee voting were seen as a way to make sure that high-propensity voters — i.e., disproportionately Republican college-educated suburbanites who could be relied upon to vote — were overrepresented, and low-propensity voters — Black, Latino and rural non-college educated whites — were underrepresented. The overheated rhetoric about “voter suppression” or “election integrity” was unjustified. But the dynamic was real, because the electoral calculation was real.
After 2016, many Democrats doubled down on the claim that the Electoral College was racist or undemocratic, which was itself remarkably hypocritical given their previous boasts that the Democrats had a near-lock on the Electoral College: That’s where the phrase “the blue wall” originated. Bragging about your advantage in the Electoral College only to call it racist and undemocratic when it works against you is not a great look.
In 2024, the Harris campaign relied on high-propensity voters while the Trump campaign leaned heavily on low-propensity men. Assuming these trends are real and that they become the new normal, it will be interesting to see whether the parties switch their rhetoric about democracy.
©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
The Imagine mosaic in Strawberry Fields in Central Park, a tribute to John Lennon.
Dresden is a policy strategist for Protect Democracy. Livingston is director of field support for Over Zero.
Election officials, law enforcement and civil society have been preparing for months — some for years — to ensure that the full election process plays out safely, securely and in accordance with the law. And for the most part, it seems that Election Day was indeed generally orderly. While the election process continues with final counting and certification, the projected result of the presidential election came more quickly and clearly than many of us anticipated.
As we look ahead to the next months and years and consider what preserving our democracy will need from us, we should gather what we have learned and consolidate some of those lessons. Election Day itself was largely peaceful, but the campaign period was marked by unprecedented incendiary and group-targeted rhetoric. It was also not free of violence — a major party candidate was nearly assassinated and one of his supporters was killed, election workers were threatened and harassed, shots were fired repeatedly at a campaign office in Arizona, falsehood- and hate-fueled threats flooded a small city in Ohio, and numerous other localized incidents left marks on our democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In the coming months and years, leaders will guide their communities in addressing these incidents and their impact. But political violence threats and harassment are not unique to the last six months — they are bound up with the history of our country, even as Americans steadfastly reject them. The campaign period threw into sharp relief the importance of both responding with care and remaining committed to the long-term work to prevent these incidents in the first place. We should not leave those lessons behind, even as we complete the election process and move forward.
What would “responding better” look and sound like in the future?
Simply put, while incendiary rhetoric can stoke tensions, deepen divisions and create a permission structure for violence, responsible communication — from leaders and the media alike — can remind communities of our better angels, guiding us in resisting harmful divisions, recovering quickly from incidents that might escalate and building longer-term resilience to these risks.
But communicating in contentious times requires striking a careful balance. When violence seeks to intimidate people from participating in public life, leaders and the media must take care not to inadvertently play into these aims by stoking the very threats and sense of fear they are trying to defuse.
To support leaders and journalists in navigating these tensions, our organizations developed resources for responsible communication and reporting. They provide a helpful template for communities to discern responsible, de-escalatory communication from inflammatory fear-mongering; to determine when to keep reading or listening and when to turn elsewhere.
Leaders’ words will shape how communities make sense of, and respond to, the current moment. Communities can judge whether those words are leading towards a more peaceful, democratic outcome by asking a few simple questions.
Are leaders condemning violence? When violence has occurred, it is critical for leaders to unequivocally and swiftly denounce it, regardless of who is involved. Violence is antithetical to community and national values, and the overwhelming majority of Americans reject it. Unambiguous condemnations of violence help to reinforce that norm.
Are leaders combatting us-vs.-them divisions? Violence peddlers often seek to divide us, constructing a threatening or guilty “them” and a virtuous “us” in need of protection. Instead, leaders can remind us of all that unites us, emphasizing our shared identities and what we stand for. This can help build resilience in the face of divisive rhetoric. In Springfield, Ohio, for instance, the city came together to reaffirm local Springfield values and support the Haitian community amid hate-filled and false conspiracy theories targeting them. Leaders can remind us that, as parents, veterans, neighbors or Americans, we are proud to honor our election systems, to respect our community members who make free and fair elections possible, and to resolve our differences peacefully.
Are leaders channeling our emotions into constructive, democratic action?Leaders should use precise, measured language to describe the incident, taking care not to cast it as more widespread than it was and avoiding warlike and natural disaster metaphors (like “erupted” or “flooded”), which can generate additional fear and diminish feelings of agency. While conflict entrepreneurs bet on us feeling defeated, true leaders remind us that we are not powerless and guide us to taking positive action. Voting has ended, but there are plenty of ways to support our communities, whether through thanking election workers, engaging in local politics, reaching out to elected officials, or joining organized efforts to counteract political violence.
Critically, violence in American politics has historically targeted groups on the basis of their identity to control who participates in public life. Leaders should voice support for groups that are especially likely to be targeted — including Black, immigrant, LGBTQ, Jewish, Arab and Muslim communities — ensuring that their needs and priorities are centered in community responses.
Further, violence can be exploited to generate support for authoritarian responses that crack down on our rights and freedoms in the name of restoring “law and order.” Responsible leaders should offer alternative solutions to address our natural desire for security, for instance through outlining specific plans to restore safety and/or continue the electoral process.
In moments of tension most of us depend on the media for our information. Reporting shapes what we know about an event, informs how we put it in the broader context of the political moment and influences our views on what kinds of responses are necessary and appropriate.
Good journalism is always a vital yet challenging endeavor. But responsible reporting on political violence is especially hard. As with all public communications, even well-meaning reporting can inadvertently escalate tensions, fuel conflict, provide platforms to extremists, or be used to justify crackdowns and authoritarian responses. So when it comes to reporting on the risk of violence or an actual incident of violence, newsrooms need to use extra care.
Here are some of the key signs your news sources are following best practices:
Is reporting accurate, concrete and specific? All good reporting seeks to get the facts right, but in reporting on violence, this also means mindfully calibrating the language being used to present the facts. Hyperbole (especially in headlines) or language like natural disaster metaphors evoke feelings of fear without providing meaningful information. Look for numbers (“eight storefronts were damaged”) rather than vague descriptors (“many windows were smashed”). Coverage should also attribute responsibility concretely — if one or a few individuals engaged in violent behavior, a story shouldn’t lump them in with a bigger group by referring to actions by “protesters” or “Republicans” or “Democrats.”
Is reporting giving you context? Violent events almost never happen in a vacuum. There may be a history of scapegoating a targeted community. Extremist groups involved in violent events may try to turn the media into a free megaphone. Violence may interact with a larger process of democratic backsliding. Coverage should explain this context with clarity and not simply repeat the talking points of those who may have another agenda, particularly one that violence might advance.
Are you getting the full story? Violence is only part of the story when an incident occurs. Reporting on responses and the communities that were targeted paints the full picture. Who is responding to address what happened or prevent similar incidents in the future? Who has condemned the violence? What do targeted communities say they need to recover and repair? If you’re not seeing coverage that answers these questions, you’re only getting part of the story.
We hope that there is no need for any of this in the future. But we have seen in recent months how much words matter if or when inflammatory rhetoric or threats of violence occur. Communities will rely on their leaders to speak up effectively in support of nonviolence and the democratic process, and their media to provide conflict-sensitive coverage that is accurate and complete.
At the end of the day, we all have a role to play in ensuring our communities and democracy are resilient to these risks. We can ask ourselves whether the people we are hearing from and the news we are consuming advance these goals — whether we should continue listening or reading, or look elsewhere for information.
Daulby is CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation.
As Mr. Rogers famously said, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”
A few months ago, I became the new CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation with a renewed mission to lead the helpers back to the Capitol. After a career on Capitol Hill that started as a paid intern and ended after being the staff director for the House Administration Committee on Jan. 6, 2021, I have been called back to serve the institution. I agreed to do so because we are in desperate need of the helpers, and having been a doer for the last two decades, it is now time for me to be a helper.
In addition to the presidential election, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives were on the ballot Tuesday along with roughly a third of the Senate. Our institution is rapidly turning over and we will see hundreds of new staff come to Washington in January. I have watched with much joy and enthusiasm the progress that has been made on Capitol Hill, and particularly in the House. Staff have access to a team of bipartisan coaches and online resources from which to learn and grow in their current positions, thanks to the office of the Chief Administrative Officer. Staff retreats are now commonplace and offered by three entities in the House. While I was on the Hill, my team established the Congressional Excellence program that continues to provide individual leadership development and coaching to members of Congress.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We are making progress.
However, for outside organizations like the Congressional Management Foundation to move the needle on making Congress work more and squabble less, we need more helpers. With the growing popularity of the “fix Congress” movement and acceptance that we need infrastructure like the House Administration Committee’s modernization subcommittee, we started a trend … which has become a habit of telling Congress what it can do better. Most members and staff know that Congress needs improvement, but they need a helping hand.
Well-meaning organizations have sent letters, published op-eds and spoken on panels in a silo. So much of this important work never gets communicated effectively to the Hill and so few resources have been committed to directly sharing our work and executing programing that help the members of Congress achieve what we are publicly telling them to do. That is why CMF will continue to support leadership and professional development opportunities, building a community that strengthens bipartisan relationships and facilitating educational opportunities that leverage private-sector expertise.
CMF’s Revitalizing Congress program is just one example of the work we do to help Congress function more efficiently. This program works with members of Congress to:
So many American feel Congress is broken. These beliefs have become so embedded in our society that it seems most Americans have lost hope in an institution that seems ineffective, unresponsive and unable to address the challenges America faces. Most Americans see only examples of ineptitude, petty partisan politics and the occasional scandal on Capitol Hill.
But what if Americans got a glimpse of a different Congress? Americans' views might change if they saw examples of members of Congress employing innovative practices to engage with citizens, or congressional offices employing private-sector business practices to improve their operations. And what would other lawmakers do if they also saw how their colleagues enhanced their operations and citizen engagement?
In this spirit, CMF created a distinctive honors program — the Democracy Awards — to recognize non-legislative achievement and performance in congressional offices and by members of Congress.
And we do so much more.
In the coming weeks our congressional management guide, “Setting Course,” will be published and distributed to all new members of Congress and their staff. We will follow that publication with a series of workshops for new staff in 2025 that will help them onboard to these new positions. We will offer staff academies on pressing topics and cohort dinners with staff from both sides of the aisle with private-sector leaders. Staff are desperate for hard skills and professional development tools. We will continue to conduct retreats, offer webinars on office skills and run management classes.
The work of the helpers never ends. I hope you will follow us on our journey.
