Was the war in Ukraine inevitable? What is Vladimir Putin trying to achieve? What does the conflict say about Ukraine as a democracy? Those are just a few of the questions Michael Berkman explores this week with Donna Bahry, professor emerita of political science at Penn State and an expert in Soviet and post-Soviet politics and democratization.
President-elect Donald Trump attends the UFC 309 event at Madison Square Garden in New York on Nov. 16.
Say what you will about Donald Trump. The man can hold a grudge.
So, too, apparently, do the neo-Nazis who marched on the Ohio state capital over the weekend. Freshly emboldened by Donald Trump’s re-election and competition with a rival white supremacist group in Ohio, they carried Nazi paraphernalia, shouted racist chants, and provoked a lot of criticism from local authorities.
And so it begins.
The thing is, many Americans nurse the racial grievances that Trump has expressed, though not as preternaturally and rabidly, perhaps, as the man who has given voice to their perceived loss of agency and entitlement.
Half of the electorate looked past Trump’s felony convictions, misogyny, uncloseted racism, open disdain for all manner of newcomers and cultural outsiders, and solidarity with people who already had more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime and saw an immediate return from their investment in his candidacy or feared he would come after them if they didn’t support him.
Appeals to better angels and more democratically inspired values missed their intended marks.
Calls for payback and cultural reckoning didn’t.
It remains to be seen how many people and institutions on the enemies list Trump has spent years assembling will be singled out for public censure, repudiation, and punishment along with the policies and programs they helped shape or were responsible for carrying out. Early indications are that the number is going to be large.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
No matter how big the number is, the reckoning Trump will push during the first two years of his second administration is bound to be messy, mean, and costly. People’s lives will be damaged. Careers will be lost.
Americans who share Trump’s feelings will applaud his single-minded campaign to force his will on every part of the federal government and publicly demonstrate their resolve.
A great many of us may end up blanching at the bitter fruit Trump harvests with his campaign of retribution. But absolutely no one at that point will be able to feign surprise or blush at anything he tries to undo and everyone who is taken down along the way.
Trump and his most aggressive supporters don’t give two hoots about protecting our reputation as a people united by a constitution based on laws, only in protecting their rights and privileges. In recent years, they’ve done nothing but mock and ignore the time-honored but otherwise unenforceable norms and customs that Sir John Moulton declared more than a century ago keep us doing the right thing when no one is looking over our shoulder.
Expanding that domain for an ever larger and more diverse array of citizens is the central project and most important accomplishment of democracies. Everything Donald Trump and his White Nationalist allies say and do makes clear that their grandest desire and principal goal is to shrink that domain along with the number and variety of people who have the privilege of engaging with it.
That’s the bad news.
Here’s the good news.
Barring some unforeseen catastrophe that provides an excuse for him to distract us further and grab even more power – a war, plague, natural disaster, or meltdown in the global economic system come immediately to mind – he will exact less vengeance than he has in mind to deliver. His successful excesses will come back to haunt him.
These are not the faint hopes of a liberal elitist or academic scaredy cat. They are the words of someone who’s read and written about all the conservative ways people have learned to express their disconsent to know this much.
(Wait for it.)
The campaign to undo all the damage Trump and his supporters intend to do will inspire a more conservative backlash from the American public than they are capable of imagining.
No, you didn’t misread the last sentence.
Trump’s campaign of retribution will be thwarted and come undone by people and institutions whose caretakers will renew our commitment to each other not by adding more new rights and privileges but by restoring the duties and obligations of citizenship that all kinds of people had come to practice and think was part of their birthright. Whether they were born here or not.
Donald Trump’s illiberalism won’t work long enough or on enough of us to strip the whole of us of the democratically inspired habits, customs, and norms that took centuries of trial and error to practice and enshrine in our everyday lives. These values, trials, errors, and accomplishments are “baked” into our culture. They can’t be blowtorched out no matter how hard Donald Trump tries, and they will be successfully called upon in fierce legal and extra-legal challenges to every undemocratic move he makes over the next four years.
The great irony in all the legal challenges that are already in the works and all the extra-legal challenges that will come to the streets of American towns and cities, as I just suggested, is that they will be vastly more conservative in character than the man provoking them pretends to be.
The only conservative part of Donald Trump’s game is the serious attempt to limit the right to play to those of us who look more like him. Newcomers and outsiders aren’t supposed to be able to learn how to play or even allowed to try. The more liberal parts of the game – finding out how to bend, break, and ignore rules without being held accountable for bending, breaking, and ignoring them – are supposed to remain a mystery to such people. They are no mystery to Trump and his neo-Nazis and White Nationalist allies.
Compelling evidence of black Americans’ principled rejection of such subtleties was plain on January 6, 2021, when they stayed home and tens of thousands of white people attacked the Capitol and tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of the national government. The several thousand white people who were tried and punished for breaking into the Capitol and assaulting police officers trying to protect it are now looking forward to being pardoned by the man who incited them to riot.
Like it or not, we are about to be treated to a master class in discovering the limits of accountability by Americans who will work to restore the duties and obligations of citizenship. Whether already lost – such as women’s reproductive healthcare – or in imminent danger of being further eroded – like voting privileges and birthright citizenship – the use of unrest on behalf of conservative principles and practices is one of those cultural traditions that is too firmly entrenched to deny.
Large numbers of regular Americans – men, women, and children of every color people come in, some pushing wheelchairs and strollers – will confront Capitol rioters, White Nationalists, KKK members, and neo-Nazis who’ll leave their guns at home but won’t be able to resist intimidating and pushing around unarmed people.
We will know how far down the road to illiberalism Americans have slid by the answers to two questions.
Which side will be protected by the National Guardsmen and U.S. servicemen and women Trump sends out to maintain public order?
What party will be in control of the House of Representatives and Senate after the 2024 midterm elections?
Monti is a professor of sociology at Saint Louis University.
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.
