InsideSources

The 2018 midterm elections are finally over. Democrats gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Republicans increased their narrow majority in the Senate. And Democrats picked up seven new governor positions, narrowing the Republican advantage to 27-23. All agree we are a divided nation.

But you would not know it from the victory celebrations of most of the winners.  Invariably it is proclaimed that “the people have spoken” and now it is time to get on with the “people’s business.”

But what have the people said and what is the people’s business when the victors in most elections have prevailed by something less than 60 percent of the vote, many have won by less than 1 percent of the vote, and a few have been elected with less than 50 percent of the vote? Of the 35 elections for senator, 17 were won with less than 55 percent of the vote and eight with less than 52 percent of the vote. Do the votes for the losing candidate count for anything in the minds of the winners and their supporters?

Consider the just concluded elections in Florida and Georgia. Ron DeSantis defeated Andrew Gillum for governor by a margin of 32,463 votes from a total of more than 8 million. Rick Scott defeated Bill Nelson for senator by an even narrower margin, 10,033 votes. In Georgia, Brian Kemp was victorious over Stacey Abrams by 54,723 votes out of nearly 4 million. What is the message the victors should take from these results?

Recent history suggests that the message will be, to quote President Barack Obama from a 2010 meeting with Republican congressional leaders, “Elections have consequences, and I won.” Or, to quote President Donald Trump in a speech to Ohio Republicans last August, Democrats need to “get used to it — we won the election.”

In other words, ours is a winner-takes-all democracy. Get 50 percent plus one of the vote, or even lose the popular vote in Trump’s case, and you are entitled to implement your policies lock, stock and barrel. As Obama instructed GOP leaders in 2013, “If you don’t like a particular policy … go out and win an election.”

Surely that is not what the framers had in mind in the founding of our democratic republic. In the brief 13 years between the Revolution and drafting of our Constitution in 1789 they had experienced in most of the states the hazards of majoritarian tyranny. They devoted much thought and discussion to controlling what James Madison in Federalist 10 called majority factions. Federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism, enumerated powers, the presidential veto and judicial review were all intended, in part, to constrain those wielding power at the moment — to make compromise and collaboration necessary.

But constitutional structure cannot do all the work of resisting the tyranny of the majority. Those elected to public office must appreciate that a narrow victory at the polls is just that — a narrow victory. Winning with even as much as 60 percent of the vote means that 40 percent of the people preferred someone else. Are those who voted for the loser to have no representation until the next election?

If so, their only plausible choice is resistance. And that is where we seem to have arrived, particularly in our national politics. Republicans resisted the Obama administration at every turn. Democrats pronounced themselves The Resistance as soon as President Trump was elected.

To succeed as a system of peaceful governance, representative democracy cannot be a winner-takes-all contest. Rather it requires humility on the part of the elected and their supporters, and respect for the views of those who supported the losing candidate.

When it takes two recounts to determine a winner, as in the Florida Senate election, the people have spoken not that to the victor belongs the spoils but that to the victor goes the difficult challenge of representing a closely divided electorate.

There can be no surer guarantee of a deeply divided electorate in the next election than having those in power declare that “we won, you lost, get over it.”

The growing sense that democracy is not delivering enough on the promises of opportunity for all is one reason that democracies around the world are reeling from populist movements. That includes our own country, where the promise of the American Dream seems elusive for too many people.

This disconnection is one of the reasons the Bush Institute has partnered with Freedom House and the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement on the Democracy Project. The public opinion research program is examining the health of America’s democracy and gauges American attitudes on some of the challenges facing it.

Those challenges are not necessarily new. Since Watergate, our democratic system and the institutions that support it have become weaker. Confidence in institutions such as Congress, the media, the courts, and business have all declined.

Yet there is a new troubling unease that opportunity is not available for all. Former Senator Mel Martinez of Florida spoke to this last fall at the Bush Institute’s Spirit of Liberty conference. He noted that one result of the 2008 financial crisis was that “a lot of people began to doubt the promise of America, and the conversation began to be had that many people are having today: Whether the next generation will be able to live the fruits of the American Dream.”

Our research confirmed this dissatisfaction. While we reassuringly found a country that still believes strongly in the ideas and principles of democracy, we also found a country that is questioning whether that system is working as intended.

Younger people and nonwhites were notably less likely to believe in American democracy’s ability to deliver on the challenges facing them as individuals. The most alarming part of our findings is that those who are most skeptical about democracy are those who comprise the future majority of our population.

The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts that by 2044, non-Hispanic whites will no longer form the majority of the American population. Whites will continue to be the single largest ethnic group, but America will be a majority-minority nation in 26 years. Five states — California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas — and the District of Columbia already have crossed the threshold to majority-minority status, and more will follow.

In my view, our increasing diversity is something to celebrate. It makes us a more dynamic and better country. But to be a better country, our democracy must connect with this new body politic.

Our research found significantly less intense support for democracy among racial minorities. For example, 64 percent of white respondents said it was “absolutely important” to live in a democracy, but only 54 percent of nonwhites agreed. What happens if America’s new majority no longer buys into the basic premises that have guided the United States since its founding?

A similar trend is in play among age groups. While 60 percent of all respondents said living in a democracy was “absolutely important” to them, 39 percent of those under 30 felt that way.

Some research suggests that as people age they tend to become more invested in democracy. Over time, we’d expect those who are currently more ambivalent to become less so. For example, seniors tend to vote in large numbers; people in their late teens and 20s, not so much.

But there’s no parallel phenomenon to point to in terms of race. It shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s looked at social media or watched the news of the last few years that significant and important differences of opinion exist on questions related to race in America.

When our poll asked if equal rights and protections for racial minorities are getting better or worse, whites and nonwhites expressed very different perspectives.

Among whites, 50 percent said things were improving, versus 41 percent who said they were not. But among nonwhite respondents, just 31 percent said things were getting better, and 63 percent said they were getting worse.

We asked respondents to choose two among 10 elements of democracy that are most important to them personally. Significantly, “equal rights regardless of gender, race or beliefs” was ranked as the single-most important element of democracy, ahead of concepts such as freedom of speech, checks and balances, and free elections. Four in 10 respondents named equal rights as the most important value to them personally.

Among key demographic groups we saw even stronger conviction on equal rights.  Nearly five in 10 nonwhite respondents and a similar number of those aged 18–29 stated it was the most important element to them.

When half of the nonwhite population says equal rights are the most important element of a democracy and nearly two-thirds of them believe equal rights are getting worse, we have a problem.

An Arizona teacher who participated in a focus group discussion put it this way: “Racism in the system … has been institutionalized. The pipeline to prison for our children; the disproportionate amount of children of color in emotional and behavior disorder classrooms and special education; the graduate turnout; the disproportionate way we discipline children, especially in certain school systems.”

As America transitions from a white-majority society to a much more diverse population, and as millennials become the largest generation, it’s imperative that they see their democracy is built on the concept of equal rights. It’s vital that they believe their democracy protects them.

One element of that is clearly the criminal justice system. For many Americans, especially African-Americans, there are grave doubts that justice is truly just.

When our survey asked, “Do you have confidence in your local police?” just under a third of white respondents said they lacked confidence.  But more than half of nonwhites said they did not have confidence in their local police.

We can take heart that in the big picture, this study found continuing confidence in the concept of democracy and no obvious appetite for any alternative. Jeremy Rosner, managing director of Greenburg Quinlan Rosner and one of the pollsters who guided the research, noted, “There is strong pride in America’s democratic traditions and institutions. Freedom makes America different.”

One approach to these challenges seems promising: treat what ails American democracy with more democracy. The study tested a series of messages on democracy and one resonated particularly strongly across demographic categories:

“Today, there is a great need for us all to act as responsible citizens — things like voting, volunteering, taking time to stay informed, and standing up for what’s right — so that the freedoms and rights we cherish don’t get whittled away.”

Nearly 90 percent favored this message — across party, racial, regional and generational lines.

By focusing on some of the core elements of our democratic system, we have the tools to strengthen our democracy. Vote. Give your time to causes or candidates you believe in.  Pay attention to current events. Treat each other with respect and civility. In so doing, we can ensure that America’s democracy delivers for every American.

It’s no secret that there is a feud growing between President Donald Trump and the political reporters who cover him, but there’s also a number of citizens who completely distrust the media too. A recent study concludes that political journalists and Americans have opposing views of democracy, which might contribute to a “disconnect” between Americans and the media.

Tim Vos, an associate professor of journalism studies at the University of Missouri, and former doctoral student David Wolfgang, conducted in-depth interviews with political journalists across the country. The study identified a lack of diversity among journalists’ sources as a potential cause for the disconnect between the media and the public.

One of the basic standards of good journalism is gathering diverse viewpoints and covering all sides of an issue, which the political reporters interviewed for the study agreed was important to them. Yet, Vos found that a lack of newsroom resources, quick deadlines, and a lack of time to reflect on articles often prevents reporters from covering issues as fully as they’d like.

This conclusion isn’t necessarily new. It’s been well-documented that due to budget cuts, staff layoffs, the rise of social media, and a constantly changing media landscape, journalists are under a lot of pressure to post a story first, get the exclusive interview with a high-profile public figure, and generate traffic for their media outlet.

“But the changing nature of online publishing has forced some political journalists to adapt by publishing stories with fewer than the ideal number of diverse sources,” the study found. “One newspaper reporter admits he will publish stories online with just one source or viewpoint and then update the story later, once he receives information from other sources.”

With reporters focusing on efficiency rather than a diversity of views, they end up only reaching out to the decision makers who have the ability to enact political change. This is where Vos found an interesting theme emerge in his data. By focusing on the “elite” sources, he saw that political journalists had a different view on democracy, which could also add to the disconnect between the media and the public.

“Ultimately, political viewpoint diversity is constructed through the journalists’ assumptions about democracy,” according to the study. “When the political reporters talk about their jobs, they invoke assumptions about the role of journalism in democracy and about the nature of democracy. All the journalists interviewed talk, in some version or another, about providing audiences with news that will keep them informed about policies and politicians. But, this relationship between journalism and democracy is anchored in competing versions of democracy.”

Most reporters Vos interviewed had an “elitist” view of democracy, meaning American citizens should elect political candidates during elections and then allow those politicians to perform their jobs with little input from the public. Their role in the process is to update the public on the actions of the elected officials, so the public can be well-informed during the next election cycle, according to the study.

“By and large, the political reporters really defined a form of democracy that aligns with how political reporters operate,” Vos told InsideSources. “You are trying to interview sources who are close to the decision-making process and have a say on public policy. It’s focused on that small subset of political actors and their ideas.”

This philosophy, also known as “administrative democracy,” is at odds with the more populist view of democracy that many Americans hold, which states that the public should have influence over elected officials’ decisions on a more regular basis.

“Political reporters see their role as to monitor those who have power and monitor if they are competent or incompetent, or corrupt or not corrupt,” Vos said. “If [journalists] expose a corruptive act, then that’s where the public is supposed to react and vote them out of office.”

He said he found these competing views of democracy often in the 2016 presidential election, especially with the Access Hollywood tapes released in October, which revealed Trump making lewd remarks about women with Billy Bush.

“When reporters descended on the Billy Bush tapes or other controversies related to Trump, they thought they found this disqualifying fact, that Trump is not qualified for office, and then they expected the public to vote accordingly,” he said. “That’s an idealized version of how the public, press, and democracy didn’t work together. Trump certainly proved that it wasn’t that simple. That still explains the press’s confusion of what happened. They thought they were doing their job and something would come of it, but it didn’t.”

For several members of the media, after Trump’s victory in November, they admitted that they dropped the ball on seeing and covering the rise of Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. The two “outside” candidates were talking about issues that resonated with people outside the Beltway and some reporters said they didn’t do their due diligence when it came to listening to the people of Middle America.

New York Times columnist David Brooks said he had to do better to understand the American psyche.

“For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country,” he wrote.

Even though reporters said they needed to change their approach to their job, it can be argued that it’s back to business as usual, at least according to Vos’s research, where the media stopped listening to the public and focused solely on the elites in Washington.

Take the controversy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which is currently playing out in the media. He has been accused that he misled Congress by failing to disclose pre-election meetings with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

“The coverage so far has been insider perspective, with reporters focusing on what is the political norm or if some sort of legal barrier has been broken or crossed,” Vos said. “They’ll stay with the story until there’s a resolution, but there hasn’t really been any explanation of what this is all about. What’s really at stake here, why would this be disqualifying information. That part requires much more engagement with the public, with their understanding of what’s at stake here, and if they care about it.”

A recent Emerson College poll found that the Trump administration is more trusted than the news media among voters. The administration is considered truthful by 49 percent of registered voters and untruthful by 48 percent, but the news media is untruthful by 53 percent and only 39 percent find it honest.

There are many factors that could have led to those results, including incorrectly predicting the presidential election, bias in reporting, and the rise of “fake news,” but Vos suggests there are ways political reporters can reverse the trend.

“Whenever [reporters] can get outside the bubble of those who are already in decision making positions, I think it’s a good idea to do so and to listen for ideas that aren’t being pushed by the major political parties,” he said. “[Ideas] might not be from a well-known national figure, but sometimes interesting perspectives and important facts come from unsuspecting places. If journalists are simply focused on the elite forces, they are going to hear the same thing over and over again, and it might not be what the public cares about.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.