Our creaky organizations seem frozen in the face of these challenges. So last year, I proposed a number of major institutional changes to unstick the gears. I think they may feel overwhelmed and out of reach. I’m sure many of you who read my column have had the following nagging questions: This talk of major institutional change may be all well and good, but where do I fit in this grand scheme of things?
We can make strong arguments for all the structural solutions we want, like expanding the House of Representatives, eliminating party primaries, and term limits for Supreme Court justices, but we still have questions. How can we put the spirit of democratic renewal into practice? How can we maintain a glimmer of hope as we stare grimly into the coming presidential election? Will you be able to maintain that personal connection?
For me, the single darkest data point regarding the health of our society concerns generational differences in our sense of attachment to democracy. As political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Foer have reported in several different guises, people’s values for democracy have declined significantly with each generation. In the most rigorous formulation, created in 2016, about 70 percent of Americans of the generation born before World War II consider it very essential, but only about 70 percent of Americans currently under the age of 40 consider it very essential. Less than 30 percent of Americans think so. This finding was controversial, but the point that young people are becoming less attached to democracy persists.
Of course, democracy cannot exist if the people do not want it, but this leads to a fundamental point. We must reverse this dynamic of dissatisfaction.
The key lies in another important truth found in Mounk and Foa’s data. The high water mark of our greatest attachment to democracy was never unanimity. The best thing we seemed to have done was that a super majority of voters, more than two-thirds, expressed wholehearted support for constitutional democracy.
A supermajority in a constitutional democracy. More than two-thirds of us adhered to basic norms and guardrails. That should be our goal.
A supermajority of this size would transcend ideology. But the real test for democracy is not whether a majority of us can agree with this or that policy or that candidate, but whether a supermajority across ideology supports the core norms of democracy. The question is whether it can be built. constitutional democracy.
That’s our most important mission, and all of us can contribute by simply signing up.
What does that mean? It means affirming a set of fundamental norms: a commitment to constitutionalism, the rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence, and respect for elections. Too many of our fellow citizens have been radicalized to reject any of these norms through the efforts of adversaries such as Russia, Iran, and China. These countries have accelerated this radicalization process by harnessing the power of social media to exacerbate the divisions, vulnerabilities, and paranoia inherent in our culture. We need the support of all non-governmental organizations working on deradicalization in conflict zones around the world to support similar efforts here at home.
But it’s still not enough. Even among those of us who are not radicalized, there is work to be done on both sides of the aisle to build a cross-ideological supermajority.
First of all, people must believe that such a supermajority is possible.
Fortunately, there is a wealth of evidence, especially in the results of state voting efforts. These are determined by cross-ideological supermajorities, or near-supermajorities, voting yes with surprising frequency. Here are some examples: Legalization of recreational marijuana (2020): New Jersey, 67 percent. Legalization of recreational marijuana (2022): Maryland, 67 percent. Medical marijuana legalization (2020): Mississippi, 74 percent. Restoring voting rights to people convicted of felonies (2018): Florida, 65%. New state flag without Confederate emblem (2020): Mississippi, 71 percent. Right to Repair to Support Small Automotive Dealers (2020): Massachusetts, 75%.
If you look at these decisions, you’ll see that America’s supermajorities vote for fairness, inclusion, and who wins the lottery, over and over again. This does not simply mean that a supermajority that transcends ideology is forming. It’s something with good, salt-of-the-earth values.
This potential American supermajority supporting constitutional democracy is what we need to build. Democracy cannot be stable unless a supermajority supports the basic rules of the game. Within those rules, we can fight like Dickens over particular policy issues. However, majority support is needed to stabilize the rules themselves.
That’s it. That’s where each of us comes into play. We can join a cross-ideological supermajority in demanding an emerging democracy. Let’s revisit our core norms: our commitment to constitutionalism, the rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence, and respect for elections.
Can you commit to all of them? Will you be willing to speak up in their defense when others express skepticism about them?
Even more difficult, why not reach out to one of the friends, relatives, and acquaintances you have lost in recent years and ask them to join you in building a cross-ideological coalition for democracy? Democrats, are you ready to stop hating Republicans? Republicans, are you ready to stop hating Democrats? This is what we need to do if we are to achieve the constitutional democracy we desire.
When I say things like this, people say I’m crazy. They don’t see the reality of the fierce battle we’re in right now.
It’s not like I can’t see the battle. That means you can see deeper currents beneath the surface. We see people yearning to reconnect. And I’m seeing people all over this country taking action against that hunger in positive ways. The coalitions formed to support voting efforts listed above are just a few examples. So in 2024, as we all navigate the tumultuous presidential election year ahead, the goal of my column is to work across ideological differences to get something done for us. It’s about presenting example after example of people working together. For their communities and for their country.
Because I want you to believe again that it is possible. Because this is necessary if we want to end the radicalization process that is consuming us.