By
Danielle AllenContributing columnist|Follow authorFollowFebruary 22, 2024 at 7:00 a.m. EST(Washington Post staff/iStock)Listen6 minShareComment on this storyCommentAdd to your saved storiesSave
During 2023, I laid out a plan for renovating American democracy. Our society groans under the strain of population growth and massively scaled-up institutions. Rising diversity brings magnificence but also challenges. We are frustrated by ever-increasing tech-induced opacity in our organizations and reigning practices. We resent an economy that appears to many of us to function like a spoils system for the few, while ruining the climate for all.
WpGet the full experience.Choose your planArrowRightOur creaky institutions seem frozen in the face of these challenges. So, last year, I proposed a lot of big, institutional changes to unstick the gears. I expect they might feel overwhelming and out of reach. I suspect that many of you, reading my columns, have carried along the nagging question: This talk of big institutional change might be all well and good, but where in this grand scheme is the place for me?
We can make forceful arguments for all the structural solutions we want — a bigger House of Representatives, abolishing party primaries, term limits for Supreme Court justices — but there are still questions. How can any of us actually live out the spirit of democracy renovation? As we grimly stare at our upcoming presidential election, how can we keep a spark of hope alive? Can we even maintain our own immediate personal sense of connection to an ideal of constitutional democracy?
Advertisement
For me, the single bleakest data point about the health of our society concerns a difference across generations in that sense of attachment to democracy. As political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Foa have reported in a few different guises, there has been significant generational decline in how people value democracy. In the starkest formulation, made in 2016, roughly 70 percent of Americans in the generation born before World War II consider it very essential, while not quite 30 percent of Americans who are now about 40 and younger do so. This finding occasioned controversy, but the points about decline of young people’s attachment to democracy are robust.
Of course, we can’t have a democracy if citizens don’t want one, which brings us to the fundamental point. We have to reverse this dynamic of disaffection.
Follow this authorDanielle Allen's opinionsFollow
The key lies in another important truth to be found in the data from Mounk and Foa. The high-water mark of the fullest attachment to our democracy was never about unanimity. The best we seem to have done was a supermajority — over two-thirds of voters — offering wholehearted support of constitutional democracy.
Advertisement
A supermajority for constitutional democracy. More than two-thirds of us committed to the basic norms and guardrails. That should be our goal.
Any supermajority at that scale is also going to be cross-ideological. But the real test of health for a democracy is not whether a large majority of us can agree on this or that policy, or this or that candidate, but whether it is possible to forge a cross-ideological supermajority in support of the core norms of constitutional democracy.
That is our single most important task, and every one of us can contribute simply by signing up.
What does that mean? It means to affirm a set of basic norms: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections. Too many of our fellow citizens have been radicalized to reject one or another of these norms, including through the efforts of adversaries such as Russia, Iran and China. These countries have tapped into the power of social media to exacerbate divisions, vulnerabilities and paranoias organic to our culture and have accelerated this process of radicalization. We need the assistance of all the nongovernmental organizations that have worked on deradicalization in conflict zones around the world to help us here at home with similar work.
Advertisement
But even that is not enough. Among those of us who have not been radicalized, on both sides of the aisle, there is also the work to do to forge that cross-ideological supermajority.
First of all, people have to believe such a supermajority is possible.
Happily, the evidence abounds, especially in the results of state ballot initiatives. These are decided with cross-ideological supermajorities or near supermajorities voting in favor with surprising frequency. Here are some examples: Legalization of recreational marijuana (2020): New Jersey, 67 percent; legalization of recreational marijuana (2022): Maryland, 67 percent; legalization of medical marijuana (2020): Mississippi, 74 percent; restoring voting rights to those who have completed felony conviction (2018): Florida, 65 percent; new state flag without Confederate emblems (2020): Mississippi, 71 percent; right to repair in support of small auto shops (2020): Massachusetts, 75 percent.
Advertisement
Look at these decisions and you’ll see American supermajorities voting over and over again for fairness, inclusion and the person getting the short end of the stick. This is not only a cross-ideological supermajority in the making; it’s one with good, salt-of-the-earth values.
This potential American supermajority for constitutional democracy is what we need to forge. No democracy can be stable without a supermajority supporting the basic rules of the game. Inside the bounds of those rules, we can fight like the dickens over specific policy questions. But the rules themselves require supermajority support for stability.
So that’s it. That’s where each and every one of us comes in. We can join the cross-ideological supermajority for democracy that is coming into existence. Take a look at those core norms again: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections.
Advertisement
Can you commit to all of them? Are you willing to speak up in their defense when others express skepticism of them?
Even harder, are you willing to reach out to one of the friends, relations or acquaintances you’ve lost in recent years and ask them to join you in forging a cross-ideological coalition for democracy? Democrats, are you willing to stop hating Republicans? Republicans, are you willing to stop hating Democrats? This is what is asked of us, if we are to have the constitutional democracy we desire.
When I say things like this, people often tell me I’m crazy — that I’m not seeing the realities of the fierce fight in which we find ourselves now.
It’s not that I don’t see the fighting. It’s that I also see a deeper current below the surface. I see a people hungry to reconnect. Also, I am seeing people act on that hunger in positive ways all over this country. Those coalitions that formed to support the ballot initiatives I named above are just one example. So, in 2024, as we all navigate what appears to be a maddening presidential election year in the making, my goal for my column is to bring you one after another example of people who are working together across ideological divides to get something done for their community and for their country.
Because I want you to believe again that this is possible. Because this is what we need if we want to end the processes of radicalization that are devouring us.
Share Comments
Popular opinions articles
HAND CURATED
- Opinion|Does it matter which party nominated a judge? Here’s why it does. February 20, 2024Opinion|Does it matter which party nominated a judge? Here’s why it does. February 20, 2024
- Opinion|Fani Willis turns the tables on her attackersFebruary 20, 2024Opinion|Fani Willis turns the tables on her attackersFebruary 20, 2024
- Opinion|Manhattan district attorney gets Bragg-ing rightsFebruary 18, 2024Opinion|Manhattan district attorney gets Bragg-ing rightsFebruary 18, 2024
View 3 more stories
During 2023, I laid out a plan for renovating American democracy. Our society groans under the strain of population growth and massively scaled-up institutions. Rising diversity brings magnificence but also challenges. We are frustrated by ever-increasing tech-induced opacity in our organizations and reigning practices. We resent an economy that appears to many of us to function like a spoils system for the few, while ruining the climate for all.
Our creaky institutions seem frozen in the face of these challenges. So, last year, I proposed a lot of big, institutional changes to unstick the gears. I expect they might feel overwhelming and out of reach. I suspect that many of you, reading my columns, have carried along the nagging question: This talk of big institutional change might be all well and good, but where in this grand scheme is the place for me?
We can make forceful arguments for all the structural solutions we want — a bigger House of Representatives, abolishing party primaries, term limits for Supreme Court justices — but there are still questions. How can any of us actually live out the spirit of democracy renovation? As we grimly stare at our upcoming presidential election, how can we keep a spark of hope alive? Can we even maintain our own immediate personal sense of connection to an ideal of constitutional democracy?
For me, the single bleakest data point about the health of our society concerns a difference across generations in that sense of attachment to democracy. As political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Foa have reported in a few different guises, there has been significant generational decline in how people value democracy. In the starkest formulation, made in 2016, roughly 70 percent of Americans in the generation born before World War II consider it very essential, while not quite 30 percent of Americans who are now about 40 and younger do so. This finding occasioned controversy, but the points about decline of young people’s attachment to democracy are robust.
Of course, we can’t have a democracy if citizens don’t want one, which brings us to the fundamental point. We have to reverse this dynamic of disaffection.
The key lies in another important truth to be found in the data from Mounk and Foa. The high-water mark of the fullest attachment to our democracy was never about unanimity. The best we seem to have done was a supermajority — over two-thirds of voters — offering wholehearted support of constitutional democracy.
A supermajority for constitutional democracy. More than two-thirds of us committed to the basic norms and guardrails. That should be our goal.
Any supermajority at that scale is also going to be cross-ideological. But the real test of health for a democracy is not whether a large majority of us can agree on this or that policy, or this or that candidate, but whether it is possible to forge a cross-ideological supermajority in support of the core norms of constitutional democracy.
That is our single most important task, and every one of us can contribute simply by signing up.
What does that mean? It means to affirm a set of basic norms: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections. Too many of our fellow citizens have been radicalized to reject one or another of these norms, including through the efforts of adversaries such as Russia, Iran and China. These countries have tapped into the power of social media to exacerbate divisions, vulnerabilities and paranoias organic to our culture and have accelerated this process of radicalization. We need the assistance of all the nongovernmental organizations that have worked on deradicalization in conflict zones around the world to help us here at home with similar work.
But even that is not enough. Among those of us who have not been radicalized, on both sides of the aisle, there is also the work to do to forge that cross-ideological supermajority.
First of all, people have to believe such a supermajority is possible.
Happily, the evidence abounds, especially in the results of state ballot initiatives. These are decided with cross-ideological supermajorities or near supermajorities voting in favor with surprising frequency. Here are some examples: Legalization of recreational marijuana (2020): New Jersey, 67 percent; legalization of recreational marijuana (2022): Maryland, 67 percent; legalization of medical marijuana (2020): Mississippi, 74 percent; restoring voting rights to those who have completed felony conviction (2018): Florida, 65 percent; new state flag without Confederate emblems (2020): Mississippi, 71 percent; right to repair in support of small auto shops (2020): Massachusetts, 75 percent.
Look at these decisions and you’ll see American supermajorities voting over and over again for fairness, inclusion and the person getting the short end of the stick. This is not only a cross-ideological supermajority in the making; it’s one with good, salt-of-the-earth values.
This potential American supermajority for constitutional democracy is what we need to forge. No democracy can be stable without a supermajority supporting the basic rules of the game. Inside the bounds of those rules, we can fight like the dickens over specific policy questions. But the rules themselves require supermajority support for stability.
So that’s it. That’s where each and every one of us comes in. We can join the cross-ideological supermajority for democracy that is coming into existence. Take a look at those core norms again: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections.
Can you commit to all of them? Are you willing to speak up in their defense when others express skepticism of them?
Even harder, are you willing to reach out to one of the friends, relations or acquaintances you’ve lost in recent years and ask them to join you in forging a cross-ideological coalition for democracy? Democrats, are you willing to stop hating Republicans? Republicans, are you willing to stop hating Democrats? This is what is asked of us, if we are to have the constitutional democracy we desire.
When I say things like this, people often tell me I’m crazy — that I’m not seeing the realities of the fierce fight in which we find ourselves now.
It’s not that I don’t see the fighting. It’s that I also see a deeper current below the surface. I see a people hungry to reconnect. Also, I am seeing people act on that hunger in positive ways all over this country. Those coalitions that formed to support the ballot initiatives I named above are just one example. So, in 2024, as we all navigate what appears to be a maddening presidential election year in the making, my goal for my column is to bring you one after another example of people who are working together across ideological divides to get something done for their community and for their country.
Because I want you to believe again that this is possible. Because this is what we need if we want to end the processes of radicalization that are devouring us.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
