Most People Have Political Fatigue - But Are Still Highly Engaged

 

The charts above are from the Change Research Poll -- done between June 10th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,714 registered voters.

Three Out Of Four Americans Say Money In Politics Is A Huge Problem

The chart above is from a Pew Research Center survey -- done between April 20th and 26th of a nationwide sample of 5,103 adults, with a 1.6 point margin of error.

Republicans Are Waging War Against Minority Political Rights

The following is a post by Symone D. Sanders Townsend at MS NOW: 

A nationwide campaign is underway to systematically dismantle Black political influence.

In Tennessee, Republicans are working to eliminate a congressional district that allows the majority-Black city of Memphis to choose its own representative. 

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed off on a new map that eliminates a South Florida district, which had a near-majority Black electorate. 

And in Louisiana, Republicans threw out thousands of votes that had already been cast so they could pass a new map that eliminates a congressional district that includes the majority-Black city of New Orleans.

Following the Supreme Court’s lead, Republican lawmakers have cast these as mere partisan exercises or even an attempt to be “race neutral.” But the pattern is not subtle, and Americans should not pretend otherwise.

At every turn, we are told this is not about race, that it’s just politics, that they’re just respecting the process. 

Please. This is not some theoretical exercise being debated in a classroom. This is a threat to the multiracial democracy that our ancestors built over the last 250 years, often at great cost to them and the country.

I don’t think Americans fully understand the emergency of this moment.

The Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court gutted last week, was not some symbolic achievement. People bled and died for that law. Entire generations organized, marched and fought in courtrooms and legislative chambers so Black Americans could fully participate in democracy and wield real electoral power.

Now we are watching that progress get chipped away in real time, while some who should be on the frontlines protesting continue to debate whether it’s actually happening.

Trust me, it’s happening. And what frustrates me most is that America has seen this movie before.

After Reconstruction ended, the 14th and 15th amendments to guarantee basic rights for formerly enslaved people were still in place. Black Americans were still citizens. On paper, Black men still had the right to vote.

But then states stopped enforcing those rights. Courts weakened them. Governors aided and abetted the rollback. Business leaders looked away. And slowly, methodically, rights that existed in theory stopped existing in practice.

That is the part of American history people love to skip over.

The collapse of Reconstruction was not just about Klan terror and white lynch mobs. It was about institutions. It was about statehouses. It was about courts. It was about people in power deciding they’d had enough of multiracial democracy.

And for nearly 88 years, between the end of Reconstruction and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Black Americans fought to claw back the electoral power that had been stripped away.

Eighty-eight years.

That should haunt all of us right now, because too many Americans have convinced themselves that democratic progress is permanent, that the arc of history, once it bends toward justice, cannot swing back.

But democracy is not a destination; it is a marathon with no finish line. 

Rights are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them — and the people willing to defend them.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still exists today, on paper. But states have moved with extraordinary speed to dilute the voting strength of Black communities, redraw districts and weaken the electoral influence Black voters built over generations. And too often, the courts have responded by insisting Americans should ignore the obvious.

Again: trust your eyes.

I grew up a Black woman and a Democrat in Nebraska, a red state many people in national politics would probably write off entirely. But thanks to a quirk in state law, my congressional district delivered electors for Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the Electoral College. I know what can happen when voters are actually allowed to build coalitions and choose representatives responsive to them.

That is what democracy is supposed to do.

Voters deserve the opportunity to select representatives of their choice, even if the broader state leans one way or the other. Their voices should not be diluted because the people in power dislike the outcome.

Anyone who believes in multiracial democracy needs to understand where power is actually built in this country. State legislatures draw the maps. Governors sign the laws. State courts interpret voting rules. Secretaries of state oversee elections. America’s democracy is shaped in the states.

That is where this fight is being lost right now. And that is where it has to be won.

Because history tells us what happens when attacks on voting rights are treated like ordinary politics instead of what they actually are: an assault on who gets to wield power in America.

We have seen rights survive on paper while disappearing in practice before. We don’t have another 88 years to fix this.

Trust your eyes, then refuse to look away.

Most Voters Think The Economic/Political System Is Stacked Against Them

 The chart above is from the NBC News Poll -- done between February 27th and March 3rd of a nationwide sample of 1,000 registered voters, with a 3.1 point margin of error.

The Things Americans Believe Are Driving Political Violence

The chart above is from the Public Religion Research Institute survey -- done between November 21st and December 8th of a nationwide sample of 5,735 adults, with a 1.58 point margin of error. 

A Proposal That Could Stop Political Prosecutions

Donald Trump claimed that he was the victim of political prosecutions. Now he is directing political prosecutions of his own. Regardless of who is doing it, political prosecutions are very destructive to both our democracy and our system of justice.

Two law professors, Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) and Saikrishna Prakash (University of Virginia Law School), think they have a solution. They have a proposal for Congress that, if passed, could end the destructive practice of political prosecutions. Here is what they write in The Washington Post:

We are caught in a vicious cycle. The in-group is using the law against the out-group, which will surely feel empowered to respond in kind once the tables turn again. Americans widely believe that prosecutions are increasingly being weaponized, even if they disagree about who started it. To stop the spiral and restore confidence, we propose a novel prosecutorial check. . . .

In deciding whether to prosecute politicians, the Justice Department must navigate two vital imperatives: Politicians should not be immune from prosecution, and the decision to prosecute should not be influenced by partisan politics.

The Justice Department used to have substantial internal safeguards against politically motivated prosecution. But the Trump administration has gutted these. In May, department leaders suspended a decades-old requirement that prosecutors seek approval from its Public Integrity Section before charging members of Congress. Simultaneously, that section was reduced from more than 30 attorneys to just two. The president has brazenly discarded the long-standing norm against White House influence on prosecutorial decision-making.

As politicization has ramped up, the judicial checks on partisan prosecutions have remained static. Targets of political prosecutions can challenge their indictments. But courts rarely dismiss indictments on grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution.

We propose that Congress give federal judges another option. When a prosecution appears politically motivated, a judge should have the discretion to impanel a “prosecutor jury” to assess the propriety of the indictment.

The prosecutor jury would be composed of 20 randomly selected former U.S. attorneys, evenly divided between those nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents. A prosecution could proceed only if at least two-thirds of this panel — 14 out of 20 — concluded that the indictment was appropriate. This supermajority would ensure that at least a substantial minority of prosecutors nominated by a defendant’s own party supported the prosecution.

Former U.S. attorneys are uniquely qualified to guard against weaponized prosecutions. Unlike ordinary grand jurors, they have extensive experience making charging decisions, understand prosecutorial strategy and can distinguish legally sound theories from problematic ones.

This framework would help ensure that politicians are not above the law, since they would remain subject to prosecution. But politicians and, more important, the nation would be better protected from partisan prosecutions. Should a prosecutor jury approve an indictment, Americans would know that a bipartisan supermajority of professionals endorsed it.

To test our framework, we surveyed former U.S. attorneys regarding the Trump indictments. The responses revealed significant nuances across cases and political lines. The Florida classified-documents prosecution of Trump received substantial majority support from both Democratic-and Republican-nominated attorneys. Interestingly, some prosecutors nominated by Democrats expressed reservations about the case.

Responses to the case charging Trump in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election tell a different story. Once we balanced for respondents’ political ties, the indictment lacked support from even a simple majority — well short of our two-thirds requirement. These results demonstrate that former U.S. attorneys can rise above party lines to apply professional judgment developed through their considerable experience.

These heartening results signal the utility of a prosecutor jury. If a case persuades 14 of 20 prosecutors, that is sound evidence that it has merit.

Critics may object that our proposal undermines rule of law by making prosecution more difficult. This criticism misunderstands what the rule of law requires. The Bill of Rights mandates numerous protections that make conviction more difficult, from unanimous jury verdicts to rules about gathering evidence. Moreover, the Constitution grants special protections for certain officials. Members of Congress possess a privilege against certain arrests and a speech-and-debate privilege. Presidents and judges have official immunity. These safeguards are not exceptions to the rule of law — they are part of its responsible exercise. . . .

We, too, are members of opposing parties, and we both fear that the weaponization of prosecutions gravely threatens the rule of law. No one can be blind to the reality that both parties may engage in prosecutorial malfeasance. Any solution must therefore command bipartisan credibility. Prosecutor juries are the bulwark we need.

Voters Say The Political System Is Too Divided To Solve The Nation's Problems

The chart above reflects the results of the New York Times / Siena College Poll -- done between September 22nd and 27th of a nationwide sample of 1,313 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error. 

Both Politicians And Citizens Must Do More To Curb The Violence

 

I have to agree with Mr. Basu. The trend for political violence in the United States will get worse before it gets better.

And the politicians in Washington believe that, also. Many legislators from both parties are cancelling or limiting their public appearances. I don't blame them. Except for the party leaders, they don't have government provided security when they leave the Capitol. They are currently discussing how they might remedy that.

The danger is especially dire for Democrats. Right-wingers are furious about the killing of Charlie Kirk, and social media is full of calls for retribution (and even civil war). And the most powerful politician in the country, Donald Trump, is using his bully pulpit to demonize them. He says all Democrats are dangerous radical leftist that must be dealt with.

The Republicans are also in danger, but they are responsible for creating that danger to themselves by giving tax cuts to billionaires while taking food from the poor and kicking millions off Medicaid (and raising Obamacare premiums). They have also joined Trump in demonizing Blacks, immigrants, members of the LGBTQ community, and anyone who doesn't profess fealty to Trump.

Adding to the danger for both sides is the ridiculous proliferation of guns in this country - and the ease with which anyone can get one (regardless of how dangerous they might be).

Politics should not make us enemies. We are all Americans who want the best for our country and its citizens. And age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, color, or religion does not make us different. In a free country with free speech, we should be able to express and fight for our views without demonizing or hurting those who disagree with us.

Our politicians should lead in the effort to curb political violence. They should clearly state their opinions, debate them, and then compromise for the good of the country. They used to be able to do this and they must get back to it.

We should do better - and we must. Our democracy depends on it.

Most Believe The Political Climate Makes Violence More Likely Than Normal

The chart above reflects the results of the YouGov Poll -- done on September 12th of a nationwide sample of 3,211 adults.

Most People Are Not Optimistic About U.S. Politics

 The chart above is from the AP / NORC Poll -- done between May 1st and 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,175 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Public Thinks There Is A Lot Of Corruption IN U.S. Politics

The chart above reflects the results of a YouGov Poll -- done on September 26th of a nationwide sample of  6,175 adults.

President Biden - "We Must Not Go Down This Road"

The following is the transcript of President Biden's 7/14/24 speech on political violence:

My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about the need for us to lower the temperature in our politics and to remember, while we may disagree, we are not enemies. We’re neighbors. We’re friends, coworkers, citizens. And, most importantly, we are fellow Americans. And we must stand together.

Yesterday’s shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania calls on all of us to take a step back, take stock of where we are, how we go forward from here.

Thankfully, former [President] Trump is not seriously injured. I spoke with him last night. I’m grateful he’s doing well. And Jill and I keep him and his family in our prayers.

We also extend our deepest condolences to the family of the victim who was killed. Corey was a husband, a father, a volunteer firefighter, a hero, sheltering his family from those bullets. We should all hold his family and all those injured in our prayers.

Earlier today, I spoke about an ongoing investigation. We do not know the motive of the shooter yet. We don’t know his opinions or affiliations. We don’t know whether he had help or support or if he communicated with anyone else. Law enforcement professionals, as I speak, are investigating those questions.

Tonight, I want to speak to what we do know: A former president was shot. An American citizen killed while simply exercising his freedom to support the candidate of his choosing.

We cannot – we must not go down this road in America. We’ve traveled it before throughout our history. Violence has never been the answer, whether it’s with members of Congress in both parties being targeted and shot, or a violent mob attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, or a brutal attack on the spouse of former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or information and intimidation on election officials, or the kidnapping plot against a sitting governor, or an attempted assassination on Donald Trump.

There is no place in America for this kind of violence or for any violence ever — period. No exceptions. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.

You know, the political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.

Yes, we have deeply felt, strong disagreements. The stakes in this election are enormously high.

I’ve said it many times that the choice in this – that we make in this election is going to shape the future of America and the world for decades to come. I believe that with all my soul. I know that millions of my fellow Americans believe it as well.

And some have a different view as to the direction our country should take. Disagreement is inevitable in American democracy. It’s part of human nature. But politics must never be a literal battlefield and, God forbid, a killing field.

I believe politics ought to be an arena for peaceful debate, to pursue justice, to make decisions guided by the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We stand for an America not of extremism and fury but of decency and grace.

All of us now face a time of testing as the election approaches. And the higher the stakes, the more fervent the passions become. This places an added burden on each of us to ensure that no matter how strong our convictions, we must never descend into violence.

The Republican convention will start tomorrow. I have no doubt they’ll criticize my record and offer their own vision for this country. I’ll be traveling this week, making the case for our record and the vision – my vision of the country – our vision.

I’ll continue to speak out strongly for our democracy, stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, to call for action at the ballot box, no violence on our streets. That’s how democracy should work.

We debate and disagree. We compare and contrast the character of the candidates, the records, the issues, the agenda, the vision for America.

But in America, we resolve our differences at the ballot box. You know, that’s how we do it, at the ballot box – not with bullets. The power to change America should always rest in the hands of the people, not in the hands of a would-be assassin.

You know, the path forward through competing visions of the campaign should always be resolved peacefully, not through acts of violence.

You know, we’re blessed to live in the greatest country on Earth. And I believe that with every soul – every power of my being. So, tonight, I’m asking every American to recommit to make America so – make America what it – think about it. What’s made America so special?

Here in America, everyone wants to be treated with dignity and respect, and hate must have no safe harbor.

Here in America, we need to get out of our silos, where we only listen to those with whom we agree, where misinformation is rampant, where foreign actors fan the flames of our division to shape the outcomes consistent with their interests, not ours.

Let’s remember, here in America, while unity is the most elusive of – goals right now, nothing is more important for us now than standing together. We can do this.

You know, from the beginning, our founders understood the power of passion, and so they created a democracy that gave reason and balance a chance to prevail over brute force. That’s the America we must be, an American democracy where arguments are made in good faith, an American democracy where the rule of law is respected, an American democracy where decency, dignity, fair play aren’t just quaint notions but living, breathing realities.

We owe that to those who come before us, to those who gave their lives for this country. We owe that to ourselves. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren.

Look, let’s never lose sight of who we are. Let’s remember we are the United States of America. There is nothing, nothing, nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together. 

Most Think Justices Favor Politics Over Rule Of Law

The chart above is from the AP / NORC Poll -- done between June 20th and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,088 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

National Debt Is Not As Bad As The Hypocritical GOP Claims

 The following is part of an op-ed by economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times:

The United States government is more than $34 trillion in debt. Did you know that our government owes $34 trillion? That’s $34 trillion!

Whenever I write about economic policy, I get a lot of mail and a lot of comments basically asking why I’m not talking more about the national debt. So I thought it might be useful to talk about how I see the issue of public debt and why it doesn’t loom larger in my concerns.

Specifically, let me make three points. First, while $34 trillion is a very large figure, it’s a lot less scary than many imagine if you put it in historical and international context. Second, to the extent debt is a concern, making debt sustainable wouldn’t be at all hard in terms of the straight economics; it’s almost entirely a political problem. Finally, people who claim to be deeply concerned about debt are, all too often, hypocrites — the level of their hypocrisy often reaches the surreal.

How scary is the debt? It’s a big number, even if you exclude debt that is basically money that one arm of the government owes to another — debt held by the public is still around $27 trillion. But our economy is huge, too. Today, debt as a percentage of G.D.P. isn’t unprecedented, even in America: It’s roughly the same as it was at the end of World War II. It’s considerably lower than the corresponding number for Japan right now and far below Britain’s debt ratio at the end of World War II. In none of these cases was there anything resembling a debt crisis. . . .

Bear in mind that governments, unlike individuals, never have to pay off their debt. How did we pay off the debt from World War II? We didn’t. Federal debt when John F. Kennedy took office was slightly higher than it had been in 1946. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. was way down, thanks to growth and inflation.

So what would it take to stabilize debt as a percentage of G.D.P. for the next 30 years? Bobby Kogan and Jessica Vela of the Center for American Progress, working with Congressional Budget Office numbers, estimate that we would need to increase taxes or cut spending by 2.1 percent of G.D.P.

That isn’t a big number! (Yes, the exact number could be either bigger or smaller, but in either case probably not by enough to change the basic point.) America collects a much smaller percentage of its G.D.P. in taxes than most other rich countries; collecting an extra two percentage points would still leave us a low-tax nation and would be unlikely to hurt the economy. If stabilizing debt seems hard, that’s only because given our deeply divided politics, even modest steps toward responsibility are extremely hard to take.

And by deeply divided politics I mostly mean Republicans, who declaim the evils of debt while pursuing policies that put long-run fiscal sustainability even farther out of reach. In a related analysis, Kogan and Vela estimate that permanently extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts — many of which are scheduled to expire after 2025 — would substantially worsen the fiscal outlook. Yet it’s hard to find Republicans in Congress opposing such an extension.

Worse yet, House Republicans are pushing for drastic cuts in the Internal Revenue Service budget, depriving the agency of the resources it needs to crack down on wealthy tax cheats. That is, even as they yell about budget deficits, they’re both seeking to cut taxes and trying to block efforts to collect the taxes high-income Americans owe under current law.

So politics — specifically right-wing politics — rather than the size of the debt is the problem.

Biased Court Makes A Political Move To Help Trump & GOP

For most of our nation's history, the Supreme Court has acted to make sure that the Constitution is upheld, and it has done so in a political-neutral way. Unfortunately, that no longer seems to be true. The current Court is a very political one. Instead of making sure actions and laws are consistent with the Constitution, they are interpreting the Constitution to fit the agenda of right-wing Republicans.

This week they made the rather shocking decision to hear Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity. Most had thought the Court wouldn't take this case. It seems obvious that a finding of presidential immunity would put the president above the law. That would be unimaginable in a nation built on the idea of equality under Constitutional law. One of our most sacred beliefs is that no one is above the law.

Putting the president above the law would be tantamount to giving him/her dictatorial power (since he/she could not be charged with a crime - no matter how egregious an action taken). He/she could imprison, or even kill, political opponents, take action to censor or ban the media, sell access to the White House and decisions made by the president, etc.

I don't think the court's right-wingers would go that far. Giving a president immunity from the law would also apply to Democratic presidents - and they certainly don't want to allow that!

So, why did they decide to hear the case - a case they are extremely unlikely to uphold. It was purely a political decision - not a constitutional one. It was to give Donald Trump and the Republican Party a delay of the trials Trump faces.

They won't hear the case until late in April, and won't announce a decision until probably late in June. The federal trials cannot go forward until their decision is announced, and a late June announcement would mean the trials probably couldn't be held before the November elections.

That is what Trump and the Republicans wanted. If they could delay the trials until after the election, and then Trump win that election, the cases would probably go away. A Trump Justice Department could simply drop the charges. Or Trump could pardon himself (since the Constitution gives the president pardon power, but doesn't say he can't use it on himself).

This was a political move by the most political Supreme Court in U.S. history!

"Preaching To The Choir" Is Important In Politics

Robert Reich explains why "preaching to the choir" is important in politics:

Several of you have asked me why I spend so much time and energy on this letter, which is read mainly (if not exclusively) by people who already share my views and values. 

“Why are you preaching to the choir?” you ask. “Wouldn’t your efforts be more useful if you tried to convince people who aren’t already convinced?”

I doubt I’d be more useful if, say, I went on Fox News. Even if I presented everything I provide in this letter, I doubt I’d change many minds. In my experience, people who have a deep emotional or intellectual investment in seeing the world one way are unlikely to change their minds by seeing or hearing someone who challenges that investment. 

The people who need to be reached are those who remain reachable — whose minds are still open to evidence and argument. 

Even if you already agree with me — even if you’re already in the “choir” — you still may benefit from two things I can offer.

The first are data, arguments, logic, and analyses. 

I’m often surprised how little of this can be found in the mainstream media, which makes so much effort to achieve “balance” and offer the views of “both sides” — or report on who’s “winning” or “losing” — that the underlying arguments are often lost. 

My abiding hope is that the data, arguments, logic, and analyses in this letter help you make your case to others in the range of your voice — to friends, family members, and acquaintances whose minds are not closed, and who could be persuaded of the truth. 

My faith is that there is no better way to spread the truth than one-on-one — among people who talk and listen directly to one another. 

The second thing I wish is that these daily letters give you confidence that you’re rational and not alone.

In today’s incendiary society, it’s sometimes hard to remain confident of one’s views. When many prominent people are telling lies, and when those lies are amplified on Fox News and right-wing radio, and then repeated by people you know (perhaps even inside your own family), it can be challenging to remain sure of oneself. 

I don’t mean to suggest that you should hold on to your views if they are contradicted by evidence, or that you should remain steadfast in the face of reasonable arguments to the contrary. In fact, I’ve often told my students that the best way to test their views is to talk with people who disagree.

My point is that at a time such as we’re in, “preaching to the choir” is not a waste of my time. I sometimes think it’s the most important thing I can do.

In 2023 Politics Was More Negative, Divided, And Violent

The charts above are from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 24th and January 2nd of a nationwide sample of 3,087 adults, with a 2.3 point margin of error. 

Political Disagreements Should Not Make Us Enemies

Democracy is the best form of government. But it is also the messiest form of government. That's because it has as a requirement the concept of free speech. Proponents on the left and the right (and all points in between) have the right to speak and pursue their own concept of government and the issues that government should pursue.

This has actually worked very well in the United States. While the government has swung back and forth between the left and right, for the most part it has been pretty moderate. The different factions have debated and ultimately compromised for the good of the country. And while progress has been too slow for some, the country has made progress in extending rights and making life better for citizens.

But a sad thing is happening in our politics. Lately, many on the far right (led by Donald Trump) have begun to label their political opponents as enemies, and threatened to use government's power to punish them for their political beliefs. And sadly, some on the left have retaliated and are considering right-wingers as enemies.

Both sides are wrong. Political beliefs are not right or wrong, as arguments can be made for both sides. Political disagreements are necessary. They are the life blood of democracy. And those who disagree with your beliefs are not your enemy -- and they don't deserve any punishment for having those beliefs.

I believe most Americans would be better off if the government enacted liberal policies. Those on the right think conservative policies would be best. That does not make us enemies -- just patriotic Americans with a different view.

We need to relearn the art of debate and compromise. It has worked well for the country in the past. Demonizing political opponents as the enemy is dangerous to democracy, and just sets us on the road to tyranny. None of us should want that.

Most Want To Avoid Discussing Politics On Thanksgiving

The chart above reflects the results of the Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between November 9th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 1,574 registered voters, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

Support For Authoritarianism And Political Violence Growing

The charts above are from the Public Religion Research Institute survey -- done between August 25th and 30th of a nationwide sample of 2,525 adults, with a 2.19 point margin of error.