A mob, egged on by a presidential speech earlier in the day, breached the U.S. Capitol, spun in the president of the Senate’s chair, and sent members of Congress running for safety, some in gas masks. Its goal was to stop a peaceful transition of power by upending the certification of election results. These acts were hardly spontaneous, but rather emerged from a series of rallies of white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, militias, and Trump supporters who believe that the election was stolen.
This is the United States of America in January 2021. Its problems are typically blamed on the country’s immense polarization—and that’s true. But it’s not the whole story. The United States is stretched to near-breaking by partisan polarization (though not by left-right ideology). Yet the nation is simultaneously dealing with a Republican Party that is increasingly captured by a faction willing to undermine democracy itself. Each development is problematic, but they are particularly combustible in combination. We’ll have to first look at them separately to understand how they work together.
Growing Polarization
It’s not news that the United States is facing severe partisan polarization. But this polarization is not primarily about policies. In fact, a majority of Americans agree on the broad strokes of abortion, immigration, and gun legislation. Instead, U.S. citizens have grown to hate and fear the other side and cleave to their own party, with only a minimal relationship to the policies each side embodies—an emotional tribalism known as affective polarization.
This severe polarization started years before President Donald Trump took office. But it didn’t come from the ether—it grew out of the structural incentives politicians face.
Political Incentives to Polarization
First, the Democratic and Republican parties are locked in tight competition. It used to be that one party or the other had a lock on Congress, sometimes for decades. The party with a clear majority had good reason to cooperate with the minority to chalk up some wins. Today, every congressional election could swing control of the legislature. Neither party wants to give the other credit for important legislation, so politics trumps governing, and frustrated voters are told to blame the other side.
Second, while conservative Democrats and progressive Republicans used to exist, today’s voters are ideologically sorted into parties. Research from the Pew Research Center has found that the correlation between ideology and party affiliation doubled from 1972 to 2012.
Third, geographically and ideologically sorted voters yield more ideological candidates—especially for Republicans. For many years, political logic suggested that moderate candidates should tack to their base in the primaries—usually low-turnout events that attract the most partisan voters —and then move to the middle to win general elections. But with so many seats gerrymandered in the House and voters so geographically sorted, politicians far more frequently vie for seats that are safe for their party but prone to being challenged by other candidates from the same side. Further, raising the vast sums required for today’s elections entails appealing to a handful of immensely wealthy individuals whose views are often more extreme than the electorate’s.
But sorting has had differential effects on the parties: Republicans have become more homogenous, and Democrats have grown more heterogeneous. Democratic politicians must secure a voting base that includes Black religious traditionalists, woke White progressives, union workers, and Hollywood money. Thus, a number of different measures have found that Democrats have moved only slightly to the left, while Republican politicians have become far more conservative since the mid-1970s.
Because the parties are so different and voters’ identities so aligned, losing elections now feels far more existential to partisans. For Americans, how we vote is closely aligned to where we live and shop, what we drink and watch, whether or not we are religious, and what our race is. A vote for the other side isn’t just supporting different policies. It means going against the common wisdom of almost everyone you know, the yard signs in your neighborhood, and the offhand comments at local businesses. Even if voters have real concerns about a party’s behavior, voting for the other side means moving into a foreign social geography that is uncomfortable—and that might cause them real misgivings. It’s far easier to stay within one’s social milieu and rationalize.
Polarization Plus
Severe polarization seems to spell doom for democracy. But in fact, surveys find that affective polarization is actually higher in many countries—such as Denmark— whose governments are functioning and addressing societal problems like the coronavirus pandemic far better. The United States has become far more polarized in recent years, but what is happening to American democracy is not simply the product of polarization.
Highly polarized political environments are ripe for a second problem: the destruction of democracy from the inside by an elected and popular party. According to Milan Svolik, in highly polarized countries, partisans care about democracy. But they care about their side winning slightly more. On marginal calls, extreme partisans will let democracy slide in order to win—until it has slid away completely.
An Anti-System Party
In strong democracies, extreme partisans willing to break the rules to win are held in check by parties, laws, and institutions. That is partially the story of this election, in which the properly elected candidates will ultimately be sworn in later in January 2021. But American democracy is not in good health. Events since the November 2020 election suggest that the United States is now contending with a Republican Party with a significant, opportunistic, anti-system faction; this faction of the party runs in elections but does not support the basic tenets of democracy, such as enabling eligible citizens to vote, disavowing violence, and conceding power upon electoral loss.
How Anti-System Parties Grow
Such anti-system parties are not uncommon. Fascist parties arose in multiple European nations in the 1930s. In Ireland, Sinn Féin maintained ties to an armed wing long after it began contesting elections. And more recently, populist parties from the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte to Venezuela under former president Hugo Chávez fit the bill. The two-party duopoly in the United States means that an anti-democratic faction has arisen as part of the existing Republican Party rather than as a stand-alone entity.
History Repeated
The United States has had an anti-system party faction before: Southern Democrats under Jim Crow. From the late 1800s through the mid-1960s, they ensured that most of the former Confederacy formed a solid, one-party state held together with voting rules that kept Black people from voting, backed by credible threats of violence if any tried. (They did, unlike Trump, concede when faced with electoral loss.)
Today, Trump accelerated the trajectory of a party already trending in an anti-system direction. Modern Republicans, like Southern Democrats before them, have long tinkered with systems to suppress Black voting. These anti-democratic efforts gained ground after the Supreme Court ended parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and more recently after a court ruling against voter intimidation was phased out.
Trump made these attempts to tilt the playing field look almost genteel. He addressed violent groups directly from the debate stage, asked judges to overturn election results, resorted to direct calls and threats against local election officials to change the tallies, toyed with calling for the Insurrection Act (to no clear purpose), and, of course, is the first losing U.S. presidential candidate in history to refuse to concede. Yesterday, on January 6, he incited a violent mob to breach the Capitol itself as members of Congress voted to certify the election results and enable the transfer of power.
Silence of the Majority
The problem for U.S. democracy is not Trump. It is the silence of the majority of elected Republican officials around the country as these breaches escalated. A few politicians with strong backbones—representing places like Maine and Alaska where politics are still local and where their hold is strong—spoke up for democratic norms. But stunningly few congressional Republicans were willing to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden until pressure from good government groups garnered a few weak statements.
Far too few spoke up against the death threats and armed intimidation of election officials and civil servants. Republican officials remaining silent to indulge conspiracies about electoral fraud allowed such fantasies to fester among their supporters. When a quarter of the Republican Senate delegation and two-thirds of Republicans in the House said they would voice opposition to certifying certain states’ election results, it could only further fuel the hopes of a mob bent on also disrupting the count through violence.
It seems unlikely that states and localities can move the party in a more democratic direction. Despite greater courage from a number of local elected Republicans, the trends are going in the opposite direction, with strong anti-democratic factions taking hold in many states. Anti-democratic actions range from refusing to seat an elected state senator in Pennsylvania to stripping incoming Democratic governors of many powers in Wisconsin in 2018 and North Carolina in 2016, among others.
An Anti-System Party in a Polarized Society
Anti-system parties and movements are, by definition, bad for democracy. However, they often fizzle out on their own, as when violent left-wing parties fizzled after the 1970s. But when high levels of affective polarization combine with anti-system parties, the effect is more like mixing water with cement. Fusing these two elements can cause anti-democratic tendencies to harden.
Instead of core members of a party condemning a violent, law-breaking, or otherwise anti-democratic faction to irrelevance, the faction condemns the core. Further, when the other party condemns undemocratic acts, they are simply seen as partisans using the issue to gain ground, rather than as genuine defenders of democracy. Meanwhile, the anti-system party can rationalize breaches of democratic norms, laws, and destruction of institutions: they are deemed not so bad at all, just as bad as what the other side has done, or justifiable to keep the other side out of power given how much more dangerous they would be to the polity. This is the trajectory of countries like Turkey, Hungary, and Poland—countries that Freedom House has now labeled not free, only partially free, and declining within the “free” category of its democracy index, respectively.
So What Can Be Done?
How does the United States avoid this fate?
There is no silver bullet, but a multipronged strategy could help. It would involve cultivating a new political alignment, shoring up institutions and norms, and fostering reconnections at both the social and economic levels.
Cultivating a New Political Alignment
America needs a conservative party—or parties. The last series of close elections prove that nearly half of U.S. voters clearly hold a range of conservative ideas, values, and interests that deserve representation. The United States cannot afford for these voters to have nowhere to go other than a party that does not support democracy itself.
Internal reform seems unlikely. The hope among some Never Trump Republicans that their party would suffer such huge losses in 2020 that it would reject Trumpian anti-democratic tendencies and realign itself proved false. While Trump lost, he increased his 2016 vote share by more than 10 million votes, and Republican politicians riding his coattails won overwhelmingly at the state and local levels.
And the idea of a moderate, centrist party formed from rump Republicans and Democrats seems equally unlikely. Affective polarization means too few will cross over from either side to create a viable third party.
Thus, the best option for a new political alignment is some form of ranked choice voting, in which voters rank their preferred candidates from one on down. Those with the least votes are kicked out of the race, and those who voted for them see their votes go to their second-choice candidates. By letting candidates along the ideological spectrum run against one another without spoiling their own party’s chances, Republicans currently sticking with an anti-democratic party because they care about tax policy, abortion, or their social relationships will have other acceptable options.
Strengthening Institutions and Norms
This election cycle has uncovered a host of institutional weaknesses that can be exploited by a party acting in bad faith, from a lack of whistleblower protections to poorly written electoral laws. A piece of 2019 House legislation known as H.R. 1 addresses some of these problems. By improving voter access and ending the lack of representation for the District of Colombia (already more populous than Wyoming and Vermont), such legislation would also force Republicans to become a party that fights to appeal to a more heterogeneous group of voters, thus working against anti-democratic tendencies. These same provisions mean such a measure will not pass unless Democrats win control of both chambers of Congress. Now that they have, it should be the first item on the agenda. Other pieces of legislation to improve election administration, making it less partisan and more trusted by voters, should be close behind.
Should Congress remain divided or unable to pass legislation unfortunately seen as partisan, my colleague Dan Baer suggests advancing pieces of big, popular legislation that do not fall along pre-existing partisan battle lines. These legislative packages could include pieces of institutional reform crafted in a bipartisan fashion, perhaps by the Problem Solvers Caucus. Members who refuse to accept the reforms will be forced to vote down widely popular bills that could harm their reelection prospects.
Strengthening institutions also requires upholding accountability. Where laws have been broken in the pursuit of power, the best way to prevent and dissuade future breaches is to prosecute lawbreakers to the full extent possible. The many enablers of democratic breakdown should not believe that laws that apply to ordinary people do not apply to them. Where appropriate, those on both sides of the aisle should be prosecuted to offset the optics of a political witch hunt. For Trump himself, prosecution through federal law is probably fruitless even if he has likely broken laws. It is certainly likely to enrage his many followers who will believe any charges are politically motivated. Accountability for crimes committed at the state level may be a wiser path forward.
Finally, since America’s founding, groups of violent, armed citizens have periodically arisen and aligned themselves with whichever party was more nativist or racist. While the United States has never fully rid itself of these anti-democratic forces, the membership of such parties tends to decline when their members are prosecuted for such offenses. A new wave of national and state law enforcement efforts to fight militias, violent white supremacists, and other domestic terrorists will be necessary to reduce their power.
Fostering Social and Economic Reconnection
Entrepreneurial politicians riding polarization to power are responding to demand. U.S. society is at nearly its lowest point in terms of trust in other people and in government since measurements began. Loneliness and alienation are leading people to search for community in national politics and online movements. While plenty of white supremacists are simply hateful, Moonshot CVE, a group that works to redirect people worldwide away from extremist groups, found that Americans seeking “to engage with violent far-right groups were 115 percent more likely to click on mental health ads.” The anomie and alienation of modern life requires creative, ground-up efforts aimed at renewing American civic life and social bonds.
Renewing societal bonds also requires an economy that works for more people. Programs to bridge divides can’t do much to restore pride to the White men facing a loss in relative status, dwindling livelihood prospects, and declining life expectancies—voters who are fueling democratic disintegration by serving as the core of Trump’s base. Some will claim this previously advantaged group doesn’t deserve special consideration now. But an economy that helps them alongside long-disadvantaged groups is crucial for democratic stability.
A strain of thought that prevailed in the first century of the American republic saw economic arrangements not primarily in terms of growth or distribution, but instead considered how different economic arrangements assisted or undermined democracy. Concentrations of wealth, for example, were critiqued not for allowing monopolistic tendencies to take hold but for enabling elite capture, imperiling government responsiveness to voters. A large, stable middle class is more able to exercise self-government. By the 1980s, these ideas had given way to the notion that the shape of the economy didn’t matter—as long as all boats were rising, it did not matter that some were rising faster than others. But the country’s Founding Fathers were correct—a democratic society requires an economy that supports democracy.
Reams of social science research shows that high levels of inequality lead to violence and a loss of social cohesion. A K-shaped economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, in which the upper-middle class pulls further ahead while the lower-middle class sinks into daily struggle, is going to exacerbate these problems. Some research suggests that, in addition to thriving during recessions, extremist politics may be most attractive to people who are doing less well than others within a growing economy (even if they are doing better than they had been doing previously). Policies that jump-start the post-pandemic economy are crucial—particularly for men of all races without college degrees and for the women who have been forced out of the workforce in droves. Economic recovery for these groups is essential to democratic recovery.
The Path Ahead
Those who have become increasingly concerned with U.S. politics over the last few years, and particularly the last few months, are justified. The United States has strong institutions to fall back on, but it also has a history of anti-democratic politicians and political violence—a history that was revived with events in the nation’s capital this week. Swift action by the coming administration will be needed to turn back the country’s current course.
Comments(16)
The Democratic Progressive Left and the working class Republican Right are both opposed to the US Wall St. plutocracy. Once Black, Brown and White workers unite to defeat the pro-globalization financial interests that divide them; America's partisan polarization will end. The US has become a country of the one percent -- who have dominated wealth and income for the last 40 years. Detroit used to be the industrial capital of the world. Now it is nothing more than a stinking hulk of its former self. The same can be said across the length and breadth of what was once an American industrial juggernaut. For forty years, Main St. and middle class jobs have been stripped of their potency so that the one percent and their upper middle class sycophants could continue to live in the lap of luxury. Financialization is nothing more then overt rent-seeking, while American production has been sent abroad to done by near slaves and child labor. Working class people might not have fancy, elite educations; but they're certainly not deplorable and they're NOT stupid. Americans know when they have been ripped off by big media, Hollywood, Wall St., Tech giants and all the assorted monopolies that dominate our plutocracy. Biden wants to "Build Back Better", but he's been Delaware's corporate man for the last fifty years. He's sold American jobs to China and his family has benefited from that relationship. Everyone knows that DuPont and the big banks control Delaware. And that's who Biden has represented along with the poor blacks in Wilmington and big banks and corporations that financed his campaigns. These overt contradictions can no longer stand. Both US political parties are on the verge of internal civil wars. And both could break apart. Tesla is now worth over 700 billion dollars -- a sum greater than the seven largest auto makers combined world-wide. And their vehicles are not to be seen on America's roadways! The stock market has become nothing more than Vegas on massive steroids. Working people aren't fools, they see what's happening to their country and they're fighting mad. And rightly so. The billionaire class is not Jefferson's or Lincoln's America. America has been sold out, and the "little people" know it. Trump overturned the Republican political establishment, and Sanders almost did the same in the Democratic Party. If only these two forces can find the common cultural and political ground to get together, partisanship will end and America will be healed..
I read your comment as a suggestion that the reform agendas of the outgoing Republican US president and of the Democratic politican should be integrated into politics. I find this unrealistic. Peter Beinart has analysed the fate of the reform agenda of the outgoing president and concluded that his program to end accumulation of wealth was subverted by the wealthy.
What Steven Horowitz is saying is brilliant but more importantly, it is brave. This is the first time I see someone use the term plutocracy in an important site. It is about time someone said the truth and had an audience. George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Why did economic growth fade and the mild recessions of the 1950s and 1960s become crises while monopoly, inequality and budget deficits intensify? Why is the US plutocracy (the ruling 1 %) kind to bankers and harsh with homeowners? Why does it squander soldiers’ lives and trillions of dollars on unwinnable wars, neglecting infra-structure, environment, education, public health, and alleviating poverty and homelessness? Why does it imprison more people than China, with four times the US population and labor income not kept pace with inflation while increasing seven-fold in China? Why did it let COVID-19 kill in the US, per million people, 50 times more than in Japan and 267 times more than in China? Why did it let the police in 2019 kill 1099 people compared to 11 in Germany? Plutocracy’s class dictatorship is destroying America. It is the principal cause why nations fail. Observing the communist threat receding in the 1980s induced the plutocracy to launch the Thatcher-Reagan “revolution” to undo FDR’s and post-WWII reforms and anti-trust laws. And it let loose ravenous greed on the economy. With both Democratic and Republican parties now serving the wealthy 1%, US democracy is but a veneer for the 1% dictatorship. Today, with the Chinese tiger at the gate and the US economy and democracy spiraling downward, many people are anxious about an insecure future. The plutocracy is snubbing the public mood at its peril. It is time they ended their war on democracy and adopt moral economics or risk an imminent failed state, à la Soviet Union. The oppressed millions hardly need communism to confiscate the vast fortunes that have been smothering them and their country. John Kenneth Galbraith noted that in modern history, it is reform from above or revolution from below. Which is it to be?
I agree with your comments on the Republican Party yet, you fail to point out the other side of the coin which is the Democratic progressive wing which shares many of the same traits, and has invaded the Capitol Building before, eg: the Cavangh hearings . If the shoe had been on the other foot and Trump had won, then it would have been just as likely in this current crisis that the Progressives (outside of the US we refer to them as radicals) would have done the same thing and probably in many cities at the same time. By failing to point out the possibilities of the other side you add to this polarization that you purport to oppose.
I was a registered Democrat for thirty years. The statement in this article that the Democrat Party has not become more radical and " left" politically aligned can only be made by someone who has an agenda against Republicans. The comments today by Pelosi and Schumer and Biden and the absurd comments by the black opportunists to "cash in" on the fact that tens of thousands of citizens yesterday did NOT rob, loot, torch, assault and murder during their protests unlike those "largely peaceful protests" in previous years and this summer that destroyed countless businesses, and lives shows that the Democrats are in total denial at their own responsibility for yesterday's citizen "uprising" . Nothing will change until. The left starts to listen.
If you do not like the Democratic party as it is now, whose problem is that? Take it or leave it. If the US is getting more divers and the electoral strategy of the competing parties is that they appeal to different constituencies, that is what democracy is about. The left has garnered more votes than the right in this election. Seems the US has a left majority, or do you think otherwise?
Any electoral system where each constituency elects one representative automatically leads to a political structure dominated by two-parties. Any third party that tries to compete has only small chances of being first past the post, and therefore never attains significant power. The UK and the USA are examples of such 2-party domination. Countries with proportional representation develop political systems with many parties, and forming new parties is simple and frequent. However, a switch from one-seat constituencies to proportional representation will rarely be politically feasible. However, a switch to constituencies each electing two representatives would give far more opportunities to ' third parties' , and that could break the two-party deadlock. Worth trying? Certainly worth analyzing
While I broadly agree with your argument around “affective polarization” and “anti-system/anti-democratic” tendencies, might I say that setting right priorities and clearer, ideally bipartisan, goals should be equally important considerations. Say, firstly, to what extent the melting pot or salad bowl theories still hold? As you aptly highlighted that “a democratic society requires an economy that supports democracy,” but are equitable socioeconomic reconnections amongst the top priorities of the incoming administration? How to rectify this widely perceived socioeconomic imbalance that the post-WTO era has created new disadvantaged groups besides long-disadvantaged groups and thereby exacerbated polarization and mistrust, when some wouldn’t even acknowledge that. While an economy invariably requires global talent and expertise to sustain innovation and market leadership, should it also work on assimilation of new arrivals into the national value system as well as skill enhancement and continuing education of its traditional domestic workforce that might otherwise become the opportunity costs of new business models, process re-engineering, new technologies, and even parachuted skilled workers/executives. The administration may like to heal such underlying grievances at individual and community-levels, on priority. Secondly, institutional inertia and decay over time is also a function of the people who constitute and lead those institutions and the maturity and wisdom they demonstrate. Can half-baked ideas, woke or anti-woke push and pull forces on both sides genuinely breed tolerance in the political landscape or rather deepen the fissures? For example, today’s calls to remove or impeach the President, regardless how good or bad he might have been, less than two weeks before the end of his term and when he has finally promised an orderly transition does not seem to be political maturity but rather personal vendetta which could rather make the outgoing president a political martyr and reinforce mistrust of his followers. Perhaps the leadership from both sides may like to groom their respective caucuses as well for the challenges of the future and not waste energies on interpersonal conflicts in the coming administration.
Dear Sir, I am not sure what your mean by "reinforce mistrust of his followers" regarding the violoent, law-breaking crowd of followers that breached government buildings in the capitol a few days ago. Do you think abstaining from impeachment would reenstate trust in these followers?
The issue I believe is American Laws are different for each group, at least enforced differently. This drives serious lack of respect for those who are the losers, control by those who win. The UK back in 1215 determined a king is not above the law. Thus the Magna Carta was born. Americans do not believe in this principle. Each group is treated differently some have no accountability at all. White/ non-white, rich/poor, Republicans. /non-Republicans, those with immunity/ those without, President/non-President these aspects create divides society and distrust. Blacks are shot 7 times in the back, no charges; white rioters are met with little police presence in Washington, while blacks have heavy police presence. The President is above the law, crazy situation. Republican's will never take actions against one of their own. Trump has bragged he could shoot someone on 5th Ave suffer no losses. Today the nation is facing this very fact. A President has incited a riot an arm insurrection, people feel trump cannot be held accountable. This is crazy thinking one that most nations realize is crazy. The Magna Carta brought everyone to the same Rule of Law, which is not in existence in the USA. The USA has lost a lot these past few weeks. A large stain of shame, chaos and loss of strength to democracy; how can anyone accept American guidance as to how to build a democracy when the USA is almost a failed state today? Corruption in politics is another serious problem in the USA. The corrupting influence of big money overrides citizens. The US is beginning to look more like Russia than any democratic nation. Oligarchs control the politicians lock stock and barrel and citizen know it. You state Trump cannot be held accountable because of the outcry of his supporters, yet you ignore the larger group of citizens who are appalled by his crimes. I guess you view would be today you would not suggest charging Al Capone or any other successful crime boss. It is a strange and sick world the US is in today. Your view is the nation is fine with 4 dead citizens in Washington, 370,000 dead and growing from pandemic from irresponsible President. All I can say God Bless we in Canada are not AMERICAN. Sad I worked for 22 years in the US
I believe this is a well written and timely assessment of the current state of U.S. politics and its implications on today's democracy, which is being significantly challenged. In fact, I believe there is a lot more that could be said in terms of thorough evaluation of the root cause analysis of how our democracy is being challenged. That can include additional perspectives and school of thoughts. One example is the advancement of digital technology, while it generates many benefits, it can be affected by cyber security vulnerabilities and other potential breaches. These implications have been growing of the last decade and are becoming more sophisticated by foreign and domestic actors that challenge our democracy.
M I used to have a lot of gringo friends ( pre-covid), now they don't talk anymore. I miss their wit, generosity, intelligence, and helpful attitude. The megaphones in the extreme media ( left and right) carved deep cracks in the nation's social fabric; President trump just made the cracks wider. Perhaps, the US should sanction temporarily hateful speech in the same fashion as Copywrite violations, libel, food labeling, and slander. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The dichotomy between media rights versus public rights not to listen to daily hateful and intimidating speech falls into the realm of competing rights to privacy and freedom of expression. I don't mind some restrictions on hateful speech till we mend our social scars.
For Democracy in the World: America is the light: acts of its leaders of any political party compromises billions of hearts who are fighting for democratic rights. Seeing hope from America VOA or CNN or Fox or America dream of Rule of Law, dissent, change of power floats in their blood. Nelson Mandela, Kim Dae Jung, Aang San Sukyi to the Great Mahatama Gandhi thought Americ is demorcatically great. French discussed Democracy but well practicised in America. Regime Changes were supported but acts of attack on Capitol Hill is not only shocking but a encouragement to China, Russia, Authoratarian Regimes? What ever PEW Research or Partisian Politics happens America and Americans should think big as Truly World depend on them for peace and security for Human Rights to Dissent to Liberal Ways? India alone cannot take democracy further without EU, Britain and America For now Alexis de Tocqueville is looked down........ while Saddam, Gaddaffi, Castro, Mao,having their share of laugh Thanks T S Chandrashekar M.A.M'PhiL/PhD South Korea TV Panelist, Columnist, International Affairs and Korea Expert Bangalore India
Very funny to see the comment "India alone cannot take democracy further without EU, Britain and America"... the matter of fact is that India is far behind on democracy than the countries you have mentioned, and dragging down at a rapid pace over the last 5-6 years under the current government ... please read the latest Freedom House reports.
While one must remain hopeful that American democracy will not go under and that the institutions are strong enough to withstand the recent events on Capitol Hill, what I find deeply disturbing is that the Republican party has allowed a cult to build around the preside and that millions of Americans are prepared to only believe the presidents words. Overwhelming evidence contrary to what he says is simply irrelevant. This man has a history of living in his own fabricated world and by now he has millions of followers, a process that was supported by the media and highly influential individuals in Washington. There is a lot of talk about whether there will be a lasting impact on society as a whole, or on governmental leaders, that there will be lessons learned, and I'm not hopefully there it will any of lasting effect. We forget very fast and in a few weeks, other news will occupy our minds, the headlines, our conversations across the land, and the globe. One can only hope that the Republican party will undertake some sincere soul-searching and think hard about who they rally around in the future, behind who they throw their wholehearted support. One can only hope that the time will come again when country and the people matter more than self-interest and one's own enrichment. That goes for both parties. Coming from and having lived all my life in a multi-party country, I have longed wondered whether the long-held two party system in the US is part of the problem. Maybe it is time for a multi-party system in America, as well. Enjoyed reading your analysis. Ms. Kleinfeld. Thank you.
I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.