Thoughtful Thursday Reads on America’s Threatened democracy

William Dexter Bramhall, ‘Big Sky American Landscape

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

It’s really been a messy week for anyone trying to keep up with all the fallout from the Trump Crime Syndicate.  The good news is that most of this is focused on the ability of the Justice System to do its job.  It’s hard to look at the bigger picture when your down in the weeds watching Trump’s confederates face a judge.  Today, I want to look at the bigger picture.

This headline from the AP grabbed my attention. “13 Presidential Libraries Issue Rare Joint Warning About U.S. Democracy. Their statement stopped short of slamming individuals as it called for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles.”  This is reported by Gary Fields.

Ghost Ranch Landscape, Georgia O’Keeffe, 1936,

I’ve seen all the Presidential Birthplaces and libraries from Eisenhower on back.  They’re really interesting if you ever get a chance to see them.  For some reason, my family quit going out of the way to see them after Ike’s.  They usually just keep on collecting things and doing research on that particular President. Generally, presidential records will be sent to the library from the Library of Congress as required by each library and what it displays.  This joint statement is unique.  The Libraries have generally been nonpolitical.

Concern for U.S. democracy amid deep national polarization has prompted the entities supporting 13 presidential libraries dating back to Herbert Hoover to call for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs.

The statement released Thursday, the first time the libraries have joined to make such a public declaration, said Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and human rights around the world because “free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home.”“But that interest,” it said, “is undermined when others see our own house in disarray.”

The joint message from presidential centers, foundations and institutes emphasized the need for compassion, tolerance and pluralism while urging Americans to respect democratic institutions and uphold secure and accessible elections.

The statement noted that “debate and disagreement” are central to democracy but also alluded to the coarsening of dialogue in the public arena during an era when officials and their families are receiving death threats.

“Civility and respect in political discourse, whether in an election year or otherwise, are essential,” it said.

Most of the living former presidents have been sparing in giving their public opinions about the state of the nation as polls show that large swaths of Republicans still believe the lies perpetuated by former President Donald Trump and his allies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

William Henry Bartlett (1809-1854) New York from Weehawken, New Jersey 1846

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace has this information analyzed in the research paper, “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says.  It’s written by Rachel Kleinfeld.

The United States feels roiled by polarization, and the philanthropic world is seized with debates about what to do. Some scholars claim that Americans are so polarized they are on the brink of civil war. Other polls suggest that voters agree on plenty of policies and that polarization is an illusion. Some philanthropists call for pluralism and civility, while others lean into activism, believing polarization is a byproduct of change toward a more just world. So, is the United States polarized or not? If it is, what is causing the polarization and what are its consequences? Should polarization be solved or tolerated?

This paper is intended to answer these questions. It opens with five facts about polarization in the United States today and what those imply for possible interventions. A literature review follows, organized chronologically to explain the scholarly shift from thinking of polarization as an ideological, policy-based phenomenon to an issue of emotion, as well as the emerging understanding of polarization as both a social phenomenon and a political strategy.

This section caught my eye.

American politicians are highly ideologically polarized. In other words, they believe in and vote for different sets of policies, with little overlap. This trend has grown in a steady, unpunctuated manner for decades.⁵ One reason that the most highly politically engaged Americans may misunderstand the other side is that they correctly estimate the extreme ideological polarization among politicians.

It is easy to assume that polarized voters are selecting more polarized leaders—and that theory may hold true for recent primary elections. However, that is not the main story. The process begins long before voters get a choice: more ideologically extreme politicians have been running for office since the 1980s.⁶ Among the pool of people wishing to run, party chairs more often select and support extreme candidates, especially on the right. (In 2013, Republican party chairs at the county level selected ten extreme candidates for every one moderate; the ratio was two to one for Democrats.) The increase in “safe” seats, in which one party is overwhelmingly likely to win, explains candidate and party preferences for more polarizing platforms, but it does not explain the depth of the Republican preference.⁷

Parties and candidates clearly believe that more polarizing candidates are more likely to win elections. This may be a self-fulfilling prophecy: voters exposed to more polarizing rhetoric from leaders who share their partisan identity are likely to alter their preferences based on their understanding of what their group believes and has normalized—particularly among primary voters whose identity is more tied to their party. ⁸ However, only about 20 percent of each party votes in primaries, and 41 percent of Americans are independents who may not have strong party identity and are barred from voting in some states’ primaries.⁹ That leaves the majority of voters with a relatively low ability to pick a less polarizing candidate of their party. Philanthropists and prodemocracy organizations attempting to reduce polarization often assume that the problem they must grapple with is polarized voters, but their interventions should also take into account the fact that that some of the ideological extremism and polarization since the 1980s is candidate- and party-driven. While at this point, candidates and parties may be responding to polarized primary voters, candidates and parties have been driving the polarization, and not all voters are ideologically polarized.

The disparity between where leaders are ideologically and where their voters are precludes legislative policy agreement on many issues. Average voters are not able to assert their (often weak) policy preferences because they do not have an effective way to vote out representatives who do not accurately represent their constituents’ views, particularly on the right where party chairs are likely to substitute one extreme candidate for another.

Thomas Moran, American Landscape Pennsylvania c. 1868

Think about that last sentence.  Connecticut Public Radio analyzes a Quinnipiac poll. “Is American democracy in crisis?”  The discussion and analysis is by Frankie Graziano and Meg Dalton.  It’s about a 50-minute listen.

Eighty-three percent of American voters are either very worried or at least somewhat worried about the functioning of our democracy.So what does this recent Quinnipiac poll tell us? Why are people losing faith in our democracy?

This hour, we’re asking some big questions about the future of democracy in the U.S., covering everything from political violence to voter suppression.

The Poll is quite interesting and was taken in August. “Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary.”  This is the base poll of opinions prior to the court cases now getting closer to being held.  Today, Mark Meadows is in court for his Contempt of Congress Charge.  It is likely that the first of the Fulton County, Georgia, defendants’ trials kick off in October

In the wake of a federal indictment accusing former President Donald Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Americans 54 – 42 percent think Trump should be prosecuted on criminal charges, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll released today. Democrats (95 – 5 percent) and independents (57 – 37 percent) think the former president should be prosecuted on criminal charges for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, while Republicans (85 – 12 percent) think Trump should not be prosecuted. The poll was conducted from August 10th through August 14th.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are either very serious (52 percent) or somewhat serious (12 percent), while roughly one-third (32 percent) think they are either not too serious (11 percent) or not serious at all (21 percent).

There are wide gaps by political party.

Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats (89 percent) and 51 percent of independents think the federal criminal charges are very serious. Among Republicans, 18 percent think the federal criminal charges are very serious, while 48 percent say they are not serious at all.

Jennifer L. Mohr, Landscape Painting 4

Motions in the Georgia RICO case have started. This resulted in one decision already where the Judge did not sever two of the codefendents.  While this case is vital to ensuring justice to us for the election-stealing attempts by Trump and his supporters, what I’d like to look at today is a RICO case filed by a Georgia Republican Attorney General that threatens the very heart of our right to free speech and assembly. This appears to be a tit-for-tat on a certain level.  It’s certainly catching up protestors asserting their rights with activists who are actually using illegal actions to stop this project.

This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which I appear to be reading more than my own home city paper these days. “More than 60 Atlanta training center activists named in RICO Indictment.”  Constitutional Rights Activists and Lawyers are alarmed

More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.

The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.

A total of 61 protesters have been charged with violating the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act. Some face additional charges of domestic terrorism, arson and money laundering. Most are not from Georgia.

“Our job is to enforce the laws of this state. As you can tell in this indictment, this is about violent acts plain and simple,” Attorney General Chris Carr said in a press conference announcing the indictment.

The indictment mainly focuses on the Defend the Atlanta Forest group, describing it as an Atlanta-based organization that prosecutors say is an “anti-government, anti-police, and anti-corporate extremist organization.”

More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.

The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.

Wayne Thiebaud, Green River Lands, 1998,

CNN has more analysis. “61 ‘Cop City’ protesters indicted on RICO charges. Opponents question the timeline and motivation.”

Debate over the public safety training facility has been brewing for years. The Atlanta Police Foundation, which is helping to fund the project, has said it’s needed to help boost morale and recruitment among police and firefighter ranks now using substandard or borrowed facilities. Protesters have decried its potential environmental impact and possible role in the further militarization of police, with some camping out at the site for months and clashing with police.

The Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition, which opposes the project, denounced the RICO indictment and questioned the motivation behind it.

“These charges, like the previous repressive prosecutions by the State of Georgia, seek to intimidate protestors, legal observers, and bail funds alike, and send the chilling message that any dissent to Cop City will be punished with the full power and violence of the government,” the coalition said.

“Further, the documents use the day George Floyd was murdered as the date the alleged criminal acts began. This is months before anyone was even aware of Cop City, and is a clear assault on the broader movement for racial justice and equity,” the group said.

The 109-page indictment indeed alleges criminal activity related to the training center site happened “on or between May 25, 2020 and August 25, 2023.” Floyd was killed May 25, 2020, by a Minneapolis police officer – tipping off a nationwide reckoning over police use of force against people of color – but the “Cop City” training center site wasn’t announced until 2021.

“Carr’s actions are a part of a retaliatory pattern of prosecutions against organizers nationwide that attack the right to protest and freedom of speech,” the Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition said.

Sunlight and Shadow: The Newbury Marshes (c. 1875) by Martin Johnson Heade

DA Willis has been seeking anonymity for the jurors because of ongoing threats from MAGA extremists.  Another disturbing Republican extremist is trying to interfere with the Rico Charges against Trump and his Co-conspirators. “Willis blasts congressman’s ‘interference’ in Fulton Trump probe.” This is from the ACJ.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Thursday blasted a congressman who has pledged to investigate her handling of an indictment of former President Donald Trump and others.

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently demanded records of Willis’ communication with Justice Department officials who have also indicted Trump for his role in an alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Jordan suggested Willis is attempting to interfere with the 2024 election – Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination. And he said her investigation could infringe on the free speech and other rights of Trump and other defendants.

On Thursday, Willis fired back, saying Jordan’s Aug. 24 letter included “inaccurate information and misleading statements.” She accused Jodan of improperly interfering with a state criminal case and attempting to punish her for personal political gain.

“Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous misrepresentations,” Willis wrote of Jordan letter. “As I make clear below, there is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.”

Which case is about Free Speech?  Which case is about tampering with witnesses and dirtying jury pools?

Then there is this.

• Pennsylvania school district requires social studies classes to incorporate right-wing propaganda
• Miami school board again shuts down LGBTQ month recognition
• The Rise of Legislative Anti-Democracy
• State Legislatures Are Torching Democracy
• The Anti-Voting Bills Republicans Enacted This Legislative Season

It’s an easy GOOGLE search to find out why our democratic republic is threatened.  Vote! Volunteer! Use your networks to GOTV!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?