July
22
How Weaving Together Agency and Opportunity Can Shape a Common American Vision
11:00 am CT
As the new administration settles in, many ask: How resilient is our democracy?
Since the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, America has undergone many challenges, but today, the foundational democratic system faces an alarming test. Amid this uncertain moment, key questions arise: Will our government's system of checks and balances withstand this unprecedented challenge, and how should ordinary citizens respond when their government appears to be moving away from its democratic ideals?
The Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) and The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University convened experts in history, political science, and law to examine the state of American Democracy under the Donald Trump administration.
Professors Lisa L. Miller of Rutgers, Beau Breslin of Skidmore College, and Henry L. Chambers, Jr. of the University of Richmond discussed our institutions and assessed their ability to survive the current political storm.
Will our Democracy prove fragile or resilient in the face of rising authoritarianism? Professor Breslin opened the discussion by describing the current moment in American political history as "alarming," emphasizing the increasing centralization of power. From there, the conversation unfolded into a debate on the resilience of our democratic institutions.
Professor Miller argued that the American political system has been in crisis for some time. "It is time to admit that we have a problem," she remarked, acknowledging the growing disconnect between the elites and the needs of ordinary citizens. Miller further argued that the actions of the new administration, particularly its disregard for traditional checks and balances, suggest that democracy is genuinely under threat.
Miller referred to specific actions that reflect an authoritative governing style, specifically key appointments in the administration, which, Miller argued, prioritize loyalty over competence. This approach undermines democratic principles and weakens government efficacy. Miller also pointed to the administration's early actions, including cutting federal spending, pardoning criminals while targeting law enforcers, and eliminating key civil rights protections, as clear signs of authoritarian overreach.
According to Miller, the President's reliance on executive orders instead of working through the legislative process signals that even with the Republican-held Congress, many of these orders would be unlikely to pass through Congress due to their popularity with the electorate.
Professor Chambers focused his remarks on the Constitution and the roles of government and institutions. He stressed that any discussion of institutional resilience must begin with a deep understanding of the roles outlined in the Constitution.
According to Chambers, the core purpose of the American government is to serve its citizens, not any individual. Focusing on the oath taken by all elected officials and federal employees, precisely the idea to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, Chambers asked, 'What are those elected officials and employees supposed to be doing at this time?"
Chambers raised a critical question: What happens when the system of checks and balances begins to blur? In particular, he pointed to the recent executive decisions about funding and appropriations, asking whether the President should have the authority to refuse to spend money that Congress has already appropriated. He explains that if the executive branch gets all the power, who can stop that branch is not exactly clear.
Miller posited that the crossing-the-line moment will occur if the President ignores a Supreme Court decision.
The conversation also explored the influential role of wealthy elites in influencing the current administration, with both Miller and Chambers expressing concerns about the extent to which the wealthiest individuals can shape policy. "It's crucial that we recognize the problem of elite influence and the concerns that ordinary Americans have about day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues that often don't make their way to the political classes," said Miller.
The panelists discussed the hyper-partisan environment that has come to define U.S. politics. With both political parties seemingly unable to offer meaningful alternatives, Miller argued that there is an urgent need for a broad political movement that presents an affirmative agenda for change—not just a reactionary stance against the current administration.
The audience asked: What can ordinary citizens do in this political turmoil? Miller suggested that actions at the state and local level can significantly impact Washington, signaling what is and is not working for the people. For Miller, grassroots movements and local protests can effectively push back against government overreach.
On the other hand, Chambers reminded the audience that Trump ran as the candidate of change and that he won by a very slim margin. He added that if this is the 'change' people voted for, they need to explain how all this change has brought down the price of eggs.
To view the entire program video, please click here.
At The Network for Responsible Public Policy, we remain committed to fostering thoughtful, fact-based conversations that educate the public on our time's most pressing political issues. Our mission is to encourage dialogue based on truths. Please join us as we continue to explore key issues with renowned experts.
Thursday, March 27 at 7:30P PM (Eastern) - Is Rule of Law Enough to Protect Democracy? A panel discussion moderated by Susan Herman, the inaugural Ruth Bader Ginsburg Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School
Thursday, April 3 at 7:30 PM (Eastern). The War in Ukraine. A continuing conversation moderated by Gideon Rose, former editor of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
To register for an upcoming NFRPP program, please visit our website at nfrpp.org and click on subscribe. All our programs are conducted virtually via Zoom and Facebook Live. Videos of all previous programs are available free of charge on our website for personal viewing and classroom use. Please visit nfrpp.org
For further information about the Network for Responsible Public Policy, please email info@nfrpp.org.
Jennie Smith Wilson is a board member and program host of the Network for Responsible Public Policy.
We have many reasons to be cynical about our democracy these days. Hyper-partisanship interferes with the functioning of American democratic institutions. Left- and right-leaning media continue to spoon-feed an endless stream of biased news, depressing an already too-depressed population. And both political parties are fractured and dysfunctional in unprecedented ways. Yet, even amid that doom and gloom, I recently witnessed extraordinary examples of civic innovation from the next generation.
“In the political life of a free society, unity doesn’t mean thinking alike,” according to noted political theorist Yuval Levin. “Unity means acting together.”
A couple weeks ago, Levin sat down with Brian Boyle of American Promise to unpack this idea and others from Levin’s latest book, “ American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation — And Could Again.”
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers hosted its post-election gathering Dec. 2-4 in San Diego. More than 120 leaders from across the country convened to reflect on the November elections, where reform campaigns achieved mixed results with multiple state losses, and to chart a path forward for nonpartisan electoral reforms. As the Bridge Alliance Education Fund is a founding member of NANR and I currently serve on the board, I attended the gathering in hopes of getting some insight on how we can best serve the collective needs of the electoral reform community in the coming year.