ACTIVISM AFTER THE INSURRECTION

Post-Insurrection Activism

by Jay R. Mandle

The most important thing to know about the January 6^th attack on democracy  is that the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of the insurrection. In a Reuters/Ispos Poll, 81 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly opposed the coup attempt. It is no surprise to learn that 92 percent of Democrats did, and that 80 percent of Independents did as well. But it is especially significant that 71 percent of Republicans disapproved of the effort to violently overturn the results of the presidential election. Furthermore, almost half (47 percent) of the Republicans described the insurrectionists as “criminals.”

There is no mandate for despotism in this country.

Nevertheless, more than a few Republican politicians eagerly provided leadership to the rioters. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley were the most prominent among them. But in total, 7 senators and 138 members of the House of Representatives voted to reject Pennsylvania’s electoral returns.

The threat to democracy therefore is real. And because that is so, we must strengthen democracy’s defenses.

Defending democracy requires grassroots organizing. That was the key to Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock’s victories in the Georgia senatorial runoff election. The defeat of incumbent Republicans in that election, according to analysts at fivethirtyeight, “was made possible by the fact that turnout was completely off the charts.” Twice as many Georgians voted in this runoff than in an earlier runoff in 2008.

Democracy was strengthened because so many people participated in the political process. The more participation, the stronger the democracy.

Therefore, what we most need is legislation that will result in increased political participation. Authoritarian rule is a minority preference in this country that can best be held in check by the political activism of the majority. What occurred in Georgia needs to be replicated throughout the country. Laws to strengthen democracy should be on the immediate agenda of every activist.

First, social media has to be accountable for the lies disseminated on their sites in the run up to the 2020 election. A functioning democracy requires that voters are provided with accurate information. Lies and false conspiracy theories are  tools used to deflect attention from the problems confronting the society. Newspapers, radio and television stations, and cable outlets are rightly held to account when their reporting is inaccurate. The same should be true for social media. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statue that protects Internet providers from liability for allowing falsehoods to appear on their platforms, should be repealed.

Second, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed as HR 4 in the last Congress, should become law.  In response to the Supreme Court decision in Shelby v Holder, this legislation would restore the government’s ability to prevent voter disenfranchisement by race. Shelby v Holder ruled against the requirement in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that jurisdictions with a record of racial discrimination secure pre-approval by the Department of Justice or a Washington federal court before they could implement changes in their election laws. Predictably with the removal of pre-clearance, numerous southern states wasted no time in purging large numbers of African-Americans from their voter rolls. The “Lewis” legislation changes the formula that the Court objected to, so the bill will not again run afoul even of this conservative Court.

Third, an even more far-reaching tool to increase political participation is the For the People Act, HR 1, that also passed in the last Congress. Many provisions in this Act protect and expand voting rights. Registering to vote would be made easier, prior criminal convictions would not bar people from voting, and early voting would be expanded.

But the most important reform contained in the legislation, from the perspective of enhancing political participation, is its provision for a system of voluntary public funding for congressional candidates. The current system of privately financed campaigns means that today, people without access to wealth are all but prohibited from running for office. Spending by the ultra-rich also reduces voter turnout, because candidates are distrusted when they rely on  wealthy funders. With the small-dollar public funding system contained in HR 1, both problems would be alleviated. For participating candidates, the government would add six dollars to his or her campaign for each dollar of donations. Such a system already exists at numerous states, cities, and counties in the United States. Wherever it has been implemented, the results are just what we need. With it, more people run for office, and voter turnout increases as distrust is decreased.

The most damaging consequence of the Trump presidency is that it  provided an enhanced platform for the opponents of democracy. However, a melee such as the one that occurred in Washington can act as the impetus for the most effective counterattack possible – widespread activism to deepen democracy.

 

 

 Jay Mandle is the W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Colgate University.

Money on my Mind is a monthly column written to spark discussion. The ideas expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of Democracy Matters.