Democracy needs serious people

Before we take a break for the summer, we wanted to talk about some of the events that have been on our minds lately, and some of what we'll be watching over the summer. Chris Beem and Candis Watts Smith talk about what's happening in North Carolina, what we may hear from the Supreme Court in June, the fight over the debt ceiling, and more.

Many of these conversations ultimately boil down to the question of how serious the representatives of our democracy are about protecting the things that make America democratic. We end the episode addressing the question of whether the perverse incentives and the unserious behavior they produce can be overcome — and what it will take to do so.

New episodes of Democracy Works will return in late August. In the meantime, we'll be rebroadcasting some older episodes you might have missed and sharing episodes from our partners in The Democracy Group podcast network.

Chris Beem
From the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University, I'm Chris Beem.

Candis Watts Smith
I'm Candis Watts Smith.

Jenna Spinelle
I'm Jenna Spinelle and welcome to Democracy Works, we have reached the end of another season of Democracy Works. And as is customary, we're going to take a break from our usual format and talk about some of what's been happening in politics and in conversations about democracy more broadly, over the last couple of months, we tend not to talk too much about the day to day of politics and our normal episodes. But I think there has been a lot that's happened as we'll get into and give everybody some things to think about and to watch out for through the rest of the summer. So I think we're gonna start with North Carolina, Candis, you live and work in North Carolina and mentioned it briefly last time. Tell us a little bit about what's been happening there for folks who might not have been following.

Candis Watts Smith
Sure. So you know, the day to day is where the rubber hits the road. And I think that North Carolina's state legislature, its judicial system, is really shining a light on the work of folks like Jake Grumbach, who show that some states can be more democratic or less democratic than others. And North Carolina shenanigans reveals that North Carolina is not necessarily wanting or its legislature, it's not necessarily wanting North Carolina to be a full on democracy. And we can see this in its kind of whiplash moves around abortion, and voting, and gerrymandering and higher education. I can go on and on. But I think even if we kind of break down each one of these, we can see also how these are all connected, how the the ways that we allow people to vote, under what circumstances under what districting rules can influence things that are seemingly as far flung as abortion, how democratic institutions can be used for on democratic means. So it's, it's really quite wild to be watching North Carolina's politics in real time, and it's actually quite disheartening.

Chris Beem
Well, and it's not just in North Carolina, is it? Right, I mean, you see very similar legislative agendas, in you know, just about every red state. And really, North Carolina is probably one of the most purple of those states that you were talking about. Right? Florida had a six week ban on abortion, and Texas, we see the same kind of efforts towards transgender rights. And you see that in Nebraska and Iowa, and I mean, you know, basically, if it's a red state, you see these, these initiatives. And, you know, I mean, I was really striving to avoid my, you know, Geek inclination to make this kind of horse race II, right, because these, these issues are going to have implications for 2024. But I think you're you what you're talking about cannabis is that is that there is some kind of more fundamental way of understanding what's going on here. And it is striking how much of this is cultural? Right? You know, the argument about the Trumpian, you know, wave in 2016, was that people felt like they were shut out economically, but you don't hear anything about that you don't hear anything about inflation. These are issues about where, you know, a broad swath of the American body politic feels like their values are being rejected and spurned, and they were trying to take it back. But my sense is that what unites all this and all these red states, is the idea that there's this cultural resentment about where the culture is going, and they don't like it. And they see the democratic handwriting on the wall, and they're doing everything they can to stop it or at least slow it down.

Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, I mean, just to, you know, bring it back to my home state. North Carolina is a place that it is very purple. The Supreme Court has already decided that it does not care if there are extreme partisan maps, and to let it go to the States. The North Carolina State Supreme Court not that long ago said that it would not allow for extreme partisan gerrymandering. And then there was an election and we have a new makeup of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which then overturned earned its own past rulings, and in a kind of historic way that it has almost never returned to a previous decision. And in this case of all of the decisions that it could come back on, it came back on to one was to allow partisan gerrymandering. And the other was to allow for voter ID. So here we see how we have one, I think we see that we almost never look at the judiciary. And here we're gonna it's kind of right, we have this kind of powerful sweep, and it's going to have lasting effects. Republicans could make as many as 11 out of 14 seats be Republican seats in North Carolina. And, and it will be perfectly legal,

Chris Beem
And there's nothing to be done about it.

Candis Watts Smith
Yeah. And this is, this is the kind of thing that we're in and, you know, for Alito, and Dobbs to say that we should just go back to the states and let people vote for what they want, is asinine. It's acid 10, it's acid 11. And it's unrealistic because of this kind of situation, that North Carolinians are not going to necessarily be able to have their voices heard, even in its own state legislature. And then to put on top that we have representatives switching parties, or just one riding roughshod on their own constituents. So I think, you know, your kind of argument about this cultural resentment, I think there's also a matter of ego. And we see people's ego being more important than representing, you know, their constituents. And we see this in the house, too. I mean, we can talk about McCarthy and the debt ceiling in a minute. But I think that what's happening is that people are more concerned about their own status, about their own potential professional growth, and not necessarily thinking about the long term ramifications for representative democracy.

Chris Beem
Well, you know, I mean,

Candis Watts Smith
I'm boring health or voting, or education. Anything else?

Chris Beem
I don't think that is unique to Republicans. I mean, I think that's kind of a politician is is somebody who puts her own self interest ahead of every other consideration. And

Candis Watts Smith
Okay, maybe it's not a Republican thing. But I do think that there is something about the extent to which there is a lack of forbearance, although that's absolutely true. So you can be self interested and be, you know, in lead within a particular set of constraints, but to just kind of all out, disregard any norms or constraints that you're doing things because you can not because they're the right thing to do not because you think it's the moral thing to do not because you think it's the economically viable thing to do. You're doing it because you can.

Chris Beem
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think when you look at what happened to Merrick Garland, that's the only explanation there is, and you hear these explanations, and you're like, Who are you convincing? And it's like, they don't really see any need to convince people. We can do this, therefore, we're going to do it. And and if I got to put some, you know, fig leaf explanation to account for it, fine. But you don't take it seriously, and neither do I.

Jenna Spinelle
So you know, Chris, I'm reminded of the the conversation we had on the show with Francis Lee, who studies congressional behavior and legislators motivations, and something she said that really stuck with me and I think is relevant to this conversation is that there are I believe, twice as many if not a higher ratio of communication staff to legislative or policy staff in Congress. So the only thing that matters or that that signals where their priorities are right, it's getting your message out, and it doesn't really matter what the actions are, what you do, what you don't do, as long as you can kind of put something out from a communications perspective that it says the right things to your base and to the media outlets where you know, that you are going to get traction on so, you know, that is I think we're really seeing that manifests itself at the federal level, certainly what Frances studies but I think it's also trickling down to the states which is what Jake and others have been studying as well?

Chris Beem
No, that's right. But I, the one thing that what Candice is saying that I think is really critical for reviewing or for assessing this, you know, the lay of the land for 2024 is that there's going to be a backlash, I mean, a democratic backlash. We've seen it right. We saw it in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. And so that's going to happen. But it's only going to happen in the states where there is some preservation of popular, popular well being expressed through the electoral process that, and if you have, you know, the game rigged to the point where that's not happening, and that's tough. And then you bring that to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court says, That's not happening. And that's tough. Well, then you're and you're just, you institutionalize this bifurcation that's going on within the nation, and exactly speaks to this point of the red states getting redder, and the blue states getting lower.

Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, so given that voting is really at the center here, and the Supreme Court has, over the past decade, made a concerted effort to chip away at the Voting Rights Act, we probably shouldn't expect it to do anything helpful. And it's upcoming decisions, including Merrill versus Mulligan, which is about section two of the Voting Rights Act. And it's really kind of one of the last major leg standing, which Roberts in the majority decision and holder and Shelby versus holder noted. Well, it's okay that we've struck down the preclearance formula, because you still can use section two. And Alabama has created a map that picks up all the black folks in Alabama, basically in one district, and then it cracks them otherwise to dilute their voting power. And so you know, there's a call to fix this. And Alabama has the audacity to say, well, in order to fix the map, we would have to consider race. And it is unconstitutional to consider race when making decisions. And it's like, Are you freaking kidding me, I just don't see a path with this court, that section two of the Voting Rights Act isn't going to just be chipped away even further, for whatever John Roberts dream of anti anti voting dreams are, I just I don't get that guy. But again, we're just essentially saying that this idea that the Supreme Court says, let's put it back to the States, and then you can vote, and then it's doing all of these things to prevent constituencies that have very particular political, not, not ideologies, that's not that have shared, you know, political concerns, are just being, again, ran roughshod.

Chris Beem
You know, I think I do understand what John Roberts is thinking. And I don't think it's that different from a lot of other legislative initiatives we see throughout especially red states, you know, Voting Rights Act, which, you know, we need to stipulate is, well, at least until like maybe 2010, nearly universally regarded as one of the greatest legislative achievements in the history of the United States of America. That's the moment when the United States became a genuine democracy, not the Declaration of Independence, not the not the Civil War amendments, Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, it is also true that the Voting Rights Act was understood at the time to be working to rectify in justices that were built in to this what was it six or seven states that were identified in in the legislation, and so you had to take race into account in order to make race no longer and account in order to make it genuinely equal? And what Robert said with Holden was alright, well, we're here. We're here. This is what we need to do. And we don't have to worry, we this artificial structure that we're using to fix the problem of race. We've reached it. And so it's okay now?

Jenna Spinelle
Well, I think when it comes to the court, we'll see we see it in affirmative action, too, which is another case.

Candis Watts Smith
Back to my home state. Yeah, right. It will not be be. So the affirmative action cases, we will probably hear in June. And essentially, the argument is that it is we have come to a time when considering race, among some other series of holistic factors is unnecessary in college admissions, and there's one argument that from Harvard that this issue is unfair to Asian Americans, you and U of C's case says that the consideration of race is unfair to white students in North Carolina, and 25 years ago, ish. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that in 25 years, we should not need to use race anymore. Right again, another. And so, you know, here we have an opportunity with a six, three majority, to live out our raceless American dream. The schools in states, Michigan and California, have both written to the Supreme Court to say, if you eliminate the use of race, as we have done in our state's colleges across the United States will be changed in a way that is detrimental to its students, because there are no other alternatives to increasing diversity and the way that you would like to see it without acknowledging race of applicants or the student body. And so these are two states that have, you know, tried it, and they've seen their student populations change drastically. And if they're, you know, is a value of diversity. Those states have argued that they are not actually able to really explain their students are not really able to experience that. So that's where we are.

Chris Beem
In the oral arguments about this case. I don't remember whether it was Alito or Thomas, but one of them said something the effect of like, well, I don't even know what you mean, when you say diversity is Thomas, it was Clarence Thomas. Yeah, I don't even know what you mean, when you're saying diversity is of value.

Candis Watts Smith
Yeah, I mean, I have, you know, written about diversity as in the way that it is largely used as being problematic. And so I'm not saying that Clarence Thomas is right, I'm saying that he's right, but for the wrong reasons. And just to kind of take a step back, I would say that we'll remember that the reason why we had affirmative action in the first place was for justice, and was for remedying past discrimination. And diversity became the kind of new reason and rationale for affirmative action. And my view is, to some degree, a watered down rationale in comparison to justice, and remedying discrimination. But on the other hand, I'll take it, because it's better than nothing, right, which is what we may have moving forward. You know, I now am an administrator. And I'm watching people just really kind of think hard about what is our next move, that if schools do indeed, care about diversity, and seek to maintain that without having the tools necessary, that makes it to make it a factor in admissions, yeah, factor in admissions, but also, you know, we can do more, I mean, Michigan and California, they have changed their recruitment strategies. They have tried, they have tried and tried and tried to almost no avail. And so you know, just kind of being in an administrative post and really thinking through Well, what is it that we're going to have to do to maintain our values and to live out our values? The Supreme Court makes it hard. And you know, I teach at, I have only taught at actually very excellent schools across the country. And so I have taught you People who are now leaders and our government and their, you know, international students who are in their own governments, this is high stakes. And if we really care about ensuring that our representative institutions have well educated, empathetic, well versed people who are able to see different perspectives, who were able to understand where people are coming from, to involve themselves and difficult conversations with people who aren't like them, it that is I mean, college is one of the few places where that happens. And, you know, maybe just maybe the Supreme Court will surprise us, but it probably will not. And that ramifications are going to be deep and long lasting.

Jenna Spinelle
So as if all of that in the Supreme Court wasn't enough, maybe a more urgent thing, even before we get those decisions in June. Here, as we record this on May 22. We're waiting to hear what happens with negotiations over the debt ceiling, it's been a back and forth between Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy and their respective teams. And as I understand it, June 1 is the kind of drop dead date that Janet Yellen has been saying. So yeah, what are the kind of political ramifications?

Chris Beem
We just don't know. And, and I don't want to assume anything. But in the context of 2024, if this, you know, I mean, you know, of course, if this does not pass, and we default on our debt, the effects on the world and the effects on the nation will be genuinely catastrophic. And it will basically completely up and any talk about 2024. But even if it goes down to the last minute, last time, this happened, Moody's reduced the credit rating the United States, and that cost everyday Americans, you know, a great deal of money because their interest rates were higher, that could happen. And in and actually, you know, the closer we get, it's now we're talking nine days. And that could exact could happen. And so the brinksmanship here, and the the Cavalier you know, acting as if this is real politics, or mere politics, where we're just fighting over over legislation, without recognizing, you know, that we're not playing with fire we're playing with, you know, a nuclear warhead. It's just, it's just really striking to me.

Candis Watts Smith
I think it's just, it's dumb.

Chris Beem
It is. Because it's completely unnecessary.

Candis Watts Smith
It's completely unnecessary. I think, for me, what stands out is that Kevin McCarthy, has put himself into a position where any one Republican can initiate a motion to vacate.

Chris Beem
Well, he had no choice, right? He wasn't gonna get elected Speaker without doing that. But yes, he has.

Candis Watts Smith
Yes. But my point is, is that he was willing to do all of that, for what ego? So now, he's treating the debt ceiling. Like, you know, like the Freedom Caucus treated the speakership. So we're just I mean, yes. Are we going to get through this probably, is it, you know, people just doing brinksmanship, playing chicken. You okay. But it's a bad look. Yeah. And it makes the United States look like we do not know how to do business. And, you know, we're just gonna go from one desperate situation to another, because McCarthy essentially has allowed, you know, his own position to be held hostage by the right wing of the GOP. And we're going to see things like this again. And again. Why, for ego?

Chris Beem
You know, I think the point that this is dumb needs to be reiterated, right? We put our nation we put ourselves in this position every two years for no good reason the money's been spent and the end, the Constitution says that the United States will not default. So why are we having this conversation? And why are we allowing 20 People in the Freedom Caucus to hold a gun to the head not just for the American economy but the world to come?

Jenna Spinelle
Yeah. I'm reminded of the line from succession. We're not serious people. Right. It seems like there's a lot of that too and going around. Yeah. You know the answer to this when I asked guests on the show, there's all these anti democratic forces that we've talked about, and This and our other episodes, and the answer is always vote. And, you know, I guess I just wonder, like, at what point are we, at past the line of demarcation? Or is the system kind of so corrupt or perverse that there's just this cycle of, and seriousness and ego that we've been talking about is going to keep perpetuating, regardless of, you know, who gets voted or the extent to which people can even vote for candidates that they, you know, deemed to not have those qualities that we've been talking about thus far? Not the most optimistic place to end? Maybe. But that's the kind of overarching question that I've been thinking about as, as we've been talking.

Candis Watts Smith
I guess there's two things that come to my mind. One is that what's the alternative? If it's not voting, then what? The second is that I have to believe in my heart of hearts, that the United States has seen worse times, you know, times that people thought that we would never get out of, and I'm mostly thinking about like slavery. And that, you know, that I'm sure that there was someone in 1790, who could not see 1865 Pull up. And that time marked a significant change, that nobody could have predicted years before reconstruction. And so I guess what I'm saying is, is that I have to believe that maybe things will get worse, but maybe things will get better.

Chris Beem
All right. I think I have two points as well. First, is I'm actually kind of pleased that we haven't brought up Donald Trump's name to this point. But, you know, when you're talking about, you know, we are not serious. You know, Trump's CNN town hall is just, I mean, made that argument just in spades, right? I mean, there's no, you know, he is the epitome of unserious SNESs. And, and makes these claims and lies with abandon, and without the least amount of concern for the truth, let alone notions like integrity, or honesty or anything like that. And so as long as this individual sets the marching order for one political party, and I don't know that I see a lot of prospects for that changing in 2024. You know, as a politician, in the Republican Party, I don't know how you possibly win the nomination, while alienating 40 35% of your voting base, who simply will not abandon Trump will not cease to see him as anything but the savior of the Republic. But then on top of that, well, you know, where do we go? You know, beyond that, how do you have a campaign? How do you have an election, when one party is just beholden to this lack of integrity? Right, I'm just saying what's true, and of acknowledging the existence of facts. So yeah, that makes me very, very nervous about 2024. And beyond. The only other thing I would say is, you know, I mean, I'm not, this is not denote we can end on because it's so self serving. But I wrote a book about this. I mean, we cannot allow the problems within our culture, to give us the carte blanche to abandon seriousness in our own lives. And how we do that is a challenge and a question. But we all have responsibility, ultimately, for ourselves and how we behave, and the choices we make, and there is no, there's nothing legitimate about saying, Well, you know, there's no seriousness in the culture. I don't know why I should be serious. And so I would, you know, if you want to, you know, if you want to change the culture, start with yourself, and start with your own interactions and start with your own demands on your yourself. And if nothing else, you have the benefit of making yourself a better person whether or not it works politically.

Jenna Spinelle
Well, I actually think that's a fine note to end on. We did We did talk about your book will be had an interview with future hindsight that we aired this season. So if folks haven't listened to that they can go back and check it out. Listeners if you have ideas for things you want us to talk about scholars whose work is interesting, or topics you think that we talk too much about or don't talk enough about, we are always open for suggestions. You can find the how to contact us on the website, democracy works podcast.com. And thank you, as always to our team at WP su for making these episodes happen and helping us get them out through the NPR Network. Thank you to both of you, Candis and Chris for all you do to prepare for the episode and bring such valuable insights to our listeners.

Chris Beem
I think you're right there. That Jenna is the one who makes us who runs a machine we just show up and blather which is kind of you know 90% of what it means to be an academic. But in this case, Jenna keeps us in line. And I've also said many times I'm I saw much smarter after Jenna's edits to before. And I know Candis would say the same.

Jenna Spinelle
I would. Well, thank you. And thank you as well to Michael Berkman, who was on sabbatical this semester, but was with us in the fall and will be back next fall. So we're going to be on break for the summer. We'll have some episodes from some other podcasts that we think you might enjoy. Maybe some replays. Maybe we'll replay the episode with Francis Lee's and that came up a couple times today. But we will be back with new episodes at the end of August. So for Candis and Chris and Michael and the whole team. I'm Jenna Spinelle. Thanks for listening.

‍