“Our democracy is at stake” might as well become the official tagline for all U.S. elections. The threats of authoritarianism and democratic erosion seem to always be leering around the corner, and the stakes always seem to be higher with growing levels of support for political violence. How plausible of a threat is it that our democracy could crumble, and what are the factors that contribute to our risk of democratic erosion within the United States? I will make the case that our understanding of identity should act as a starting point in our analysis.
In 2016, Katherine J. Cramer published a book titled The Politics of Resentment, which explored the ways in which social identities can interact with economic insecurity and lead to hostility and animus while focusing on rural consciousness. Cramer explains that identity is much more than a shared characteristic or location. Rather, in this context, identity comes with a set of differences in lifestyle, values, and work ethic that are fundamentally different from that of urbanites.
Another book published the same year by Arlile Russell Hochschild titled Strangers in Their Own Land takes a similar look into a sample of individuals in Louisiana. She focuses on issues of pollution that impact rural farmers who are more likely to vote in favor of policies that do not best represent them. When analyzing why this might be the case, Hochschild finds common themes of resentment amongst rural voters, most notably describing the idea of “line-cutting”. Line-cutting is the belief that women, minorities, immigrants, refugees, and public sector workers are being favored and rewarded disproportionately. This leads to “sympathy fatigue” by the elderly, who become increasingly pessimistic about achieving their own goals and overcoming their own hardships, and by the working class, who become fearful about a lack of upward mobility.
Cramer emphasizes the racial element described by Hochschild, in that many rural voters become suspicious of black success on account of welfare benefits (line-cutting) and overlooked criminality (line-cutting, sympathy fatigue). Additionally, many rural voters feel their race, culture, and religion provide them only with a lack of sympathy and are consistently mocked by a national population they no longer identify with.
This reality is quite different when viewed through the lens of such groups, including women, minorities, immigrants, refugees, and public sector workers who feel that they have gotten the short end of the stick for all of American history. Pew Research shows that Black and Hispanic individuals are less likely than white individuals to earn a college degree, complete high school, earn as much as white families, attain as much wealth as white families, get married, and own a home. They are more likely to be unemployed, live under the poverty line, be raised by a single parent, and raise children before being married. Where some might see “advantage”, others see a playing field that is finally beginning to level out through social intervention.
Looking next to gender inequality, we can see that women live under the consistent threat of restriction of rights regarding bodily autonomy, which spans far beyond abortion rights. This includes aims by government officials to restrict access to birth control, certain medical procedures requiring male consent, and an alarming rate of child marriage that disproportionately affects female children within the 40 states where child marriage is legal, including five states in which no minimum age is specified so long as parental consent or judicial consent is offered. Additionally, one in four women have experienced an attempted or completed rape compared to one in twenty-six men, showing a disproportionate rate of sexual violence against women, as cited by the CDC. This number climbs to nearly 1 in 2 for transgender individuals, as outlined by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. According to the National Library of Medicine, approximately 40% of transgender adults have attempted suicide.
Without needing to elaborate further on other members of the LGBT+ community, immigrants, refugees, or public sector workers, we can already begin to see a clear division between two groups. The first consists of those who face very real, systemic barriers, and the second consists of those who are resentful towards such groups on account of a perceived advantage they are receiving because of their identity. This level of division results in polarization, as we have seen come to fruition in a recent rise in hate crimes despite an overall decrease in all violent crimes, particularly affecting racial minorities, religious minorities, and LGBT+ individuals.
When identity creates division, and division polarization, the groundwork for erosion becomes evident. Individuals have the tendency to overlook undemocratic behavior during periods of extreme polarization and withdraw from electoral processes altogether when they feel the rich and elite control democracies. This can take shape in the form of political violence by any party or group, or attempts to enforce one viewpoint over others despite the will of the people, as we watched occur on January 6th only three years ago in 2021.
Earlier this year, I published a case study on democratic erosion in Turkey. In analyzing Turkey’s case of democratic erosion, it was made clear how big of a role institutional corruption played in the country’s rise to authoritarianism. Institutional health is such a vital piece of a thriving democracy because of the ability of institutions to lead to higher economic growth, better welfare for citizens, and reduced risk of war and violence, and because democratic erosion is, in fact, most likely to occur through institutions.
In the United States, only 27% of Americans on average have confidence in our institutions. A significant decline in trust is apparent in 11 of the 16 institutions listed in a 2022 poll by Gallup. A follow-up was published the following year, showing no improvement, but a significant decline in 4 institutions, now at record lows, including the police, public schools, large technology companies, and big businesses.
Unfolding in front of us is a recipe for democratic erosion. Identity-based grievances and resentment have sparked widespread division, leaving our institutions weaker and more vulnerable to individuals willing to engage in undemocratic behavior on account of severe polarization. Is it too late? I would argue it’s far from it.
One of my peers, Jocelyn Hayes, published a case study last month regarding democratic erosion in Poland. In the case of Poland, corruption of the courts led to major backsliding and a shift in leadership and rhetoric. State-funded television soon became a vessel for propaganda and misinformation, the strongest tool of the new authoritarian leadership. Despite intense propaganda, the incumbent received just over a third of the vote in the following election, leaving three opposing parties with a likely majority. This was in spite of various measures taken to suppress voters. While Poles would certainly need to rebuild democracy and reform institutions, this shows us that electoral politics yields extreme power when still accessible.
Put simply, a door is wide open for an undemocratic leader to take office in the United States. However, our ability to participate in electoral politics is our biggest weapon to use in self-defense. Proponents of democracy should be utilizing this tool to its maximum extent by participating in elections and encouraging others to participate. This could include civic engagement campaigns, community outreach and mobilization, and grassroots lobbying. Some organizations currently engaging in such practices include MoveOn, Indivisible, and League of Women Voters.
Additionally, efforts should be made to strengthen our institutions to repair trust amongst an apathetic and untrusting population. This can be done by educating individuals on historical and systemic barriers that impact the lives of minority groups, addressing identity-based grievances with factual and indisputable information, and proposing solutions to inequality that are beneficial to all groups of individuals and framed as such. Some organizations currently implementing this approach include Facing History & Ourselves, Race Forward, and Learning for Justice (formerly known as Teaching Tolerance).
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we should encourage each other to stray away from undemocratic behavior, as engaging in any kind of political violence is a last resort that lies at the end of a bridge of preferable alternatives. This could include the utilization of any of the 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action outlined by the Albert Einstein Institution. Democracy is an incredible tool that, once lost, is incredibly challenging to regain.
Hi Brian! I really liked your commentary on line cutting in the United States. I agree, it is pertinent we stay vigilant in terms of protecting our democracy but utilizing social justice coalition groups to maintain trust in our democracy. I am so glad you were able to use the book, “Strangers in Their Own Land,” and connect it back to Hotchschild!