For the first time ever, the U.S. was recently added to the list of backsliding democracies. This event may be surprising to many people, since the U.S. is considered a voice for democratic values. For a long time, the U.S. could have been a sufficient example of quality voter engagement, checks and balances on the government, and impartial administrations. Unfortunately, those who study democratic erosion will notice that there were signs of democratic erosion in the U.S., making its place on the list of backsliding countries less of a surprise. The momentum of democratic backsliding in the U.S. can be attributed to the rise in disinformation and the January Capitol Riot, but there are still ways to reverse this trend in the U.S.
How disinformation and the Capitol Riot contributed to democratic backsliding
There are several factors that contribute to democratic erosion in the case of the U.S., but disinformation and the Capitol Riot are critical factors and turning points that led to the classification of the U.S. as a backsliding democratic state. Disinformation is the intentional dispersion of false information with the intent to mislead. Oftentimes, disinformation campaigns are successful because they create confusion in what a credible source is. The rise in social media outlets that provide news commentary has led people to believe that these sources are credible. However, many of these sources are biased in the news they choose to report, making them unreliable to stay objectively informed. What makes disinformation a threat to democracy is the inability for people to discern fact from fiction. When lies are told about an event that took place or the history of a political candidate, this alters the actions of voters, in turn altering election outcomes. In the case of the January riot, Trump repeatedly told his supporters that he did not lose and even encouraged them to seek justice for the “fraudulent election”. Trump’s claims and call to action were not able to overturn the election results, but they were enough to prohibit a peaceful transition, since the events on January 6th quickly became violent. Rioters defaced several offices, stole items from Congress, and even threatened the lives of some congressmen. Because disinformation around election integrity altered the transition of the 2020 presidential election, democratic stability is weakened until reversal measures are taken.
Democratic backsliding in established democracies can occur slowly and be difficult to notice, however there may be critical points that quicken the rate of backsliding in a state. I would argue that the attempted insurrection on January 6th was a tipping point for U.S. backsliding. Leading up to the riot, there had been disinformation spread by Trump and his supporters, saying that the election results were fraudulent, which polarized people even more and decreased trust in the electoral process. What would have kept the U.S. on its slower backsliding track would have been if people had only spread false information about the election or if people abstained from voting in the next election. However, the rejection of smoothe presidential transition and the violence exhibited on January sixth propelled the process of democratic backsliding. The dependence on violence, rather than democratic institutions, to alter government processes is a sign of democratic erosion, since democratic institutions are being delegitimized by citizens. Also, the Capitol Riot confirms the presence of democratic backsliding in the U.S., because it showed how vulnerable our citizens are to manipulation and how vulnerable our institutions are to backlash. If the U.S. cannot have a peaceful transition of power after an election and maintain public trust in democratic institutions, then this is a clear sign that democratic erosion is taking place.
Is democracy in the U.S. actually strengthening?
Some may argue that the U.S. does not belong on the list of backsliding democracies because there is evidence of democracy strengthening. Political participation is an important component of a healthy democracy, and electoral participation in the U.S. has been increasing. In the previous presidential election, there was a 7 percent increase in voter turnout, marking the highest turnout in any federal election in the U.S. since the 1980’s. Also, women’s representation has increased with 27 percent of the members of Congress being women. Though these numbers may be low in comparison to other countries, it shows progress in the U.S. democratic process. Though political participation is increasing, it does not mean that other democratic processes are not still suffering. The presence of one does not eliminate the existence of the other, and it is important to keep this in mind so that we notice signs of democratic erosion and do not dismiss them.
Reversing democratic backsliding
Being put on a list of backsliding democracies is not a death sentence for democracy in the U.S., because there are measures that can be taken to reverse the effects of the Capitol Riot and limit the spread of disinformation. Disinformation is tricky to eliminate without infringing on free speech, but there are proposals to limit disinformation during critical periods, such as elections. One existing proposal is to pass the Honest Ads Act, which would require the existence of a public archive of election related advertisements and revealing who paid for the ads (Persily, Stamos 2019). In a time where it is increasingly difficult for citizens to be able to discern facts from lies, the Honest Ads Act would decrease the number of people unintentionally consuming biased news. Democratic erosion is able to persist because it is difficult to detect or measure over time, but the Honest Ads Act is a great opportunity to monitor actors who influence democratic processes.
Reversing the effects of the riot is another difficult task to take on, because it also involves reducing disinformation and increasing confidence in the integrity of democratic institutions. Disinformation is not always spread by TV networks or ads, so the Honest Ads Act can only have limited influence. In the case of the Capitol Riot, Trump encouraged an increase in polarization, by spreading lies about the integrity of the election results and encouraging his followers to act in his defense. It can be incredibly difficult to censor an individual without infringing on their freedom of speech, let alone the president. However, more can be done to limit the spread of polarizing disinformation by individuals, so that the integrity of elections is not questioned. Platforms like Twitter have already begun to place warnings or even suspend accounts that are believed to have false information, and this will help to reduce the impact false information has on an audience. It is difficult to imagine that so many people would have felt compelled to storm the capitol if less people had seen Trump’s message spread on various media outlets. Additionally, it can be easier for people to understand why a foreign actor may want to manipulate voters, but it can be more difficult to accept that our democratically elected leaders also have their own agendas and may manipulate voters to achieve their goals. The best course of action to limit disinformation’s effect on electoral integrity by an individual seems to be controlling the amount of people the false information reaches. By limiting the number of people reached, polarized action is less likely to take place, allowing for a peaceful transition of power.
The U.S. may have been placed on the list of backsliding democracies, but there are mechanisms that exist to save our democracy. We just have to implement them.
Persily, Nate and Alex Stamos. 2019.“Regulating Online Political Advertising by ForeignNationals and Governments.”Chapter 3 inSecuring American Elections. Michael McFaul, ed. Stanford: Stanford Cyber Policy Center.
Hi Christen,
I enjoyed reading your article. I did not know about the Honest Ads Act and I would like to see that pass – I think it would help a little. Unfortunately, I do not have hope for American democracy. I think the Republican Party has been slipping into Authoritarianism with the backing of Trump and the Democrats are honestly doing nothing about it. Also, I find it interesting when we tip-toe around not wanting to violate someone’s freedom of speech – I do it at times as well. The 1st Amendment was ratified 230 years ago – there was no 24 hour news, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I believe it needs to be rewritten – it is ink on paper, it is not sacrosanct. Should Americans have the right to criticize their government without reprisal – absolutely! However, spreading misinformation should be illegal – it is the main reason for the insurrection on January 6th. In regard to ads and donors, I feel all ad donors and “dark money” needs to be public. I would like to know who is buying American politicians.
I wrote my second blog post on the US being classified as a backsliding democracy by the International IDEA too. I agree that the capitol insurrection was the final turning point in solidifying this classification. It did two things. It showed just how far the far right and trump supporters are willing to go in their convictions. They no longer believe in democracy but in their fearless leader. The unwillingness of Trump to accept defeat also deals a massive blow to American trust in democracy. He encouraged Georgia voters to not vote in the 2021 run off elections for senate because he claimed the system was rigged and is still making this claims. I would argue that Trump’s original election was also a major turing point and both Polity’s and the Economist Intelligence unit back this up by dropped the US’s score that year based on the election. The election represented a degradation of fair and viable competition as well yet another example of the candidate who won the popular vote losing the election because of the electoral college, this time by an even larger margin. I agree that the country has the tools to do something about democratic backsliding but its hard to envision it happening within the current political system. The changes that would need to happen would mostly have to be at the expense of those currently in power and I don’t see that happening.
Hi Christen, very nice post. The way you summarized the reasoning for the U.S. being labeled as experiencing democratic backsliding was nicely done. It was easy to follow along, and you branched off into a number of interesting directions in the wake of the summary. Those interesting branches are what I’d like to draw more attention to.
You bring up briefly that some argue there are indicators that U.S. democracy is strengthening, do you find this to be a particularly compelling argument? I know that you talk about how there can be ongoing pros simultaneously as ongoing cons, I am just curious as to how you think the scale is currently balanced?
I also wanted to further highlight the discussion on the Honest Ads Act. I do think that it would be an objectively good piece of legislation, but I feel as if mainstream political ads are not the primary sources of disinformation. Do you feel this legislation is adequate, or would you like to see more bills being introduced in attempts to reduce misinformation?
Finally, you talk about how decreasing the number of people exposed to disinformation in the first place (rather than attempting to retroactively correct it) is critical, do you have any thoughts as to how this should be accomplished? Personally, I do not think we can simply continue to rely on massive social media sites to self-moderate and fix the problems on their own accord. I believe the financial incentive just isn’t there for these corporations to enact the kind of change we need to protect our democracy, and that ultimately some kind of outside or governmental force is going to be necessary to pressure these platforms into making adequate and long lasting changes to address the ways disinformation spreads on their sites.
Hi Christen, this was a great post that brought light to democratic backsliding in the United States and provided suggestions as to how these symptoms could be reversed. I definitely agree that disinformation is a huge problem for American democracy. A large part of a citizen’s right to vote also includes their ability to obtain valid information to allow them to make a solid political decision. When this information has been clouded it creates chaos and confusion throughout the entire country. Disinformation can even turn violent as you described regarding the Capitol Riot on January 6th 2020. When a powerful leader feeds his upset supporters false information, they can become very hostile and refuse to take in any opposing information as we saw. I also liked how you included some counter evidence that showed strong traits of American democracy. It is good to remember that despite seemingly strong democratic processes, there can always be signs of erosion beneath the surface. I like the idea of an Honest Ads Act that would publicize the benefactors of election advertisements to create more transparency. Acts such as this that help crack down on false information are a solid way to prevent this harm done to social media and American democracy.
Hi, Christen! I really enjoyed reading your post. I found your inclusion of the Honest Ads Act interesting, because it seems political ads are less responsible for misinformation than pundits/personalities are, on sheer viewership alone. Disclosing who paid for political ads is a great exercise in transparency, but with a decline in television viewership in favor of formats with commercial skipping, it feels like a piece of legislature that would have been helpful years ago. Even social media platform’s internal misinformation combatting techniques seem to paint anything “political” with a broad brush and stickers rather than take accounts to task. The question I keep returning to is whether we have fallen past the point of quelling disinformation. On one hand, you could squash outlets that continue to perpetuate harmful rhetoric and consolidate the flow of information into regulated channels, likely infringing on free speech and limiting ownership of truth and broadcast. On the other hand, we allow the doomscrolling and conspiracies to persist despite our best efforts. My scope on the topic is often myopic and nihilistic, but I’m curious to know if you feel there is a proverbial third hand we aren’t acknowledging. One of the things I found most thought-provoking in our session with Dr. Turnbull was the idea that mounting polarization heightens the stakes of every election. In the case of the U.S., an increase in voter turnout like the one you mentioned could be attributed to the life-or-death, us-or-them mentality fostered by either party. I think a topic like reproductive rights is a great example of this, with women on both sides of the aisle feeling galvanized out of fear rather than civic duty. I agree with you that an uptick in voter turnout doesn’t indicate a strengthened democracy, especially when coupled with a litany of obstructions to vote put in the path of citizens.