Democracy Day

The deep divide in this country, politically, has at least one positive side: By demonizing the other side as potentially dangerous for the future of America’s democratic system, both parties are summoning a new appreciation for that system, and perhaps a new dedication to protecting it.

But, beyond using it as a campaign cudgel, talking about “threats to democracy” can be a difficult conversation — for it to be effective, we all have to examine our own beliefs, not just our opponents’.

Among the basic tenets of American democracy is a belief in that system of government, as frustrating as it can be at times. The check-and-balance of the three branches is dynamic on purpose. In an authoritarian state, the branches would work together to squelch opposition and follow a path dictated by a leader. In a democracy, there is friction: The courts overturn legislation, the executive branch battles with lawmakers, the president plays a role, but it’s limited.

Recently, after many years, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved decidedly to the right — the overturning of Roe v. Wade being the clearest example, but even a series of recent rulings (as recent as last week) have sparked outrage. The very credibility of the Supreme Court is being called into question.

But in a democracy, questioning the validity of the court isn’t the solution. The answer? If you don’t like it, you have to do the hard work and elect more legislators and a president who can, over time, change the make-up of that court. That’s the pro-democratic position, as unsatisfying as it might feel.

Another tenet: Voting is a “civic sacrament,” as Father Theodore Hesburgh, a former president of Notre Dame University, put it. It has become all too common for disgruntled politicos to suggest, upon losing a popular vote, that the vote itself was somehow corrupt — that there was fraud at the polls, or conspiracies to collect votes from people who aren’t eligible.

This is important, and it’s a fact: Voting malfeasance exists. But there are numerous safeguards in place, and though political operatives have stoked suspicion, there’s every reason to be confident about the men and women who are responsible for the most important act in our democracy. That’s also a core tenet — believing in them.

It’s not just Republicans, by the way, who are sowing unfounded suspicion for political gain. Just last week, a Democrat Party-leaning super PAC was buying television ads telling “MAGA patriots” to listen to their leader, followed by clips of Donald Trump talking derisively about mailed ballots. The clear intention: To discourage Trump supporters from using the perfectly acceptable method to vote, especially when their ability to cast an in-person vote might be in jeopardy. That is, plain and simple, anti-democratic mischief, and it’s unacceptable.

There is another element of democracy that matters, and it’s expecting our elected officials to be statesmen, not politicians. What’s the difference? “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation,” said 19th century author James Freeman Clarke.

Politics in America has become far too transactional. Winning at any costs comes with actual costs, and it’s voters who ultimately pay. Voters, on the other hand, have to look beyond party labels and begin to evaluate candidates — especially for local office, and local representatives in Washington, D.C., and Albany — based on their actual political positions, and whether they truly represent their constituents. After all, once a Republican is elected, he or she represents Democrats as well: We have not yet become a winner-take-all world, though it sometimes feels that way.

Although the focus has been on the race for the White House, there’s a significant race this fall for the 1st District seat in the House of Representatives. Over the years, the district has been represented by both parties, and candidates from both sides of the aisle have both delivered for local constituents and disappointed them on occasion. This is not a simple “R or D” decision — and it could have national repercussions. Voters should decide now, in early July, that the next four months will be a time to learn as much as possible about the two men on the ballot, and make an informed decision.

One last quote: The late author David Foster Wallace once summed up the cost of apathy to democracy: “In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: You either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.”

July 4 is Independence Day, but it’s really the day when a young America’s desire for democracy took root. It’s a day to celebrate, and a day to remind ourselves of exactly what we’re celebrating — and of our ongoing role in making sure we still have something to celebrate.