Republish
Despite what political campaigns say, one election won’t determine the fate of US democracy
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Despite what political campaigns say, one election won’t determine the fate of US democracy
Share this:
Guest Commentary written by
Ali Noorani
Ali Noorani is the program director of U.S. democracy at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Over the next 10 months, billions of dollars in political machinery will serve up apocalyptic narratives about where our country is headed. Candidates will speak in partisan absolutes, framing the consequences of the 2024 general election as existential. Many will want us to believe that next year’s election will determine the future of democracy.
They are wrong.
Regardless of who wins, Nov. 5, 2024, will be neither “mission impossible” nor “mission accomplished” for American democracy. Democracy is about more than campaigns and elections. It is about a shared political community, which we are at risk of losing.
Increasingly, the dominant political strategy has involved stoking polarization and building higher walls between different groups and factions. Rather than opposing or alleviating this tendency, elected officials capitalize on our intense divisions.
Voters today are presented harshly different visions of the United States. One seeks a durable, inclusive set of institutions strong enough to address the economic, social and security challenges and opportunities we face. The other believes our government should serve the interests of specific populations, blocking us off from the world, undermining freedoms for all in the interests of a few.
The debate isn’t left versus right. It is a fault line between those committed to the basic rights and obligations ensconced in our Constitution, versus those who would use populism and demagoguery for cynical ends.
To be clear, the stakes of the upcoming presidential election are high – and some of the most urgent political debates are indeed matters of life and death. But an all-or-nothing mentality renders implementing actual solutions or engaging the opposition nearly impossible. Our politics have been flattened to the maximalist pursuit of political gain, making it difficult to find ways to overcome the enormous challenges we face, from climate change to pervasive inequities to attacks on democracy itself.
The bedrock of a thriving society is mutual respect and dedication to the well-being of all its members, which requires an ongoing process of values-based deliberation and consensus building. Fostering such a process can be done only by leaders with political capital and a mandate to build cross-partisan and cross-ideological coalitions.
Congressional leaders have historically led these efforts, though these initiatives have all but ceased.
We need leaders who champion their group’s values, beliefs and identities – and are willing to engage and potentially compromise with those who hold different views. In her book “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” author Amanda Ripley thinks of this as building a cadre of “conflict interrupters” to counter the conflict entrepreneurs: leaders who can counter polarization and extremism by reframing compromise and democratic deliberation as a values-based commitment to a working democracy.
If we believe a thriving society is built on mutual respect, and recognize the threat that today’s polarized environment presents, we cannot believe that a single election will right the ship. Similarly, we cannot believe there is any one solution to climate change, poverty or religious liberty. By design, our Constitution establishes a process through which citizens can find narrow bands of compromise within which progress is made incrementally.
A durable, inclusive democracy requires civic engagement beyond the important act of voting. Strengthening America’s governing institutions and electoral processes will rebuild our shared political community – where good conflict leads to solutions rather than extremism and political violence. Achieving this goal requires multiple long-term strategies that transcend politics and elections.
Sometimes those are big steps forward. Sometimes they are small. Other times, we feel like they are steps backward. But in a shared political community, the democratic process offers a path. A durable, inclusive democracy is as much about what happens between election days as on them.