Speaker 0 Well, folks, again, welcome to the Michael Steele podcast. We've got a good intellectual exercise for you in the time we're gonna and together, America is as we all know the only presidential democracy in the world in which the president is elevated, elected, if you will. Via an electoral college rather than the direct election of voters or by voters. We are also the only democracy in the world with lifetime Tenure far our Supreme Court justice and our constitution is the hardest in the world to change because it requires super, not just in 1 but both legislative chambers, plus the approval of 3 quarters of the states. Today's guess on the Micro steel podcast have some thoughts about how we begin to reform this system to make us less vulnerable to minority rule.
Speaker 0 I'm excited to welcome Steve La and Daniel Z black both professors of government at Harvard University and the c authors of the new book, tyranny of the minority, why American democracy reached the breaking point. Tune in, join in, coming up next on the Michael Steel podcast, bring your pen and paper and some coffee. You're gonna love it. You're gonna enjoy the lot. Hey, everybody.
Speaker 0 Welcome to the Michael Still podcast. It is always great. To be with you as you know. I love you guys. You guys show love me.
Speaker 0 And, you know, I I'd like to to press the envelope and really kind of push out our thinking about things. So that requires as we do in most gatherings, bringing really smart people to the table. You know, the help of brother out because I don't even pretend to know half, let alone all of what's going on out there. And I think we've done that with 2 very, very smart gentleman, professors of government at Harvard University. And c authors of the book Tyranny of the minority.
Speaker 0 It is real pleasure to welcome both of you, Steve and then to the conversation. So hey, welcome guys.
Speaker 1 Yes. Great.
Speaker 2 Thanks for having, Michael.
Speaker 0 It's a real pleasure as I said, and your book newly released. This tyranny of the minority wide American democracy reached the breaking point. You know, I I I've been saying in in this sort of exposition of what's been happening since 20 15 that there's a lot more historical footnotes to this a lot more places to start before we get to what we've seen play out over the last 6 or 7 years. And this idea of this embrace authoritarianism, authoritarian figure this idea of embracing. Sort of anti government in the name of reforming or d the administrative state, help us sort of set the stage of your book and and what you're driving at right now and trying to get the American people.
Speaker 0 Focus on what's happening the way it's happened and how we can find ourselves caught up in it in a way in which you wake up 1 day and it's done. And it's happened. Who wants the start?
Speaker 2 I'll start, you you redirect me if you want us to go in in a different direction, but very quickly. You know, we wrote how democracies die kind of in a hurry. Back in 2017 and it came out 2018. After with the emergence of Trump that sort of surprised everybody in the United States. So what we did we drew on our research on Democratic breakdown in Europe a Daniel's case, Latin America and my case, to try to give of Americans to kinda sketch out for Americans, what could happen here if we don't watch out?
Speaker 2 Because obviously, most Americans weren't thinking about the collapse of democracy in in 20016 17. So we just sort of described what can happen in an effort to warn Americans. And then we got just a del of questions after that book came out from journalists from citizens for people ever we went. Which was, you know, how how how do we get out of this mess. Yeah.
Speaker 2 And so this second book is an effort, first of all, to dive deeper, into the problem because as you're right, Michael, this problem didn't start in 2016. It starts much earlier than.
Speaker 0 Yeah.
Speaker 2 So to to better understand the roots of the problem, and then to think seriously about this question of how do we get out? And that led us into some directions that we didn't expect initially to go in having to do with our country's institutions.
Speaker 0 Daniel, what are some of those things that you guys didn't expect in terms of what you found? Brewing beneath the surface in Americas, we're all tripping over inflation rates and who's up who's down, the kardashians and all the stuff that are in my numbing stupid at times that distract. And I was having this great conversation about that distraction with my son earlier today, and What are some of the things that you found that really are problematic and that are p dating beneath the surface here that we should be paying attention to?
Speaker 1 Yeah. So just to to reiterate something there. I mean, so, really, it's not... Of course, just not all about Trump. The problems are deeper.
Speaker 1 Know, it's important to recognize Try to try to figure out what those are because unless we confront that, then we'll sort of be back in this moment, you know, very quickly again. So 1 of 1 of the big things that we... You know, I think we had some sense of I mean, other scholars have worked on this very but we really dug a little bit deeper into was the degree to which driving this is a kind of process of a transformation of American society. As America's become more diverse. You know, the post 19 65 world of increased immigration and political rights for all Americans.
Speaker 1 The inability the Republican party to cope with That transformation. You know, first first thriving it, I would say through the eighties into the nineties into the early 2 thousands but then really beginning during the Obama air, the inability of the Republican party did cope with that transformation. So as American society became more diverse, but Republican party was not able to to to tap into that diversity to win of the Boat. And so the spark 2 big reactions. Number 1, meant that, you know, as if a party can't win elections, and this really draws on our knowledge of other cases of democracy and democratic breakdown.
Speaker 1 The party can't win elections, you know, repeatedly, then there's a great temptation to turn to non democratic solutions to try to hold on to power, but also kind of at a deeper level, the reaction of many Republican voters, of course, not all Republican voters, but many republican voters to the sense of existential threat that was perceived with this demographic transformation. So this kind of propelled the Republican party, key elements at least of the Republican party into a spot that we just really would have never expected in American driving democracy. And this really comes from, you know, again, looking at other cases, you, I studied nineteenth century, Germany and looked at conservatives ari party that couldn't really cope with the rise of the working class. Steve studies the Latin American democracies and you know, we have parties that can't win and can't figure out how to turn things around, then start resort to these other mechanisms of trying to stay in power. So that was 1 big part.
Speaker 1 And then and then I won't really get deep into this because I think we'll talk a lot more about this but just kind of as a headline. I mean, the thing that that really surprised us. Because that first part of the story some sense is pretty broadly known. Right this point. The thing that really got us kind have motivated to write this book was this perception that our institutions rather than making this transformation easier have in some ways is making it more difficult because it's increasingly possible for a party to win power without winning majority.
Speaker 1 And if you can do that, then you're not... Then this is actually slowing the process of transformation and adaptation. And so this is actually making problem. So we could talk a lot more about that.
Speaker 0 Oh No. And we will, because there's are some some aspects of this that I I really wanna peel back a little bit more particularly around the electoral college. A some of the work that I'm doing with national popular vote and efforts, rank choice voting and things like that are trying to... In some cases work within the construct, but in other cases redefine the construct of our electoral system. But I I wanna go back to something that both of you put your finger on in and, you know, of course, I'm very partisan guy was...
Speaker 0 Ahead of, you know, the Republican party and and, you know, dealing with tea party and a whole bunch of other stuff that happened on my watch, both nationally and locally. But 1 of the things I... I've learned gentlemen is that a lot of this is easy to kinda put into the Republican bucket. And and not so much into other buckets that could exist out there as well and so what I have found is the appeal of this sort of right leaning thinking, the sort of trump... Cla and call to rise up against the man.
Speaker 0 It's something that cuts across party lines. Is that is Is that something that you've seen in your research as well that is yeah, it may ema a start inside the the right leaning political culture? But that it bleeds fairly freely into other areas and is warm embraced by those that may surprise you because of what I found in the in the political cycle that there was very little that distinguished for example for example, the Bernie Sanders voter and the Donald Trump voter. In that election cycle. In fact, I ran into quite a few Bernie Sanders Donald Trump Voters who were very clear that if Bernie Sanders was not the nominee of the democratic party, they would be supporting Donald Trump.
Speaker 0 So how... What's was your experience in that regard?
Speaker 2 But there is... I don't think we have our minds around exactly what's going on globally, but there is a striking level of public discontent.
Speaker 1 Mh.
Speaker 2 And public dis trust with politicians and political institutions and governments, all are around the world. I see it pervasive in Latin America. Daniel's is better equipped to talk about Europe, but it's pretty widespread in Europe, it's hard to find. Post Covid, a democracy in the world where a majority citizens say they're satisfied with the status quo. The level of public discontent is deep.
Speaker 2 It's that's probably been exacerbated by social media, that's 1 element to the mix. I think Covid and it's many consequences. The pandemic, the economic consequences, the educational consequences, the lifestyle consequences, I... We're still catching up to exactly the the political ramifications of of the Covid pandemic. So there's a there's is a lot of a public discontent that populist Politicians, sometimes left wing, sometimes right wing, sometimes centrist, who just say, you know, the the hell with all of these guys.
Speaker 2 We're gonna take a wrecking ball to the elite. Right. That can gain a lot of support from from discontent voters across spectrum. And that sort of pop, again, left right, sometimes ambiguous has had an appeal across in democracy across the world, we see it all over Latin America. So it's not too surprising that that trump Trump's appeal cast wide net and attracts people.
Speaker 2 I would say more often, white man from across the the of ideological spectrum. But people across the the spectrum. And so... Yeah, It's it's not so surprising, that said, you know, Trump's vote so far. There has been some evolution.
Speaker 2 There's there's some... Some tweets, but Trump's vote so far is still not dramatically different from Romney vote in 2012. It's still a mostly republican vote.
Speaker 0 Right. So so so to that point, then then you have this this sort of broad swath of ideology, ideology that forms up and people kinda move in and out of it. To Steve's point, but it does take hold. What... You see it play out in places like Italy, the b sit movement in in Germany.
Speaker 0 In London in Great Britain, for example, how do how do you see this environment shaping the way we narrative address this pop. Because it seems to me in many instances using Covid as an example, the system kinda perpetuate it. The the system kinda sets out the the the the straw dog and it sort of creates the enemies. I mean, in in not sort of dealing with the underlying essence of the pandemic. Right?
Speaker 0 What are we... What we get fixated on, wearing a damn mask, the very thing you need to protect yourself from the thing that's killing everybody that you know, presumably, you should be fixated on, we were distracted by other things. And I think we see examples, in Europe here in the Us where that distraction becomes so consuming that the underlying rot is ignored.
Speaker 1 Yeah, It's Pretty Striking Really That The There's About 20 to 30 percent Of Citizens In West European Societies and America who Are Very similar. You know, so that the core of the Mo vote is not so dissimilar from the 25 percent or so the vote that went for Malone party. Or that supports the A in Germany. It's really, you, it's a really stripe. I mean, it's kind of a soc regular that there's about 20 to 30 percent of all of these western societies that look that find these kinds of messages appealing.
Speaker 1 And you know, it currently in Western Europe, it tends to be on the far right, although you know, but I think, you know, to Steve's point, it grows out of dis disinfection. Broadly speaking, you know, so there's there's an anti immigrants element to it. But what happens, you know, so the A to the the far right party in Germany, Know, they came to... They they grew to like 25 percent of the vote, essentially you know, reacting to the refugee crisis so very similar and familiar to American. Kind of debates.
Speaker 1 But you know, then very quickly have now shifted to be, you know, really against climate, climate legislation or, you know, forcing people to have heat pumps in their homes and they kind quite entrepreneurial. As 1 issue kind of dissipate that they tap into the next year. You know, first those was Covid, now it's kind of climate change responses. And so I think what that suggests is that there is this deeper underlying satisfaction, which these parties are able to tap into and to ferment and to to en inflamed the issues. And so, I'm not, part of so the question like again for the soc of the political sciences is trying to understand what's driving this.
Speaker 1 What's really propelling business. That's a that's what you're at. Asking us. And I... You know, it seems to be a mix of these these these factors.
Speaker 1 I mean, certainly, they know, demographic change is a big part of it. But that's not all it is. You know, it's also kind of sense of know, like the gender the kind of stuff with gender and transgender identity. This is stuff that's driving this, these, you know, these managers Can I think?
Speaker 0 Can I just supplement on it? I mean, you you you put your finger on a pulse that that that really I I just... The transgender people, immigrants, black people, brown people, white people, women, people have always been there. There's not like that it's not like we just suddenly just woke up and said, oh my God. You mean, there's a transgender person in my community.
Speaker 0 Yes. Because it's your nephew. It's your sister. Right? So I don't understand what's driving the sudden push for other?
Speaker 0 The fear of others? Is it I I... Is it the sense that we're become so selfish and insecure all at once? That we now look at others and blame them for our insecurities and our selfish list.
Speaker 2 I mean, I think there are 2... At least 2 things going on. Again, we... Social sign registered are running after this thing trying to...
Speaker 0 I'm because I'm trying figure out. Real quick to your point, you guys are gonna need accounts more than the American people will figure this stuff out. Dude I? I don't I I don't envy invent the work you have to do to really peel back the layers of the onion and the weeping from that. That you're going to encounter.
Speaker 2 So a a couple different streams though. 1, which we don't focus on too much in our book, but it's clearly there, is there is a lot of economic and insecurity out there among middle classes. They're rising levels of inequality going back decades, stag levels of social mobility and a lot of uncertainty security since the 2008 2009 financial crisis, both Europe and the United States. That underlying economic anxiety is almost certainly at play. I think the other factor people disagree on how much this matters.
Speaker 2 I personally think about is a lot is 2 things are are going on. In the United States, a little more rapidly than Europe, but also in Europe. We're undergoing in this transition to multi racial democracy.
Speaker 0 Right.
Speaker 2 Which means a couple of things. 1 we're... We are much more diverse than ever before, we're simply a much more diverse diversified than ever before but also, we're doing a better job of protecting the rights of the so called others. Than ever before. So, you know, we have gradually, but importantly advanced in the enforcement of white legislation since in the 19 fifties 19 sixties and groups that have been at the margins and maybe, you know, It's effectively stayed in the closet for decades and decades days, who, of course, were there, but we're didn't feel empowered legally empowered socially empowered to say, hey, I'm here.
Speaker 2 Now in the 20 first century field, they have the the the the the the the the power to say, hey, I'm here. Protect me. Protect my rights. And so there are there are more rights being demanded than there were 50 years ago, which I think is a good thing. But we have in the united states we're going through this this transition in which a a overwhelmingly dominant ethnic group, and and, you know, in in effect to simplify white Christian men.
Speaker 2 Mh. White Christians is losing their electoral majority of their numerical majority, but most important they're losing their dominant status. Their dominant position in social. Economic, cultural hi for the first time, and that's a really threatening thing. And I think that that is personally, I think that that's at the core of the kind of radical rationalization of elements of the right across the west.
Speaker 0 So that's so then you would say and that's why you argue in the book that we see democracy so much under salt right now, more than we see as you noted, maybe in Europe. And elsewhere is a wealthy salt nation, intellectually on top of its game, economically powerful politically powerful, mil powerful and yet, just stuck on the stupid of diversity. Just stuck on the idea, that oh my god, you mean, there are equally wealthy and capable competent players who don't look white, male in Christian who can come in and be as dominating, on this landscape as we have been. So the idea of actually sharing in that where we can take you know, a person of color who is all about the American ideal and promoting the American ideal despite all the other ish that we have to deal with, they still come off threatened by that.
Speaker 1 Yeah. I think, you know, there's a sense in which equalization feels like status loss, You know. And so that's... You know, when you you when you've been in a privileged position then just having to compete on a fair. You know, the Harvard library, Harvard widen library, which is massive, you, beautiful library that you can go into do incredible work for most of Harvard history, women weren't allowed into the library.
Speaker 1 You know, even if you were right for student. You had to get, you know, special permissions. So, you know, think about the kind of monopoly on on at that. And so that's just simple symbolic. I mean, that's, you know, we wouldn't even talk about them in the book, but that just recently occurred to me.
Speaker 1 You know that's sort of the model of which you know, you have to kind of kind of strat hierarchy equalization equal the level playing field. This guy can be for some people to perceive as a major rep.
Speaker 0 So I I wanna I I wanna shift to what I think facilitates the threat more than anything else and em it, gives it value and gives it a face. And that is political leadership. You you you talk about in the book this idea of or question you know, this idea of what what does it mean for, you know, a party you be committed to democracy? And I want I want to address... I want you to address that?
Speaker 0 So what is that a party committed to democracy. But then I have a part b to that that I think animate and drives that more than anything else. And that is... The men and women who we call leaders, who we identifying and define as our leader. So let's start with the first part, addressing what you talk about in the book around you know, exactly what does it mean to be a party committed to democracy.
Speaker 2 So we we try to offer a really simple definition here. We draw heavily on the political scientist 1 lin. Who is it... Taught yell for for many, many years. We argue that to to call a party committed to democracy team, it has to do 3 things.
Speaker 2 It has to always accept the results of elections were to lose, pretty basic, kind of card rule of democracy.
Speaker 0 Mh.
Speaker 2 Secondly, and very importantly these days has to una denounce, reno, issue political violence in all forms. Must be willing to to to denounce and break from una violence. Mh. And third, ultimately, most importantly, I I hope this is where we focus the discussion is that the the party has to be willing to denounce and separate itself from anti democratic extremist on its own flank. Being right?
Speaker 2 It's very easy for people on the left to denounce far right winger where, you know, the go fascist is very easy for people on the right to denounce communists, but the really critical test is when an authoritarian threat emerges in your camp. And debt parties that are committed to democracy, always expel and denounce and politically reno elements that are threats to democracy. Parties that kind of hide under the table and maybe justify or engage in both sides of or condone or even protect, those anti democratic extremist is, they are the ones that get us into trouble.
Speaker 0 So, Steven, you put your finger on the exact... Point I wanna go to next because this is great quote from your book. Believes it's like on page 40, 41. In which you say, quote, openly authoritarian figures like conspirators or armed are visible for all sea By themselves, they often lack the public support or legitimacy to destroy a democracy. But when semi loyalists tucked away in the hallways of power.
Speaker 0 Linda hand. Openly authoritarian forces become much more dangerous. Democracies get into trouble when mainstream parties tolerate condone or detect authoritarian and extremist when they become authoritarian enabler. Indeed, throughout history, cooperation between authoritarian and seemingly respectable semi loyal Democrats, small d, has been a recipe for democratic breakdown. You have for me when I read that passage, that is it.
Speaker 0 That has been my frustration inside my Republican party, watching the likes of Mitch Mcconnell and Kevin Mccarthy and others. Enable this authority I'm gonna be a little crash gentleman so if we get not the most politically correct nor philosophically prudent thing to say, but enable show. The... Here's. 1 way to look at it.
Speaker 0 But but enable these these authoritarian assholes to go out and steal their bile, their vi victory, their bullshit, feeding the masses, allowing it to happen. So you don't get the condemn ins on Wednesday after January sixth. And then 3 weeks later, go in and brace the 1 who set up the ins interaction. And that that split screen if you will, in American politics. It is what drives me so crazy right now within my own party.
Speaker 0 And, you know, folks who listening to me know why I stay because it pisses them off because I wanna hold the mirror up every day to show just how full of crap they are. You can't get to do that. And we're watching right now, Gentlemen, the self saved enabler Kevin Mccarthy after 15 ballots of pla skating and b around to try to become speaker Now we'll lose his by the very people. Right? That he is enabled.
Speaker 0 That quote, is what the end game for me is all about. So I leave it to you gentlemen to decide... Dissect what I just said. Right. So but that I thought that quote was so right spot on.
Speaker 1 Yeah. So it's it's en raging. It's morally, you know, in excuse. But I think for our purposes in our book and we provide some evidence of this, it's also incredibly dangerous and reckless. For democracy.
Speaker 1 It's not just a matter of oh we can condemn this behavior, because we think it's not really a morally acceptable thing to do. It's it's incredibly dangerous and there's lots of historical evidence showing that's the case. I mean, week we provide the story of we give an account of this event in France that took place, 02/06/1934, when there was an assault on the French parliament, you know, Militia guys in the streets with weapons very similar to January sixth. They attacked the parliament building, but the police beat them back and you might think that was the end of, but it turns out there were guys in the parliament building politicians in mainstream politicians in the parliament building, who were in on it. They knew what was going to happen And rather than coming out and holding these guys to account and prose them and holding an investigation of them.
Speaker 1 They excused it. They justified it. And what this did to French democracy in 19 34 was that weakened the immune system of French democracy. So by the time the Nazis invaded in 19 40, You had a whole group of figures who had participated in those assaults who then were lined up in a sort of almost like a kind of f ferocity organization to get these guys, recruit these guys into the new Mitsubishi authoritarian government. So the participants in that attack because they were they were not held to account.
Speaker 1 Later served as you and the most atrocious kinds of positions in this nazi supporting regime. So the point is that the mainstream politicians didn't respond Right. Used it. They out of out of short term experience. You know, of course, we understand, you know, political science.
Speaker 1 So we understand you, career is a good thing. You know, careers and a democracy is. Essential. People look out for their interest, they want to have a successful career, but when democracy has at stake, you have to come you have to draw a hard line. Say this is unacceptable because you're really putting your democracy at risk.
Speaker 1 And there's a great temptation to kind of think to come up with all sorts of rationalization. Well, we need to be in the room because if we're not here and then you know right. Be worse. But the thing is you hear the same excuses over and over. Now, may...
Speaker 1 I'll just 1 last line here, then I'll let Steve, you know, say this So... You know Hana Wanna
Speaker 2 quote Michael Steele, but I...
Speaker 1 Okay. Aren't han aren't the great Jewish German philosopher looking back on... January 19 33 when the Nazis came to power. I saw an interview with her recently, you know was recorded in the fifties, where she said the thing, you know, people on misunderstand, you know, for for Jewish Germans looking at what happened in 01/19/1833, what shocked us was not what our enemies did. We knew what our enemy.
Speaker 1 We knew what the not. Well, what Shock us is what our friends did. Yes. You know, that's it. That's that captures it, you know
Speaker 0 Man, that duck sure does. Steve.
Speaker 2 No. Just to just to reinforce Daniel's point. Again, politicians are going to do what's best for politicians so that they they can get reelected and and advance in their political careers. We we know that. And in normal times, you know, you may not love it, but it's it's the way politics works in normal times.
Speaker 2 But when when democracy threatens us and you're... And a politician is willing because you know what they think and what they say in private. When they're willing to know, vote to ac quit Donald Trump the second time in the Us Senate or when they're willing to, you to endorse Donald Trump's candidacy in 20 24 after an effort to overturn an election that sort of career is incredibly dangerous. And you said I just want... We interview you for this book.
Speaker 2 You will remember saying this. But you said there is not a public office in the world that's remotely worth putting democracy at risk. That is an example of a what we call a loyal small d democratic attitude. That's the attitude that... That that Liz Cheney took, that Adam Kin took, that a number of principal republicans took.
Speaker 2 But unfortunately, they are you are a a tiny minority of the Republican party of leadership.
Speaker 0 And it's been it's been frustrating as all get out as you as you can well imagine. And it it leads to a lot of the the conversation that I think we have to have now because the the the leadership, is so broken. How do we engage the citizenry? The sort of take up that mantle responsibility. You guys talk about I believe it's later in the book around chapter 7 or so about the...
Speaker 0 You you give the example of the the group of 12 Norwegian a hundred and 12, I think it was Norwegian men, who decided to write constitution. Now the world's second oldest constitution. That process of of sort of taking responsibility and control of the direction of your country and and what it's going to stand for. How do we how do we capture that or recapture or, you know, if we've ever really had it? And we just kind fooled ourselves into thinking, that, you know, the words on paper will just magically protect us.
Speaker 0 Right? Or does it require some level of citizen action? Particularly when the leadership fails so miserably in in doing the very thing they should do to protect the democracy itself.
Speaker 2 Well, Our our constitution is obviously, a pretty successful document. Right? It's it's a brilliant document that has served this nation well in many respects over a very long period of time. It's the oldest living constitution and it is arguably the most successful. But there's 1 thing I think our generation has forgotten.
Speaker 2 Which is ever since 17 87, and in 17 87, George Washington wrote a letter to a friend, the year just weeks or months after the the constitution was written. Calling the constitution an imperfect document and saying that it would be up to future generations, to perfect it. And that's what Americans have done through most of our history. Sometimes it's the leaders. Sometimes its activist is from below sometimes it's a combination.
Speaker 2 But for most of our history, beginning with the bill of rights, just 2 years after we wrote the constitution, through weak reconstruction, the expansion of suffrage, the progressive Era, the the the key constitutional reforms in early twentieth century, For most of our history, we've done the work of working to make our political system better, making it more democratic. And the odd thing about the last half century about basically our lifetimes is we've kind of stopped doing that work. We sort of frozen the constitution and we've stopped talking about making the system better. And that's unfortunately allow the United States to kind of fall behind other democracies in the world. I don't know if you wanna add anything to, Daniel.
Speaker 2 Yeah.
Speaker 1 Yeah well, I I would just say... I mean, it's it's it's easy or tempting to kind of regard what Steve just said as a kind radical statement. You know, that that, you know, we have this document that's great, so why why mess with it. But, you know, the thing... That's that's based on a misunderstanding that you know you know, we take a loyalty oath to the constitution and we need to do that and that's wonderful we need to defend the constitution.
Speaker 1 But part of the what makes the cons institutions So great is not only what was written in 17 87, But what has happened since then to the constitution. You know, the fourteenth amendment, the amendment you know, let alone the thirteenth amendment there. You know, all of these things that we value that we defend came about through constitutional change and change. And just to I not, not only constitutional change, but institutional reforms. And so it's know there's a great American tradition of doing this.
Speaker 1 And so, I think we need to realize that that that fact is the kind of the patriotic and in some sense conservative thing to do is to continue and that we're kind of engaged and and a bit of an experiment here of what happens let's see what happens if we don't do this work. And I think the results are pretty clear. That it's not so great.
Speaker 0 But, Generally, you you you even stayed in the book that America is an outlier in this regard. Right? Our constitution is the most difficult in the world to change. We have structures that are in place, for example, the perm if you will of the Supreme Court. Right?
Speaker 0 It's just they're there for life. It's alright. You get on you're there to you die. We see now how... And I I kinda refer to it this way.
Speaker 0 How the system sort of turns in on itself. Now when we chat it in in preparation with the book, we, you know, we didn't get into that. That granular level of discussion around this idea of the system turning in on itself. But has has our system in a way been turned in on itself as we're looking at it today. When we see now the corruption of that court.
Speaker 0 We see now the breakdown of the various institution that are supposed to support the pillars of democracy, whether it's our justice system. Or our economic system or whatever it happens to be, now being used against the people Right? Because we are a government of buying for the people. How how would you describe that? This in particular environment that we find ourselves in relative to what we see and what you talk about happening globally.
Speaker 0 Using it as you did in this particular part of the book, the Norwegian example. The European model, if you will. What what do you say that to that?
Speaker 1 Well, you know, so we talk about Norway because the world's second oldest this written constant. So it's almost as old the u. S. So it's a nice example of a country that began much less democratic in the United States said it's founding with a king and ari upper chamber, but over over the centuries, it's been amended hundreds of times. And they again exactly for the reason you say it's hard to amend the cons constitution.
Speaker 1 Doesn't mean it's impossible. Right. But over time, these institutions that we have and that other countries used to have, like an electoral college, every other country in the world got rid of it's select toll college for selecting presidents. We're only ones left with this. Every other country dealt with the same problem of courts, a little out of control...
Speaker 1 After 19 45, judicial review developed in most democracies around the world. And everybody faced the same challenge of on the 1 hand, we want our courts to be independent. It's a absolutely critical to have independent judiciary, not po politicized. On the other hand, we don't want to court that's so out of sync with where the people are, that it's that it's dangerous. And so the way to deal with that dilemma, other countries have said, well, what we do is we have term limits.
Speaker 1 This is not such a radical light and another every other country... Every other democracy in the world has this. Every other democracy with its... Has it had a second chamber. What some countries got rid of their are second chambers altogether.
Speaker 1 Other, know, I don't... We don't think that that should be the case the Us. Obviously, Man think that any federal system usually requires a senate. Type of body. But other countries over time made those upper chambers more proportional to population.
Speaker 1 So this also made us an outlier and where the third least representative upper have the third least representative upper chamber in the world after Argentina and Brazil. And then finally, just 1 other institutional Mention is that it's not a constitutional institution, but rather the institution of the F buster, which there's good arguments that we've heard of course, for why we need to... You have a f buster in the senate to block a potentially over reaching President, you know, Imagine if Trump comes back in the office and wants to Be office. But the reality is every other democracy got rid of this kind of institution and democracy has survived. And so we are left again once once again in out.
Speaker 1 So if you add a pe each 1 of these is an outlier, each 1 on their own wouldn't be so kind of devastating. But when you add all of them together, this leaves us in a situation where increasingly majority don't you don't need major to wynn palate. And this has a really distort impact on our politics. Let maybe just add 1 more thing on this. Right.
Speaker 1 Which is that we and certain way we have a kind of market analysis of democracy. I mean the way that democracy is supposed to work is parties are supposed to compete voters, you when you lose like a firm, what does a firm do when it loses customers, if you could get a new Ceo, you, you know, come up with a new strategy, you try to find new customers. That's how that's how democracies are supposed to work. You think of the democratic party after through the early nineties. Know lost repeatedly through the eighties.
Speaker 1 Bill Clinton comes along, come up with a new strategy, come up with new leadership, and you can regain regain office. The British labor party similarly, you know, after many years in the wilderness, under Tony Blair revamped itself comes up with the new ideology, new nuke... Program new proposals, new leaders, and this is how democracy self correct, a little bit like a market. But we live in a situation today in a system in which program since you don't need to win power, the incentives to adapt are increasingly not there, especially for the republican party. And so you know, it's not the politicians aren't, you know, you know, we people talk about a cults and so on a cults of Trump, you know, maybe for some voters, that's the case.
Speaker 1 But political that, you know, suggesting that it's all irrational. To doing the you, doing the rational thing, Given it our institutions, why try to win a popular majority of vote for the presidency? Of course, it doesn't make any sense. And so because republican party can win power without winning. And so it breaks this kind of self correcting logic of democracy.
Speaker 1 And I think it poison the political system result.
Speaker 0 We're gonna take a quick break. We're having a wonderful conversation with the authors of Tyranny of the minority why American democracy reached the breaking point. Steve Le and Daniels. Za, I I don't don't script your last name again because I did in the promos, but it's z right. Right?
Speaker 1 If Black.
Speaker 0 Black. Got it. I yeah. I had to redo that promo do. So Z black.
Speaker 0 Got it. So we're we're gonna be right back right after this. Welcome back everybody to the Mic still podcast. Great discussion. So I'm hoping folks have been taking notes and paying attention because there will be a test on Tuesday.
Speaker 0 On what we're talking about here, our democracy and the tyranny of the minority with Stephen and Daniel I I wanna shift gears to talk a little bit of... Because you alluded to it as we were going to break about... The systems. And 1 of those important cogs in the system is the electoral process, How we elect a president, unlike all the other offices, every other office in the country. We require this sort of...
Speaker 0 All pain mechanism known as the oncology referred to democracies around the globe, eliminating that from as a feature to the election of their leadership. We do not have the direct election of the president here in the United States. We elect electors who then go do do the work and state capitals. Talk to us about how that distort the process in your view, if it does And what are some of the remedies to address that given that I don't know if we're gonna have a constitutional convention to eliminate the electoral college anytime soon.
Speaker 2 Well, we don't we don't need a constitutional convention to eliminate the the electrical electoral college. There been many, many, many efforts throughout American history either... Warm or abolished the electro college. We got very close. I think Americans forget this.
Speaker 2 In 19 69, the of the leadership of both political parties supported a constitutional reform to abolish electrical college, President Nixon supported, a constitutional amendment to a boss, electro electoral college, all of our major interest groups, the A Cio, chamber of commerce, the American Bar Association, overwhelming majority in the House and a majority of senators all supported abolishing the the electrical college, but they didn't get the 2 thirds of the votes needed to to to to get it through the senate and it and it died. I think it's important just 1 bit of background to to recall that the the electrical college is not some sort of brilliantly crafted. Democratic institution. When when the framers were were were were designing our republic in the hot summer of 17 87, This was the first president in the history of the world, right? We were designing a really the first large republic in the world.
Speaker 2 Nobody knew how us to to select a leader outside of monarchy Monarchy was really only game and town across the western world. And so these guys were in uncharted territory. They did... They literally... There there was no model to to borrow from.
Speaker 2 They went through a variety of options. 1 option was... Direct election of the president. Madison was actually be pretty sympathetic to that, but it didn't have support and the whole convention in part not entirely, but in part, because the slave holding South. Feared being out voted by by Northern voters.
Speaker 2 So it was shot down. There were there was a... There were other alternatives
Speaker 0 The tyranny of the minority.
Speaker 2 Again. Yeah. So this goes way back. There were they were Madison also proposed a system that would be like contemporary parliamentary systems in Europe. That was also shot down, And the the electro college was kind of a third best solution that was adopted because no other alternative could pass.
Speaker 2 And its desires including Hamilton, kind of envisioned it as as a body, which these sort of elite notable, not very political. Would kind of gather. They wise men that would kind of check the the the the the the voters. It never worked that way. Never once worked.
Speaker 2 Because the framers didn't envision political parties. They... The constitution was designed before political parties were really a thing. So very quickly, parties emerged and and the electrical electoral cause became a partisan affairs as it is today. So it never it never worked as our framers imagined.
Speaker 2 It was not our framers top choice. It was a little bit... Of a... It was a lot of the improvisation. And so we shouldn't sort of...
Speaker 2 Reapply to some kind of a of a of a brilliant document. The problem with it, I mean, it's it's always it's it's always less democratic. To indirectly elect your leader than to directly electro leaders. So there's a an argument that it's just simply a less democratic way of electing your leaders. It was very democratic for 17 87.
Speaker 2 It was the most democratic system on Earth.
Speaker 0 Right.
Speaker 2 17 days. But a lot of time has passed since 17 87. But the the real problem comes with the with the electrical electoral college in the rare but increasingly common event that the electoral college produces a winner who didn't actually win the pocket of to the vote. And that is simply unfair. I think by any democratic sample.
Speaker 2 There have been times in history when it's leaned, unfair to Republicans. There have been times in history like now where it leans unfair, to Democrats, but no matter what, and, you know, we we we represent more than 1 party on this screen It's it's unfair where the when the loser of an election wins the the presidency. It's become a particularly acute... It's not an accident that it's happen and twice in in this century and could happen a third time in 20 24. It's a product of the fact that the electoral college is up mildly biased towards spa populated territories.
Speaker 0 Mh.
Speaker 2 And in the... That was never an issue really in the past because through most of our history, both parties, whatever the major parties were, had urban and rural wings. Throughout the twentieth century, the democrats and Republicans had urban in rural only in the 20 first century that our parties that realign such that the Democrats are overwhelmingly based in metropolitan areas and Republicans are overwhelmingly based in spa populated, territory. So through no fault of their own, Republicans have an advantage in in the electoral college. And it's producing outcomes in that that are not only unfair, but as Daniel pointed out dangers.
Speaker 2 Right? If we didn't have the electoral college, there never would have been a Trump. The Republican party would have followed a very, I think, a very different path. Had Trump lost the 20 16 election rather than want it.
Speaker 0 I think that's right. How do how do you see, daniel? I I think that the that plays out exactly right. And, you know, for those of us who are working in the the, you know space of reforming the electoral college process, whether it's with ranked choice voting or national popular vote. Final 5, etcetera something that disrupts.
Speaker 0 And I think that disruption actually begins with the primary process. I advocated as national chairman, the ab evolution of our primary process. If if not the... If not that, then, okay, let's just remake it and jumble the players so that you don't have, you know, the country or the party starting off its electoral process by voting in from the widest 1 of the widest states in the union and projecting that. Oh, well, this is how the election is going to go?
Speaker 0 You know I was like, well, no. Because it's going to change when you go to other places. So how how do you assess this electoral college conundrum? That we find ourselves in which in many cases has contributed to the rehabilitation of the electoral process
Speaker 1 You talked a bit about how this is is distort. You know and and Steve said in 2016, you know Trump would lost 2020, You know, Trump loss. But without, you know, without an electoral college, it's sort of hard to. I mean, it's hard to, of course, speculate conclusive on this, But you kind of imagine would there be a doubling down on the Trump route to the presidency without the electoral college. Imagine the world not the electoral college, Think it's, you know, we the world will look very different.
Speaker 1 So now how do we get out of this bind. I mean, I think you rightly point out this the difficult hill to climb to imagine the reform. Abolish of the electoral college, you know, you can imagine though, you know, let's say Texas goes democratic, you know it would suddenly, you know, some Texas Republicans think well, maybe this would be are nice to not have to have the electoral college
Speaker 0 They would. It'll hard
Speaker 1 This Right.
Speaker 0 I know those folks.
Speaker 1 Yes. This would... This, you know, so so so the there's ways in which this could tip things. I mean, back in 19 69 70, it was a third party candidacy, George Wallace that triggered everybody's fears and real... I think you know, people make account short term calculus.
Speaker 1 But there's other rules to reform you've mentioned some. You know, there's also, you know, 1 1 other way in which... This kind of imbalance could be addressed by changing the size of the house of representatives, because, of course, the electors are selected based on the number of senators and the number of members of the house of representatives. You know, throughout our history. This...
Speaker 1 So in our last chap a, we have these 15 proposals. This is 1 of them.
Speaker 0 That's what I was getting to go for it.
Speaker 1 Yeah. So, you know, so over the last, every you know, every after every census, there's a kind of red restricting of districts and so on, you and what happened up through the twenties was that the house expanded as the population expanded. Beginning in the twenties when the house was expand within in the twenties. It's never been expanded since. And so we're stuck with the number of members of the house of representatives we have.
Speaker 1 And so as these as a population has grown, this means each congressional district has increased dramatically in size. So there's actually a pretty good argument for saying. We know our house, you know, can't have thousands and thousands of members of the house represents. Could be a little bigger and if it were a little bigger, congressional districts would be smaller, and this would mean that larger states, Texas, California, would have more representation of the electoral college. So this is a way of addressing the imbalance without a constitutional amendment.
Speaker 1 You know, there another idea that's out there say, you know, the winner take all nature and this was something that was discussed in 19 70. The winner take all nature of the electoral call. Why is that necessary? You know, Right. To assign electors based on port, the portion of the population that each presidential candidate gets.
Speaker 1 You know, this would also be a way of making it more representative. Overall, though, as you say what between the primary process and the electoral college, we have a really screwed up process of sort president and we're suffering the consequences and this is our democracy. This is not in the arc of the covenant. This is this is a man made institution that we have every right to think about, like, how do we make our lives better, and that's that's sort of essentially what we're arguing.
Speaker 0 So as I as I wrap up a conversation, I I could really drill down with you guys so much on so many aspects of what you lay out in the book. Folks and they cannot repeat enough how important it is to to get your hands on a copy of tyranny of the minority, so you can begin...
Speaker 2 The case, you don't know what it looks like.
Speaker 0 There we go. That's it right there. That's it. It... It's it's important to so you to understand.
Speaker 0 Informing your mind about the space you live in and the decisions you have to make will get not only make you a better citizen, but produce hopefully better results. So gentlemen, what how would you sort of encourage, but strongly remind Americans about the balance we find ourselves in right now. How would how would you how would you ask them to assess... Encourage them to participate and become more involved in. And Understanding The Balance Of of Things right now relative to our democracy.
Speaker 1 Yeah. I would I would say that 1 Of the Great You know there's this notion of a self fulfilling prophecy and that the worst kind of self fulfilling prophecy in the world is to say, I'm not going to participate because I'm not going to have any impact. Of course, you think that you're not to participate and you have no impact. And so, you know, this this is our democracy, you know, every citizens democracy. And it's in our hands.
Speaker 1 And you know, there been moments in our history where citizens taken the charge very seriously. I was looking at the progressive party platform Theodore Roosevelt party platform in 19 12, with this long document with all of these ways of improving our lives. And I think, it's very tempting given the dysfunction of our institutions and the inability to base address basic prompts to sort of think well, throw our hands up and say none of this none of this is possible, There's nothing we can do. But, you know, that that that frame of mind contributes exactly to the problem. And so citizens need to be engaged.
Speaker 1 Need to... Vote and need to recognize that when somebody is a threat to democracy, you shouldn't vote for them. That's the sort of essence of it. Because if you vote, you know, prop despite what people think politicians often do what they promised to do. And if a politician promises that he's going to lock up his opponents if he's going to, arrest know, to harass the media, you know what?
Speaker 1 When he's in Power, he may very well do that. So, know, take the take words matter and voters have a grave. Responsibility.
Speaker 0 Yeah. I that's especially important when you consider when they promise to to, you know, build roads and bridges that doesn't get done, But when it's gonna be locking up some folks. Pretty damn I'm sure. You can see that happen. How about you see?
Speaker 0 How how how do you take us out of here, man?
Speaker 2 I... First of all, it's important to remember that we did rise... We we did respond as a society. To the threat that Trump posed in into the thousand 16, 17 when he got elected, it took really almost all of us by surprise very, very few Americans were worried about or thought about defending that the need to defend democracy, But people went out and and did in a variety of different ways, journalists, citizens, business people, a lot of politicians, election workers, state officials, local officials, all across this country, did stand up for democracy between 2017 and 2021 and helped us say payment. Now unfortunately, the threat is not over, it continues.
Speaker 2 Preserving democracy hard work. So I think 1 really important thing is and it's just gonna see 2 things. 1 is go out, go up, get out of your house and join the organizations. It it doesn't matter that much what the organizations are. I mean, there, some organizations that would not recommend enjoying, but there are lots of ways to help democracy.
Speaker 2 And getting out of your house, getting offline and actually joining organizations of human beings. We're working with other people does a lot of good. And it it it fort our civil society leaves us in a better position to mobilize and defend democracy when we need it. So go out and join a cause broadly related to democracy of your choosing. If you care about voting rights, great.
Speaker 2 You care about civil rights? Great. If you care about youth participation, great. Whatever it is, go join join. The other thing just to to hopefully leave on a little bit of hope is what gives what keeps me going and gets me out of bed in the morning is the fact that younger generations, I think are much much better equipped to take our country across that line into into multi racial democracy, then than we are and our older generations.
Speaker 2 The 2 key pillars of multi racial democracy are an acceptance of diversity and support for racial equality. And that may it may that may sound very simple, but it's only in the 20 first century, that majority of Americans have really polls show that majority of Americans actually support both of those things. And that those are far and away strongest younger people. So our task, the way what what I see is our task is giving that younger those younger generations, voice, making the changes needed so that those emerging majority are not t by relatively small partisan minorities.
Speaker 0 Yeah. Well, gentlemen, you you have shared a word today, and I really appreciate the time and the effort you've put into re framing our thinking and understanding about our democracy and appreciating the moment we're in. And you do it so expert through the book, tyranny of the minority why American democracy reached the breaking point we're really appreciate you taking that time. Folks go out, and get a copy. There it is.
Speaker 0 I'm they put it 1 more time. That Steve is hold a different second just so we get that shot baby. There it is. A. Yes.
Speaker 0 The money shot. Though we really really do appreciate it. It was it was a treat for me. For a to participate a little bit that I did, but is is more important lesson for all of us to take away from your writing. So folks the book, again, tyranny any of the minority, and go out and grab yourself a copy of it, Steve Daniel.
Speaker 0 Thank you sky so much. I really appreciate your taking time here on the Michael Steele podcast.
Speaker 2 Thanks michael. We're big fans what you're doing.
Speaker 0 I appreciate that very much. So that does it for this time together folks, Just remember to show the love, do the download thing. Check out the book, Tyranny of the minority, Why American democracy reached the breaking point. You can find it on all the the big websites, Amazon, etcetera, to download your copy. Please read it.
Speaker 0 It's good reading. Until next time, be safe be well out there, You can follow these gentlemen. Are you guys on Twitter or anything like that. I I Dan you are on at DZIBLATT. Right.
Speaker 0 And definitely check out Daniel there. Steve is is probably the same of the 2 of us. He has no Twitter He he figured can write
Speaker 2 me a letter.
Speaker 0 Write him a letter. Spoken like a true professor. Old school. Alright folks until next time be safe well god bless.