Tuesday, January 28, 2025

What’s behind Trump’s flurry of executive action: 4 essential reads on autocrats and authoritarianism

President Donald Trump shows off one of his new orders upon taking office. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

If you think a lot is happening in the federal government all at once on a lot of different issues, you’re right.

At the beginning of a new presidential administration, there is often a flurry of changes – new Cabinet appointments and a few executive orders. But what’s happening right now in Washington, D.C. – actions affecting immigration, tariffs, the firing of career government workers, gender identity, federally funded research, foreign aid and even broader categories of federal spending – is different from most presidential transitions, in volume, pace, content and breadth of the changes ordered.

Administration officials and Trump allies have described all this action as a “shock and awe” campaign intended to “flood the zone.” Translation: It’s both an effort to demonstrate autocratic power and an effort to overwhelm and exhaust people who might resist the changes.

The Conversation U.S. has published several articles – many from Donald Trump’s first term as president – that spell out how autocrats, and those who want to be autocrats, behave and why. Here are some key points to know.

1. Seize executive power

The move toward autocracy starts with wielding unyielding power over not only people but democratic institutions, explained Shelley Inglis, a scholar of international law at the University of Dayton. In a checklist of 10 items for wannabe authoritarians, the first task, she wrote, is being strong:

The mainstay of today’s authoritarianism is strengthening your power while simultaneously weakening government institutions, such as parliaments and judiciaries, that provide checks and balances. The key is to use legal means that ultimately give democratic legitimacy to the power grab.”

2. Control political backers

When a leader’s supporters are more loyal to the person than their political party, that creates what is called a “personalist party,” as scholars of political science Erica Frantz at Michigan State University, Joe Wright at Penn State and Andrea Kendall-Taylor at Yale University described. That creates a danger to democracy, they wrote:

(W)hat matters for democracy is not so much the ambitions of power-hungry leaders, but rather whether those in their support group will tame them. … (W)hen personalist ruling parties hold legislative majorities and the presidency … there is little that stands in the way of a grab for power.”

A man stands waving to a crowd of people holding signs.
Many Republican Party members back Trump, in part because other party leaders signal their own support. AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki

3. Sideline the public

In a democracy, the public has power. But if the people choose not to exercise it, that leaves room for an authoritarian leader to take more control, warned Mark Satta, a professor of philosophy and law at Wayne State University in an article comparing George Orwell’s book “Nineteen eighty-four” to modern events:

Trump routinely speaks like an autocrat. Yet many Americans excuse such talk, failing to treat it as the evidence of a threat to democracy that it is. This seems to me to be driven in part by the tendency Orwell identified to think that truly bad things won’t happen – at least not in one’s own country.”

A man dressed in red, white and blue hugging and kissing an American flag.
Donald Trump hugs an American flag as he arrives at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 24, 2024, in Baltimore. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

4. Depend on complacency

Another scholar delivered a warning of a possible future. Vickie Sullivan, a political science scholar at Tufts University, studies Renaissance writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived from 1469 to 1527.

He is perhaps most widely known for encouraging “sole rulers – his phrase for authoritarians or dictators – … to use force and fraud to gain and maintain power,” she wrote. But Machiavelli had advice for the public, too, Sullivan explained:

“He instructs republican citizens and leaders … to recognize how vulnerable the governments they cherish are and to be vigilant against the threats of tyranny. … If republican citizens and leaders fail to be vigilant, they will eventually be confronted with a leader who has accumulated an extremely powerful and threatening following. At that point, Machiavelli says, it will be too late to save the republic.”

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.The Conversation

Jeff Inglis, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wednesday, November 6, 2024

Now the Electoral College votes for president – 4 essential reads

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

The voters have cast their ballots, and after those ballots have been counted, and a winner has been projected by news organizations, that’s not the conclusion of the election. The actual outcome of the 2024 presidential election will be determined by the Electoral College.

The Conversation U.S. has had several articles explaining the history and effects of the United States’ curious method of choosing a president, not with one national election but with 51 smaller elections, in each state and Washington, D.C. Here are the highlights of that coverage.

1. A safeguard for democracy

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise devised among 11 men at the Constitutional Convention in the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. It was meant as a protective measure against rule by an uninformed mob, as Purdue University social studies education professor Phillip J. VanFossen explains. He describes how electors came to cast the decisive votes for president, writing:

“(The) founders were reassured that with this compromise system, neither public ignorance nor outside influence would affect the choice of a nation’s leader. They believed that the electors would ensure that only a qualified person became president. And they thought the Electoral College would serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled, especially by foreign governments.”

The Committee on Postponed Questions
These 11 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 agreed on a compromise that created the Electoral College. The Conversation, from Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-ND

2. Creating new danger

By contrast, though, Barry C. Burden, a political science scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found that rather than protecting American democracy, the Electoral College system created a new risk:

Someone who wants to infiltrate the election system would have difficulty causing problems in a national popular vote because it is decided by thousands of disconnected local jurisdictions. In contrast, the Electoral College makes it convenient to sow mischief by only meddling in a few states widely seen as decisive.”

3. Protecting the popular vote?

A news item published Aug. 19, 1868, in South Carolina provides insight about the contemporaneous understanding of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. The Anderson Intelligencer via newspapers.com

There may be limits to that meddling, though. The Constitution allows state legislatures to choose the electors – which Donald Trump and his supporters tried to exploit in 2020 by asking Republican state legislators to appoint fake electors to confuse matters.

However, as Eric Eisner, a history Ph.D. student at Johns Hopkins University, and David B. Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, explain, that would have run afoul not only of those states’ laws but also of another provision of the Constitution: The 14th Amendment says that if a state disenfranchises any of its voters, that state loses a proportional amount of its seats in the House of Representatives.

So, Eisner and Froomkin explain:

(I)f a state legislature were to directly choose electors, that would disenfranchise all of the state’s voters. The right to vote, after all, is the right to have one’s vote counted, not the right to have one’s preferred candidate win. If all of a state’s voters have their right to vote taken away, Section 2 requires that the state’s House representation immediately and automatically be reduced to zero.”

That, in turn, means the state would only have two electors – and would no longer be a factor in the election.

4. Why does the US still have an Electoral College?

Other nations took a lead from the U.S. creation of the Electoral College, creating their own versions. But they didn’t last, as Westminster College political scientist Joshua Holzer explained:

None have been satisfied with the results. And except for the U.S., all have found other ways to choose their leaders.”

Many people in the U.S. also have problems with the Electoral College, and Holzer identifies one effort underway to replace it without amending the Constitution. But even that wouldn’t ensure that the person who becomes president would be supported by at least half of the people who cast ballots.The Conversation

Jeff Inglis, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

Independent voters think for themselves and stay out of politics – 3 essential reads

Jessie Harris, left, a registered independent voter in South Carolina, casts a ballot in February 2024. Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

In the 2024 election, the two major-party campaigns and many news reporters are spending a lot of time talking about independent voters – those who are neither aligned with the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party. Despite the power that political independents are anticipated to have over the election results, there’s a lot that remains unknown about this group.

The Conversation U.S. has published several articles about what is known, and why it’s hard to know much more. Here are selections from some of those articles:

1. How many independent voters are there?

It’s very hard to answer that question, wrote Thom Reilly, a professor of public affairs at Arizona State University. Part of the problem is figuring out how to define who independent voters are. Surveys often ask people if they are Republicans, Democrats or independents, and if they answer that they are independents, the surveys ask how strongly they might lean toward one party or the other. But this muddies the waters of political identity, Reilly wrote:

It’s possible that some voters identify as independent but really just have weaker political preferences than party die-hards, while still maintaining some loyalty to one party or the other. And some independent voters change their political identification from one cycle to another. That makes it hard to tell who an independent voter is and how many of them exist.”

Those changing alignments, Reilly wrote, “may require scholars, media outlets and the public to shift their traditional two-party view of American politics.”

2. Independent voters think for themselves

Independent voters exhibit a key quality that most Americans expect of their fellow citizens: They base their views on their life experiences.

Unfortunately, as politics scholars Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz at the University of Maryland and Joshua J. Dyck at UMass Lowell explained, this is an attribute almost unique to political independents:

In contrast, Democrats’ and Republicans’ ideas of what problems deserve government attention and how to solve them are much less likely to be based on their own life experiences, and instead simply mirror the information they have gained from leading political figures on social media, on cable news networks or through other partisan information outlets.”

For instance, independents living in neighborhoods with high levels of gun violence are far more likely to report being concerned about gun violence than independents who live in safer areas. But, Pearson-Merkowitz and Dyck wrote,

“for Democrats and Republicans, there is no relationship between where they live and their level of concern about gun violence: Whether they live in a relatively dangerous community or a relatively safe one, their views on gun violence reflect their party’s messages on the issue.”

3. Independents less likely to engage in any politics

Research into independents’ political activity finds them tending to stay away from politics, wrote Julio Borquez, a political science scholar at the University of Michigan-Dearborn:

“Perhaps most importantly, pure independent voters are simply less likely to vote than those who express any degree of partisan attachment. In the 2020 presidential election, reported turnout among pure independents was about 20 percentage points lower than turnout among other voters, including independents who lean toward a party.”

Research has found members of this group “tend to be genuinely put off by partisan conflict and party labels,” Borquez wrote. Different studies have found, for instance, that they prefer photos of neighborhoods that did not show political yard signs over the same photos of the same neighborhoods with homes displaying political yard signs. And they pay less attention to campaigns and partisan social media than people with partisan affiliations.

So they are indeed independent – but the question remains whether they will be uninvolved in 2024 or motivated to cast their ballots and make their views known.The Conversation

Jeff Inglis, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Slow vote-counting, flip-flopping leads, careful certification and the weirdness of the Electoral College – people who research elections look at what to expect on election night

What should you make of the flood of information about the election? Dilok Klaisataporn/iStock / Getty Images Plus
Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

As Election Day arrives, people’s feelings of eagerness and anxiety can intensify. It’s normal to want to know the results, but it’s also important to make sure that when the results are announced, they’re accurate.

The Conversation U.S. has covered many aspects of the election, including the mechanics of tallying and reporting the votes. Here are selections from some of those articles:

1. How long did it take to count votes in 2020?

In 2020, Election Day was Nov. 3. While some results emerged that evening and over the subsequent days, it was not until four days later, Nov. 7, that The Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

Waiting can be unsatisfying, wrote John M. Murphy, a communications scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, but it’s key to getting accurate results.

Murphy warned: “People tend to see what they want to see. … Partisans want that beautiful picture of triumph, blue or red seas cascading across screens on election night.” But, he observed, that might be a mirage – and realizing it’s a mirage means one thing: “Wait. … Wait until we know it’s real.”

Election officials count ballots.
Election officials count ballots at the Allegheny County elections warehouse in Pittsburgh in 2020. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

2. Why do candidates’ leads change as the results emerge?

Every state counts votes slightly differently. Some, like Colorado, allow election workers to begin counting absentee ballots in advance of Election Day, while in other states, like Illinois, the count can’t even start until the polling places close at the end of Election Day.

In addition, various communities report their results in different ways. Some may release preliminary results every so often while the counting continues, while others may wait until counting is fully complete before announcing any results.

That’s why vote counts change over time: Partial results are updated, and additional results are added to statewide tallies. In a 2020 article, Kristin Kanthak, a political science professor at the University of Pittsburgh, went through the whole process, including the release of partial results:

“Importantly … this doesn’t mean the system is ‘rigged.’ Actually, it means the system is transparent to a fault,” she wrote.

3. How do we know the results are accurate?

Election officials take their jobs very seriously and work hard to count all the eligible votes accurately while under great pressure. They have specific rules and processes for how to handle ballots and vote-counting.

Derek Muller, an election-law scholar at the University of Notre Dame, explained those steps in detail, highlighting the focus on verifiable facts rather than people’s opinions about the process:

Certifying an election is a rather mundane task. … It is little more than making sure all precincts have reported and the arithmetic is correct. But it is an important task, because it is the formal process that determines who won the most votes.”

People sit at tables opening envelopes.
Washoe County employees in Nevada open ballots as they begin processing mailed ballots in the 2024 primary election. AP Photo/Andy Barron

4. Who invented the Electoral College?

Of course, the candidate who gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily win the presidency. The official decision is made by the Electoral College.

Phillip VanFossen, a civics educator at Purdue University, explained that the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 came up with three ideas, but couldn’t agree. Determined to find common ground, even if it was imperfect, the delegates told 11 men to come up with a solution, which was the Electoral College.

VanFossen explained that “with this compromise system, neither public ignorance nor outside influence would affect the choice of a nation’s leader. (The delegates) believed that the electors would ensure that only a qualified person became president. And they thought the Electoral College would serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled, especially by foreign governments.”

5. Why does the US still have an Electoral College?

Other nations were inspired by the U.S. Constitution, but not for long, as Westminster College political scientist Joshua Holzer explained:

None have been satisfied with the results. And except for the U.S., all have found other ways to choose their leaders.”

Many people in the U.S. also aren’t satisfied with the Electoral College, and Holzer identifies one effort under way to replace it without amending the Constitution. But even that won’t ensure that the person who becomes president is supported by at least half of the people who cast ballots.The Conversation

Jeff Inglis, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Monday, July 1, 2024

Supreme Court rules that Trump had partial immunity as president, but not for unofficial acts − 4 essential reads


President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before the Capitol insurrection. Mande Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Amy Lieberman, The Conversation; Jeff Inglis, The Conversation, and Naomi Schalit, The Conversation

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a president, including former President Donald Trump, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

The decision is “super nuanced,” as a law scholar explained to The Conversation shortly after the decision was announced on July 1, 2024.

While a president has total immunity for exercising “core constitutional powers,” a sitting or former president also has “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. That immunity, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, “extends to the outer perimeter of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

“There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the court ruled.

The vote was 6-3, as the court’s three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – strongly disagreed with the majority opinion in a dissent.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law,” Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion.

The federal prosecution against Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election will now go back to lower courts to determine which of the federal charges against Trump can proceed. One outcome, though, is clear – this decision will have a major impact on presidential power and the separation of powers in government.

Until all of the decision’s nuances are parsed by constitutional law scholars, here are four stories to help readers better understand the arguments leading up to the decision and what was at stake with this case.

People stand outside the Supreme Court and hold signs, one of which that says, 'Trump is not above the law'
People protest outside the Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ahead of the court’s anticipated decision on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution. Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

1. Laying the groundwork

Trump claimed he is immune from federal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election because he was in office as president at the time.

Trump’s argument centered on a claim … that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job,” wrote Claire B. Wofford, a political science scholar at the College of Charleston.

Since 1982, in a case dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidency, presidents have been deemed immune from civil lawsuits based on their officials acts, Wofford explained, and Trump sought to expand that immunity protection. But it was a big ask, Wofford wrote:

“Protecting the president from the hassles of civil litigation is one thing; permitting the president, charged in Article 2 of the Constitution with faithful execution of the laws, to be able to break those same laws with impunity is quite another.”

Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in December 2023 that Trump did not have the “divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” And a federal appeals court agreed in February 2024. That’s the ruling Trump appealed to the Supreme Court.

2. An inconsistent claim

Trump’s claim faced an uphill battle. Stefanie Lindquist, a scholar of constitutional law at Arizona State University, observed:

In several of the lawsuits he filed challenging election results in the wake of the 2020 election, Trump himself said he was acting ‘in his personal capacity as a candidate,’ as distinct from his official capacity as president.

"Now, though, Trump claims that whether or not he was acting as a candidate on Jan. 6, his comments on ‘matters of public concern’ fall within the scope of his presidential duties.”

That inconsistency, as well as the general principle in the Constitution that no person could be above the law, made Trump’s position a difficult one to argue.

3. A decision a long time coming

Wofford, a constitutional law scholar at the College of Charleston, observed before the Supreme Court’s July ruling that there was public concern about the time it took the court to reach a decision, but she said that delay was much more likely in service of democracy than it was a partisan play:

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is inevitably answering a very difficult legal question. If the answers were clear, the case never would have been the subject of high court litigation in the first place.”

And the task the justices have in deciding the case is vital to the nation, she wrote:

“(G)iven the potentially unconstitutional actions Trump has threatened to take if re-elected, the country will need a strong and well-respected Supreme Court in the very near future. Those angry with the court should actually be very glad it is working as usual here. If it weren’t, their fear that Trump will get away with it all may indeed be realized.”

Two men talking in a room behind a chandelier.
Donald Trump speaks after the appeals court hearing on his claim of immunity from prosecution on Jan. 9, 2024, in Washington. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

4. What this means for the future

Earlier this spring, Wofford noted some disturbing portents during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024:

Several of the justices, across the ideological spectrum, were very concerned about the practical implications of allowing a president to have immunity to some extent, or not allowing the president to have immunity.”

For instance, Wofford noted,

“Justice Samuel Alito seemed really concerned about the president being subject to political prosecution if he were not protected by immunity. … On the flip side … (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) said a president could enter office ‘knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes.’”

Wofford expected the justices would try to avoid granting either complete immunity or no immunity at all – and therefore allow Trump’s federal trial for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election to continue based on the fact that many of his actions were private, not official. Though that held peril, too, Wofford wrote:

“I wish there were a different vehicle through which the court could resolve this question and that it didn’t feel to so many people that the fate of our government, and the stability of our system, was on the line. … If it does not make a clear, resounding statement that the president is not above the law, then I think we have a serious problem.”

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.The Conversation

Amy Lieberman, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation; Jeff Inglis, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation, and Naomi Schalit, Senior Editor, Politics + Democracy, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.