Facing reality with conviction and clarity
How we’re thinking about the next four years
If, over the past week, you’ve found yourself uncertain about the future, know this: You’re not alone.
For the pro-democracy coalition, this moment demands reflection and regrouping. Yes, there are the political debates over what went wrong and how pro-democracy candidates can win future elections. But put those aside and there’s a set of deeper questions, all without easy or simple answers.
How do we calibrate our response to threats to democracy that are both profound and all-too-easy to catastrophize? How to assess whether the already-chaotic circus acts (Attorney General Matt Gaetz, anyone?) are bluster and chaos, or the flashpoints that could determine whether our democracy endures? How do we incentivize other actors — Congress and the courts and government officials — to uphold their constitutional roles as checks on the executive?
Above all, how do we defend the core tenets and institutions of our democratic system in a moment when many of those institutions have already been captured by authoritarian-minded ideas and allies? Or what about the fact that the way they operate feels so unsatisfactory to so many voters?
Like I said, no simple or easy answers. We’re all likely going to settle on slightly different conclusions to each. They may (and probably should) change over time.
Here’s how we at If you can keep it plan to cover the next four years of American self-government — whatever they may bring.
If in doubt, take a breath
You’ll notice that you got a lot more emails from us before Election Day than in the time since. We apologize if we left you hanging, but that’s not an accident.
In moments like this one, when the situation has changed significantly (and for the worse), our every instinct as humans is to leap into action. To refresh the page or doomscroll or post on social media or organize a letter or file a lawsuit or make a statement or write an op-ed or just do… something! Anything!
That’s understandable — it will take swift action to uphold our democracy. But when it comes to our shared mission of defending our freedoms to vote, speak, organize, assemble, and live our lives protected by the rule of law, that instinct to leap fast can be at best counterproductive, and at worst a real risk.
The forces shaping our democracy, and whether it survives, are hugely complex and difficult to predict. We don’t get to know how any of this ends, and seeing around the bend is often a lot harder than it seems. Put differently, it’s not that we don’t know the dangers that are coming (we do) or what we can all do about them (there are lots of things), it’s that responding to those dangers is going to require careful focus, clarity, cohesion, and deliberate learning and adaptation. We know a lot more now about the task we’re facing than we did two weeks ago; it’s okay to take the time to absorb and adjust.
This is also, unfortunately, going to be a long four years. We all — all of us — have to do what we can to stay in it for that long-haul, as well as the years beyond when we can build toward a more perfect democracy.
Practically, that means this newsletter is not going to become your go-to for breaking news or the outrage-of-the-day (it never has been). In exchange, we’ll endeavor to continue rising above the noise to provide clear analysis and context on the most significant developments for our democracy.
Keep an eye on the big picture
Similarly, we know from other countries — and, honestly, from our own — how autocrats weaponize information overload to distract, disorient, and eventually wear down their opposition. (As Steve Bannon put it: “flood the zone with s**t.”)
If everything is a five-alarm fire, nothing is.
To identify priorities and red lines, we are focused on the tactics and strategies that have defined elected autocracies around the world. There are, according to experts, seven things that tend to separate authoritarianism from the normal, sometimes-ugly jockeying of politics.
Some years ago, we wrote a guide for journalists about how to spot these seven tactics. In my view, this is a handy framework for anyone to figure out if the latest development is a potentially-democracy-ending-bad-thing or just a bad-thing-on-its-merits (or, maybe, not even a bad thing at all).
Skate to where the puck is going
In hockey, there’s an adage — made famous by a Wayne Gretzky quote — that you shouldn’t skate towards the puck. You skate towards where the puck is going.
We’ll give you our best indications about where things are headed, even if that doesn’t feel like where things are right now.
This is why you’re not going to hear much from us about the latest drama. But you can bet you’re going to get plenty on things like:
Schedule F and the plan to try to purge the nonpartisan civil service.
Impoundments and Trump’s incorrect assertion that he has unrestrained powers to withhold funds budgeted by Congress.
Donald Trump’s pledges to deploy the military on American soil.
The risk of DOJ weaponization and politicized investigations.
The limits on and potential abuses of the presidential pardon power.
Yes, not all of these things are particularly big news stories right now. We don’t know exactly when and where they will come to a head. But they’re pretty clearly where things are going.
Be honest and unflinching in our assessments — in both directions
Finally, this is a moment when we should all lean into honesty and candor.
If you subscribe to this newsletter, you probably don’t need to hear this, but we cannot afford to downplay or be naive towards what’s happening. American democracy — imperfect as it is — faces an existential threat.
At the same time, the specifics of that threat often take nuance. There’s a risk of overstating specific issues in a way that actually makes bad things more likely to happen.
Take, for example, the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. As grim as its implications are (for a summary, see here), be careful not to misinterpret it. The Court held that the president can’t be held criminally liable, after the fact, for crimes committed as part of official duties. That’s a really big deal, and sure to encourage future lawbreaking on Trump’s part — but it’s not a declaration that White House crimes are now legal.
Kristy Parker explains the distinction:
The immunity decision does not mean the president can simply do whatever he wants. Trump has promised to direct his subordinates to commit blatantly unethical and illegal acts and courts can and should block any such actions by the president or other executive branch officials. Every actor in our system still has an obligation to uphold the law, including refusing unlawful orders and instructions.
But more importantly, the immunity decision applies only to the president. Everyone else around him still can still face serious consequences.
What’s the downside of skipping over this nuance?
Two things:
One, the footsoldiers required to carry out illegal actions may be more willing to violate ethical rules or even break the law, lulled into a false sense of confidence (even as many of their predecessors have already faced jail time for doing so).
Two, political, private sector, media, and civil society actors may be more inclined toward “anticipatory obedience” if they falsely believe the rule of law no longer constrains the president’s behavior. Both of those are dangerous, and we can make them less likely by being careful in how we describe this particular threat to the rule of law.
There are going to be a lot more instances of this kind of nuance in the years ahead.
We’ll be here to help explain them — and to help keep your threat sensor finely tuned. If you’re not subscribed, now is a great moment to do so. Or better yet, tell your friends.
How to fix America’s broken electoral system
This election was a bit of a curve ball for reform conversations, as Donald Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
But you can still see the discontents of our electoral system. It’s just a dog that didn’t bark — or rather, millions of voters who didn’t vote. As Cerin Lindgrensavage writes in TIME, you can see the failures of our electoral system in our unusually low turnout:
The high stakes U.S. election this week is on track to match the record 66% turnout set four years ago, and surpass the routinely lower midterm election turnout that peaked at 49% in 2018. But as records go, these look sad when you consider that many democracies get closer to 80% of their voters to head to the polls.
With between a third or half of all voters deciding to stay home, and most voters expressing dissatisfaction with the options they are being offered at the ballot box, it is worth taking a step back to understand how America elects its leaders. These choices are not just leaving people disillusioned with politics, they are turning people away from our democracy itself and opening a door to ever-more extreme candidates.
The U.S. electoral system remains an outlier among democracies. Instead of electing a single representative from a district, most democracies elect multiple ones from each district in proportion to the share of votes each party receives. So, for example, in a district with five members, if a party gets 40% of the votes, it gets two of the five seats. This kind of system is called proportional representation. Most democracies embraced proportionality decades ago—and for good reason.
That’s because when elections are more competitive, more voters turn out because they think their voice actually matters. So it’s no surprise that U.S. turnout is so abysmal.
Read Cerin’s whole article here.
A heads up: Bluesky seems to be blowing up as the new preferred social media platform of the pro-democracy coalition. If you’re already there, give Protect Democracy a follow (and while you’re at it, follow Ian and Amanda and Corey and Jon and Rachel and John and Farbod and Max and Kristy and David and Anna and yours truly).
Join us.
Thank you for this. It is the most and nuanced and helpful thing I have read since the election. I'm sharing with my friends.
Your assessments are calm and realistic. I appreciate your clarity and hopefulness.