The Winds of Change

There is an interesting section on The Outlook for Democracy

It’s bad enough that some cable news stations and social media sites deliver
only one side of the argument on many issues. But increasingly, they provide “alternative facts” that
allow Americans to inhabit different realities. This leads to further polarization and to hostility toward
those with whom one disagrees. It doesn’t take long for disagreement to turn into dislike. Without a
commonly agreed-on set of facts, it’s easy to doubt the good faith of those with contrary views,
undermining the very basis of our democracy.

Competition in the political arena has moved from intellectual/ideological to personal. As recent voting
shows, our country is splitting in two, including in terms of demographics. This may be nothing new, but
the forces of division are getting stronger. I believe “clustering” – the tendency to live near people like
oneself – is growing, and along with it the level of dislike, disrespect and resentment toward “the other.”
The political impact of clustering can be exacerbated by gerrymandering, which gives the dominant party
seats and power disproportionate to its share of voters.

These anti-democratic aspects of our system of government have been present for centuries. But the U.S.
version of democracy generally worked because people and parties generally: (a) recognized that
democracy is fragile and can only survive if most citizens feel the system is fair and legitimate; (b)
believed that majority rule should be tempered by respect for minority rights; and (c) valued progress for
the country at least as highly as political power. Thus, political leaders played by unwritten rules and
hewed to traditional norms of behavior intended to foster a stable democracy. For most of our history,
only fringe voices suggested our elections could be conducted dishonestly or questioned the outcome.
Now, this thinking is going mainstream. I worry about this trend.