It ’ s time for those who support democracy to correct that failure , and fast .
Let ’ s look at the two sides in the battle , zeroing in on the battle as each side “ understands ” it .
On one side , those who support democracy have generally assumed that it is intact in the United States . That it is stable . And that side has generally devoted its time , energy and resources contesting elections to achieve desired substantive outcomes within that stable democratic world .
This side is generally buoyed by the fact that for the most part , the policies and directions it favors reflect the broader will of America ’ s diverse majority . So elections on a fair playing field , over time , are the vehicle to implement these popular policies and overall worldview .
This approach has largely resulted in a strategy of contesting elections at the most obvious and direct plane to achieve those electoral wins and desired outcomes — the federal level . And this has led to a cyclical frenzy of activity and energy every two years , but with the most energy , passion and investment reserved for the presidential election every four years .
But it also has led to a relentless focus on the “ swing ” states and individual “ swing ” districts that add up to those federal majorities . Win certain states and you win the presidency and the U . S . Senate . Win certain districts and you win the U . S . House . So focusing by far the most time and resources on those , the thinking has been , is the most effective and efficient way to win the battle .
The media , by the way , largely covers politics in this same frame : stable democracy , focused largely on federal elections and battles over policy at the federal level . Now let ’ s look at the other side . This side finds itself in a very different battle — and they know it . Critically , this collection of groups understand that the policies it seeks are generally unpopular , and would not
survive long in a world of robust democracy . Whether those policies be trickle-down economics that leave most Americans out , relentless attacks on consumers , workers and victims , extreme social policies that are opposed by a majority or supermajority of the electorate , or the historic desire for whitedominated governance in an ever more diverse majority — this side understands that its worldview is mired in minority status . As I write in Laboratories of Autocracy , or as Jane Mayer writes in Dark Money , they acknowledge this reality explicitly . As such , they understand that robust democracy is inconsistent with the long-term , sustained fulfilment of their unpopular agenda .
And that keen-eyed understanding shapes their battle . It is not a battle to win elections in a robust democracy , because over time , that would surely be a losing battle . No , their battle is to undermine democracy itself , the essential pre-condition for the long-term success of their agenda .
And what is the strategy to win that battle against democracy ?
Simple : target the places that define and shape the heart of our democracy , then use those levers of power to undermine democracy more broadly . And in the United States , those places do not reside in the federal government — at least not primarily . They are in states , and statehouses .
First , these statehouses control countless substantive issues Americans care about , and that this side cares about — everything from the economy , to the administration of justice , to social issues . So this side ’ s investment in statehouses turns out to be returned many times over in the form of tax breaks , deregulation , giveaways to corporations , and so-called “ tort reform ” that has amounted to a never-ending attack on consumers ’ and victims ’ rights and the right to trial by jury . It ’ s an outright bonanza in state capital over state capital .
But even more crucially , these statehouses also wield enormous power to shape America ’ s broader democracy . For example , they play a major role in setting the rules and processes of elections , state and federal , which also can shape who votes in these elections . They wield the power to draw their own legislative districts , as well as those for Congress , which can impact outcomes as well as the level of democratic accountability . And they allocate the electors who determine the President of the United States .
Understanding the immense power these states exercise over both their substantive goals and democracy itself , this side naturally focuses most of its battle there — the statehouses and all the accompanying offices that can bolster ( or undermine ) their work . And because any state can help them achieve its substantive agenda as well as strike a blow against democracy , this side doesn ’ t limit its battle to a narrow field swing states . It battles in all 50 states , and it does so whenever there are elections at any level that might impact their agenda , or democracy . Which is , in the end , every year .
To be clear , this side also wages a battle at the federal level . Those positions — including federal judgeships — also have roles to play in their battle against democracy . But it doesn ’ t lose sight that the heart of its success arises from permanent control of as many states and statehouses as possible .
The Trial Lawyer x 77