Governing wisely

Allegations of fraud and stolen elections did not begin in 2020. Yet refusing to accept election results – at least at the presidential level – did. What happened?

|
Mike Blake/Reuters/File
A “vote” sign points people to a local polling location during the 2018 midterm elections in Newport Beach, California.

In 1896, the head of the Democratic Party was concerned. The presidential election was over but not settled. It was “one of the closest contests that the people have been called on to determine in recent years,” he wrote. States were “in doubt, in which we knew there had been many frauds, and from which there were evidences of tampering with the returns.” 

Yet that year, the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, began the modern tradition of presidents publicly conceding. Since then, every losing U.S. presidential candidate has formally acknowledged his or her opponent as the victor. Until President Donald Trump.

The March 13 cover story looks at the woman who is perhaps Mr. Trump’s nearest protégé. Kari Lake lost the 2022 Arizona governor’s race by 17,000 votes but has yet to concede. Like Mr. Trump, she claims fraud. And as with his claims about the 2020 election, no credible evidence suggests the election was stolen. 

Allegations of fraud and stolen elections did not begin in 2020. Yet refusing to accept election results – at least at the presidential level – did. What happened?

One factor is that Americans’ trust in government is at historic lows. That makes it easier for politicians to impugn the system – courts, parties, and institutions. But is government actually worse? One can argue that the government has changed less than our perception of it. Trust began to decline during America’s first televised war (Vietnam), accelerated through Watergate, and has bumped along in the doldrums throughout the internet era.  

Speaking of the world generally, futurist Ray Kurzweil said: “People think the world is getting worse. ... That’s the perception. What’s actually happening is our information about what’s wrong in the world is getting better.” The same could be said of government.

But there’s another factor to consider. At the establishment of the American republic, the nation’s founders gave sovereign power to the people, but didn’t know how much to trust them. Voters did not elect presidents; electors did. Nor did voters elect U.S. senators; state legislators did. In 1789, some 4 out of 5 Americans couldn’t vote, according to one estimate. American democracy was not very democratic. 

Today, in some ways, the United States faces the opposite challenge. The political reforms of the early 1900s created ballot initiatives, where voters could make law themselves. And in the era of cable news and Twitter, legislators are given an increasingly shorter leash, threatened with primary challenges if they don’t do exactly what voters sent them to Washington to do. 

America’s democracy is becoming more direct. In other words, there are fewer layers of insulation between voters and lawmaking. This can be good, holding lawmakers to account. But it also means that when Mr. Trump and Ms. Lake make their false claims, there’s not much the parties or the system can do to stop them. That power lies with voters.

In 2022, the voters largely rejected those who aggressively claimed election fraud. Similar tests will likely come in 2024 and beyond. In a sense, U.S. elections are now referendums on whether we can govern ourselves wisely.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Governing wisely
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editors/2023/0313/Governing-wisely
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe