This is a really smart analysis. I have just one quibble, which is that I think there are very logical circumstances where a person might think someone else's Congressional representative ahould vote in keeping with that person's own views, in spite of the personal beliefs of that representative or the desires of their constituents. And I think it ties back to the heart of the point that is being made overall. That is: if I think that my view is better aligned with the rule of law, then of course that's the way I think the representative should vote.
For example, say a rep sponsors a "Citizen Justice" bill at the urging of their constituents, permitting a group of 12 or more adults to form an ad hoc investigation of an alleged crime, reach a conclusion about what they deem is in the immediate interests of justice, and meet out such punishment they hold to be appropriate to the crime. Proponents say this will reduce crime and make for more efficient enforcement of the law. Detractors say this is an attempt to legalize lynching. I would want that rep to recognize that the proposed law is very likely to be found unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that it's potentially harmful to minority communities not well represented by the majority of that rep's constituents. I might be saying that I want their vote to align with my preference rather than their own inclination or that of their constituents -- but in this case I have more of a reason then merely taking my own side, because the bill in question implicates deeper issues than mere policy preference.
Majority rule is not the same thing as the rule of law, for this very reason. We don't want governance be based on the whims of a majority that says "rules for thee but not for me." Lawmakers should first be held to the standard of honoring the Constitution and the foundations of the law, and then may consider policy preferences of themselves and their constituents. Which, again, really gets back to the main point of this piece.
Excellent point. But who is to say what does or does not follow the rule of law, or the constitution for that matter? It’s not that easy. The learned members of the Supreme Court often disagree on what the rule of law actually is and on how the constitution should be interpreted. You may think you know better than they do. I know that I often do. But my point is not who is right or who is wrong. It is that these issues are debatable. They are not open and shut.
Well done Gabe. I am a boomer and have reaped the benefits of a generation before me that believed in self-sacrifice, compromise and teamwork. I'm distraught over the direction of our politics and society but am encouraged that someone of your generation sees what is going on and is speaking out about it.
One of your BEST! For me, this piece pulled together a lot of threads of concern I was holding relative to your frequent council regarding abuses on both sides weakening the potential for the future. I guess I was wanting my own personal "dictatorship" to come about :-) I also tend to struggle with your use of polls and graphs, but really felt the background they provided for your perspective in today's post was very well integrated. I'll provide this quote from you to help me remember that learning to stay buoyant through "frequent disappointment" is not just an important political strategy, but a key life skill as well!
"Many of us, it seems, would rather live in our own personal dictatorship... than come to terms with what it means to live in a democracy, with all the hard persuasive work and frequent disappointments that entails."
Would that our congressmen would read and learn from this piece. I accept that living in a democracy means that the direction of the country may not follow my preferences, but I also wish that those in power would recognize that they are the servants of the people and should not govern according to their own preferences or according to how their decisions benefit their own bank accounts. Republicans in congress seem to have gone very far on voting according to the wishes of the president, and congresspeople in both parties have become far too interested in enriching themselves.
Kudos. Maybe team sports should be mandatory along with civics. There is a learning curve to losing graciously and acknowledging that the other team played a smarter game.
This too can and should be repaired. Every State should make paper ballots mandatory. Having paper ballots to back up results as Arizona proved, certainly put Trump's claims to rest there. And yes, teaching the Constitution to the young before College should become mandatory. I remember my Civics class was devoted mostly to the responsibilities of each Branch of Government and how they interacted, not the Constitution itself. I'm not even sure Civics is even mandatory anymore! At best it is a semester in high school. Ethics should be taught, too.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument that suspicions around the 2020 election and suspicions around the 2024 election are the same or come from the same place. In 2024 we had a power-hungry convicted felon who had been impeached and left office after his first term with rock bottom approval who suddenly people were willing to vote for again? Despite the fact that rallies and events for his side were sparsely attended and bleak compared with Kamala's? Trump yard signs were hard to find here in Iowa. But, coincidentally, the tech oligarchs were lining up behind him, those same oligarchs who control so much of the mechanisms used to conduct elections and sell public opinion? Democrats thinking maybe this ethically dubious crew might have done something ethically dubious seems very different from Trump's complaints about 2020.
Also, I think the gradual increase in doubt about 2024 might actually show that perhaps civic virtue isn't dead on both sides. Despite all of that, most Democrats shook their head and said, "well, I guess this is what the country wants." Only after seeing the goals and actions of our ethically dubious crew fully laid out over the course of 2025 did a majority decide that perhaps they might've been too quick to recognize that crew's victory. That maybe this isn't what the majority of the country actually wanted.
Finally your even-handed approach is no longer a reassurance but a warning -- everything is NOT okay! This American experiment in democracy is not guaranteed to succeed, especially as greed overpowers the better angels.
Absolutely obvious, Gabe, and yet, I never even considered these implications of the total self-centeredness and self-importance of so many of us. And, frankly, I’m not sure I’m glad you pointed it out. In this way lies dispair
As always Gabe delivers unusually insightful analysis. I want to comment on the issue of accepting the 2024 election outcome in that I feel it is a starkly different matter than not accepting the 2020 election because one of the 2024 candidates should have been disqualified from running in the first place since we all watched him commit insurrection on Jan 6.
The decline in liberal arts education, especially liberal arts classes in high school like English, History, Civics, etc. seems to correlate to the age differential in the personal dictatorship mode. I experienced this phenomenon with my community college students as I taught both legal concepts and government. It wasn't that the students couldn't and wouldn't embrace either the representative or trustee mode, it is that they had never realized those were a thing. They had never been challenged to use their imagination and game out the possibilities of representation.
Without the habits of the mind learned from liberal arts courses particularly, although we also learn these mental habits in science and math, people just don't have the mental tools or the impetus to think about our system of government in the abstract. To them, it all just "is". So, they start by saying they want to dictate outcomes to their representatives. This is an understandable gut reaction. But that doesn't quite make sense to them when they actually say it out loud with other people listening. The problem becomes immediately apparent in a class discussion - there is no practical way for a representative to "please all of the people all of the time".
The good news is when students grasped the problem and we gamed out hypotheticals under both modes, they would many times say (at least in class) that the trustee mode is the best mode for a well-functioning system. Of course, the real problem is whether we can find those trustworthy trustees to represent us. And, this problem is real, not just a fear, see, e.g. the current state of corruption in politics.
The answer the best class discussions hit upon was sometimes it should be the representative mode and sometimes it should be the trustee mode. And the biggest condition is the representative should stay in conversation with his/her voters in order to both learn from them and to explain why they vote the way they vote.
I think the incredible response to James Talarico could be because people are projecting onto him their belief that he will be a selfless trustee of their interests.
As I was reading your fascinating discussion on democracy vs. personal dictatorship, my 88-year-old mind took an unexpected turn. While in earlier generations we often saw political leaders taking a principled, statesman-like position based on what they conscientiously believed to be morally and ethically right, today it seems to me that there has been a major shift toward expediency. And that expediency seems to have far less to do with what is best for the country and much more to do with obtaining and retaining personal power. Perhaps this explains the flip-flopping of positions depending on whether the issues affect "us" or "them". There will, of course, always be genuine differences of opinion regarding goals and objectives, and the best ways to achieve them, but leaders--and their followers--who are nothing more than weather vanes, letting the prevailing wind determine today's political, moral, and legal climate, can scarcely be expected to stand for principle or lead our country to excellence.
The research you are reporting on describes quite clearly the morass that our country is facing, but more importantly, does it offer any insights into the pathway out of the quagmire? Does it provide any suggestions on how to rebuild trust between leaders and the citizenry? Does it address in any way the questions of moral relativity on the part of either politicians or the citizens who elect them? Is the continued decline in trust of one another inevitable?
One small quibble--throughout this report you speak of our country as a democracy; I was taught that our founders rejected a purely democratic form of government in favor of a constitutional republic because a democracy can, and usually does, lead to loss of individual freedoms and mistreatment of minorities. I am thankful for the American constitution and the Bill of Rights that provides essential safeguards from the tyranny of the majority.
Thank you for stirring up our thought processes. I look forward to more such thoughtful reports from you.
Interesting to be sure. Two points stand out to me. One is that I am surprised that so many Democratic voters are questioning the validity of elections. You don't see that publicized anywhere, and - much to their credit, and very much unlike the GOP - you don't see Democrat political leaders giving voice to it.
But a larger point about this dynamic relates to how it lines up with Citizens United. If Americans are becoming more and more likely to adopt "the dictatorial model of politics," just imagine how that plays into the expectations and (self-styled) morality of billionaires (and other major campaign contributors) who have become enabled by the Supreme Court to "out-vote" mere citizens with their money. Forget democracy - it's all about power.
This is a really smart analysis. I have just one quibble, which is that I think there are very logical circumstances where a person might think someone else's Congressional representative ahould vote in keeping with that person's own views, in spite of the personal beliefs of that representative or the desires of their constituents. And I think it ties back to the heart of the point that is being made overall. That is: if I think that my view is better aligned with the rule of law, then of course that's the way I think the representative should vote.
For example, say a rep sponsors a "Citizen Justice" bill at the urging of their constituents, permitting a group of 12 or more adults to form an ad hoc investigation of an alleged crime, reach a conclusion about what they deem is in the immediate interests of justice, and meet out such punishment they hold to be appropriate to the crime. Proponents say this will reduce crime and make for more efficient enforcement of the law. Detractors say this is an attempt to legalize lynching. I would want that rep to recognize that the proposed law is very likely to be found unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that it's potentially harmful to minority communities not well represented by the majority of that rep's constituents. I might be saying that I want their vote to align with my preference rather than their own inclination or that of their constituents -- but in this case I have more of a reason then merely taking my own side, because the bill in question implicates deeper issues than mere policy preference.
Majority rule is not the same thing as the rule of law, for this very reason. We don't want governance be based on the whims of a majority that says "rules for thee but not for me." Lawmakers should first be held to the standard of honoring the Constitution and the foundations of the law, and then may consider policy preferences of themselves and their constituents. Which, again, really gets back to the main point of this piece.
Excellent point. But who is to say what does or does not follow the rule of law, or the constitution for that matter? It’s not that easy. The learned members of the Supreme Court often disagree on what the rule of law actually is and on how the constitution should be interpreted. You may think you know better than they do. I know that I often do. But my point is not who is right or who is wrong. It is that these issues are debatable. They are not open and shut.
Very true!!
That IS a logical argument, but I don't think it is what these poll respondents were thinking.
Ha, probably not!
Well done Gabe. I am a boomer and have reaped the benefits of a generation before me that believed in self-sacrifice, compromise and teamwork. I'm distraught over the direction of our politics and society but am encouraged that someone of your generation sees what is going on and is speaking out about it.
One of your BEST! For me, this piece pulled together a lot of threads of concern I was holding relative to your frequent council regarding abuses on both sides weakening the potential for the future. I guess I was wanting my own personal "dictatorship" to come about :-) I also tend to struggle with your use of polls and graphs, but really felt the background they provided for your perspective in today's post was very well integrated. I'll provide this quote from you to help me remember that learning to stay buoyant through "frequent disappointment" is not just an important political strategy, but a key life skill as well!
"Many of us, it seems, would rather live in our own personal dictatorship... than come to terms with what it means to live in a democracy, with all the hard persuasive work and frequent disappointments that entails."
Would that our congressmen would read and learn from this piece. I accept that living in a democracy means that the direction of the country may not follow my preferences, but I also wish that those in power would recognize that they are the servants of the people and should not govern according to their own preferences or according to how their decisions benefit their own bank accounts. Republicans in congress seem to have gone very far on voting according to the wishes of the president, and congresspeople in both parties have become far too interested in enriching themselves.
This!
Another fantastic article I wish I could mail to every American household
Kudos. Maybe team sports should be mandatory along with civics. There is a learning curve to losing graciously and acknowledging that the other team played a smarter game.
This too can and should be repaired. Every State should make paper ballots mandatory. Having paper ballots to back up results as Arizona proved, certainly put Trump's claims to rest there. And yes, teaching the Constitution to the young before College should become mandatory. I remember my Civics class was devoted mostly to the responsibilities of each Branch of Government and how they interacted, not the Constitution itself. I'm not even sure Civics is even mandatory anymore! At best it is a semester in high school. Ethics should be taught, too.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument that suspicions around the 2020 election and suspicions around the 2024 election are the same or come from the same place. In 2024 we had a power-hungry convicted felon who had been impeached and left office after his first term with rock bottom approval who suddenly people were willing to vote for again? Despite the fact that rallies and events for his side were sparsely attended and bleak compared with Kamala's? Trump yard signs were hard to find here in Iowa. But, coincidentally, the tech oligarchs were lining up behind him, those same oligarchs who control so much of the mechanisms used to conduct elections and sell public opinion? Democrats thinking maybe this ethically dubious crew might have done something ethically dubious seems very different from Trump's complaints about 2020.
Also, I think the gradual increase in doubt about 2024 might actually show that perhaps civic virtue isn't dead on both sides. Despite all of that, most Democrats shook their head and said, "well, I guess this is what the country wants." Only after seeing the goals and actions of our ethically dubious crew fully laid out over the course of 2025 did a majority decide that perhaps they might've been too quick to recognize that crew's victory. That maybe this isn't what the majority of the country actually wanted.
Finally your even-handed approach is no longer a reassurance but a warning -- everything is NOT okay! This American experiment in democracy is not guaranteed to succeed, especially as greed overpowers the better angels.
Absolutely obvious, Gabe, and yet, I never even considered these implications of the total self-centeredness and self-importance of so many of us. And, frankly, I’m not sure I’m glad you pointed it out. In this way lies dispair
As always Gabe delivers unusually insightful analysis. I want to comment on the issue of accepting the 2024 election outcome in that I feel it is a starkly different matter than not accepting the 2020 election because one of the 2024 candidates should have been disqualified from running in the first place since we all watched him commit insurrection on Jan 6.
Seems like the majority of Americans just never grew up.
The decline in liberal arts education, especially liberal arts classes in high school like English, History, Civics, etc. seems to correlate to the age differential in the personal dictatorship mode. I experienced this phenomenon with my community college students as I taught both legal concepts and government. It wasn't that the students couldn't and wouldn't embrace either the representative or trustee mode, it is that they had never realized those were a thing. They had never been challenged to use their imagination and game out the possibilities of representation.
Without the habits of the mind learned from liberal arts courses particularly, although we also learn these mental habits in science and math, people just don't have the mental tools or the impetus to think about our system of government in the abstract. To them, it all just "is". So, they start by saying they want to dictate outcomes to their representatives. This is an understandable gut reaction. But that doesn't quite make sense to them when they actually say it out loud with other people listening. The problem becomes immediately apparent in a class discussion - there is no practical way for a representative to "please all of the people all of the time".
The good news is when students grasped the problem and we gamed out hypotheticals under both modes, they would many times say (at least in class) that the trustee mode is the best mode for a well-functioning system. Of course, the real problem is whether we can find those trustworthy trustees to represent us. And, this problem is real, not just a fear, see, e.g. the current state of corruption in politics.
The answer the best class discussions hit upon was sometimes it should be the representative mode and sometimes it should be the trustee mode. And the biggest condition is the representative should stay in conversation with his/her voters in order to both learn from them and to explain why they vote the way they vote.
I think the incredible response to James Talarico could be because people are projecting onto him their belief that he will be a selfless trustee of their interests.
As I was reading your fascinating discussion on democracy vs. personal dictatorship, my 88-year-old mind took an unexpected turn. While in earlier generations we often saw political leaders taking a principled, statesman-like position based on what they conscientiously believed to be morally and ethically right, today it seems to me that there has been a major shift toward expediency. And that expediency seems to have far less to do with what is best for the country and much more to do with obtaining and retaining personal power. Perhaps this explains the flip-flopping of positions depending on whether the issues affect "us" or "them". There will, of course, always be genuine differences of opinion regarding goals and objectives, and the best ways to achieve them, but leaders--and their followers--who are nothing more than weather vanes, letting the prevailing wind determine today's political, moral, and legal climate, can scarcely be expected to stand for principle or lead our country to excellence.
The research you are reporting on describes quite clearly the morass that our country is facing, but more importantly, does it offer any insights into the pathway out of the quagmire? Does it provide any suggestions on how to rebuild trust between leaders and the citizenry? Does it address in any way the questions of moral relativity on the part of either politicians or the citizens who elect them? Is the continued decline in trust of one another inevitable?
One small quibble--throughout this report you speak of our country as a democracy; I was taught that our founders rejected a purely democratic form of government in favor of a constitutional republic because a democracy can, and usually does, lead to loss of individual freedoms and mistreatment of minorities. I am thankful for the American constitution and the Bill of Rights that provides essential safeguards from the tyranny of the majority.
Thank you for stirring up our thought processes. I look forward to more such thoughtful reports from you.
Interesting to be sure. Two points stand out to me. One is that I am surprised that so many Democratic voters are questioning the validity of elections. You don't see that publicized anywhere, and - much to their credit, and very much unlike the GOP - you don't see Democrat political leaders giving voice to it.
But a larger point about this dynamic relates to how it lines up with Citizens United. If Americans are becoming more and more likely to adopt "the dictatorial model of politics," just imagine how that plays into the expectations and (self-styled) morality of billionaires (and other major campaign contributors) who have become enabled by the Supreme Court to "out-vote" mere citizens with their money. Forget democracy - it's all about power.
Fascinating piece, Gabe. Excellent points, all around. Thank you for your hard work.