WIll American Democracy Survive? with Prof. Alexander Keyssar

Disclaimer: Unedited AI Transcript

Announcer (00:06):

You are connected and you are listening to specifically for seniors, the podcast for those in the Remember When Generation.

Announcer (00:16):

Today's Podcast is available everywhere you listen to podcasts and with video at specifically for seniors YouTube channel. Now, here's your host, Dr. Larry Barsh.

Larry (00:38):

It is an honor to introduce our guest on specifically for seniors today. Alexander Keyssarr is the Matthew w Sterling Jr. Professor of History and social policy at Harvard University. And historian by training, he has specialized in the exploration of historical problems that have contemporary policy implications. His book, the Right to Vote, the Contested History of Democracy in the United States was named the best book in US History by both the American Historical Association and the Historical Society. It was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Los Angeles Times Book award. Professor Casar chaired the Social Science Research Council's National Research Commission on Voting and Elections, and he writes frequently for the popular press about American politics and history. Professor Kassar's, latest book entitled, why Do We Still Have The Electoral College is published by the Harvard University Press. Welcome to specifically for seniors, Alex.

Alexander Keyssar (02:09):

Well, thank you for inviting me, Larry. And it's, it is a, it's a pleasure to be here

Larry (02:15):

With the most likely candidates for president this coming election, being two of the three oldest ever to hold office. Do you find age a critical factor in the 2024 election?

Alexander Keyssar (02:33):

I think age is an important factor with respect to President Biden. I think, I think that what's one of the things that's interesting about this election, which is I think a very, in many respects, a very weird and unprecedented election, at least as it's unfolding the President at the present is that there's very little focus on on, on, on the former president on the age on Donald Trump's age because there are so many other features of his experience and personality that that, that seem to take, that seem to trump, if you will his age as, as sources of concern. But I think that I certainly think, and the polling suggests this, that the electorate is not really pleased at having a choice between two candidates who are not in the full flush of youth or not in the bloom of sort of the, you know, the, the central parts of their of their careers and who have both been around for a while. And I think that, I think that there's a kind of public fatigue with them

Larry (03:49):

And age isn't the only factor that's going to be considered in the election. Many pre precedents are and will be broken. And let's try to put some of these in historical perspective if we can. We have an incumbent president who has faced controversy about whether his son may have promised favors to business associates. Let's not get into the right or wrong of anything, but has this happened before in our history?

Alexander Keyssar (04:21):

Yes, it has. I mean, I, I think that that there is a fairly long standing tendency of relatives of the President trying to capitalize on the fact that they have a relative who's, who's president. I mean, we saw this with you know, with with Bill Clinton's brother. I think we saw something fairly similar with Jimmy Carter's brother whose his name was, I think Billy Carter. And, and, you know, and they had, they had to be kind of squelched or moved to the sidelines. You know, I think that I think that this happens and it's not notably the responsibility of, you know, of the candidate. And, you know, they're also, I mean, you know, let's also be clear that corruption in or around the presidency is hardly a 21st century phenomenon. I mean, Warren Harding, who was president in the early 1920s, I mean, in effect, was compelled to leave the presidency because, because of corruption, not, not for him personally, but too much corruption in his cabinet and the people around him. So I, I think this is a longstanding issue,

Larry (05:45):

And with all the divisiveness in this country, it becomes a preeminent problem.

Alexander Keyssar (05:55):

Well, it becomes the divisiveness seeks to capitalize on it. So that, I think, for example when, when issues came up with Bill Clinton or with Jimmy Carter, the, the public response in general was to say, we know this isn't really the President's fault, but that this is the kind of thing that happens. They've gotta do their best to insulate themselves in the office from this. But it's no big deal. I think that in the current circumstances, not only is, I think there are two things that are distinctive. One is that the sheer divisiveness, the sheer the temperature of our current politics is such that any claim like this is going to be politicized and bandied about regardless of the substance. I mean, for example, I was just was reading one factoid that two Republican senators three months ago said that they had evidence that President Biden himself was implicated in, in some of his son's untoward financial transactions.

Alexander Keyssar (07:11):

But they have come forward with no evidence. You know, and it's been three months since then. I think the other dimension is stranger and, and in its own way more psychologically complicated, which is that to my, to my mind at least, or from what, based on what I've read, there's no doubt that President Trump and his family have benefited financially in very substantial ways from his presidency. You know, he left no further than he hotel in Washington where he required people to stay, or his attempts to have to have sort of necessary meetings at his, at, at a hotel that he owns in Florida his son-in-law's financial arrangements with the Saudis after the pres after the presidency. And yet it, it seems to me that what the former president and his entourage have done is to try to deflect attention away from their own corruption by pointing at Biden and saying, at a minimum he did it too. I mean, there's a kind of, there's a kind of projection, you know, an accusation say you, someone, someone accuses you or you're, it seems that you are guilty of a certain crime, and you say, no, no, no, I didn't really do it. But look at the other guy.

Larry (08:45):

Have we ever faced an election so critical to American democracy?

Alexander Keyssar (08:52):

Well, it's hard to ignore the election of 1860 which the, the results of which did, you know, catapult us into the Civil War. So, I, you know, I I I, I don't wanna say it's without, it's without precedent. And you know, that election was consequential Lincoln's victory more or less I guaranteed or at least yielded the secession of the South. But that was not about democracy in the entire country. It was about who was going to be part of the country major issue to be sure, but a somewhat different issue. With that aside there, I, to my knowledge as a historian, nothing comes close to the significance of this election in terms of the maintenance of democratic institutions in the United States. I mean, if indeed it turns out to be an election battle between the president and the former president my own view is that if the former president were to emerge victorious in this election it would almost certainly result in the dismantling of a number of democratic institutions or institutions designed to protect democratic procedures and democratic processes.

Alexander Keyssar (10:21):

So I, I do think that the future of American democracy is at stake here.

Larry (10:27):

The former president has announced that if he's elected, as you mentioned, he's going to change the entire executive branch of government and make every agency responsible to the president. Has anyone ever attempted this before?

Alexander Keyssar (10:50):

You know the, the answer is no. I mean, I think all presidents wanna make the executive branch to the extent that they can responsive to their own their own policy preferences and desires. But it's also the case that a great deal of the executive branch has been set up in order to provide insulation against that the regulatory agencies you know, have career employees at at many different levels. And, you know, really every branch of the, of, of the, of the executive, you know, has that has that built in. And that is a check on the whims of a, of any particular president. You know, I think this brings us back to the accusations that were made during his presidency against the quotes deep state where, where the, the deep state seemed to be some sin sinister force operating, you know, outside of of the world of elections or legitimacy.

Alexander Keyssar (12:03):

The deep state was in effect what the most countries would be called the civil service. It's the p it's the it's the people who as, as a, as part of their careers, as their careers, hold jobs with particular expertise in particular know-how about how to get certain kinds of things accomplished within the government. And the deep state includes a number of people with legal training who know what is legal, what is not legal, what is prohibited by ethical rules or other, or other rules. And that's what's being called the deep state. It's in fact, not to my mind, it's not a, a, a sinister dark force in American politics. It is a source of continuity in the conduct of policy and in many respects a source of ongoing legitimacy for the government itself.

Larry (12:57):

I suppose I can't skip over asking how Donald Trump compares to Richard Nixon

Alexander Keyssar (13:07):

<Laugh>. Well, I think that tr that Nixon shared something of a contempt for certain political norms. Obviously what happened during you know, around Watergate, and we, you know, we, we and, and his Nixon's willingness to, you know, hire extra legal teams to do what you know, to carry out missions that would guarantee his reelection, interestingly, and part of what, in terms of overreactions and the kind of paranoia the fact is that, you know, Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon was overwhelmingly likely to defeat George McGovern in 1972. Anyway, he didn't really need the plumbers. But there's a, so something of a, a paranoid streak about this. Nixon also famously had an enemies list where he tried to use the I r Ss to punish people who were his political enemies. But Nixon also had, I think, more years of experience in the world of policy and governance.

Alexander Keyssar (14:39):

And he was embedded much more in a Republican party that he did not completely dominate. He was the leading figure of for, you know you know, quite a long time. I mean, it's I used to, I, I remember, I remember, I, I'm trying to reco recall the exact names of that. But in every presidential election after 1948 and until 1976 in every presidential election, except one Nixon's name was on the ballot as the vice president or vice presidential or presidential candidate, you know, in 52, 56, 60 68, and 72, he's a dominant figure, but he was also embedded in the party with a certain respect for politics. You know, we, we have to remember if we think, for example, as we might about the number of, about former President Trump's complaints about the 2020 election and saying that he really won.

Alexander Keyssar (15:42):

The fact is the 1960 election was really one that could have been challenged. But you know, by Nixon you know, there, there was some hanky panky. I mean, there's probably hanky panky on both sides that it was sort of somewhat unclear, but there was a, there, there was potential reason to fight and challenge. But Nixon has, you know, has some sufficient conviction in the electoral apparatus or in the institutions that he chose not to do that. And that's certainly not something which former President Trump, that's not a choice that former President Trump made.

Larry (16:23):

Trump's attacks on the press are more dangerous than, than we've seen before, I think. Is there any historical precedent where a president has, I I, I know Presidents attack the press when they don't like something in it, but has there ever been anything so insidious?

Alexander Keyssar (16:49):

Well, I think that the, if one takes a long historical sweep, there, there are two different variables. One is the president and who's president and what they think. And the other is the nature of the press. In the 19th century, and really somewhat into the early decades of the 20th century, the press was always overtly politicized, identifying with parties, identifying with factions of parties, identifying with, with candidates. And you know, but there was also, I mean, in, in terms of what we think serve as a mainstream press, there are also multiple different sources. I mean, I, you know, I, I live near the city of Boston. The city of Boston now has two newspapers, and that's been the case for a number of decades. But in 1900, 19 10, I think the city of Boston had something like 12 or 14 daily newspapers.

Alexander Keyssar (17:48):

And that was fairly typical of a lot of cities. So things were politicized in a kind of rumble tumble way. And and the partisanship of the press was not disguised. Now, when, since World War II or even earlier, you know, we, we entered into an era of of the mainstream press trying to adopt a purely professional non-partisan stance. Now we know that no newspaper is ever completely non-partisan, and there are leanings, and sometimes there are differences between editorial boards and the reporters, as is the case, for example, with the Wall Street Journal. But there has never been attacks on the press during this modern era and attack. I mean, there, it's really attacks on, on truth. It's a tax on evidence, it's a tax on, on, on logic and trying to discredit institutions, which do most of the time try to make a fair minded assessment of the facts, and to just try to discredit them.

Alexander Keyssar (19:07):

I've never seen anything, anything like that. I mean, it's I, I do for example I mean, I am not surprisingly given who I am, I, I read the New York Times. I read the Washington Post I, and then, you know, when I watch C N N and M S N B C, but I do also watch Fox News with some frequency, and it's pretty, it's very striking the different universes that are, that are portrayed. And I think that the, the, the attacks on the press are, are without precedent in there. Look, it is what's being attacked now in different parts of the country is not just the press, it's books, right? Can you assign books to kids? You know, I heard yesterday, you know, one school district in Florida is not allowed to assign the entire text of Romeo, of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet not to mention a lot of much more modern and political books, which have been effectively banned in Florida. So the attacks on the press are, are attacks on the notion that there is such a thing as truth and accuracy. And that's, that's without precedent and pretty dangerous.

Larry (20:28):

Y you just don't see an attempt at dismantling of the press in democracies.

Alexander Keyssar (20:37):

No, but you see it you see the dismantling of the press and the attacks on the press as kind of standard operating procedures in states or governments where, which are sliding away from democracy and to some form of authoritarian rule. I mean, you see that, for example, in Turkey over, over, over recent decades where I mean, yes, I mean, Erdogan has been elected, and that's true. But he has also gradually over decades eliminated most of the free press. You see that in Hungary the same thing. This you know, the, the playbook of I mean obviously it's true in, in, in ru in Russia after a brief period of opening. But the two of the standard moves in the, in the emergence of authoritarian rule are attacks on the press and not just verbal attacks. I mean basically prev preventing parts of the press from operating and operating freely and attacks on the judiciary. That's the second part of it. And then the two become linked, because if you have a captive judiciary, then the complaint then lawsuits by the press saying they shouldn't have been closed, are not going to be heard. And those are, those really do look, if you look comparatively, those are standard moves, and that is really what those, those are moves contemplated by the right wing of the Republican party.

Larry (22:24):

What's the historical importance of an indicted former president running for reelection? Not not only to this country, but to the rest of the world?

Alexander Keyssar (22:38):

I, I <laugh> it's a, it is an interestingly phrased question. I mean, I think to the rest of the world or to much of the rest of the world, it looks like one more sign that American democracy is in or near I wouldn't say collapse, but is in difficulty. I think it is also a sign of the disrespect of the judicial system, which has already become quite prominent in the United States as it is in some authoritarian countries. I mean, the fact is that you know, if, if you back up into the ancient world of 30 or 40 years ago when we, you know, which you and I are old enough to remember, you know, as adults I think, you know, that's if someone had been indicted for a crime, you would've presumed that, that they would not run for office while under indictment, because you would presume that the judicial system had some measure of fairness and accuracy in the way it was proceeding.

Alexander Keyssar (23:57):

Now, an indictment is not a conviction. If somebody were indicted and then found to, to be not guilty, then they can run for office. And that has happened in the past not for president, but it has happened for other offices. In this case, what seems to be happening is that the presence of, of indictments plural, does not seem to tarnish the candidate or the candidacy in any way for a large percentage of the population. And I think that that has to mean that they, that it, that they are expressing a disrespect or a lack of confidence in the judicial system,

Larry (24:43):

And not only that, using it in their speeches and campaign advertisements.

Alexander Keyssar (24:50):

Absolutely. And they're, they're, again, one, he's you know, projection going on that they're accusing you know, the Biden Justice Department of doing what, what they, what they have said they would do if they were in power you know, attacking. I mean, if you think of who has been running the, the special council investigation, Jack Smith, who seems to be as much of a straight arrow as you could find anywhere, and who by all accounts, if he ever had a pol a party registration, it was as a Republican and Merrick Garland the, the Attorney General who is also you know, a complete straight arrow, very cautious attorney. So you know, to to, to accuse that group of being engaged in partisan vendettas is really is really a stretch.

Larry (25:49):

And despite the indictments, lies and threats, the Republicans remain, Stu Staunchly supportive of Trump, has, has this extreme loyalty ever occurred historically in a democracy?

Alexander Keyssar (26:08):

I hesitate to say it has never occurred. It's always hazardous to say, say it has never occurred. You know, there are, if you look comparatively and then countries, which you think may or not may not be democracies, but there are, there are multiple examples of leading political figures who retain the passionate loyalty of a part of the population no matter what they've done or what they've been accused of. I think for example, of one Peron in, in Argentina you know, who went from being a populist dissonant to being elected to being maybe somewhat corrupt, et cetera. But the Peroni, I mean, Peroni's been dead for decades, but the Peroni's party is you know, is still there. And certainly as long as he was alive or his wife was alive there was t there was tremendous you know, personal loyalty there.

Alexander Keyssar (27:24):

There was a loyalty in Italy to Berlusconi, and there still is. I mean, he is still, he still wield some power, even though he's been out of office for, for a long time. So I, I think that there are examples of this kind of loyalty that to our minds is being preserved beyond the limits of evidence, but no, politics and political support is not a matter of it's a matter of emotions and psychology as well as rationality people. People support and remain loyal to candidates for reasons that are not, that are, other than simply checking the boxes about what policies they agree with or not. There are emotional factors here, and I think they're play, they play a large role.

Larry (28:19):

Now, an easy question.

Alexander Keyssar (28:22):

Oh, good.

Larry (28:23):

Will American democracy survive?

Alexander Keyssar (28:27):

That is an easy question. I think that the best, the most honest answer I can give is that I don't know. I don't know. And the fact that I feel like I don't know bothers me. You know, I, I mean you know, you, you and I grew up not having that question in mind for most of our lives and not, you know, and then not being really a question. I mean, even you know, remember the electoral crisis of the 2000 election when Gore had won the popular vote and the dispute over 537 votes in Florida. I mean, but we didn't think that democracy would, would, would teeter, you know, at that point. Right now, I don't, I I honestly I honestly do not know if American democracy will survive. The, I think that we have a problem in that we have a two party system.

Alexander Keyssar (29:38):

We've had a longstanding two party system, which itself, frankly, I think is part of the problem, but we have a two party system, and one of the parties I think, no longer believes in or adheres to the institutions of American democracy. I, I don't, I don't say that about everybody in their Republican party, but clearly there's a, there's a large enough segment of that party that you know, that, that I think that, that the, you know, that, that the future of American democracy does hang in the balance. I mean, I think, you know, I think reflecting on this, and free associating a little bit, if we think about the immediate aftermath of what happened on January 6th, 2020 there was, there was a moment when numerous leaders of the Republican party including the current speaker of the House and the current sort of Republican leader in the Senate, and many others, stood up and said, this has gone too far.

Alexander Keyssar (30:51):

We can't take this. You know members of the cabinet resigned. I mean, it was a way of saying, you know, this is beyond the limits we, we need, we will stick with protecting the institutions rather than with protecting the person. And that looked to me like a moment when the survival of American democracy was being reassured and was being, you know, and, and the prospects were being strengthened. And then, as you know, and listeners know, within a period of about three or four weeks, there was a rapid flight from precisely those stances by precisely those leaders with the exception of people like Liz Cheney. And I, I think that was a moment when the Republic leadership of the Republican Party was saying loyalty to to Mr. Trump and the preservation of our own political careers is more important than the preservation of democratic institutions. And and I think that remains where we are today.

Larry (32:05):

I mentioned your books at the start, the Right to Vote, and why do we still have the Electoral College? Where are they available for listeners who might be interested?

Alexander Keyssar (32:19):

You can certainly I, I appre I appreciate this, that they should be pretty widely available. They're both in paperback now. Amazon carries them. So does my God, I'm forgetting the name. The, the, there's a website of books. That's something which I prefer to Amazon, right? It is a sort of network of independent bookstores. And I don't know why the precise title of the website is escaping me, but if you were to do a Google search for independent bookstores or books.com or something you would find it.

Larry (33:03):

Did we miss anything about challenges this country is facing politically? Anything else you'd like to comment on?

Alexander Keyssar (33:16):

I guess the one, I guess one thing which needs to be added into the backdrop, and I'm not quite sure how it plays out, is that this drama taking place within the American political world, or maybe there are a couple of things that, that need to be mentioned to you. One is that we haven't mentioned race. And race obviously is playing a role in what's going on in domestic politics in the United States, and we can't back away from recognizing that. It's both, you know, race and reactions to racial issues and ethnic issues. And that's that is part of the story. The other dimension, which I, I wanted to allude to is that we inhabit the United, we, the United States, that we, the people of the United States inhabit a changing international world. This is not simply the post World War II world.

Alexander Keyssar (34:17):

It's not the Cold War. People have talked about it as Cold War 2.0. I'm not quite sure. There's a 2.0, but I'm I'm not sure that the gl that the global arena is stable or that there is, you know, as universal sympathy with democratic institutions as there may once have been. So I think that I, you know, I, I, I, I think, I think that this is all playing out in a world where in terms of social, ethnic, and international divisions it's a fairly hazardous time. And and, and we, it to the extent that, you know, any of us wanna take action to try to to try to ameliorate things in the United States, we have to recognize that the global climate makes that kind of amelioration all the more urgent.

Larry (35:19):

Alex, thank you. This was an honor, a privilege, and an education. Thanks for being un specifically for seniors.

Alexander Keyssar (35:30):

Well, I, I, again, it's thank you for inviting me. It's been a pleasure, really, and an honor for me. And as, as a senior myself, I'm particularly interested in addressing an audience of my peers. Thanks again, a thank you.

Announcer (35:49):

If you found this podcast interesting, fun, or helpful, tell your friends and family and click on the follow or subscribe button. We'll let you know when new episodes are available. You've been listening to specifically for seniors. We'll talk more next time. Stay connected.