In 1992 political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously celebrated the dissolution of the Soviet Union and our victory in the Cold War as “the end of history,” a turning point marking “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
We have fallen far short of this utopian vision. Democracies worldwide have experienced worrisome backsliding — the United States chief among them. The effort to disrupt the lawful and peaceful transfer of power after the last presidential election is a poignant example of this phenomenon.
The think tank Freedom House reports that the U.S. now trails 57 other countries in political rights and civil liberties. If we continue our trajectory, we could join India, Hungary and other nations that, per Freedom House, no longer qualify as free and functioning democracies. This global rise in authoritarianism and the retreat of democracy are alarming. But we need not resign ourselves to such a future.
The most urgent task for my organization, Protect Democracy, is to ensure that the upcoming elections are free and fair. In 2022 we won a lawsuit to protect voters from intimidation at ballot drop boxes in Arizona, and we need to be ready for similar threats again. Election administrators likewise must be free to oversee polling places, count ballots and carry out their duties without fear of coercion or violence. Federal and state officials must review and certify results as required by law, regardless of personal preference or partisan allegiance. The bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act was a critical step to preventing a repeat of the efforts on Jan. 6, 2021, to subvert the presidential election.
But ensuring a lawful election in reality is not enough — we also need the public to believe the election is free and fair. As Jan. 6 made clear, the mistaken perception of an illegitimate election can inspire extralegal efforts to alter the outcome. While we cannot entirely prevent the spread of disinformation, our organization’s high-profile defamation suits against Rudy Giuliani, Kari Lake and others can deter future illicit conduct.
Beyond the election, we must also strengthen guardrails to prevent government officials from abusing and aggrandizing state power for personal or partisan gain. A top priority is reaffirming the independence of criminal prosecutions from political influence. Clear limits on the use of executive emergency powers are long overdue. So are stronger protections to prevent “autocratic capture,” that is, the use of the state’s regulatory powers to force private actors to toe a political line. While in office, former President Donald Trump sought to use antitrust enforcement and changes to postal rates to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN and The Washington Post, respectively. While formal, legal restraints are a first line of defense against these abuses, cultural guardrails, such as an independent media and a vibrant civil society, are also vitally important.
Finally, our ambition should be greater than preserving the status quo. We need a political system that gives more voters a reason to believe their voices really matter; that allocates political power in closer proportion to popular support; and that encourages principled collaboration across partisan lines. This isn’t utopian thinking. With modest changes to the laws governing how we elect our public officials, a more representative and responsive government is a real possibility.
With all due respect to Fukuyama, there’s no end of history in sight. Rather, we’re opening yet another chapter in our effort to build a “more perfect Union.”
Beau Tremitiere ’17 JD is a counsel at the nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy.
Reader Responses
I was appalled by the letter that appeared in the fall edition of Northwestern Magazine written by Beau Tremitiere titled “Ensuring Free and Fair Elections.” To claim his organization, Protect Democracy, is a nonpartisan group is a joke! While I agree that Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election was terribly wrong and that Jan. 6 was awful, Mr. Tremitiere’s article contained no mention of the 2016 efforts by the Democrats to affect the outcome of that election. To imply that only the Republicans are trying to influence elections is a gross mischaracterization of the facts.
Beau Tremitiere pretends to be nonpartisan, but he is typical of most academics — very liberal.
How about providing just a little balance in your “Voices” section instead of this liberal garbage.
—Dan Schuchardt '79 MBA, Glen Ellyn, Ill., via Northwestern Magazine
In your fall 2024 Voices section of Northwestern Magazine, you published "Ensuring Free and Fair Elections." As someone who began his NU journey at the Medill School of Journalism and worked as a reporter for a few years before pursuing my love of psychology, I am drawn to thoughtful, balanced articles on topics of critical importance — like free and fair elections.
I eagerly dove into the content of Beau Tremitiere’s piece and found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the part of his premise that we in the U.S. “have fallen far short of this utopian vision” of what democracy could be. Excitedly, I read on in the hopeful expectation that he would outline the various forces undermining free and fair elections and provide a blueprint for how to get back to what the founding fathers imagined at the birth of our nation.
Unfortunately, what I saw instead was the kind of slanted, partisan pablum that mainstream media publish every day. The author clearly views his left-leaning organization, Protect Democracy, as the protector of voters against “intimidation at ballot drop boxes” … so that election administrators are “free to oversee polling places, count ballots and carry out their duties without fear of coercion or violence.”
He then regurgitates the narrative of the mainstream media that the chaos on Jan. 6, 2021, was intended to “subvert the presidential election”, spread “disinformation” and engage in “elicit conduct.” He finally brings his article to a conclusion by first attacking former President Donald Trump for misuse of the state’s regulatory powers and then ends by casting a vision of a “political system that gives more voters a reason to believe their voices really matter … and that encourages principled collaboration across partisan lines.” He fails to see the irony in him using one side of a very complex discussion to “encourage principled collaboration across party lines.”
As for Northwestern Magazine, it would have been balanced and thoughtful to provide the other side of this discussion in a parallel article in this same edition. As we have seen in the most recent presidential elections in 2016 and 2020, roughly half of the country would describe itself as conservative and half as liberal. We should assume that a similar proportion exists in the NU alumni and readers of this magazine; consequently, articles should reflect both aspects of the readership.
—Bruce E. Roselle '72, Maple Grove, Minn., via Northwestern Magazine
No one has commented on this page yet.
Submit a Response