Ballots, Judges and Pandemics — We Shouldn’t Politicize Them
Other advanced democracies keep them non-partisan. Why can’t America?
Oftentimes when you watch the news there is the overwhelming feeling that American institutions are breaking, and rightly so. Other advanced democracies seem to hold elections without fights about mail-in ballots, have less combative Supreme Court succession battles, and even have their acts together in regards to the pandemic relative to the U.S.
Perhaps the absence of controversy comes from their lack of time under the public eye. Scrutiny and accessibility to how decisions are made in these institutions are paramount, but this is not the same as being widely discussed and the topic of partisan derision.
In fact, while America is nowhere near as authoritarian or corrupt as non-liberal democracies, the meddling in these fields are usually seen in such places. One-party democracies (up until recently) like Malaysia are known for gerrymandering by packing Chinese districts to give more weight to the ethnic Malay vote. While the politicization of the judiciary turns judges into representatives of the larger culture war. American COVID-19 infection and death rates seem closer to that of countries like Brazil and India, both ruled by strong men with authoritarian leanings who are often compared to Donald Trump.
The current president did not make these institutions bad, but he exacerbated the partisanship that have been associated with them. In doing so he has revealed their flaws and is taking them to their logical conclusions. These things need to be depoliticized for the sake of faith in American institutions, and their ability to fairly advocate for the people they’re supposed to represent.
The Ballot Box
Due to the pandemic, Americans are increasingly looking at voting by mail (just like the President). However, with polling indicating that most who intend to vote by mail are skewing towards Biden, Trump has chosen to mount a full-on assault on the U.S. Postal Service.
From a structural standpoint, he is trying to strip the USPS of its ability to handle the surge of mail promptly through his Postmaster General appointee and donor Louis DeJoy. From a communications standpoint, he’s targeting the legitimacy of these votes. With a predicted “red mirage” where in-person votes skew Republican but later received mail-in ballots skew Democrat, he could prematurely declare victory. Additionally, he encouraged his own supporters in North Carolina to vote both by mail and in person.
This politicization of how Americans vote is not just a Trump-era phenomenon. Before him taking office people were worried about the effects of gerrymandering on obscuring the vote. In the U.S. congressional districts are often determined by state governments, rather than by a non-partisan agency like in Canada. While currently 26 of 50 states are governed by Republicans, previous efforts were made by many of these governors to break up the power of population centers that tend to skew Democrat. In fact, while the House is currently dominated by a Democratic majority that came into power in 2018, the losses by Republicans were softened because many states had gerrymandered districts. This is just one of many instances, but this politicization goes all the way back to the creation of the Electoral College.
The Supreme Courts
Speak to your average Canadian or Brit about the Supreme Court, and many would not be able to name one of the Justices in their country. Meanwhile, many may know about the American Supreme Court. Perhaps they know about the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Brett Kavanaugh’s tearful tirade in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about his love for beer. This is not normal in most advanced democracies.
Furthermore, the fanfare surrounding the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is abnormal. With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the fight over when and who fills her vacancy is the subject of much speculation. Sen Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already indicated his intention to work with the President to fill her spot as soon as possible despite refusing to do that same for Obama appointee Merrick Garland before the end of his presidency. Yes, even a country like Canada has had issues with the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, such as the blocking of the appointment of Marc Nadon in 2014. However, these rows are few and far between.
The drama with filling vacancies and speculation as to which judges may retire, pass away, or try to push either until a president who is more aligned with their values is elected is also not normal. Countries like Canada and the U.K. both have mandatory retirement ages for the Supreme Court Judges at the age of 75. Australia’s High Court has a retirement age of 70.
This jockeying for the ability to appoint these justices comes down to the politicization of their decisions. After Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, American conservatives saw court appointments as a new frontier for culture wars. While Ruth Bader Ginsburg did do plenty for the advancement of women in the workplace, this politicization of supreme court decisions can be problematic. It does not mean that landmark cases of social significance cannot happen. Canada had R v. Morgentaler which was their version of Roe v. Wade, but it does not attract the same cultural attention despite a sizable minority of the electorate identifying as socially conservative.
The Public Health Response
The pandemic looms large in every recent political discussion. Many leaders have experienced a “rally around the flag” effect during the pandemic as citizens band together to combat the virus. For instance, in the Canadian province of Ontario, Premier Doug Ford (the brother of the late Rob Ford), was a polarizing character up until the pandemic when he became known for his matter of fact approach at answering questions (along with a video of him making cheesecake). New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has enjoyed sky-high approval ratings for her handling of the pandemic leading to very low COVID-19 infection rates. Moon Jae-in, South Korea’s President, was originally down in the polls but won a landslide victory after the public approved of his handling of the pandemic.
Yet, President Trump seems to have not enjoyed much of a “rally around the flag” during the pandemic. As of September 20th, 56% of Americans, a majority, disapprove of his handling of the virus. He underplayed the pandemic while knowing how deadly COVID-19 was and tried to delegitimize the work of his health experts like Anthony Fauci. He underplayed the wearing of masks (even suggesting people wore it as a sign of disapproval of him), before saying that Americans should wear masks, and then proceeded to make fun of Joe Biden for wearing one. Early on during the pandemic, while other politicians were giving press briefings to calmly communicate vital information to citizens, Trump used them to work out his frustrations that he otherwise would have done during presidential campaign rallies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is leading the world in COVID-19 deaths. Despite only having 4% of the world’s population, America has represented 20% of global deaths with 200,000 lives being claimed by the virus. The other two countries, India and Brazil are led by strong men who are often aligned with Trump (Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro is known as the Trump of the Tropics, and Narendra Modi has had rallies with Trump in the past).
Scrutiny is a good thing, and the attention paid to how Americans vote, who adjudicates their most pivotal cases, and how they address public health emergencies can be useful. However, the partisan bickering surrounding these things undoes their effectiveness. A belief that your vote matters, your cases are being heard by legal experts with little to no bias, and that your politicians are fighting to ensure public health is fundamental to the survival of American democracy today and going into the future. I know it can seem like a pipe dream to think that we can turn down the acrimony immediately, but conscious efforts need to be made by leaders and the public to preserve faith in institutions and to improve them for the good of everyone — not just whoever is in power.
