Newsletter #400 — November 15, 2025

Jonathan Stray's Challenge

This newsletter is a response to an interesting challenge posed by Jonathan Stray in a recent issue of the Better Conflict Bulletin. Stray starts his newsletter with a link to a quote from Isaac Saul at Tangle (an excellent newsletter that focuses on presenting views from both sides of today's big issues and then offering thoughtful reflections about how those competing views might be most constructively addressed). 

The Saul quote that Stray highlights consists of a long litany of things that the Trump administration has already done that, before the election, would have been widely dismissed (except, perhaps, by those on the far left) as just another example of over-the-top fear mongering.  To us, the striking thing about Saul's list was that it didn't focus on complaints about Trump administration goals and policies. Rather, it focused on the anti-democratic tactics that are being used to pursue those policies — military assaults in US cities, the politically motivated prosecution of political opponents, extrajudicial killings of people suspected of drug offenses, and the refusal to grant those accused of being in the United States illegally (including many US citizens) with the most fundamental rights of due process and fair and humane treatment. He could easily have extended his list by adding rampant corruption, efforts to curtail free speech rights, and the Administration's vast claims of executive authority.

Most interestingly, Saul concludes his remarks by observing that, had a victorious Harris administration done similar things to advance its agenda on topics like gun control or abortion access, Republicans would doubtless have reacted with the same kind of outrage that Democrats are now feeling. 

This is an important comparison. Imagine a similar article written during the Biden administration. It would probably have focused on complaints about ways in which Democrats were subverting basic democratic principles. The litany of evidence would have included different, but similarly expansive, claims of executive power, the widespread use of politically-motivated lawfare tactics, and the wide range of "whole-of-government" measures designed to channel resources and opportunities to predominantly Democratic, "oppressed" constituencies largely defined by race and gender. Such complaints could have addressed the hiring statements that were being used to effectively require those applying for a wide range of public and private sector positions to demonstrate their long-term support for the political priorities of the Democratic Party. Other examples include the ways in which editors and "sensitivity readers" were making it extremely difficult to get anything critical of Democratic views and priorities published. 

If the Trump administration had implemented such measures, it is reasonable to expect that Democrats would rise up in revolt (which is exactly what they are doing since Republicans are now taking advantage of a great many of these previously Democratic tactics).

The fact that both parties have been and are continuing to do things that they regard as totally unacceptable whenever the other side does them, tells us a lot about how far we have allowed our democratic norms and institutions to deteriorate.  

This is where Stray poses his critically important, question: what can we do to reverse this?

In offering his answer, he starts with a short quotation from our article on the Great Reframing in which we argue that, in order to escape our current predicament, we need to recognize that the principal threat we face is not the other side. Rather, it is the way in which we view and interact with the other side. We have allowed our hyper-polarized political conflicts to undermine our relationships in ways that are now threatening the very viability of our society. Stray then goes on to offer his partial solution, rediscovering and reapplying the lessons from history's most persuasive and successful nonviolent protest movements. He concludes by asking his readers to share their strategies. 

Decoupling the Defense of Democracy from Partisan Politics

As our response to Jonathan's question, we would like to suggest a strategy based on decoupling the defense of democracy from partisan political advocacy. Right now, those who are aghast at the anti-democratic things that the Trump administration is doing have very few options for expressing their opposition, apart from supporting the Democratic Party, its agenda, and its candidates. In general, those who are already supportive of the Democratic agenda have little trouble embracing their party's use of extreme tactics, believing that using those tactics is the only way to save their agenda from total destruction at the hands of Trump-style authoritarianism. Similarly, those who support the Trump agenda are unlikely to be troubled by his use of hardball tactics — tactics as they see as the only way to defend themselves from hated Democratic programs and policies. 

Those in the middle who see serious problems with the tactics and policies of both the left and the right find themselves in a much more difficult position — something psychologists call an avoidance-avoidance conflict. The same is true for moderate political leaders who are being forced to choose between either Team Red or Team Blue — a choice that requires that they embrace a monolithic approach to politics in which almost no deviation from party orthodoxies is tolerated. What is missing is a politically viable movement capable of rolling back our increasingly anti-democratic politics, while also promoting more compromise and a solutions-oriented approach to today's problems. 

What we are proposing is a small, but potentially significant, step toward this goal. Our proposal seeks to sidestep the anti-democratic tendencies of our two major political parties by helping to foster a separate, non-partisan movement focused on defending and strengthening democratic norms and institutions. Our goal is to help build enough moderate political power to actually start turning current anti-democratic tendencies and behaviors around. To do this, we want to help create a mechanism through which voters, even within the context of the two-party system, can favor political leaders who commit to forsaking antidemocratic tactics in the pursuit of their goals. (We say "even within the context of the two-party system," because there is still a chance that a third party such as No Labels or the Forward Party might be able to break through and run a slate of moderate, solutions-oriented candidates.) At a time when a relatively few swing voters (at both the legislative and the electoral level) can make a huge difference, this is a challenging, but we think realistic, aspiration. In this newsletter we will highlight one promising strategy for pursuing this goal. In our next newsletter we will highlight the work of some of those who are, in one way or another, actually implementing this strategy. And, in another upcoming newsletter, we plan to outline still another possibility.

Democracy-for-All Pledge

Our first approach is built on a campaign that would allow political leaders to continue to pursue their partisan political objectives — they would simply be asked to commit to using democratic rather than anti-democratic means to do so. The effort might start by first convening a nonpartisan effort to craft what we are initially calling the "Democracy- for-All Pledge" that would specify exactly what anti-democratic advocacy measures leaders are being asked to forgo (and what more constructive alternatives they could still use).

An accompanying Campaign for the Pledge would offer leaders (at the federal, state, and local levels), interest groups, media organizations, and anyone else who commits to the Pledge public recognition for the role that they are playing in helping to restore civic health and democracy. This recognition would be backed up by a major advertising and public relations campaign that would highlight the fact that it's possible to be both an effective partisan advocate and a defender of democracy at the same time. Given the strong public support that exists for this kind of civic renewal and solutions-based approach to politics, we expect that support for the Pledge would be well received among large numbers of swing voters.

To be credible, the Campaign would also need to take steps to hold signatories accountable for complying with the terms of the Pledge. In order to do this, it is critically important that the Pledge be carefully constructed in ways that avoid partisan biases and go to the core of what it takes to make democratic institutions function fairly, wisely, and efficiently. It would also have to be crafted in ways that limit the danger that unscrupulous political figures could find loopholes that would enable them to enjoy the benefits of being seen as supporting the Pledge, while at the same time undermining its objectives.

Before discussing specific issues, we should highlight one big challenge that the Pledge campaign would have to overcome — the "unilateral disarmament" problem. If the issues raised by the Pledge are not addressed in a balanced way, they could easily wind up giving one side an asymmetric advantage. Before we can expect to attract widespread bipartisan support, we need to find ways of assuring signatories that they will not be placed at an unfair disadvantage for doing so. This is why it is so important that the Pledge be carefully crafted in accordance with the democratic ideals of fairness and impartiality and include measures for carefully unwinding the many ways in which anti-democratic mechanisms are now woven into contemporary politics.

Possible Pledge Provisions

We are not lawyers. We are not experts on the complex workings of the executive and legislative branches of government. And we are not experts on the capabilities and limitations of elected representatives and their staffs under current funding constraints. Still, based on our larger understanding of democracy's struggles, and our hyper-polarized politics, we can suggest a number of issues that might be addressed in such a Pledge. While these examples are relatively ambitious and focus on the U.S. Congress, similar (and perhaps more modest) efforts could be undertaken at lower levels and in other branches of government.

One set of measures that signatories of the Pledge might be asked to work toward would unwind the partisan gerrymandering that is now effectively denying many voters the opportunity to cast meaningful votes. This effort could be combined with other efforts to give voters more opportunities to choose between viable candidates, such as nonpartisan primaries, ranked choice voting, or simply granting independents the right to vote in primary elections.

Other measures could commit signatories to work toward restoring the regular appropriations and budgeting process and moving away from continuing resolutions that simply roll the existing spending forward without ever really considering the merits of specific programs. Related measures could try to push Congress away from giant last-minute appropriations bills that members never have a chance to adequately consider before voting. Yet another measure might discourage the use of government shutdowns as political ploys. 

Still, other reforms could increase Congressional staffing to improve the ability of members to independently analyze legislation before deciding how to vote — a reform that would reduce members' reliance on lobbyists to draft and analyze legislation. The pledge might also seek support for rule changes that encourage compromise legislation by making it easier for the minority parties to at least bring bipartisan legislation to the floor for a vote.

Other possibilities include the continuation and expansion of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress and further implementation of its recommendations. (We will describe what the Select Committee was and why it is worth emulating in our next newsletter.) Also important are efforts to better protect members and their staff from violent threats, and proposals for limiting the amount of time political figures can (and to have) to spend on fundraising. Especially important would be measures that promote electoral integrity, limit the use of deceptive advertising and disinformation, and insist that candidates agree to abide by election results. 

Other Approaches 

As we said earlier, the Democracy-for-All Pledge is just one possible application of a more general strategy of decoupling efforts to strengthen democracy from partisan politics. The overall goal is to encourage leaders to cooperate on "democracy-for-all" issues, while still allowing them to advocate for the partisan views of their constituents. The core requirement is a commitment to compete within, rather than outside, the basic principles of fairness upon which democracy's Grand Bargain is based. As we said, the next post will highlight the work of people actually pursuing this strategy and, in another upcoming post we will be explaining second approach — one based on the collaborative development of a vision for a democracy in which most everyone would like to live. If you have other ideas, please send them to us and we will find a way to highlight them.

Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!

In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments.  So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment.  This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.

Contact Us

About the MBI Newsletters

Two or three times a week, Guy and Heidi Burgess, the BI Directors, share some of our thoughts on political hyper-polarization and related topics. We also share essays from our colleagues and other contributors, and every week or so, we devote one newsletter to annotated links to outside readings that we found particularly useful relating to U.S. hyper-polarization, threats to peace (and actual violence) in other countries, and related topics of interest. Each Newsletter is posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.

NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam).  Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us. 

If you like what you read here, please ....

Subscribe to the Newsletter