Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American

By David Pepper

Laboratories of Autocracy walked through the hidden breadth, depth, and intensity of the countrywide attack on democracy. The final chapters outlined thirty steps necessary to fight back. One of the most common responses from readers was—“I skipped to the end. I wanted to get to the solutions.”

Saving Democracy is the companion book that skips to the end:
—It details how we all can and must play a role in saving democracy at this fraught time.
—It explains how all levels of the pro-democracy side, from national political leaders to grassroots activists to everyday Americans, must switch to offense.
—It explains how to stay on offense and win on offense. Immediately, and everywhere.

But it doesn’t do this at 30,000 feet.

It’s a user’s manual, intended to spur action. Your action. After a quick review of the true battle for democracy we are engaged in, each chapter explains how YOU, the reader, can and must play the leading role in lifting democracy. It details the concrete steps individuals and groups can take where you live, lists resources that can help along the way, and offers case studies and best practices that have worked elsewhere.

Saving Democracy is structured to challenge and guide each reader—no matter your role in your community or politics or where you work—on how you each can play a more active and effective role in lifting democracy than you might have imagined. Over the course of the book, you will construct your own personal plan to fight for democracy. And when you’re finished, you’ll be ready to get to work.

• Language: English
• Publisher: St. Helena Press
• Release date: May 20, 2023
• ISBN: 9781662938221

Book preview

Chapter 1:

The Two Battles

Why does the side fighting for democracy struggle so much?

The answer turns out to be simple. Painfully simple.

Let me break it down with a basic analogy.

Let me introduce you to Rhoda Denison Bement’s great-great-great-great-great-grandson. My son, Jack. He turned eight around the time that I first wrote these words.

Jack loves soccer.

And even at eight years old, he already understands a core concept: if one team is always on the other team’s side of the field, firing away at the goal, that team will likely win. The longer the game goes on, the more likely the side always on offense will win. And the more games that take place, the more games the side always on offense will win.

Jack gets this. He prefers defense, and is quite fast (for a Pepper especially!). Whenever the ball crosses over to his team’s side of the field, he races as fast as he can to kick the ball back to the other side. The young man is like a guided missile with one mission in mind: get the ball back to the offense.

So, Jack, at only eight, would quickly understand why those who are fighting for democracy in America have been losing that fight.

It’s slightly more complicated, but the one-sided soccer game Jack so intuitively understands captures what’s been happening in American politics for a generation, and still today.

And if the team that cares about democracy doesn’t figure out quick that that’s the predicament we’re in, and adjust everything we’re doing to reverse it (rush to the ball like Jack does, kick it to the other side, and then keep it there), the other side’s going to keep winning.

Some of the most painful parts of our history, and other countries’ histories, confirm young Jack’s instinct. If one side continually attacks democracy in the places and institutions that shape democracy, and the other side doesn’t engage in that battle, the attacking side wins.

To be blunt, that’s how we got Jim Crow.

And it’s where we find ourselves today.

Before getting to what you and every American can do to effectively battle for democracy, it’s crucial to understand why today’s battle over American politics is akin to the one-sided soccer game that would so trouble an eight-year-old. Then adjust our approach accordingly.

I promise—we’ll get to solutions quickly. But recognizing the dilemma is essential to overcoming it, helps us avoid costly mistakes we are now making, and ensures that all striving to turn things around budget our limited time, energy, and resources most effectively.

Beyond that, seeing that there’s a far better way to protect democracy than what we’ve been doing can be downright energizing. It is for me!

* * *

At the risk of oversimplifying things, I’m going to present the two sides in the grand battle of American politics.

Brace yourself—it’s not what you think.

Let’s call the two sides Team D and Team A.

And let’s zero in on the battle as each team understands it. It turns out, the two teams see the battle very differently, and this means they fight it differently as well.

In fact, there are two battles taking place. The sooner we see that, and come to terms with it, the better. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. . . I hope.

Team D’s Battle: Election Outcomes

Those on Team D support democracy, and desire to live within the confines and rules of a robust democracy. Importantly, two assumptions shape Team D’s political battle.

First, for a generation or more, Team D has generally assumed that American democracy is intact. That it’s stable. We’re the USA—we’re a democracy. Simple. Democracy is as American as mom and apple pie. It’s just who we are. Of course it’s here to stay. Right? (Wrong, but we’ll get to that in a few.) Regardless, this assumption of a stable and intact democracy grounds Team D’s battle.

Second, most on Team D are buoyed by a second assumption—they are confident that their policies and preferred directions generally reflect the broader preferences of America’s diverse majority. And from abortion access to common sense gun reforms to a middle-class based economics (as opposed to trickle-down) to public education, polls back them up on this. So, elections on a fair playing field, over time, are the logical vehicle for Team D to implement its policies and overall worldview. Because if given a choice, an informed electorate will choose their preferred outcomes and those who advocate for them.⁴

Grounded on these two assumptions—that democracy is stable and that it represents a majority viewpoint—Team D devotes its time, energy, and resources to contesting elections on that assumed level playing field. By winning those elections, Team D can implement its desired substantive outcomes within that stable democratic world.

So those are the basics.

One outgrowth of this approach is that Team D prioritizes the elections it perceives to offer the most effective and efficient path to 1) win and 2) implement its desired outcomes.

Federal elections.

Which naturally leads to a cyclical frenzy of activity and energy every two years—when federal elections take place—and an explosion of energy, passion, and investment for the presidential election every four years.

And it also leads to a relentless focus on the swing states and swing districts that together add up to those sought-after federal majorities. Win certain states and you win the presidency and the US Senate. Win certain districts and you win the US House. So, the thinking has been that focusing by far the most time and resources on those areas—maybe a half-dozen states, and a few dozen districts—is the most effective and efficient way to win the battle of American politics.

When Team D wins these federal goals—as it did in 2008 or 2020—it celebrates as if it has won the entire American political battle.

The media, by the way, generally covers politics in this same frame: stable democracy, focused largely on federal elections and battles over federal policy, determined by swing states and districts. And this is largely how everyday Americans see it as well. All other politics is secondary, if that.

(Importantly, even as folks on Team D have come to understand that democracy is at risk, they largely adhere to political strategies that assume it is stable. And even as the media are waking up to the risk, they continue to cover politics through a frame that assumes it is stable.⁵)

Team A’s Battle: Democracy Itself

Now let’s look at the folks on the other side. We’ll call them Team A.

Team A finds itself in a very different battle—and knows it. In fact, its entire approach is grounded on the polar opposite assumptions from those made by Team D.

First, this collection of groups and interests correctly understands that the policies they seek are generally unpopular (often toxic) and would not survive long in a world of robust democracy. Whether those policies be intense trickle-down economics and a vision of economic freedom that leave most Americans out, extreme social policies that are opposed by a majority or supermajority of Americans, or the long-simmering desire for white-dominated governance in an ever more diverse majority—these groups understand that their views are mired in minority status. As I write in Laboratories of Autocracy, they acknowledge this reality explicitly. It’s why Mitch McConnell so regularly shuts down his own members from talking about issues, be it Lindsey Graham (abortion ban⁶) or Rick Scott (gutting social security). McConnell understands that their stances on these issues are unpopular—even if they form core parts of their agenda.

This keen-eyed understanding that their policies are deeply unpopular shapes their entire battle. Because that unpopularity means that if all this side does is engage in a repeated battle to win elections in a robust democracy (i.e., Team D’s battle), over time, that will surely be a losing battle. In other words, robust democracy is inconsistent with the long-term, sustained fulfillment of their unpopular agenda. And this cold reality—that robust democracy is an obstacle to their agenda, and not a mechanism to achieve it—is the anchoring insight that shapes their battle.

Which leads to Team A’s second assumption: that democracy is not necessarily stable, or intact. That democracy can be undermined, or worse, in all sorts of ways. Sadly, the history of our country and countries around the world confirms that this sober assumption about the vulnerability of democracy is entirely correct.

So, with those two assumptions in mind, Team A chooses a different battle than Team D.

Theirs is not a battle to win elections in a robust democracy. They know that would be a losing strategy.

Their battle is to subvert democracy itself, at least enough to lock their unpopular views into place on a sustained basis.

I know. . . this sounds like a really controversial assertion. But the truth is, Team A doesn’t hide that this is its frame of mind. Peter Thiel, the billionaire who bankrolled the Senate campaigns of right-wing candidates like JD Vance, wrote in 2009, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.⁷ The Koch Brothers have been operating from that philosophy for a generation. And in 2022, the conservative group CPAC held a major conference in Hungary, celebrating the anti-democratic approach perfected by Viktor Orban. Orban followed that visit with a trip to Texas to celebrate with CPAC even more. And in case anyone missed the signal, CPAC plans to return to Hungary again in 2023.

So, what is Team A’s strategy to win their very different battle—an open battle against a robust democracy to impose their unpopular agenda?

Simple: target the places that can 1) advance their unpopular agenda and 2) seal themselves off from democratic accountability for those unpopular policies and stances.

And where can you do that?

Hint: in the United States, those places do not reside in the federal government—at least not primarily. As Laboratories of Autocracy walks through in great detail, they are in states, starting with state legislatures/statehouses.⁸ Along with other positions at the state and local level.

Why?

First, these state legislatures control almost every substantive issue Americans care about, and that Team A especially cares about—everything from the economy, to regulations, the administration of justice, to social issues. So, an investment in statehouses turns out to be returned many times over in the form of tax breaks, deregulation, giveaways to corporations, mass privatization of public resources and assets (i.e., public schools, energy, etc.), anti-worker policies, and other steps. In the right hands, a state legislature offers an outright bonanza for Team A.

And as we witness with never-ending attacks on Roe v. Wade, ever looser gun laws, attacks on equality itself, censorship, and the like, these legislatures can ram through a deeply unpopular agenda on social issues as well. Add it up, and almost the entire agenda Team A values can be accomplished via statehouses.

But crucially, these statehouses also enjoy enormous power to shape democracy itself. For example, they play a major role in setting the rules and processes of elections, state and federal, which can alter who votes in these elections in ways that impact the ultimate outcome. In most states, they wield the power to draw their own legislative districts, as well as those for Congress, which can change outcomes, thwart representation (locking a minority into majority power), and, at its most extreme, remove any accountability for almost every elected member of these legislatures. And state legislatures even allocate the electors who determine the President of the United States.

In the wrong hands, these levers of control over democracy allow statehouses to construct fortresses of power wholly removed from and unaccountable to the people of these states. In recent decades, especially, they have sealed themselves off from the voting public—untouchable when it comes to their own electorate. This allows them to repeatedly enact measures that serve Team A’s narrow and unpopular agenda, and there’s little the people of these states or anyone else can do about it.

Understanding the immense power these states exercise over both their substantive goals and democracy itself, Team A naturally focuses most of its battle there—the state legislatures and all the accompanying offices that can bolster (or if they were to lose them, undermine) their agenda. An agenda which would, again, face inevitable failure in a world of robust democracy. But an agenda which thrives when conducted in a political world with no accountability.

Now, because any state can help implement Team A’s substantive agenda while stifling democracy and accountability, each state represents power. Control of any state represents enormous opportunity. So, Team A doesn’t limit its battle to a narrow field of federal swing states. It battles in ALL fifty states, and it does so whenever there are elections at any level that might impact its agenda, or democracy. Which is, in the end, every year.

And Team A has also learned that these states can accomplish far more of their agenda when they work in concert with one another—pushing parallel measures all at once, learning and adjusting to various states’ successes and failures. In short, they can provide the inverse role that Justice Brandeis envisioned when he labelled states Laboratories of Democracy a century ago.

To be clear, this side also wages a battle at the federal level. In America, the presidency will always be the grand prize. And federal positions can impact regulation, taxation, and spending. But federal elected positions also have roles to play in Team A’s battle against democracy. Both federal elected officials and judges have the power to block the agenda this side is ramming through statehouses. Fearful of that check, Team A must attain at least enough power at the federal level that, using tools like the filibuster (where they can obstruct measures even when in a minority) and federal judgeships, it can stymie the federal government from blocking its relentless advance in states.

But still, this side never loses sight that the heart of its success arises from permanent control of as many states and legislatures as possible. That’s where it gets almost its entire agenda accomplished, while also improving its prospects at the federal level.⁹

One other thing: because there is so little attention on state legislatures, and so little comparative pushback from the other side at that level, this battle turns out to be a far easier battle than the one at the federal level. Much of it takes place with almost no one paying attention, including the media, which covers the federal battle almost exclusively while local media withers on the vine. Many of Team A’s seats across this battlefield go uncontested. And even when contested, countless campaigns for those seats are so underfunded by those who support democracy, they may as well be uncontested.

Again—it’s Jack’s nightmare. Team A is always on offense on the side of the field that shapes democracy, while Team D is hardly engaged on that side of the field at all.

And because of tools such as gerrymandering and voter suppression that come with controlling statehouses, the battle also grows easier as they go. Once Team A locks up a state, seizing power over that state’s democracy, it becomes ever harder for Team D to reassert itself. (Poor Jack is now apoplectic—the more the opposing team scores, the easier it gets for them to keep the ball on his side of the field and score again.)

So, in the end, there isn’t just one battle taking place in American politics.

The two sides are engaged in two fundamentally different battles.

One side is battling for election outcomes, focused largely on the federal level. The other side is battling democracy itself. . . in states. . . everywhere. Always on offense, the battle getting easier as they go.

The Two Battles Joined: Who Wins?

Now what happens when these two teams engage in their respective battles, repeatedly and over time?

Let’s play it out.

Hint: Jack Pepper already knows the answer. It’s why he runs so fast to kick the ball back to the other side, so his team’s offense can get to work.

Team D wins its fair share of its battle for federal seats in swing areas. The House. The Senate. The Presidency. It’s cyclical, of course. But in good cycles and with good candidates, this side wins and celebrates as if all is won. In bad cycles and with bad candidates, this side loses, thinking it has lost everything.

But what of Team A, leading with its state-based battle, usually against less-organized and underfunded opposition?

Whatever happens at the federal level, Team A almost inevitably wins its battle at the state level. And every Team A victory in any state becomes an important foothold—often a permanent gain—in its long-term battle.

Even worse for Team D, Team A often wins even in years where it loses at the federal level. And even amid Team D’s federal victories, Team A still uses the filibuster and the federal judiciary to prevent Team D from scoring points for democracy through federal legislation. Ask yourself, who had the better year in 2021 when it came to the long-term battle over democracy, even after Team D won its battle in 2020, celebrating as if it had won everything?

In summary, in its battle, Team A—the side attacking democracy—is almost always winning.

Always on offense.

Almost always making gains, which then secure future gains.

Team D—the side supporting democracy—sporadically wins its more narrow federal battle. It’s even on a roll of late. But