In a new video series, CDDRL scholars Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and Larry Diamond, FSI's Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, examine how democracy-promotion programs are being systematically weakened under the new administration. Building on Diamond's recent essay, The Crisis of Democracy Is Here, the discussions highlight growing threats to global democratic institutions and U.S. leadership in defending them.

In the first video, Fukuyama and Diamond discuss how the new United States presidential administration’s actions go beyond policy differences to threaten democratic institutions and the rule of law. They highlight concerns over Elon Musk’s involvement in government operations, potential violations of legal procedures, and efforts to undermine checks and balances. Diamond warns that moves like firing inspectors general and withholding congressionally approved funds signal an authoritarian shift rather than legitimate governance. The conversation urges vigilance in distinguishing policy changes from power grabs that erode democracy.

In a CDDRL Research Seminar Series talk, Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, explored the link between race, presidential transformation, and impeachment crises. She argued that presidents who significantly alter the racial status quo often face backlash, leading to populist successors who undermine democratic norms and ultimately face impeachment. She examined three cases — Andrew Johnson following Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon following Lyndon Johnson, and Donald Trump following Barack Obama — highlighting how racial politics shaped their presidencies and impeachment crises.

Azari’s framework situates race at the heart of presidential politics. Presidents usually maintain political stability, but transformative leaders disrupt racial hierarchies through legislation, executive action, and symbolism. This disruption sparks resistance, exploited by successors who reject transformation and undermine opposition. These backlash presidents often overreach institutionally, leading to impeachment. However, Azari argued impeachment rarely halts reactionary movements, which outlast individual leaders and shape long-term politics.

Her first case examined Lincoln’s presidency, which ended decades of compromise over slavery through the Civil War, emancipation, and constitutional amendments. His successor, Andrew Johnson, sought to reverse these changes through “presidential reconstruction,” allowing Southern states to reinstate white supremacist governance. His impeachment stemmed from both political imperatives — opposing Radical Reconstruction — and institutional overreach, violating the Tenure of Office Act. Though he survived removal, Reconstruction ultimately failed, and white supremacy prevailed.

The second case analyzed Nixon’s presidency following Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights transformation. Johnson’s passage of landmark legislation triggered a white backlash, which Nixon capitalized on with “law and order” rhetoric and the Southern Strategy. His impeachment crisis resulted from abuses of executive power, including spying on opponents and obstructing justice in the Watergate scandal. Though Nixon resigned, his realignment of the Republican Party and weakening of civil rights enforcement persisted.

The final case examined Obama’s presidency, which symbolically challenged the whiteness of the office, intensifying racial polarization. Conspiracies about his identity and accusations of favoritism toward minorities fueled Trump’s rise. Trump embraced racially charged policies, from the Muslim travel ban to attacking the 1619 Project. His two impeachments reflected this broader racialized political crisis — first for withholding Ukraine aid to pressure an investigation into Biden, and second for inciting the January 6 insurrection to overturn the 2020 election.

Azari concluded that racial transformation triggers backlash, leading to populist leaders who challenge institutional norms and face impeachment. However, impeachment alone is ineffective in stopping these movements, as they continue shaping U.S. politics. With Trump’s continued influence and the 2024 election looming, this pattern of transformation, backlash, and institutional crisis is likely to persist.

When political parties are strong intermediaries between citizens and the government, they can effectively manage the relationship between democracy and capitalism, political scientist Didi Kuo told a Stanford audience.

But when parties become weak intermediaries, they lay the groundwork for crises in democracy, she said during a February 20 event for her new book, The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t (Oxford University Press, 2025). In her work, she challenged the narrative that parties are the problem and explained that strengthening them is actually the key to addressing current challenges to democracies.

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) hosted the panel discussion with Kuo, Center Fellow at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, manager of the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective, and co-director of CDDRL’s Fisher Family Honors Program; Bruce Cain, professor of political science at Stanford and director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West; Jake Grumbach, associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley; and Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University.

Kuo described how political parties in the last 50 years have grown weaker and more unpopular while also becoming increasingly professionalized and beholden to the private sector – trends that have resulted in a “plutocratic populism” where parties no longer exist to represent their constituents.

‘They’re often hollow’

As democracy expanded across the West in the 19th century, she said, political parties were often strong and arguably machine-like in their effectiveness. Then, after the Cold War, a neoliberal economic consensus emerged that included seismic changes to campaign finance and shifting party priorities. The effects included the weakening of the party systems of Western democracies, a ceding of governance to the private sector, and, as a result, a crisis in democracy.

“Party organizations themselves have become far more professionalized, elite, and focused exclusively on the technology and machinery of election campaigns. There's been much less role for state and local parties,” said Kuo, adding that in this “era of nationalized parties,” political parties at these lower levels have become sidelined. “They're often hollow.”

And that creates an opening for some. For example, she said, after 2010, the extreme right began to build local power in parties. “Steve Bannon did a podcast in which he recommended that people look up their local Republican Party organization. He said you’re very likely to find that it’s empty, so you can just go there with some of your friends. Sign up, become a local party chair, and then you can take over election administration. So, this was a strategy that was promulgated on his podcast prior to 2020.”
 

Alice Siu, the Associate Director of CDDRL’s Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), presented her work at a CDDRL research seminar on the effect of deliberation on how people think about political issues, particularly in the current polarized context.

DDL and its partners organized discussions on contentious issues, ranging from climate change to institutional democratic reforms, among hundreds of participants from wide-ranging demographic and political backgrounds. For a total of 12 hours, participants discussed topics through an AI-assisted deliberation platform. They were polled before and after deliberation and compared to a control group who did not engage in the discussions. 

The results showed a consistent and significant opinion change among participants following deliberation, with movement towards consensus across party affiliations. Satisfaction with democracy dramatically improved, especially among Republicans, who shifted from 18.9% to 50.1% satisfaction. Evidence showed an increase in participants’ trust and empathy toward individuals with opposing opinions.

The effects of these conversations persisted after the intervention. Three months after deliberation, participants continued to feel more positively about those they disagreed with. Results show that 41.7% agreed that those with opposing viewpoints “have good reasons; there are just better ones on the other side,” compared to 31% before deliberation and 33% immediately after. These long-term effects manifested in the participants’ political participation as well. One year after a climate-focused deliberation, participation in discussions was correlated with stronger support for a Democratic-controlled congress before the 2022 midterm elections.

These results demonstrate that democracy can be strengthened through deliberation. However, for a substantial, long-lasting impact, deliberation must be scaled significantly. To do so, technology must be leveraged. For example, using an AI instead of a human moderator may improve affordable access to deliberation platforms. Furthermore, deliberation should occur in educational settings from the middle school to the graduate level. Investing in youth’s communication skills and civic engagement affords them tools to uphold our democracy for generations. Challenging but empathic conversations with those from differing viewpoints must be encouraged. While this research offers reasons for optimism, a more scalable model must be developed to ensure large-scale participation in robust discourse; at DDL, Siu is leading this effort to bring deliberation to entire societies through the AI-assisted Stanford Online Deliberation Platform.

Dr. Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), manager of the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and co-director of CDDRL's Fisher Family Honors Program. Her research focuses on democratization, political reform, corruption, and the evolution of political parties. She is the author of Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2018) and the forthcoming The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t (Oxford University Press, 2025). Dr. Kuo has been an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America and is a non-resident fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University, an MSc in Economic and Social History from Oxford University, where she studied as a Marshall Scholar, and a BA from Emory University.

What inspired you to pursue research in your current field, and how did your journey lead you to CDDRL?

I first became interested in politics growing up in the American South during the early stages of today’s polarized era. Living in a deeply conservative area during the rise of partisan media and in Newt Gingrich’s congressional district sparked my curiosity about politics and its broader implications.

In college, my interest expanded beyond American democracy. Post-Cold War debates on democratization and the U.S.’s role in promoting democracy, particularly during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, shaped my desire to explore democracy, governance, and international policy—questions that remain critical today.

I majored in political science, pursued graduate studies in the UK, and worked at think tanks where I saw PhDs bridging research and policy. This inspired me to pursue a doctorate. After earning my PhD, I was fortunate to join CDDRL as a postdoctoral fellow, where I’ve found the ideal environment to explore these issues and contribute to broader discussions on democracy and development.

What is the most exciting or impactful finding from your research, and why do you think it matters for democracy?

I don’t tend to think of my findings as particularly “exciting” in the traditional sense, as they often reaffirm long-standing conventional wisdom. However, one key insight that my research reinforces is that stable and thriving democratic societies require not just strong democratic institutions but also robust intermediary organizations.

My new book focuses on political parties, which are a prime example of these intermediary organizations. Much of my research highlights the importance of understanding not just what governments and institutions look like, but how they link to society. How do they connect with citizens? How do they convince citizens that government actions are meaningful and worthwhile? These are critical questions for democracy.

I believe you cannot fully grasp concepts like governance, democracy, or even state capacity without understanding the role of these intermediaries. They play a vital role in bridging the gap between institutions and the public, ensuring that democracy is not just about structures but about meaningful engagement with citizens. This finding matters because, without these linkages, even the strongest institutions risk losing public trust and legitimacy.
 

Stanford, Calif. – August 13, 2024 – America in One Room: The Youth Vote today announced the results of its Deliberative Poll, revealing how first-time voters feel about key issues driving the 2024 Presidential Election: energy and the environment; the economy, AI, and taxes; health care; and democracy and elections, after deliberating with their peers.

A nationally representative sample of 430 first-time voters answered a questionnaire about public policy and voting intention before and after deliberating on the topics. America in One Room: The Youth Vote is a collaboration between Close Up Foundation, the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, the Generation Lab, Helena, and the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the University of Southern California. Deliberative Polling® is a mechanism through which citizens can address complex issues and the trade-offs they pose in an environment curated for civil and respectful conversation across party lines.

James Fishkin, Director of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, noted: “These young voters came from all over the country, red states and blue states, urban and rural. They learned what the rest of their generation was thinking, connecting across their social media enclaves and political divisions. They listened to each other and determined what they really thought about the issues and the candidates. And they emerged with greater mutual respect for those they still disagreed with. It gave us all a glimpse of the American public opinion of the future.”

The results show dramatic changes in perspectives after deliberation on issues like contraceptive access, increasing the federal minimum wage, repealing the Affordable Care Act, and more. Some of the movements were more progressive, some more conservative. Notable results from America in One Room: The Youth Vote, include:

On energy and the environment, the participants were strongly committed to concerted climate action and, interestingly, became more supportive of American energy independence following the deliberations.

• Following deliberation, there was overwhelming support for the US reaching net zero by 2050, increasing government funding for clean energy technologies and battery storage solutions, and new generation nuclear energy
• At the same time, opposition to banning the sale of new gas and diesel cars also increased across the board after deliberation, from 45% to 59%

Surprisingly, participants’ support for traditionally progressive policies related to the economy, AI, and taxes decreased in many cases.

• Support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 dropped 14 points from 62% to 48%
• Support for the government covering the cost of college tuition at public universities for all students who could not otherwise afford it decreased from 66% to 56%
• Support for the federal government’s role in preventing the sale or use of biased algorithms increased from 48.6% to 54.5%

In an election year when health care, and abortion access in particular, have the potential to swing outcomes, results show young people across all political identifications support reproductive health care access and traditionally progressive health care policies.

The proposal that “Congress should pass a nationwide ban on medication abortion” attracted supermajority opposition, rising from 78% to 80% after deliberation

• The majority of Republicans (51%) also came to oppose a national medication abortion ban

Opposition to repealing the Affordable Care Act jumped 20 points, from 52% to 72%

While many portray Gen Z as losing faith in democratic institutions, when polled on democracy and elections following deliberation, the results showed notable increases in satisfaction with democracy. Participants also showed movement on proposals around voting rights and provided a snapshot of support for the Trump and Harris candidacies.

When asked “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way democracy is working in the U.S.” overall satisfaction increased an impressive 29 points – from 29% to 58%

• Republicans increased dramatically from 38% to 72%, Independents increased from 24% to 40%, and Democrats increased from 26% to 52%

The proposal to “Restore voting rights to citizens with felony convictions who are not incarcerated” increased overall by a dramatic 19 points from 61% to 80%.

• This was a bi-partisan movement, with Republicans specifically increasing by 17 points from minority to majority support (48% to 65%).

At the end of the event, Vice President Kamala Harris was the choice of 53% of the deliberators, former President Donald Trump was the choice of 27% of the deliberators, and 6% said they would vote for a third party.

“This historic event has something to teach us all. When we take the time to talk to and learn from people with different backgrounds and worldviews, we can build our own confidence in democracy and find agreement in the most unexpected of places,” said Close Up President Mia Charity. “For more than 50 years, Close Up’s work has been dedicated to empowering young people to become engaged citizens. We are excited to partner with Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab this fall to host national deliberations and continue Close Up’s efforts to expand programs and professional development that bring a culture of deliberative dialogue to schools across the country.”

“Everyone likes to speak for young people, but rarely do young people get to speak for themselves,” said Cyrus Beschloss, Founder of Generation Lab. “As we hurtle towards a ground-shaking election, America will begin talking about the ‘youth vote.’ Rather than grab for the stereotype du jour about ‘Gen-Z,’ we must look to serious research like this study as we make decisions and policies for the next generation in America.”

“This event highlighted Gen Z’s acute awareness of AI’s rapid evolution and along with it, significant new ethical challenges,” said Nathanael Fast, Director of the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the USC Marshall School of Business. “Students demonstrated a strong belief that government should play a key role in ensuring AI safety, and their unique perspective on AI and social media reinforce the urgent need to make our tech ecosystem more transparent, inclusive, and democratic.” He also noted, “Participants returned home filled with confidence to drive change within their communities and a renewed trust that public officials value their perspectives. Together, these are profound shifts that pave the way for our country’s future leadership.”

“America in One Room represents the true ‘will of the people,’ and we are working toward a future where this deliberative process plays a much bigger role in how the US and other democracies make decisions,” said Henry Elkus, founder and CEO of Helena, a global problem-solving organization. “Gen Z is often misunderstood as nihilistic and unwilling to compromise, and America in One Room: The Youth Vote showed that couldn’t be further from the truth. It was incredibly inspiring to watch these young, first-time voters disrupt that narrative, discuss complex issues with nuance regardless of their political position, and leave feeling optimistic that they can shape the future.”

The America in One Room project was first deployed in 2019, bringing a representative microcosm of the entire American electorate together in the same location for the first time. As in other Deliberative Polls, the discussions proceeded in moderated small groups with questions from the small groups directed at experts in plenary sessions who answered the participants’ questions. The small group and plenary sessions alternated throughout the weekend.

The executive summary and full results of America in One Room: The Youth Vote’s results are available here. To learn more, visit the America in One Room site.

About America in One Room: The Youth Vote

A1R:TYV is a collaboration between Close Up Foundation, the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, the Generation Lab, Helena, and the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the University of Southern California. Through Deliberative Polling, the experiment provides a unique opportunity to combine the qualitative richness of focus groups and the statistical representativeness of good survey research to meaningfully pulse a demographic that is frequently talked about, but rarely talked to, as they prepare for a historic presidential election.

The third of four panels of the “America Votes 2024” series examined the tension surrounding diversity and inclusion in the upcoming election. Co-moderated by CDDRL’s Mosbacher Director Kathryn Stoner and Michael Tomz, the William Bennett Munro Professor in Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Stanford University, the panel featured Stanford scholars Hakeem Jefferson, Didi Kuo, Jonathan Rodden, and Anna Grzymala-Busse. The “America Votes 2024” series is co-organized by CDDRL, the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, and the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences.

A warming planet. Backsliding in democracy at home and abroad. Competition with China. And active war in Europe. Broadening conflicts in the Middle East.

The world today is facing no shortage of overlapping, multilateral challenges. At a recent panel titled, “Global Threats Today: What's At Stake and What We Can Do About It,” scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) had an opportunity to delve deeper into what the data says about how these global threats are evolving, and how we should be thinking about how to address them.

The discussion, which was held as part of Stanford University's 2024 Reunion and Homecoming weekend, was moderated by Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute, and featured Marshall Burke, Didi Kuo, Amichai Magen, Oriana Skylar Mastro, and Steven Pifer.

In the highlights below, each scholar shares what they wish people understood better about climate change, the war in Ukraine and Russia's aggression, China's strategy for building power, the health of American democracy, and how the fighting between Israel and Hamas fits into the geopolitical struggle between democracies and autocracies.

Their full conversation can be heard on the World Class podcast, and the panel can be watched in its entirety on YouTube.
 

The U.S. faces increasing levels of political polarization. Bipartisan disagreements over moral, cultural, and socioeconomic issues have turned into social conflict, political gridlock, and personal animosity. How did we get here? The dominant narrative has argued that identity cleavages have caused increasing splits in values. Yet Klaus Desmet — Research Fellow at CEPR, Research Associate at NBER, and the Altshuler Professor of Cities, Regions, and Globalization at Southern Methodist University — painted a different picture in a CDDRL seminar series talk.

Leveraging data from seven waves of the World Values Survey (WVS), Desmet develops a new methodology to study the evolution of these social divisions. For Desmet, the problem with an identity-based measure of polarization is that these demographic traits do not necessarily align with people’s values. If we care about splits in values, we need to create social partitions based on values, not identity traits.

Desmet asks how individuals would optimally form groups based on “homophily in values.” If people associate with others who hold similar views, they will sort themselves into groups based on these preferences. Individuals leave groups with fewer shared values and join groups with more shared values. Eventually, this self-sorting process reaches what Desmet calls a “Global Values Identification Equilibrium (VIE),” where within-group value heterogeneity is lowest and between-group value heterogeneity highest. Importantly, Desmet can then compare the split in values between these underlying clusters (latent polarization) to the split in values between Democrats and Republicans (partisan polarization).

What does the model find? While many have argued that America has witnessed a shift from disagreements on redistribution to disagreements on culture, Desmet’s findings indicate otherwise. Since at least the early 1980s, the latent values-based clusters have been divided mostly along moral and religious values, and the level of disagreement has been remarkably stable. There is no evidence of latent polarization increasing over time, and the underlying conditions for the culture wars have been present for a long time.

Partisan polarization, on the other hand, is a more recent development. Using the same model, Desmet shows that in 1981, the average value positions of Democrats and Republicans were almost indistinguishable, nowhere close to aligned with the endogenous clusters. By 2017, however, the average positions of Democrats and Republicans have diverged, aligning with the positions of the values-based clusters. These findings suggest that there has been rising partisan polarization in spite of stable latent polarization.

How might we explain this sequence of events? Desmet suggests that increasing partisan polarization may be a consequence of politicians discovering which values are particularly salient for political mobilization. Instead of politicians engendering value splits in society, partisanship has become more representative of people’s values. The American public has long had the conditions to be divided — they just needed parties to catch on.