"A key tenet of CDDRL's research agenda is identifying ways to foster democracy, both domestically and around the world," said Mosbacher Director Kathryn Stoner. "The work being done by the Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL) is intrinsically aligned with our Center's mission. The work that Jim Fishkin and his colleagues have already done is truly unique and field-defining. At CDDRL, we look forward to further building on this outstanding track record to establish the Deliberative Democracy Lab as the global hub for developing, administering, and analyzing deliberative polling. No other university has anything like it."

“We believe the methods of deliberative democracy can help cure the ills of our current politics — in the US and around the world,” shared Fishkin. “This partnership with CDDRL and FSI will give us a new basis for trying to make this happen. We are proud to join the impressive collection of scholars already at work here on issues of democracy and political reform.”

Fishkin, who has been named a Senior Fellow at FSI, will continue to serve as the Lab’s Director alongside Siu as Associate Director, now a Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL. Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI, will also continue to be affiliated with the Lab as a faculty collaborator.

“In the United States and around the world, democracies must find new ways to elicit citizen engagement, deeper public participation in policy-making, and reduce toxic levels of political polarization,” said Diamond. “The method of Deliberative Polling that Jim Fishkin and Alice Siu have developed and applied worldwide has demonstrated impressive progress toward these goals, and it has been my honor to collaborate with them.”

Rounding out the team for the newly formed Lab, Tom Schnaubelt, currently Director of the Haas Center for Public Service, will join DDL in a new role as Lecturer and Senior Advisor on Civic Education, effective August 1, 2022. “The Deliberative Democracy Lab is an exciting addition to the work of CDDRL, and as Senior Advisor, Tom Schnaubelt will greatly advance our efforts to promote deliberation and civic engagement among college students,” Diamond added.

Schnaubelt began his tenure at the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University in April 2009 and has been actively involved in developing innovative community engagement programs in higher education settings for nearly two decades. Prior to assuming the role of executive director at the Haas Center for Public Service, Tom served as dean for community engagement and civic learning at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside and was the founding executive director of Wisconsin Campus Compact, where he provided leadership for a coalition of thirty-four college and university presidents and chancellors committed to the civic purposes of higher education.

“I’ve been increasingly concerned about the fragility of our democracy,” shared Schnaubelt. “I believe that sustaining, strengthening, and perhaps even saving our democracy is a prerequisite to creating a more just and sustainable world. I also believe that universities have a distinct and important role to play in advancing liberal democracy, particularly through the cultivation of democratic knowledge, habits, skills, and dispositions. As I begin this next chapter, I am grateful for the opportunity, and I am thrilled to be able to be a part of Stanford University’s efforts to build a more perfect union.”

As political polarization becomes a more urgent challenge to democracy in the United States and elsewhere, and as a growing number of democratic jurisdictions look for innovative ways to involve the public more meaningfully in decision-making, the demand for Deliberative Polls is increasing. In its new home at CDDRL, the Lab will be able to enhance its capacity to meet growing demands and expand the contributions it can make to both the study and the practice of deliberative democracy.

Intensifying Divisions

Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy

The January 6 insurrection was the gravest assault on American democracy since the Civil War, and it came much closer to disrupting the peaceful transfer of power (and possibly our democracy itself) than we realized at the time.

Rather than providing a sobering lesson of the dangers of political polarization, the insurrection seems only to have intensified our divisions, and the willingness to contemplate or condone the use of violence. According to a recent Washington Post survey, a third of Americans feel violence against the government could be justified in some circumstances —a sharp increase from 16 percent in 2010 and 23 percent in 2015.

Sadly, many politicians have not been the least bit chastened by the close brush with a constitutional catastrophe. The “Big Lie” that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election retains the support of most Republicans and a substantial proportion of independents. Around the country, Republican legislatures have been introducing, and in many states adopting, bills that would give Republican legislatures the ability to reverse or sabotage legitimate electoral outcomes, and other bills that make it more difficult for people (especially Democratic-leaning groups) to vote. All of this is doing deep damage to the global reputation and hence “soft power” of American democracy.

Although they are generally relieved that Trump is no longer president, our allies remain deeply worried about the stability and effectiveness of American democracy.

What gives me some hope is the expanding network of civil society organizations documenting the multiple threats to electoral integrity in the U.S. But we are going to need much more widespread and resourceful mobilization to counter the downward spiral of our democracy.

Problems at Home, Issues Abroad

Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow

The Capitol uprising on January 6 marked a grave crisis in American institutions, when a sitting President refused to transfer power peacefully and sought to actively overturn an election.  The Republican Party, rather than repudiating the uprising and marginalizing its organizers, instead rallied in subsequent weeks to normalize the event.  These developments, while bad in themselves from the standpoint of US politics, also sent an unmistakable geopolitical signal that the Biden presidency would not represent an American return to “normal” internationalism.  The Administration would lead a deeply polarized country uncertain of its own global role.

This is the point at which geopolitics and domestic unrest come together. The single greatest weakness of the United States today does not lie in its economy or military power, but in the deep polarization that has affected American politics.  This is not just speculation, but something underlined by Kremlin-linked commentators, as Françoise Thom has detailed: in the words of one, "the decrepit empire of the Stars and Stripes, weakened by LGBT, BLM, etc." makes "it is clear that it will not survive a two-front war."  They see that a significant number of Republicans believe that the Democratic Party represents a bigger threat to the American way of life than does Russia.  A country that cannot rally around sensible public health measures during a pandemic will not rally around defense of freedom abroad.  This is the significance of January 6:  it has hardened partisan divisions rather than being the occasion for national soul-searching.

Read Francis Fukuyama's full commentary in American Purpose.

Democracy vs. Partisanship

Didi Kuo, Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL

It has been a year since rioters stormed the United States Capitol in an effort—an organized, violent effort—to declare Donald Trump the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election. The riots signaled a dangerous turn in American politics, an attack on the basic, fundamental institutions of democracy. For democracy to work, all sides must agree on the rules of the game: the fairness of the balloting and counting process, the routine and peaceful transfer of power. We now see what happens when the institutions and procedures of elections are delegitimated.

Our political leaders can act now to restore confidence in elections. They can do so by protecting election administrators from threats of violence, by depoliticizing oversight of elections, and by passing democratic reforms. Although President Biden’s Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act have been blocked by Republicans, narrower versions of these bills could create stricter federal election standards. And Americans can organize to protect democracy through civic groups that push for ballot access and election integrity, particularly at the state level. Politicians and activists alike must make clear that election administration is not a partisan issue. As the nation enters the third year of a global pandemic and an upcoming midterm election, our leaders must make strengthening democracy their utmost priority.

Watch Kuo's conversation with Hakeem Jefferson about the anniversary of the riots at the U.S. Capitol.

Epistemic Fractures and Exploitation

Herbert Lin, Senior Research Scholar at CISAC

The failure of the Jan. 6 insurrection provided an opportunity for the United States to collectively take a step back from the conspiracy theories and lies that pervaded American political discourse in the preceding couple of years. But alas, the nation failed to take advantage of that opportunity, with tens of millions of Americans maintaining their delusions as strongly as ever. Substantial numbers of Americans continue to believe that Donald Trump really won the 2020 election, and the number of QAnon adherents and believers was virtually unchanged.

Even more alarming has been the cynical exploitation of such trends by elected officials in their quest to gain or retain political power. Rather than standing up for the rule of law and defending the conclusions of an independent judiciary regarding various allegations of election fraud, they have pointed to such outcomes as yet more evidence of a system rigged against them. We now live in a environment in which no conceivable evidence can persuade true believers to change their minds, and the resulting epistemic fractures translate into a once-unified nation sharply divided against itself.  A worse national posture to meet the challenges of coming great-power competition could not be imagined.

Read more of Herbert Lin's analysis of contemporary security issues and power competition in his latest book, Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons (Stanford University Press, 2021).

The Need to Protect and Invest In Elections

Matthew Masterson, Non-resident Fellow at the Stanford Internet Observatory

The insurrection on January 6th left a scar on American Democracy. For the first time in our history, America did not have a peaceful transition of power. The effects of that day continue to be felt every day in election offices across the United States. Election officials, the guardians of our Democracy, are targets of harassment and threats fueled by the ongoing lies regarding the integrity and accuracy of the election. Worse yet, there have been little no consequences for these threats against our democracy. While some who participated in January 6^th are being investigated and prosecuted, those responsible for the threats against election officials have faced little to no accountability for their actions. Facing ongoing threats and little support from law enforcement election officials are leaving their jobs out of fear for their own safety and the safety of their families.

Healing the wound of January 6th won’t be easy; there must be accountability for the damage done to our democracy. American democracy is resilient and strong, but can not survive the unchecked attacks against it. Those who seek to profit from the lies about 2020 need to be held accountable for selling out democracy in pursuit of their own political and financial gain. They must be defeated at the ballot box or their businesses made to pay the price  by Americans unwilling to accept holding democracy for ransom. As we bring accountability, we need to invest in continuing to improve the security, accessibility and integrity of the process. We need to fund elections on an ongoing basis like the national security issue they are. The only response to this sustained attack on our democracy is a sustained investment in protecting it.  

Professor Jefferson is also a faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and African American Studies from the University of South Carolina.

In 2020, his dissertation, "Policing Norms: Punishment and the Politics of Respectability Among Black Americans," was a co-winner of the Best Dissertation Award from the Political Psychology Section of the American Political Science Association.