If We Can Keep It - Chapter 7

I've been waiting for this chapter for a full month (it takes me way too long to read a book anymore; I really need to work on prioritizing reading more!) and I'm so excited to check out Tomasky's 14-point agenda on saving our republic. Each point will include a summary of his position, and then my response. By and large, I think they're mostly great ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but I can agree with the idea behind most of them. Without further adieu, this series finale:

1.) End partisan gerrymandering: Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, and both parties complain when it doesn't benefit them and look the other way when it does. This, Tomasky asserts, is probably one of the most common suggestions in terms of reducing polarization. Many states are experimenting with the redistricting process by appointing independent redistricting commissions. Ideally, the commission would follow mapping criteria and allow for more transparency and public input into the district-drawing process. Tomasky leaves the jury out for the effectiveness of these commissions, since the book was published in 2019 before most of them could be seen in action. I did a little research to find out how things went after the 2020 census. The commissions have been more successful in some states, like Colorado and Michigan, than others such as Ohio and Virginia. It's up to the selected commissioners to act in good faith, and that's a difficult thing to regulate and ensure. But it does stand to reason that gerrymandering is a divisive force in politics, so reducing or eliminating it all together could make an impact towards reducing polarization.
Gerrymandering is a clearly harmful practice in our government, and it has always bewildered me that it isn't illegal. It undermines the power of the people, and anything that diminishes people-power is a no from me. We deserve a government that truly represents us, not one that twists itself into pretzels to make it look like it represents us. 

2.) Bring back at-large congressional elections: Tomasky points out that single-member districts are not a constitutional requirement, and that several states have held at-large congressional elections in the past (mostly the long-distant past). He asserts that if some of our representatives were at-large rather than representing a single gerrymandered district, we would likely end up with more moderate politicians, willing to build coalitions between the parties or reach across party lines. Tomasky doesn't think we should eliminate single-member districts like we have now, but should add some at-large representatives to help bridge the gap between the parties. 
Coalition-building between the parties is how governance happens. Compromise is the nature of politics so when our political landscape lends little value to the idea of compromise the result is a government which can't govern. I'm reluctant to agree that we need more moderates, but I do agree completely that politicians need to work together better, which is maybe the same thing. 

3.) Introduce ranked-choice voting: The idea behind ranked-choice voting is that each candidate would work hard to appeal to a wider base so that anyone who wouldn't rank them first might rank them second or third. Tomasky asserts that it could result in less mud-slinging since candidates wouldn't want to be the mud-slinger in a campaign if it matters who comes in second and third. But he also says he's skeptical of this, because the bulk of mud-slinging nowadays comes from social media and noncandidate operations. Still, he agrees that candidates would be incentivized to ensure that voters who don't love them also don't hate them. 
I think ranked choice is also an opportunity for a fairer system, and could lend to a breakthrough of our two-party system into one that allows for multiple parties. People don't vote third party because it's a throw-away since third party candidates are highly unlikely to win congressional and presidential races. But if we could rank our choices, that "throw away" candidate suddenly becomes a little more viable. I've heard an argument against ranked-choice that Americans aren't smart enough -- we have a hard enough time reading a ballot to begin with. I wonder if that argument is sometimes made in bad faith. Americans are capable of learning. If we can figure out over/unders in sports betting, we can figure out ranked-choice voting. Either way, I think we should make significant strides in a stronger foundation of political education for students. 

4.) Expand the House of Representatives: The size of the House of Representatives was last changed in 1910 when the US population was around 92 million. At that time, one member of the House would represent 260,000 people. Today our population is around 320 million, so each member represents around 730,000 people. Tomasky compares this with other countries with single-representative districts in the UK, France, and Australia. In each of these countries, a given representative would represent fewer than 200,000 people. If we were to come down to that point, we would need a House consisting of more than 3000 members. Tomasky asserts that a middle-ground would be to bring the total number of House representatives up to 500 and ensure that most if not all of the additional 65 members are elected at-large we might have a "critical mass of compromisers".
My initial reaction to this point was repulsion, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought maybe Tomasky isn't going far enough, here. Five hundred House representatives still leaves each member representing 650,000 people. Tomasky was speaking conservatively because it's super unpopular to increase the number of House reps at all, let alone by a significant margin. But if we had 700 members of the House of Representatives, they would each represent fewer than 500,000 people. One single person cannot know and represent nearly a million constituents. The fewer constituents a House member represents, the more likely they are to get to know their constituency on a more intimate level and truly represent the will of the people. Expanding the House is already unpopular, and expanding it by more than 50% is likely a radical position. It's a good thing I never claimed to be moderate. 

5.) Eliminate the Senate filibuster: The way the Senate is set up is laid out in the Constitution. The odds of changing the rate of representation to more accurately reflect the population would be nearly impossible. But the filibuster is just a rule in the Senate that could be eliminated at any time. Both parties use the filibuster, for good or bad. It can prevent progress, and it can prevent atrocities. Tomasky admits that if we eliminate the filibuster things will be messy and complicated, but he says it would be a more direct democracy by not allowing 41 members of the Senate (the minority) to overrule the majority by simply refusing to end a filibuster. 
I'm not sure of the history of when and why the filibuster was introduced as a rule in the Senate. Sometimes it seems like a guardrail or a hail mary against destructive or harmful propositions, and other times it seems like a completely disruptive and harmful force on its own. I agree that for better or worse we should eliminate features of government which are designed to disrupt democratic governance and allow the minority to overrule the majority. It's just unfortunate that it could also result in the majority doing some awful things. But like Tomasky says, that's democracy for ya!

6.) Get rid of the electoral college (or make it obey the popular vote): The electoral college was implemented by the founders because they didn't trust the people to always make the right choices since "the people" at that time were only white men with property. Since voting is no longer limited by demographics (except by age and voter suppression efforts) Tomasky believes we should be past that. He does note that there could be some negative consequences such as less on-the-ground campaigning and more TV-ad campaigning.
I'm proud that Illinois is the origin of the National Popular Vote movement which would require states to give their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This could contribute to a broader movement to break up the two-party system. I do think that we should have a minimum threshold for a popular vote win, say a majority. If we have more than two major parties and two of them get 33% of the popular vote while the third gets 34% I don't think that should constitute a win. I think the electoral college is outdated with questionable history and I don't think it serves to benefit the citizens of our nation today.

7.) Revive modern Republicanism: Tomasky asserts that building back the center of the aisle would help to revive the political process and infrastructure. He acknowledges that it would take a lot of moderate Republicans with a lot of money, and would take a long time to have an impact. He stresses, though, that he isn't suggesting we take the country to exactly where it was before the two parties began to splinter. Instead, he thinks that as a nation we need liberal and conservative ideals willing to compromise and govern by representing their constituency. Republicans have been swaying hard-right for a long time, and with little counterbalance from Democrats, Tomasky believes we should pull them back towards the center rather than abandoning the party all together.
I see this point, and I think it probably deserves some credence. But I feel so very resistant to accepting anyone who would publicly call themselves a Republican today in our mainstream politics. I think we need to completely expunge the radical extremism that has billionaires sieg heil-ing on stage during inaugural celebrations. People who would consider themselves moderate Republicans should diverge completely from the Republican party, in my opinion. It has been soured, tainted, and ruined. It is a reputation that should not be salvaged at this point. When this book was written in 2019, I may have agreed. A lot has happened since 2019 when the book was written, so I think it's lacking all of that context. 

8.) Create "foreign" exchange programs within the United States for students:  Tomasky says that foreign exchange programs with other countries were set up after WWI to promote international awareness and harmony. He says we're at a point where we don't know each other as US citizens, and that a program where universities exchange students across state lines for a year could help us come back together as a nation over time.
This clearly wouldn't work overnight. It's not a quick-fix solution, but none of these points are. I think it's brilliant, and a ton of students would love to participate every single year. Especially if we could figure out how to work in a perk of tuition discounts. Many students stay in their home-state for college because in-state tuition is cheaper. I bet the out-of-state student experience at the in-state student rate would be very popular. I would have loved it when I was in school. 

9.) Make year 4 of college a service year: Most European nations have reduced the typical length of time for an undergrad degree to three years. Some universities in the US have followed suit. Tomasky thinks that not only should we make it the norm nation-wide, we should create an infrastructure for the 4th year becoming a year of public service performed in a place other than the student's home. He says we should make it optional, but terribly appealing, and suggests that we could connect it with student debt relief of some kind. He says universities are supposed to respond to the needs of the time, and what we need today is a new generation of civic leaders.
This combined with the domestic student exchange program would open a vast number of eyes to other cultures within our country, inspire friendships, and develop a sense of oneness in our country. I think it's a great idea that would be so very expensive and would face so much conservative opposition. But especially paired with debt forgiveness - it would be so popular, and I think it could legitimately help us come together more as a nation.  

10.) Find a way to expand such ideas to high schools: Since only about 40% of people finish college, Tomasky wonders if there may be a way to replicate the exchange program in high schools. Of course it would be voluntary, but maybe for a semester at a time instead of a year for college students, the domestic exchange program could work. City students should meet farmers, Baptists should meet Muslims, rural people should meet transgender people in the city. 
I think some extra risk comes with this, when it comes to parents being responsible for other people's underage kids. But I do think it could be worth exploring. Maybe it could be an option for juniors and seniors, or even just seniors, to experience a different part of the country and learn some empathy for a different way of life. Our country is massive with a bunch of internal sub-cultures. The more we can bring all of those sub-cultures together by accentuating them rather than meshing them into one big monoculture, the better. 

11.) ... and into the workplace: Tomasky says that national employers could do the same with their employees, and it would only cost the price of moving expenses. Several companies have a national footprint and should recognize the worth of building a truly indivisible nation. 
According to Tomasky earlier in the book, there was a time when corporations felt a sense of social responsibility. I don't recall this phase, since it passed long before I was born. But I would greatly appreciate a return to the popular notion that corporations owe society, not the other way around. They should serve us in the sense that if not for the consumers the corporations would go bankrupt. I think it's only fair that they invest in the forging of unity in the United States. 

12.) Vastly expand civics education: Did you know civics education has decreased over the last 25 years? I didn't, but it makes sense. Right now our civics programs in k-12 are barren if they exist at all. Tomasky recommends a 4-prong approach to a massive civics education overhaul. First, develop a "robust" history curriculum through all 12 years of schooling. Second, incorporate a "full and honest" teaching of history, neither glossing over the bad things or over-emphasizing it. Third, an "unvarnished account" of what life is like in undemocratic countries. And fourth, a "cultivation of virtues" for a healthy democracy.
I've been hitting the soapbox on better civics education for weeks, if not months. A couple of these prongs come off a little weird to me, though. K-12 history curriculum - I'm sold. Make it age appropriate, but start building foundations very young; yes please! True teaching of history - this is ideal, for sure! We shouldn't be unlearning history in order to learn the truth as we get older. Making history age appropriate shouldn't mean teaching falsehoods. Honest account of undemocratic societies - this one gives me pause. I don't know that we should make a habit of judging others. Their historical context is completely different from ours, so I'm not sure I love this approach. It makes me think about the "starving children in Africa" narrative, and how it lends to the idea that Africa is a completely undeveloped continent which is outright false. And cultivation of virtues - this one weirds me out a little bit. Maybe it's fine; maybe we should teach kids to value things like democracy universally but I am leery that it would be used for indoctrination against questioning the status quo. 

13.) Insist that the left doesn't contribute to the fracture: Tomasky argues that the left celebrates difference rather than commonality. He says he doesn't blame leftists for continuing to fight social and economic inequity which still plagues our country. He does, however, blame our approach sometimes. He suggests that gay people did not win same-sex marriage rights by threatening to tear down the institution of marriage, but by insisting they wanted to share its protections and benefits. There are three reasons the burn-it-down approach isn't good for our society: it dooms itself to fail, contributes to the fracturing of society, and it gives conservatives something to weaponize.
I hear his points. But peaceful negotiations can only do so much without radical action charging them. Same-sex marriage was legalized after decades of Pride exposure across the country, which began with a riot against police at which bricks were thrown. Tone policing oppressed people on how they choose to push back against their oppression is not the move, in my opinion. What I can agree with, however, is that leftists need to find a way to unite ourselves. From my experience, there is a lot of infighting that goes on in leftist spaces. If we're going to "burn it down" and forge a better future for our nation, it isn't going to be by fighting amongst ourselves. 

14.) Demand that corporate and business leaders commit to social responsibility: Tomasky believes that political leaders can't or aren't willing to lead the nation towards positive change. Religious leaders are too polarized themselves, as are athletes after #takeaknee. He says business and corporate leaders are the ones with the influence and the budget for investment. He says the pursuit for short-term profits has been incredibly damaging to our society, and corporate leaders and investors have a responsibility to contribute to a better nation.
I touched on this earlier, and I think a lot could be gained through corporations adopting a sense of responsibility for societal good. It would have to go further than the corporate pandering we've seen since 2020; it should include actual action for the benefit of society to the same degree that they currently act to increase the profits and line their pockets. It might be a large order, and most of them may not be at all willing. But I think corporations should lead the way on addressing climate change, economic inequity, our failing education systems, and even our dysfunctional medical systems. If corporations worked for the public good instead of massive profits, the world could be a drastically different place. Corporations essentially own our political system -- what if they owned their debt to society?

What a list. I really enjoyed this book, and I think this list should be discussed widely in political and social circles! If you've read this whole series, thanks! If you're just tuning in for the big finale, thanks to you as well! The second book-series on Political Poignance is a wrap. Tune in for the next one, too! :)