Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Peter Beck

Beyond Elitists and Deplorables: Deliberating with One Another as People

by

discussion

By Peter Beck ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Former Senior Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway is infamous among Democrats, in part, for referring to “alternative facts” during a cable television interview. At the time, Democrats cited Conway’s comment as affirmation that then-President Trump and his retinue lived in a separate reality, where the truth lies beyond their comprehension or, at the very least, acknowledgment. The comment was a convenient way for Democrats to attack Republican policies on climate, racism, the pandemic, and a host of others.

Trump supporters, on the other hand, took advantage of a poor comment made by the Democratic nominee for President and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to portray Democrats as out-of-touch elitists. Clinton referred to Trump supporters as “deplorables,” which GOP supporters jumped on as an opportunity to cast Secretary Clinton and Democrats as snobs who believe only morally-corrupt people support Trump. To this day, some ardent Republicans call themselves and each other “deplorables” as a term of endearment.

“Alternative facts” and the “deplorables” comment impacted our political discourse and have continued to survive past the Trump presidency, indicating the comments’ weight reveals more significance than 24-hour partisan squabbles on the news. Republicans and Democrats both believe in their visions as best for the country’s future; some say those visions are separated more than at any time in history–as if Republicans and Democrats lived in two different worlds. Polarization is so severe that debates usually concentrate not on policy but on disputing another person’s intellect and grasp of reality–a stark contrast from Alexis de Tocqueville’s American ideal: “Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science.”

As a DCI facilitator, I have to admit that I cringe a little whenever someone pulls out their phone or computer during deliberations to search for a fact on the internet. It is almost always from a place of curiosity rather than wanting to prove a point against someone else’s argument. Still, scenarios of an “alternative facts” versus “deplorables” debate play through my mind. Not only does the internet have a lot of dubious sources of information, but often a person can find a source verifying their precise claim without ever looking into other perspectives.

However, it seems unreasonable to ask participants to stop introducing outside facts. Unlike partisan attacks on an opponent’s character and background, D Team topics focus almost exclusively on policy. D Team participants can bring in only so much background knowledge for any subject. I am fortunate as a facilitator that so many D Team participants have experience and understanding of the topics we discuss. I am hosting two D Teams this semester focusing on climate, and each member of these teams has an intimate and passionate connection they could contribute to the conversation (although this could also be a sign of the worsening effects of climate change).

 I believe D Teams are at their best when these interactions occur: one person shares a meaningful, previously unknown perspective from their experience that the rest of the group did not consider. However, I still struggle with addressing two difficult priorities: the need for facts in productive conversations while preventing facts manipulated to fit certain narratives. The degrees of separation between perspectives highlight how divided we are into separate political camps. Ultimately, we need to work toward a political discourse that agrees on a list of common principles and facts that overcomes labels. Demonizing each other as elitist or dumb does nothing to address the problems we face, many of which we agree on.

My hope for D Team members is to use the deliberative space to understand and hear one another, above all else. Perhaps, this personal approach will allow us to overcome the partisan gap little by little and avoid devolving into narratives accusing each other of clinging to “alternative facts” or thinking all of your opponents are “Antifa communists.”

In the Midst of the Midterms: Timely D Team Deliberations about Electoral Reform

by

map of us election

By Peter Beck ’25 (DCI Fellow)

With the highly anticipated November 2022 elections being held this fall, our D Team discussions on electoral accessibility, integrity and reform have been highly relevant to current events. People closely watched the 2022 Midterm elections for a plethora of reasons, but especially for its status as the first set of national elections since the January 6th Insurrection. Democracy and the response to the attack on the Capitol were, in many ways, on the ballot. Indeed, there were a host of candidates running for state and federal office who continue to deny the results of the 2020 Presidential Election (shown in the image above). According to a New York Times-Siena College poll, over seventy percent of voters believe American democracy to be at risk.

Like many other Americans, the efficacy and integrity of election administration are close to my heart. I believe in a patriotic duty to participate in our democracy by casting a vote. Beyond voting, enlisting in the military, serving on a jury, and paying taxes, there are several other ways in which citizens can involve themselves with supporting our nation’s governance. Another such mechanism for people to participate and ensure the success of our democracy is by volunteering for local election offices.

Amidst the Presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials expected a record-breaking sum of mail-in ballots for the November 2020 elections. With this in mind, my friend (Mills Jordan, a fellow member of the Davidson Class of 2025) and I recruited over forty high school students to help the Charleston Election Commission process mail-in ballots. 

Spanning six different high schools, students took time off from school and worked three arduous days sorting nearly a hundred thousand envelopes and ballots. This involved navigating health and safety concerns as well as arcane and ambiguous election laws. For the first time in Charleston County history, the sum of votes cast by mail surpassed the number of in-person voters. Miraculously, the team of students and I completed sorting ballots on Election Day before in-person polling places closed.

Election officials across the country also struggled to keep up while facing a flood of mail-in ballots. Areas with higher populations and underwhelming resources could not possibly count all of the votes before the end of election night. This led to the proliferation of conspiracy theories, threats, and even attacks on election officials. These false accusations of election manipulation were essential in creating the climate that led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

This context and the current political atmosphere made elections all the more important as a topic for D Team discussion. In our past two sessions, my D Team came together from different backgrounds and ideologies to share their concerns about American democracy. Every participant agreed about the importance of the present moment. We had a robust conversation discussing and coming up with solutions to increase election transparency and accessibility, like expanding peoples’ ability to vote by mail.

Initially, I expected our conversation not to produce many changes of heart, given the fact-based approaches to election integrity. Seeing whether a person believes in the validity of the 2020 election is pretty straightforward. However, I found my D Team participants to be especially responsive and compassionate towards the experiences of their peers. Our country’s current election laws, largely left up to the states, allowed for a conversation that incorporated a diversity of experiences and methods for voting. People’s individual stories were accepted and informed the group’s understanding of voting in the United States.

Residents of different states could compare the methods of how they vote and what they felt most comfortable with. This was an extremely useful exchange of ideas when considering which voting reforms to implement. My D Team deliberation led to a helpful, even necessary, broadening of perspectives on how to improve our electoral process and preserve our democracy.