Friends,

If you’re like me, you went to bed last night wondering if you’re dreaming and woke up this morning struck by our new reality all over again. I’ve been oscillating between feeling numb and feeling pain and rage. This is also the first time since 2016 that I’ve experienced a political moment like this without a large organizational team—that is, not including all of you. These are very much imperfect, first draft thoughts written today and I’d welcome your reflections as we figure out what’s next. In addition to all the feelings I mentioned above, I have 3 major thoughts and analyses so far:

First, the picture of the election results is a lot more complicated than Black and White, Republican vs. Democratic, progressive vs. conservative. In North Carolina, for example, we saw Trump win the presidential election but Democrats won state-wide offices of the Attorney General, Governor and broke the supermajority in the state legislature. In Missouri, we saw ballot measures pass to raise the minimum wage and overturn abortion restrictions while re-electing Josh Hawley, who opposes both of those policies. One reporter shared that a canvasser she spoke to in Missouri said measures like these pass because voters see them as a check on the Republican legislature, while still opposing Democrats on other issues. In the coming days and months, we will begin to see people posit theories and answers as to why the results of the election look the way they do.

I think the challenge for all of us in a moment where we’re frustrated and infuriated is to hold the complexity and curiosity required to build a robust path forward. I recall in 2016 a lot of false binaries (e.g. economic anxiety or racism) when the reality is always more complex. I am already seeing conversations blaming Latino voters based on exit polling showing shifts or white voters given that the majority voted for Trump. I don’t think the blame game helps identify a path forward and examine the full complexity of authoritarian appeal to Americans.

Here at Democracy 2076, we will be launching a project in January on political realignments to better understand the scenarios for how we are realigning, including what constituencies and ideologies may shape the parties over the next generation. We want to invest in resources now to help shape our next political realignment, while we still have time to make an impact and ensure our political coalitions are oriented around support for democracy. Please feel free to email me interesting data you’re finding or if you or someone you know would like to engage in this project more deeply based on your work with particular communities or ideologies you’re seeing impact Americans. Our goal is not to find one answer but to grapple with the full complexity of the challenge. 

Second, we need to acknowledge that our political system is broken and present viable solutions. We have seen a thirty-year decline in trust in government, especially among young people. 43% of Gen Z and 34% of Millennials say they don’t trust the political system. In exit polling, 34% of voters said that democracy was the issue that mattered the most to them this election, with deep divisions between Trump and Harris voters. Over the last year and a half of A Constitution for 2076, I have been surprised to find that conversations about constitutional change have served as a moderating force for people on both the left and right who are disillusioned with our system. Many people enter the conversation with either a “burn it down” mentality or a desire to completely disengage from the political process. Constitutional change provides a third way––a way to ensure American democracy continues while addressing its shortcomings. 

On the Daily podcast, Astead Herndon, of the New York Times, said he had been seeing something similar amongst voters. They read Harris’ promises to protect democracy as a promise to uphold the status quo and Trump’s promise to upend the system as a sign that he understood the problem and would change it. I believe that it is no longer possible to preserve democracy as it is — to ensure we have a democracy, we need to be clear about the problems our current system has and how we will address them going forward. I invite all of our pro-democracy organizations to ensure that, in addition to a defensive strategy, we have clarity on what needs to change in our system going forward.

Finally, we need to be able to imagine the future of a multi-racial democracy that works for everyone. It is clear that the narratives of “stronger together” or “we’re not going back” are not resonating with a majority of Americans. We are asking people to do something quite difficult: imagine and build a multiracial United States that will work for them. One they have never seen. Meanwhile, authoritarians traffic in false nostalgia evoking a longing for a past that never existed. I believe that we can combat this by helping people to imagine the future, and their place in it, in a way that’s not zero-sum and rooted in a scarcity mindset.

Our work on Imagining 2076 seeks to understand what stories help people with different values imagine a future democracy that works for everyone. Our goal is to make that information available to creators and help tell more of those stories. It seems to me that we see a lot more dystopian content than content that fosters that imagination. I think there’s an opportunity for all of us to be thoughtful in our work about how the stories we tell help or hinder that imagination.

I know that we have a lot of work ahead of us and I meant what I said before the election. This is not like 2016. There are a lot of scary reasons why this time is different: the courts, the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, and the lack of institutional guardrails on Trump. But there are also many reasons to be hopeful that this time is different. Over half of the country now understands the threat that Trump poses, whereas, in 2016, most Americans across the ideological and political spectrum thought it was alarmist to refer to him as an authoritarian. Additionally, we have a civil society infrastructure––nonprofits, media institutions, philanthropic entities, and more––focused on American democracy that has learned a lot of lessons over the last eight years. We need to expand the landscape of democracy work, but there is a lot of experience and expertise that has been developed. Most importantly, we have each other. If I can be of help in these trying times, please feel free to reach out!

In solidarity and practicing the discipline of hope,

Aditi