Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States

scope
I disagree with the view of that the scope of the article should predate the 2010s. I believe "since the late 2010s" should be restored to the lead and the Recentism tag removed. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Soibangla If you truly think that this article should be limited to the 2010s onward, then the article should be renamed to something like Democratic backsliding in the United States in the 21st century, or 21st century democratic backsliding in the United States, or Democratic backsliding in the United States (2010s–present).
 * But if that isn't the case, then presenting the regression of democracy in the US as just a new and recent phenomenon is fundamentally inaccurate. Many professional historians who study U.S. history from 1877–1950s (ie. the end of the Reconstruction era to the beginning of the civil rights movement) would readily say as much. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That anti-democratic forces manifest themselves in a different ways (Jim Crow laws and legalized segregation vs. the more volatile, insurrectionist impulses of Trump and his allies) doesn't change the fact that they're both examples of backsliding. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * are you willing to contribute content to that effect? if not, then maybe a move to Democratic backsliding in the United States (2010s–present) is the way to go. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfectly willing. I may not always be present due to responsibilities outside this website, but I'm fully willing to add that context. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * can we take down the tag now? soibangla (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Not yet. The article overall still only has one section that focuses on US history before Trump. Maybe some more info for the period between 1954–2009 before it can be removed. (If I had more time, I would have added it in myself already, but regardless…) XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , ok, so ... will you add that so can remove the tag? soibangla (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Respectfully, I'm not the only editor here. The tag exists so other editors can know about it. Creating a cohesive look at authoritarian trends in the US between 1954 and 2016 takes time. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @XTheBedrockX and @Soibangla,
 * I've reorganized a bit so hopefully it's clearer which sections are referring to the 21st century and which aren't. I added a 'needs expansion' template for the 1930's, which was certainly an era of backsliding. Would adding these more precise templates in the right places (in addition to the clearer organization now) be enough to get the template removed from the top of the page? Superb Owl (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Superb Owl That sounds fair enough. No issues with that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla@XTheBedrockX so my hasty assumption that it would be easyish to find sources that attribute democratic backsliding (discontinuous more permanent shifts in power over time) to other periods has been challenged - absent some analysis I lean towards removing the tag Superb Owl (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Superb Owl @Soibangla Honestly, I think the article could still include more info about (real and perceived) authoritarianism during the Bush administration. Just as an example of what I found searching "George W. Bush authoritarian":
 * The Iraq Invasion at Twenty: The Iraq War and Democratic Backsliding (2023)
 * The Conservative Assault on America: Cultural Politics, Education and the New Authoritarianism (2005)
 * The phrase Inverted totalitarianism was also coined in 2003 to describe the US government. This seems like a noteworthy thing to give more focus on, at least in my eyes. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @XTheBedrockX, those are great finds and I've incorporated all 3 in the article - hadn't heard of inverted totalitarianism before, but plan on learning more to see if that discussion can go beyond a wikilink to the article Superb Owl (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @XTheBedrockX and @Soibangla, I've expanded the lead to summarize other sections and wanted to see if y'all think that template is ready to come down. Also, re: the template on recentism, the V-dem chart in the lead shows why I think we're having trouble finding other examples to discuss in the 20th century (there were no other similar periods of sustained backsliding, at least according to V-dem) Superb Owl (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did some wording changes, but otherwise yeah, the lead summary is pretty good.
 * Personally, I still feel like an analysis of backsliding since the Trump era is incomplete without at least looking a bit more at the period between 2000–2009. XTheBedrockX (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I removed the 'multiple issues' template and added a 'recentism' one to replace it until we get consensus there. Just evaluated the indices which all show different dates for the start of backsliding. The 3 National-level indices cite 2010, 2010, 2016 but the State Democracy Index shows backsliding starting in red states in 2002 so I will look into that period more and see what turns up. Superb Owl (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading Grumbach's latest paper where he ascribes 2010 (not 2002 as I had wondered from his chart) as the watershed year and after exploring more democracy indices in depth, I don't believe the recentism template is warranted without some sourcing to indicate it beyond what is already mentioned in the 'Origins' subsection. There are other dips but they are much narrower, shorter and/or shallower than the ones noted by many sources as starting in 2010 and 2016 Superb Owl (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's alright. In my own time, I'll try to see if I can add information from pre-2010s periods of time. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutrality
"Democratic backsliding is reported to have occurred in American states under unified Republican Party control, while Democratic Party-controlled and divided states have become more democratic." You can't be serious. Icantfindanunusedusernamewhyme (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That sentence seems to me to accurately reflect the source associated with it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean is it wrong? Republican states are the ones making voting rights restrictive, trying to remove the right to privacy, and mixing church and state. Yes some democratic states like Maryland do things like gerrymander, but it is republicans leading the attack on the democratic values.
 * However, I do have to say, a democrat is the sponsor of the anti-speech KOSA bill Melofy (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Source by Yale political scientist on the role of individual states in backsliding
Interview with Milan Svolik, Professor of Political Science at Yale University: "Most people are worried about Trump, but the level at which backsliding has been happening — even before Trump — is the state level." Doug Weller  talk 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR issues
The article's topic is "democratic backsliding in the United States." Different sources may not agree about what is democratic backsliding, so we should not substitute our own opinions about what might be democratic backsliding, and instead cite sources that are specifically about democratic backsliding and report what they say. If a source is not specifically about democratic backsliding, it should not be cited. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I have no doubt that there are sources that refer to some Jim Crow policies as examples of democratic backsliding, however, that is not a reason to cite sources that are about Jim Crow in this article, unless they actually cover democratic backsliding. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed (can also use synonyms like democratic regression, etc.). @Buidhe it would be great if you could flag any remaining issues (I've been working to address this) through in-line template so they can be addressed instead of reverting otherwise useful edits.
 * Below is a section on racial violence that needs better citations drawing a direct connection that these are examples of backsliding:
 * It was during this time that several violent, racially-motivated events occurred, such as Wilmington insurrection of 1898 wherein a mob of armed white supremacists staged a coup d'état against the elected government of Wilmington, North Carolina, and the Tulsa race massacre in 1921, in which white supremacists (with the explicit approval of city law enforcement officials)  attacked the Black neighborhood of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing around 300. Superb Owl (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and even the stuff on voting rights should have an explicit source—it is only backsliding if the access to voting etc. got worse over time, as opposed to never being good to begin with. That's another reason why I think all the sources should be about "democratic backsliding" or one of its synonyms. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reactions section
Below is an initial proposal for the reactions section - it summarizes the quotations with the goal of keeping the section short and easy to read but curious to hear @Soibangla and anyone else's thoughts. Also, the reactions of the presidential centers, some of Republican presidents, seems more notable than quotes from Trump's opponents for president and thus should be given more space in the section.

Reactions
In September 2023, thirteen presidential centers dating from Herbert Hoover to Barack Obama released an unprecedented joint message warning of the fragile state of American democracy. The statement called for a recommitment to the rule of law and civility in political discourse, as well as respect for democratic institutions and secure and accessible elections.

President Joe Biden warned of threats to democracy from Trump and what he called MAGA Republican extremists in 2022 and 2023. Trump's opponent from 2016, Hillary Clinton, echoed those concerns. Superb Owl (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias in article and SCOTUS
The section on the Supreme Court contains one case, which does not relate issues of elections or political rights and instead are about the issue of abortion. While this is an important issue, I see no reason why this is related to the issue of democratic backsliding. The issue in Dobbs was whether there is a federal right to abortion. The court ruling no can not reasonably be argued to be a serious case of democratic backsliding. This entire article frankly is silly. 90% of it is about the Trump administration and January 6th style election denialism. It would be far better to combine this article witj the eleciton denialism one. A lot of this article is also opinion, not fact. It's fine to include analysts like Levitsky and Ziblatt, who think that the Senate and electoral college being state based lead to the rise of xenophobic candidates but given that these are opinions, they cannot be stated as pure fact. Their arguments should be included so readers can draw their own conclusions. It would also be good to include counter points. Also, if I read the section on Gerrymandering, I would be under the impression that gerrymandering was soley a Republican issue. Nowhere is it mentioned that Maryland was involved in a SCOTUS case in 2019 over its map gerrymandered in favor of the Democratic party. This whole article reeks of an obvious bias. 2A0D:6FC0:8F9:8400:3D13:EA91:10D:6457 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the Supreme Court section - almost all of the sources did not discuss democratic backsliding so it was removed and replaced with content that specifically does discuss it. I disagree about merging with election denialism as that is only one aspect of democratic backsliding. I agree that there is room for a wider range of analysis of democratic backsliding but do not want to embark on False balance Superb Owl (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the removed Supreme Court material for future reference: Upon Trump's victory in the 2016 United States presidential election, the Federalist Society (FedSoc) played a major role in vetting candidates for the president to appoint to federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The FedSoc, a conservative-libertarian group that advocates a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution, had for decades helped law students and attorneys with federal judgeships, under the leadership of Leonard Leo. After Trump appointed three justices who were current or former FedSoc members, the Roberts Court had a 6–3 majority of such FedSoc justices.The court's 2021 term was widely characterized as one of its most consequential, as it ruled in favor of major issues sought by conservatives for decades, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which had overturned Roe v. Wade with the judgement that the right to abortion was not a constitutional right, allowing states to set their own regulations to allow or deny abortions. In a July 2022 research paper entitled "The Supreme Court's Role in the Degradation of U.S. Democracy," the Campaign Legal Center, founded by Republican Trevor Potter, concluded that the Roberts Court "has turned on our democracy" and was on an "anti-democratic crusade" that had "accelerated and become increasingly extreme with the arrival" of Trump's three appointees. Superb Owl (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first part of that looks potentially very relevant; the bit about Roe, though, is tenuous without a wider range of both examples and sources to tie this to the core issue. It would be better to find cases that are actually about the democratic process, rather than civil rights more generally. I think we need to be cautious of both false balance (as noted above) and creating an artificial synthesis. It's fine to go hunting for relevant cases and their coverage, but we need to be careful not to create a coatrack of mostly unrelated material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * [what's happening in SCOTUS is more an affect than a cause. However, the conservatives majority has push on voting rights and redistricting eg Shelby v Holder, which has contributed to backsliding, and allows them to attack past precedent — M asem (t) 12:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The current section is still very poor. The start, In addition to decisions on gerrymandering,[44][41] Thomas Keck argues that because the Court has historically not served as a strong bulwark for democracy, the Roberts Court has the opportunity to go down in history as a defender of democracy, reads like it is built on very partial views: why should "Thomas Keck" be given such prominence, for example? Why is the build-up of "opportunity to go down in history as..." in there? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025
, I am curious why you chose to manually remove all this content in wholesale fashion rather than make the slightest effort to tweak the content to address your concerns.

if you think I did not adequately explain that NAR was long-fringe but in recent years gone mainstream, was that not easily remedied with a tweak?

if you think the content is biased, why not tweak it to remedy the perceived bias?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1229528688 soibangla (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The bias was too pervasive. The onus is on you to respect WP:NPOV, to to get others to fix it up. Calling something fringe and mainstream is just an indicator of carelessness; don't be William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * how is bias too pervasive? typically when one makes such a sweeping assertion they provide a number of examples of it. I thought my phrasing was clear that NAR was long a fringe movement that had more recently moved into the mainstream, but if you disagree it wouldn't a big deal to tweak the text. isn't that what we all do here every day? simply pulling the whole thing makes it more difficult to AGF and suggests the reason might be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * do others agree with the reasoning of ? soibangla (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla, can you set up a sandbox with your proposed changes so that @William M. Connolley can flag the specific aspects he is concerned about (or directly edit the text)? Superb Owl (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing changes because I don't see what needs to be changed. others may discuss issues they perceive here, as we always do. or others can simply restore the edit. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored the edit - the text looks reasonable enough and in-line tags should be sufficient to address concerns Superb Owl (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I still have concerns that none of the sources use the term 'backsliding' and it might be undue weight as a result (or more of a coup or different phenomenon). I added an invisible comment to that effect Superb Owl (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)