Hi Bill, thanks for your comment. The point is not about the process (ballot initiative) but about the election system: systems where the real decision is made in the general election, not in a low turnout primary. A representative elected by a majority in a competitive general election is more fully connected to the people than a representative elected in a low turn out primary without a general election contest. It might help to know that in Massachusetts for the past decade more than half of our elections have had exactly one candidate, across all primaries and the general. That sort of state specific context is also what makes it so hard to have one answer across all states. In fact we can’t really. Each state needs to work on upgrading its own institutions but with that North Star principle.
Hah! Now you’re asking what gets me up in the morning. I’ve been asking myself that question for most of my life—and unpacking the longer answer in Love & Work for nearly ten years. I think Thomas Berry put his finger on the short answer best. He argued that Western civilization’s deepest crisis is a crisis of story. I take hope from his framing: we are between stories. The old story—the medieval Christian cosmos—no longer holds. The new story—what he called the Universe Story—has not yet taken root deeply enough in the cultural imagination to guide how we live.
As a child of the sixties, I came of age when a generation had the agency, resources, and confidence to challenge that old story and imagine a new one. It felt possible. I believe we are now living through the resistance that those invested in the old story inevitably mount.
But the reason I hold radical hope is that I can see the outline of a new story—one in which people are united not by ideological alignment but, as you described in your '23 speech, by mutual respect and shared purpose. And shared purpose depends on a shared story.
Thanks for subscribing. I'm glad to meet you here.
Danielle, I first became aware of your work when you shared your vision of a “cross-ideological supermajority” committed to constitutional democracy, inclusion, and shared power in a 2023 Harvard speech. I wrote about it in my newsletter last fall—it was one of the clearest articulations I’d encountered of what democracy requires of ordinary people, not just institutions.
This post reads like a progress report on that vision, and the details are genuinely encouraging: democracy reformers running for office and outperforming expectations, citizens’ assemblies emerging from Los Angeles to Maine, and civic learning coalitions now active in 46 states. The holistic framing—structural reform, civic education, and digital infrastructure—suggests the field is beginning to match the complexity of the problem.
The question I keep returning to is this: what builds the civic confidence that leads an ordinary person to believe their participation matters? Reforms create the conditions, but the belief has to come first. This piece suggests a kind of chicken-and-egg dynamic: urgency draws people in, and seeing others engage reinforces the sense that participation is both necessary and effective.
Thanks so much. Yes! I love the idea that this is a progress report! I'm glad it's encouraging. Your question is such an important one. I'm sure you've thought about it a lot. What would you say in answer?
From my own Fed gov/ leg affairs experience, I don't know how effective new IT methods will assist voters in being able to more fully communicate with their elected officials--certainly those officials' internet sites are the means to contact them. I just don't know how new means/features will play out. I do know that what's known on the Hill as "constituent requests" is near and dear to members of both parties, because their district's or state's view of their performance is essential to getting reelected. So members ensure constituent requests are not only answered, but acted upon whenever it's possible to do so. You've got to make the home folks happy.
Even beyond campaign contributors, voters who contact their House or Senate reps have a very good chance of having their concerns addressed; from experience, I was greatly surprised to learn that military members write their own representatives when they feel mistreated in service (going around their chain of command), but still often succeed in doing so. The key thing as related to civic reform is that the respective voter/constituent knows both the effectiveness of contacting their representative, and, how to do so. It goes beyond accessing a member's internet site. It's also helpful to write effectively and summarize the problem--to make a convincing case. These latter items are skills, obviously, but if you know enough to contact your rep, and do so effectively, both are key in engaging your representative. I.E., a broad civic knowledge as possible is key. On the other hand--trying to facilitate mass communication with a representative will give their office great data hauls, but the greater the response will ironically diminish the reach of the individual voter. Seems a tricky challenge. While the technology is incredibly useful, an effective solution goes well beyond just tech.
One disagreement with your fine essay: just because a reform is by the people doesn't necessarily mean that it will be for the people. Many reforms strongly supported by the people, including those enacted through public referenda, have backfired, leaving the people farther from achieving the outcomes they sought. Representative democracy is no guarantee of effective outcomes, but neither is participatory democracy.
Hi Bill, thanks for your comment. The point is not about the process (ballot initiative) but about the election system: systems where the real decision is made in the general election, not in a low turnout primary. A representative elected by a majority in a competitive general election is more fully connected to the people than a representative elected in a low turn out primary without a general election contest. It might help to know that in Massachusetts for the past decade more than half of our elections have had exactly one candidate, across all primaries and the general. That sort of state specific context is also what makes it so hard to have one answer across all states. In fact we can’t really. Each state needs to work on upgrading its own institutions but with that North Star principle.
Hah! Now you’re asking what gets me up in the morning. I’ve been asking myself that question for most of my life—and unpacking the longer answer in Love & Work for nearly ten years. I think Thomas Berry put his finger on the short answer best. He argued that Western civilization’s deepest crisis is a crisis of story. I take hope from his framing: we are between stories. The old story—the medieval Christian cosmos—no longer holds. The new story—what he called the Universe Story—has not yet taken root deeply enough in the cultural imagination to guide how we live.
As a child of the sixties, I came of age when a generation had the agency, resources, and confidence to challenge that old story and imagine a new one. It felt possible. I believe we are now living through the resistance that those invested in the old story inevitably mount.
But the reason I hold radical hope is that I can see the outline of a new story—one in which people are united not by ideological alignment but, as you described in your '23 speech, by mutual respect and shared purpose. And shared purpose depends on a shared story.
Thanks for subscribing. I'm glad to meet you here.
Danielle, I first became aware of your work when you shared your vision of a “cross-ideological supermajority” committed to constitutional democracy, inclusion, and shared power in a 2023 Harvard speech. I wrote about it in my newsletter last fall—it was one of the clearest articulations I’d encountered of what democracy requires of ordinary people, not just institutions.
This post reads like a progress report on that vision, and the details are genuinely encouraging: democracy reformers running for office and outperforming expectations, citizens’ assemblies emerging from Los Angeles to Maine, and civic learning coalitions now active in 46 states. The holistic framing—structural reform, civic education, and digital infrastructure—suggests the field is beginning to match the complexity of the problem.
The question I keep returning to is this: what builds the civic confidence that leads an ordinary person to believe their participation matters? Reforms create the conditions, but the belief has to come first. This piece suggests a kind of chicken-and-egg dynamic: urgency draws people in, and seeing others engage reinforces the sense that participation is both necessary and effective.
Thanks so much. Yes! I love the idea that this is a progress report! I'm glad it's encouraging. Your question is such an important one. I'm sure you've thought about it a lot. What would you say in answer?
From my own Fed gov/ leg affairs experience, I don't know how effective new IT methods will assist voters in being able to more fully communicate with their elected officials--certainly those officials' internet sites are the means to contact them. I just don't know how new means/features will play out. I do know that what's known on the Hill as "constituent requests" is near and dear to members of both parties, because their district's or state's view of their performance is essential to getting reelected. So members ensure constituent requests are not only answered, but acted upon whenever it's possible to do so. You've got to make the home folks happy.
Even beyond campaign contributors, voters who contact their House or Senate reps have a very good chance of having their concerns addressed; from experience, I was greatly surprised to learn that military members write their own representatives when they feel mistreated in service (going around their chain of command), but still often succeed in doing so. The key thing as related to civic reform is that the respective voter/constituent knows both the effectiveness of contacting their representative, and, how to do so. It goes beyond accessing a member's internet site. It's also helpful to write effectively and summarize the problem--to make a convincing case. These latter items are skills, obviously, but if you know enough to contact your rep, and do so effectively, both are key in engaging your representative. I.E., a broad civic knowledge as possible is key. On the other hand--trying to facilitate mass communication with a representative will give their office great data hauls, but the greater the response will ironically diminish the reach of the individual voter. Seems a tricky challenge. While the technology is incredibly useful, an effective solution goes well beyond just tech.
One disagreement with your fine essay: just because a reform is by the people doesn't necessarily mean that it will be for the people. Many reforms strongly supported by the people, including those enacted through public referenda, have backfired, leaving the people farther from achieving the outcomes they sought. Representative democracy is no guarantee of effective outcomes, but neither is participatory democracy.