As the United States hurdles toward a presidential election this November, the American public’s trust in government is at near-record lows, with many commentators warning of constitutional crisis, authoritarianism, or even violence. Meanwhile, polarization is rampant in U.S. politics.
In this moment, a new book, Constitutional Powers and Politics: How Citizens Think About Authority and Institutional Change, could not be more timely. Authored by Eileen Braman, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science within the College of Arts and Sciences at Indiana University Bloomington, the book examines how the public thinks about government authority, especially as they perceive how the government is delivering personal and societal gains—or, alternatively, losses.
“I teach constitutional powers to undergraduates,” said Professor Braman, “and one thing we talk a lot about in class is different conceptions of government powers and doctrine—in our democracy, that means the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.”
As someone who teaches constitutional law, she said, “I always ask my students, how would you feel about changing how things work?” She generally finds they are enthusiastic about reform, whether it occurs gradually or more aggressively.
As a result of this class discussion, Braman increasingly thought more about how the broader public views institutional change. “People are very familiar with the idea that the electoral college has resulted in presidents who have not been elected by a majority of the population, and there has been recent talk about changing the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. I did some surveys on that, using a research technique called prospect theory from behavioral economics. I found that when people are thinking in terms of how they’re losing in terms of the current political system, they’re more likely to embrace risky strategies involving constitutional change. People are more likely to want to take risk to avoid those perceived losses.”
Conversely, she noted, “When people are thinking about government in terms of potential gains, the public is less likely to want to change things like the U.S. Constitution or institutions like the Supreme Court.”
So, with the U.S. general election ahead, is she optimistic about how American democracy will continue to function?
“I’m optimistic,” said Braman, “because there seems to be a lot of latent support for changing the way things are working.” While some analysts argue public sentiment and intense polarization will lead to authoritarianism or violence, Braman asserts that this is not inevitable. “People are frustrated and they don’t know what to do, but If we channel the frustration people feel about government authority into tangible efforts to make things work better, to improve the system and allow it to evolve in new ways, there is a lot of energy for that change. Just because change is hard doesn’t mean it’s not possible and doesn’t mean that if we can’t come together with good ideas, and we can’t get people to support them.”
These things are possible, Braman said, because “There is an appetite among the public for thinking about things differently, and we should be looking to how we can make things better for everyone, even in this polarized time.”