An Open Letter to Our Partners in the Fight for Democracy
From Scott Warren and Lilia Dashevsky
Editor’s note: There have been MANY takes shared on last week’s election. Some good, some bad. Few, though, have helped democracy practitioners and funders plan for the future.
Democracy Notes is committed to publishing perspectives that help the US democracy space learn from the 2024 election, and move forward. This piece is one of them.
Do you have a different perspective? Share your pitch with us.
Dear Colleagues,
We’re writing to you as two practitioners in the democracy ecosystem—one of us based in academia and the other from strategic communications—who have worked across political ideologies our entire careers in an attempt to sustain and strengthen the institutions that undergird our republic.
As the dust settles from this election, we find ourselves at a crucial, and hopefully introspective, juncture. Protecting our democracy is a challenge that will grow more complex after this election. Not just because of President-elect Trump’s win, but rather because of the referendum on the concept of democracy itself.
After observing the space for the last week, if we are to be effective as a movement and as individual leaders in the years to come, we believe there are three areas we must all think critically about. As many of you and your organizations enter a planning period, we urge you to consider the following (which we will attempt to mirror in our own work).
1. Democracy Was on the Ballot—But What It Meant to Voters Varied Greatly
Democracy was at the center of many discussions this year, and voters responded—but what “democracy” meant to them often varied. In states like Pennsylvania, for instance, many voters saw Vice President Kamala Harris as a greater threat to democracy than President-elect Trump. For example, we can infer that for many, the Biden Administration’s actions, particularly around the Department of Justice’s handling of Trump, felt like overreach and confirmed their fears of government weaponization.
If we want to be successful in our mission to protect democracy, we have to understand what the term actually means for people. Instead of framing the ideal as an abstract good, we need to show how a thriving democracy can directly contribute to economic opportunity, safe communities, accessible healthcare, and personal freedoms. This isn’t just a communications shift, it’s a mindset shift.
Consider using this moment to craft messages that resonate with people not based on national focus groups or polls, but rather predicated on what matters to individuals in their everyday lives. We must explain, in starkly different terms than the ones we’ve been using, what concepts like authoritarianism, anticipatory obedience, and autocracy mean, and why they matter. There is a need to show all Americans how a healthy democracy can bring tangible improvements to their lives. Whether it’s the mom worried about school safety, the veteran who needs healthcare, or the worker who wants stable wages, democracy must be seen as a solution to their struggles, not an academic or politicized concept.
While there will be plenty of rapid response and reactive opportunities over the next four years, we now have an obligation to shift our messaging away from doom, crisis, and division, and move instead toward solutions and tangible benefits in order to inspire.
2. Rethinking Our Playbook: The Same Approach Will Yield the Same Results
The old adage is true: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. The pro-democracy community has made some positive strides to protect our institutions, but we’re still struggling to meaningfully reach and move a broad set of Americans. If we continue to use the same playbook, delivering our messages through the same channels, to the same people, with the same voices, and using the same assumptions we will once again fail to resonate.
As you look ahead, we urge you to challenge yourselves, your organizations, and your partners to think differently, outside of the box. Be open to a period of curiosity—of testing and learning.
To make an impact, we must break out of our echo chambers. We need new messengers who can connect authentically with skeptical, unreached and underrepresented audiences. This includes working with Americans who voted for President-elect Trump—to walk the talk we often profess on the importance of pluralism.
Let’s diversify our media channels by doing more than placing value on top-tier op-eds and broadcast hits, and instead using platforms that reach younger, rural, disaffected, and nontraditional voters. Let’s invest in paid media, digital targeting, multimedia, and content that can be digested and understood by those outside of our echo chambers.
And no, simply focusing exclusively on podcasts now is not the answer either. Communications is often undervalued, and meaningful, long-term content development strategies rooted in data are put aside out of resourcing and funding considerations. Let’s consider reprioritizing as we move forward.
3. Defending and Building Trust in Elections is Not Over
In the aftermath of 2016 and 2020, and the accompanying election denialism, many in the field worked tirelessly to build trust in elections and improve processes. This advocacy was vital to ensuring that the 2024 elections were safe, secure, and trustworthy. While the margins and timing of the results at the presidential level undoubtedly led to more confidence, we must build on this success. The work was, and still is, far from over.
The truth is, election officials around the country are still deep in the trenches: counting votes, managing post-election litigation, and facing continued threats to themselves, their families, and their staff. We’ve heard from some over the past days who have required security support even while working in jurisdictions where the vote margins are not close.
Moving on so quickly without acknowledging their ongoing efforts and continuing to provide them sustained support is a disservice to the work of election officials and the people supporting them. Election officials and law enforcement partners work tirelessly under increasingly hostile conditions, and they’ve done so without asking for recognition—a testament to their humility and commitment. But as a strategic matter, for the sake of increased civic trust and morale, they need us to defend their work. Not just in name, but in action.
Our voices should champion them and our organizations must stand ready to respond as they continue to be targeted. While the result of the election may have been disappointing and demoralizing to some, we cannot afford to basically declare that the work to build trust in elections is done as we barrel toward the 2025 and 2026 cycles.
If we hope to protect our democratic institutions at a time when they may be threatened the most, we must be willing to evolve. This is not an easy path, but it’s the only path forward if we’re to bridge our country’s divides and truly safeguard our democratic values.
Scott Warren is a Fellow at the Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute.
Lilia Dashevsky is SVP & Democracy Practice Lead at CLYDE.
Have thoughts on this open letter? You can submit a pitch to Democracy Takes here.