Why trying to defend freedom is more successful than campaigning to defend democracy

When Joe Biden was the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 and again in 2024, he staked his candidacy on being the one to save democracy from the threat posed by Donald Trump.

But Kamala Harris has shifted away from that message to the idea of ​​defending and advancing freedom. Freedom is the theme of many of Harris’ campaign ads and speeches. Her slogan, “We’re not going back,” is meant to raise concerns about freedoms being taken away.

Those of us who study people’s commitment to democracy have several reasons to think that promoting freedom may be a more effective campaign message than defending democracy. One is that our survey and other surveys show that many Americans don’t really care about democracy.

Widespread support for violations of democratic principles

Our research shows that when people think about groups that threaten their values, they are more willing to support political representatives who offer protection against that threat. Using a nationally representative sample of 1,500 respondents in 2019, we found that most Americans view leaders who violate democratic principles such as freedom of speech and adherence to collectively agreed upon rules and laws. It turned out that they were actively supporting it.

A majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, say they want leaders who will “crack down” on groups they feel are threatened. Many also say they support leaders who “bend the rules” to “protect the interests of people like you.” But what’s notable is that people who identify as Republicans are the most likely to want leaders who take this kind of action.

A March 2024 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute asked a similar question and found that more than 40% of Americans agreed with this statement: “Things have gone too far off track in this country. We need leaders who are willing to break down some rules if they are necessary to make things right. ” Remarkably, half of Republicans support this statement.

Perhaps surprisingly, messages emphasizing threats to democracy do not seem to be effective. A recent political science study found that negative messages emphasizing the threat Trump poses to democracy are less effective than positive messages about what Harris will do.

Other research suggests that although fear-inducing causes people to think, it doesn’t make them act. But enthusiasm will get people involved. The question is, what makes people so enthusiastic?

Is freedom the answer?

Over the past several decades, America’s two major political parties have taken different approaches to mobilizing their supporters to vote. The Republican Party does a good job of communicating messages about symbolic values ​​and ideology, often talking about abstract values ​​such as freedom. Democratic candidates, on the other hand, are focusing on policy messages that help appeal to a coalition of diverse social groups.

For example, as Congress debated the future Affordable Care Act, Republican opponents criticized the bill for taking away freedoms from people and raised concerns about government overreach. These efforts were a winning theme for many Republicans in the 2010 Congressional elections. At the time, Democrats emphasized benefits to specific groups, such as young people, women, and low-income Americans, rather than emphasizing overarching ideological causes. Over time, they have taken similar stances on issues related to the rights of workers, women, the LGBTQ community, and racial minorities.

The Harris campaign appears to be changing the Democratic approach. For example, she cited restrictive abortion policies as an example of the government’s violation of people’s personal freedoms.

Similarly, Harris has focused on protecting the rights and freedoms of people of color and LGBTQ Americans.

Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, echoed this message at the Democratic National Convention. He told the crowd, “No matter who you are, Kamala Harris is going to stand up and fight for your freedom to live the life you want to live, because that’s what we want for ourselves.” And that’s what we want for our neighbors.”

Will it work?

It remains to be seen what effect this shift toward freedom will have. But there is reason to believe this message has the potential to influence voters and provide greater benefits for American society.

Freedom is a core American value. But for most of this century, freedom has been defined primarily by Republicans as the absence of government interference in one’s life. This concept of freedom provided the basis for policies such as lower taxes, less government regulation, and cuts to social services.

The Harris campaign is beginning to offer a rival vision of freedom, even if it is not fully formed. Her ideas are most similar to the concept of freedom that some political theorists refer to as “freedom from domination.” This concept implies that citizens should live under social conditions that prevent some individuals or groups from unjustly dominating other individuals or groups.

Importantly, to achieve this, freedom from domination means that government policies can help create the conditions that allow for increased freedom. When people struggle to afford child care, health care, and education, social policies that alleviate that struggle can help people achieve greater autonomy to make choices that affect their lives. Helpful.

The Harris campaign’s decision to talk about freedom is consequential, regardless of what concept of freedom one prefers or which political party one supports in general. It opens the door to partisan competition over how to think about America’s core values ​​and shifts political debate away from revenge politics.

It’s not always clear how to counter threats to democracy, but Harris’ positive message about freedom points to one possible strategy. If Harris wins in November, she will be more effective in combating threats to democracy by focusing on common values ​​such as freedom, rather than focusing voters’ attention on the threats themselves. It may show that there is a possibility of a method.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.