The Open Dialogue Visiting Fellows series hosted New York Times opinion columnist Jamal Bowie for a discussion titled “What’s Wrong with American Democracy?” On October 1st. The event focused on the topic of how to disagree well about politics during the 2024 election season and explored issues of political equality in American democracy, a topic that Bowie highlighted as one that has been increasingly overlooked and challenged.
Bowie began his career as a writer at The Daily Beast before serving as chief political correspondent at Slate. He is now a columnist for The New York Times, where he covers topics ranging from public policy to the intersection of American history and politics. His work has earned him numerous honors including the Heilman Award for Opinion and Analytical Journalism.
Political equality in democracy
Bowie opened the discussion by asking, “What’s wrong with American democracy?” He replied: “Everything.”
Political equality — the idea that everyone is equal in terms of power, electoral system and rights as citizens — is not supported by current democratic institutions, Bowie said. He attributed this failure to the structure of the government and the harsh personality of today’s politicians. Bowie then discussed the structural challenges facing American democracy, starting with the Constitution.
“The Constitution undermines our democratic institutions, creating a mismatch between its design and democratic expectations,” Bowie said.
He pointed to the Senate, where states are given equal representation regardless of population, as an example of this imbalance.
“This means that some Americans are considered more important than others,” Bowie said. “The filibuster makes it easier for a minority of senators, who represent a smaller minority of voters, to kill legislation favored by the vast majority of the public.”
Bowie also claimed that the Electoral College threatened political equality.
“The winner-take-all distribution means that the only states that really matter are the ones that are highly competitive,” Buie said.
According to Bowie, states like Tennessee, California and Virginia are marginalized because the outcome of their votes is often presumed, which reduces their influence in the election. Bowie also discussed the effects of federalism on political equality.
“Strong federalism gives local elites in each state the power and autonomy to severely restrict political participation and political equality,” Bui said. “The Supreme Court, through judicial review and its isolation from the political branches, becomes a major obstacle to achieving political equality, making it difficult to create a system that ensures equal participation and rewards majority rule.”
He also noted that this anti-majoritarian aspect of the system complicates efforts to respect the rights of all citizens. Bowie also claimed that political parties, especially the Republican Party, failed to monitor their supporters and adapted to political inequality.
“Republicans can win an Electoral College majority without a popular majority, packing the courts with judges who promote anti-majoritarianism,” Bowie said. “This feedback loop discourages broad coalition building, promotes narrow victories, and fosters disdain for the idea that people should choose their leaders, eroding democratic legitimacy.”
Changing political behavior
If it were just a structural issue, Bowie said, American democracy would have a better chance. The deeper problem for him is the shift in the moral character of politicians. Bowie pointed to specific politicians as emblematic of the erosion of political norms and values in American democracy, mentioning Mitch McConnell, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Donald Trump.
“These figures have abandoned the sportsmanship that once governed political life, replacing it with a ‘win at all costs’ mentality,” Bowie said. “They represent a rejection of traditional political virtues and are motivated by power and personal gain.”
He pointed out that politicians have abandoned virtue and turned to a policy of cruelty, which has created a nation that is not prepared for future generations.
“When politicians refuse to play this game, they adopt a policy of cruelty and hatred. [and] Voters are behaving accordingly, Bowie said. “We have a political system that is collapsing because we do not have political leaders who want to perform in a way that at least ensures that it remains stable.”
Bowie concluded by emphasizing that the fundamental problem in American democracy is the loss of virtue.
“There are no clear rules that say you can’t run this kind of mob campaign, but in general, you can’t do it,” Bowie said. “We realize that this is a bridge too far, and that this is already beginning to threaten lives and undermine the entire political system. The problem with American democracy is that there is no virtue.
In an interview with Hustler, Bowie talked about how to foster healthy political conversations while maintaining political justice. When asked for advice on how to disagree well and foster healthy political conversations, he emphasized the importance of humility in political discourse.
“The best approach is to have a sense of humility about the limits of your own knowledge, and to realize that no matter how powerful you feel, the other person feels just as powerful and may have some awareness that you may not have,” Bowie said. “Be humble about the basis of your beliefs and your ability to make judgments.”
Feedback from students and faculty
After the event, senior Keyonte Doughty, student ambassador for Dialogue Vanderbilt, shared his thoughts on Bouie’s talk and the inclusion of diverse speakers in the series.
“I think the series is great because it presents different points of view and a wide range of ideas,” Doughty said. “One standout moment was when an audience member asked a challenging question to the speaker, which he answered thoughtfully. And that’s exactly what this event is about – promoting open dialogue and civil discourse.
Sarah Igoe, principal coordinator of Dialogue Vanderbilt, also spoke about Bowie’s influence.
“This talk opened up new lines of inquiry for both students and faculty, going beyond typical discussions,” Igoe said. “He highlighted the difference between partisanship and administration, and he encouraged us to think not only about the present but also about the future. I judge a talk by the new ideas it raises, and this speech did a wonderful job.”
