- [Narrator] Support for Digging Deeper comes from the Penn State Alumni Association, connecting alumni to the university and to each other.

The alumni association is powered by pride, learn more at alumni.psu.edu, and from viewers like you, thank you.

(upbeat music) - Hi, I'm Rhea Jha.

This November America will elect a president.

Many people are calling this election historic and there have even been claims that our democracy may hang in the balance.

But exactly how do the circumstances of this election fit into the long history of elections in this country?

And what issues might be central to the election as it progresses?

On this episode of Digging Deeper, Penn State president, Eric Barron, talks to Danielle Conway, Dean, and Donald J. Faraj, Professor of Law at Dickinson Law, and Michael Berkman, Professor of Political Science, and the director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy about the election.

- Well thank you too, for joining me today on a topic that is constantly in the news, but there's really a great deal of interest in it and in items that are not necessarily in the news.

You know, we have the beginning here where people are talking about, this is historic, this is existential.

Is it?

- (laughs) Interesting way to start.

People seem to think it is.

I'm really struck by how people on both sides talk about this in almost apocalyptic terms.

For Democrats, it seems to be the end of democracy if they lose, and for Republicans, it seems like it might be the end of America if they lose.

So there does have that sort of feel to it.

- Yeah, I think it's interesting that we go from zero to 60 in many of these elections and don't look at some of the unique outcomes that precede it.

So I think one of the unique aspects of this election is that we have a Black and Indian woman who was nominated for vice president, and that has not happened since Charlotta Bass, and many are making distinctions between Charlotta Bass not being part of a major party.

And so this is historic, I think, from that instance that Kamala Harris has been nominated.

- But a lot of people are sitting there thinking about the historic and existential is because of this level of polarity or contention.

And so, if we're able to step back and think about it in some context, how does it compare with other, I might say, stressful times in US history?

- Well, it strikes me, it has, the election has echoes of 1968 in it, because then, too, you had a Republican candidate, well, you had a Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, but you also had George Wallace in the election, as well.

Both of them campaigning on platforms of restoring order and taking care of violent protest in the street and trying to stoke fear.

I think we've changed a lot since 1968, but there are similar elements to it in that way.

- And I think this time period is really reflective of the Reconstruction era during the Civil War, and that era showed us many elements of compromise with elections.

And I think it's dissimilar in a sense that we are not in a moment where compromise actually seems, we don't actually seem capable of it.

But that said, not all compromise is good.

- Yeah we are, in this election, 50 years down the line in terms of polarization of the parties from where we were in 1968.

And so, we are at a very different point in our history where there is really, especially among the elites, not a whole lot of middle for compromising and working across the parties, and a lot of distance between the parties.

- So, maybe we could just dig in in this area just a little bit.

Civil War, World War II, Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War.

You've touched on a couple of elements there, but maybe we could think about what the environment was, and especially in the context of some of the things that you're mentioned of compromise, or willingness to get together, or the dissension that occurred at those time periods.

How does this election compare?

- Well, you are identifying moments or periods of crisis.

And in this time period, we are dealing with crisis, but we are coming to it sectionalized, if you will, and not as a nation.

And so, for example, you mentioned World War II, and just like with the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, many African Americans were insisting on contributing to that effort.

And so, that is even part of the national legacy, but now we're facing a crisis.

It's not a war, rather, internally we are struggling again with this question of racial inequality and we are not seeing a leadership that is willing to capture the opportunity to actually resolve this.

- Yes, I think that's a very good way of framing it.

And you know, when I compare it to 1968, for example, one thing that strikes me then is that Nixon and Wallace were both outsiders.

Neither one of them were actually in power at the time.

But here you have this case where the president is trying to run, almost as an outsider, and sees it to his advantage, I think, to keep tensions as high as possible, maybe even keep violence as high as possible, but certainly keep tensions high.

And that feels somewhat unique to me than some other periods in our history.

So a portion of this is this notion of polarity and, in comparison with those time periods, can we say this is the most divided time in our history?

I hear a lot of people really referencing that polarity, that division, the lack of consensus, but can we actually, do we actually have a basis to say how divided we are compared to times in the past?

- Well, we obviously have been very divided as a society.

We fought a civil war, so that was pretty divided.

I think what's different now is the extent to which the parties are mapping many of the divisions within society.

And so, in many ways, is sort of lines of ways that people have of identifying themselves on racial terms, or gender terms, geographic terms, these are all now mapped onto the party system.

And so, there's this sort of feel to the conflict between the parties that I think is unique to our time, certainly relative to some others.

- Yeah, I think there's also a bandwidth issue, particularly how we receive information.

So unlike in the past, we have droves of information coming at us.

It is immense and it is nonstop.

And I think the access to more information is actually overwhelming us as citizens and those electors who have to cast the votes.

And so, with this kind of barrage of information, as well as barrage of disinformation, I think you actually see people kind of shutting down on this question of reaching some type of compromise or consensus.

- Yeah, I think the information point is really very important, and one thing that is, of course, distinctive to our time is that now you can seek out whatever information you want and we're not all getting the same news now.

We seek out the news and information that pretty much confirms our preexisting biases of what we believe is going on, and you have what some people have actually referred to now as a sort of epistemological polarization, where different people in different parties are seeing almost different worlds and different realities.

I thought the conventions were really quite interesting for this.

The Democratic Convention was conducted in a world that seems familiar to many of us, where we're on Zoom half the time and where we're social distancing and we're wearing masks.

But the Republican Convention seemed to take place in a different world, where we can meet in large groups and not wear masks, and sit right next to one another, and where the virus is referred to in past terms, past tense, I'm sorry.

And so, we see different worlds now, and I think conspiratorial thinking fits into some of this, information silos.

And so, I think that's also important about this period.

- Well, and do you think a lot of people are having this moment of, "I don't really get this.

I don't understand how that person could be saying or thinking that, because it doesn't comport at all with what it is that I'm learning or I'm seeing."

And I know this depends a lot on perhaps who you listen to, but this strikes me as one of the most profound differences that we have, is that the data and facts are two different worlds, not just a convention, but the data and the facts are two different worlds.

- Yeah, I think the disparate way in which we are presented with information and the ways in which we consume it are a really unhealthy calculus that's creating mistrust and distrust in our government leaders and in our non-governmental actors, because it does become the ultimate question of who do we trust.

- Yeah, I think it extends even beyond how Danielle is framing it, that we see people in the other party in increasingly negative sort of terms.

We see them often without empathy, stereotype who they are, and I think this is all very problematic.

- So it leads me to this question about, is this the most important election in our history?

And (laughs) my brain sort of says, you know, how can that be?

That that doesn't make any sense, but it strikes me that this notion of that polarity, and even to two separate spheres, that we're not all seeing the same types of information makes me feel that it's the most important election in history.

Now I was too young to vote in 1968, but faithfully voted in every single election since, and it feels like the most important election in history.

Do you think it is?

- Well for me, Dr. Barron, every election, whether municipal, local, state, or national is the most important election, for me.

- So I don't know whether to appoint you as a future diplomat, (all laughing) or whether or not that was just the smartest thing that I've heard so far here.

But Michael, your thoughts.

- Well, I don't know that we can judge what's the most important election 'til after the fact.

But certainly there feels like there's an awful lot at stake in this election.

And part of it just rests on the election itself.

I mean, I think this upcoming election has a lot of problems and a lot of challenges, a lot of it because the COVID, but other parts of it because of the efforts to delegitimize it and to delegitimize its results, and you know, free and fair elections are about as critical to democracy as you can find, as is the peaceful transfer of power.

And so, efforts to undercut that, I think, are of profound importance.

Now, you know, a lot depends on the outcome of this election.

How close is it?

How is the result treated?

But I think we might look back and think, "Wow, this was awfully important."

- So- - Now, add to that, it's really important when I was saying that, I was not necessarily being diplomatic, but I was actually calling to my ancestors and saying that because of their commitment and their sacrifice.

It's something that I am called to do by virtue of my identity.

- So, I feel like, more than most times, I'm asking questions that are and somewhat challenging.

So here's another one.

Calling into account the legitimacy, the overall importance, is democracy at stake?

- My answer to that, as a lawyer and as a citizen and as a patriot who has served her country for 27 years, democracy is always at stake.

It is always at stake.

It is this precious institution that we have the opportunity to make better with every election and how we expand the franchise.

So, it's a reflection of what we are able to do and to implement in a document that had promise, the Constitution, but it has promise and effect by what we do with it.

- Yeah, democracy is not a binary concept.

So, we don't either have it or not.

There's a continuum.

And, you know, as Danielle was just referencing, in many points in our history, we've become a far more democratic country.

At other times, we became a less democratic country.

And you know, most countries that have really fallen from democracy have not done so through military coups, but rather through elections, and through the election of autocratically-oriented leaders who then devalue elections going forward, or devalue non-partisan instruments of the parts of the government, or demonize the opposition in such a ways that delegitimizes them, and you start to move away from democracy towards something more autocratic, certainly something less democratic.

So, I do think there are clear implications in this election.

Many of them just having to do with the conduct of the election itself, and then its aftermath, that could move us away from democracy towards something more disturbing.

- Yeah, it's a serious thought and a serious issue.

If we tried to not have this tension of that particular element, and we thought about what issues are really at stake outside some of the rhetoric, what might they be?

- Danielle?

- No, you go ahead.

- Oh, well, I think in many ways, so I guess you're kind of asking, what are some of the issues that are gonna come up in this election?

- Yeah, well, I think there are a lot of issues that are being talked about it in very strong terms that are pushing candidates into particular sets of images that are quite strident.

And I'm really asking, underneath all of that, what are the issues that are really at stake?

Not what we're seeing in campaign messages.

- Yeah, and not what we're seeing right now, because we're coming out of the Republican Convention as we're recording, and there's clearly unrest in Portland and in Kenosha, and this is being stoked by the media, and, I think, by the president as well.

And so we're sort of talking about this in the context of this kind of violence and the response to it.

But in other ways, there is some issues in this election that are in every election between Democrats and Republicans, about healthcare, about social security.

You have people that are in very dire economic straits of course, because of COVID, and I think COVID, and the extent to which the president has, to which the country has responded.

In many ways, the election will be a referendum on that.

All elections with an incumbent, at some point, come down to being a referendum on the president and state of the economy.

So, you know, all of that is clearly in this election as it is in many others.

- Yes, and I think that the social, economic, and political issues that have become front and center by virtue of the pandemic have been the disparate economic positions of communities.

The divide between wealth and poverty is extensive.

We don't have the social network of safety that we once enjoyed.

And I think front and center is the question of equality at the intersection of race and gender.

- Yes, and COVID has really exposed existing problems and inequalities in our society.

And I think put many of them front and center.

There's the racially disparate impact of COVID.

There's the way that COVID has kind of created this new sort of caste system of those of us who can just work from home on Zoom and still get paid, and others who are really, on the verge of being evicted from their apartments.

And of course, it brings to the fore many healthcare issues, as well.

- So big differences, and we only have about a minute left and I would like to ask another dozen questions.

Do we have good examples?

Or how hard is it for someone to emerge and be viewed as a uniter or a healer?

- This is a very difficult time in that way (laughs) for anybody to really emerge as a uniter.

I hope whoever is elected will try to restore some of the guardrails and norms that help to keep a democracy operating.

- And I think what I'd like to see is more appropriate use of our leaders and not just our president, but our cabinet members, our agency heads, our military.

I would like to see those used in appropriate fashions in order, as Michael has stated, to erect those guardrails.

- Okay, so a final question, just three or four words each.

Will elections and America be very different at the end of this election?

- It is my hope that they are very different and one area where I would love to see innovation get traction is in voting.

Do we need an electoral college?

Or do we have the technology to be able to successfully implement direct voting?

- Yeah, I think this election and recent elections have really exposed this sort of anti-majoritarian aspects to our democracy, and my hope is that we address some of these after this election.

- Well, thank you so much, both of you.

Your perspective is really important and I really appreciate the fact that you joined me here today, thank you.

- [Both] Thank you.

- Alright, thank you for being here, President Barron.

- My pleasure.

- So, as you said before, this year's election is historic.

So obviously, voting now is more important than ever.

So why do the students vote matter, and what could universities be doing to get college students to understand the importance of voting, just historically, since turnout has been so low for the 18 to 25 demographic?

- So, it matters if you look at the last election, just as an example, the number of states where the election was decided by a very small number of votes.

There are many, many times that I look across the landscape and it's hard not to conclude that if the student population voted, they could actually be a deciding factor in the election.

And so, that's the first point.

You can make a tremendous amount of difference.

Now we have always worked hard to make it easy to vote and to encourage it.

This year, we have a Big 10 challenge in terms of voting and making sure that our students can vote.

So I expect as we go up to election time, we'll see more and more efforts that are ramped up in terms of encouraging people to vote.

But at the same time, we have a very active student body and in terms of supporting parties or supporting issues, and I think much like last year, we'll see them even more engaged in this election.

- So going back to the topic of how society has had an influx of information and almost in a problematic way, as you said, in regards to disinformation, biases, so how do you think students should seek trustworthy information on the election to, in turn, make sound decisions while voting?

- You know, in a lot of ways, a university environment becomes a unique opportunity because we can engage in the discussions.

And I would say that having that speech, and that interaction is not just a right, it's an obligation.

And so, I think unlike the rest of society, this does present an opportunity in the classroom and in other areas, for there to be a sharing and an interaction that allows people to hear a diverse set of opinions, or even in our own media, that's sorta Penn State Central, is an opportunity for people to express different ideas and back it up with facts, as opposed to just being in a particular bubble of media.

So in my mind, this is part of why universities are wonderful.

(upbeat music) - I totally agree.

Being around students definitely gives you a different perspective, but thank you so much for being here.

I really appreciate your time.

- [Narrator] Support for Digging Deeper comes from the Penn State Alumni Association, connecting alumni to the university and to each other.

The Alumni Association is powered by pride, learn more at alumni.psu.edu, and from viewers like you, thank you.

(mouse clicking) (air swooshing)