True North Alliance Presents Documentary Democracy Under Siege
As the U.S. enters midterm election season, activist organization True North Alliance hosted a free screening of the documentary “Democracy Under Siege” at the Boston Public Library. The evening began with a screening of the film and concluded with an expert panel discussion on democratic reform and the necessity of civic engagement.
The Film Screening
“Democracy Under Siege” is the second screening under True North Alliance’s Good Trouble film series. Co-chair of True North Alliance, Kirsten Hoffman, explained that the film series was designed to bring people into the community and expose them to independently produced information. Both “Lightworkers” and “Democracy Under Siege,” the two films so far screened under their series, were independently produced and distributed primarily through local screenings and private funding.
The documentary follows Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Anne Telnaes, formerly of the Washington Post. “I am deeply concerned about American democracy,” Telnaes states in the opening scene as the camera zooms into a cartoon cavern of President Donald Trump’s wide-open mouth.
Telnaes’s cartoons are embedded throughout the film, as a series of interviewees discuss the history of anti-democratic systems in the U.S.
Written in 1787, the U.S. Constitution serves as a central theme in the film’s discussion of the origin of anti-democratic systems. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, describes how the Constitution was written by and for upper-class bourgeois white men. Mystal argued that “We the people,” the introductory statement to the Constitution, did not extend voting rights to women or enslaved people. Simultaneously, any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is not federally protected.
“We have literally not updated it in a robust, post-World War II way to account for the fact that there are fundamental rights that cannot, shall not be abridged,” said Mystal, “And that’s why our Constitution, in many ways, fails.”
Yet, reforming the Constitution is extremely difficult, requiring approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. Mystal highlights what he describes as a contradiction in the U.S. Constitution, where the majority rule is not consistently protected by the system, yet substantial majorities are required to reform it.
Moreover, the film argues majority vote is not consistently reflective of the U.S. majority. There are five U.S. Presidents who have won the Electoral College while receiving fewer popular votes than their opponents. American political scientist Steven Levitsky details that in 2016, the Republican Party secured victories in both the Senate and the presidency, despite receiving fewer popular votes.
“That President, elected by a minority, and that Republican-controlled Senate went on to appoint and approve three Supreme Court Justices, dramatically changing the nature of the court,” said Levitsky. These Supreme Court Justices would then carry lifetime tenure, shaping political outcomes for generations after their appointment.
The influence exerted by the Republican-controlled Senate and conservative Supreme Court is illustrated in the film through two significant events: the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the implications of the 2020 presidential election.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. This decision returned authority over abortion regulation to the states, resulting in differing abortion laws across the country. “What other rights can be retracted because this court doesn’t believe that they’re actual rights?” asked legal scholar Melissa Murray.
The discrepancy between electoral majority and institutional power is only further evidenced by the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. On Election Night, President Donald Trump led in the early counting, but as the evening unfolded, former Vice President Joe Biden ultimately secured victory, becoming the 46th President of the United States.
“The cardinal rule for a politician or party committed to democracy is that they must accept unambiguously the results of elections, win or lose,” said Levitsky. Yet Trump continued to dispute the results, culminating in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as Congress met to certify Biden’s victory.
The film explains how although the House impeached Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 events, the Senate acquitted him. The Senate vote was 57-43 in favor of guilty, falling short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. “That is the anti-democratic nature of these Senate rules and these constitutional provisions,” said Murray. A partisan court can be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate with only a simple majority, half of the vote. Whereas impeachment and other constitutional provisions require a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate—tailoring the threshold of a democratic majority.
The interviewees provide insights into how authority can ultimately exploit these anti-democratic structures, further limiting majority rule. They stress that the solution lies in civic engagement.
Democracy Under Siege concludes with a final shot of a Telnaes’s cartoon, one of a bruised Lady Liberty. “Democracy means to me, equality,” said Telnaes. “I think it’s a really dangerous time in our country. I feel the need to talk about it. This will not go away in my generation.”
The Expert Panel
The screening was met with immense applause as panelists former U.S. Federal Judge Nancy Gertner, Founder of Partners in Democracy Jerren Chang, and Director of “Democracy Under Siege” Laura Nix prepared to take the stage.
Nix opened as the first panelist, in which she described how no U.S. distributors were willing to screen her film, including public television. “That is the type of censorship that we are facing now,” Nix said. She believes that the art and media engage diverse audiences despite censorship efforts. Satirical forms of art “cut at the heart of authoritarian rule,” she explains, and they’re just one form of opposition.
Jerren Chang echoed Nix’s point, acknowledging that federal issues can oftentimes feel distant or difficult to oppose. However, he argued that much of the federal system is ultimately shaped by state initiatives. Come Election Day, Chang encouraged attendees to pay attention to state initiatives on the ballot, such as voting to make records held by the state legislature and the governor’s office public records.
Chang concluded by emphasizing the importance of strengthening civic engagement and equipping people with the “knowledge, skills, and relations for civic life” needed to reform federal institutions.
Gertner then shifted the discussion toward the judicial system, drawing on her experience in the federal court and its changes since her tenure. She explained the distinction between the non-partisan nature of lower courts and what she described as the partisan configuration of the current Supreme Court.
A partisanship that she argues for could be addressed by three measures: expanding the court, setting term limits, or limiting court jurisdiction.
“There’s no other court that can flagrantly reverse what Congress has said and done,” said Gertner. “This is an institution that is in dire need of reform.”
Democracy Under Siege is available to watch online on Kinema.com. To learn more about True North Alliance’s future screenings and advocacy efforts, visit https://www.truenorthboston.org/.
Capra McCormick
English major and an English major who usually reads in her free time and busy time.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.