Julian Zelizer and Karen Greenberg discussed their new book Our Nation At Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue in a conversation with Columbia Law Professor Jeremy Kessler.

On Tuesday, October 1, Julian Zelier and Karen Greenberg held a conversation on their new book, Our Nation At Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue, outlining key concepts that are prevalent in the upcoming election and answering unresolved questions from the audience. 

Zelizer and Greenberg were introduced by Columbia Law School Professor Jeremey Kessler, the moderator of the conversation. Zelizer is a professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, bestselling author of 25 books, CNN political analyst, and regular guest on NPR’s podcast, “Here and Now.” Greenberg is the director of the Center for National Security at Fordham Law School, an author, and a permanent member of the Council of Foreign Relations. 

Kessler began the panel with an anticipated question: “How did this book come together?” The co-authors began with an introduction explaining that this work came to be by bringing together historians, law school scholars, and political scientists to question our election system. After 2020, Zelizer stated, the election system of the United States started to unravel, and the American people saw its layers. Both authors agreed that scholars are not able to answer the question of what’s happening with our election system using a single discipline, given the holistic view of democracy in the book.  

The book is framed as a national security issue where fixing our election system becomes necessary for helping democracies and elections. Greenberg points toward a relevant example of former President Donald Trump to explain that there is a clear presidential advantage to our current system that allows presidents to undermine political and historical procedures originally imposed to protect the democracy of the United States. 

Greenberg and Zelizer explained the three pillars of democracy to further their framing: the electoral college, the right to vote, and decentralization in media. The authors first argued that for the last 20 years, the electoral college has been labeled as undemocratic by reflecting instances where “the popular vote is not what matters,” which highlights the necessity for reform. The electoral college is based on representatives voting for the president and these votes do not necessarily follow the trend of the popular vote in elections. 

Speaking to how the right to vote impacts our election system, the authors stated that instead of individuals focusing on getting people out to the polls, political parties have resorted to citing voter fraud or anger toward local elections that are “focusing on wrong issues,” which undermines the democratic process. The dialogue about the right to vote in elections should enable more people to vote and not sidetracked on other issues. 

Finally, the authors commented that in the media, individuals have had difficulty identifying what kind of media is conducive to democracy given the misinformation and partisanship in certain media outlets. Greenberg emphasized that the media is hard to fix, especially “when policing media can be oppressive.” In an age where the media is becoming heavily intertwined with our elections, it becomes critical to understand the role that it plays in shaping the outcomes. Zelizer ended this section of the discussion by explaining that people can agree on the existence of the three pillars but will see different issues with each one. 

Kessler quickly questioned voter fraud and what the authors would have to say to people still citing it as an issue in the 2020 election. Greenberg’s immediate response was, “It does not happen.” She added that there has not been any evidence that this is remotely a problem and that people are focusing on “a non-entity.”  

Another large point of the conversation was civic culture in the context of voter demobilization. Zelizer believed that the United States is a couple measures short of a voter culture change, citing imposing election holidays and having voters vote over the phone as changes. Greenberg considered the question from a historical perspective, saying that civic culture is constantly changing. In the past, candidates would go to speeches and rallies as a form of voter outreach, but today, voters are looking toward political parties and Taylor Swift. Greenberg furthered her argument by saying that civic culture is changing with the overall structure of society, concluding that “Young people are better for working in elections.” 

In the end, both authors touched on foreign interface in the United States election system as a problem. The authors first implied that former President Donald Trump wants to dismantle the election system in order to create chaos. This would lead to a completely different era where a president is not required to concede defeat to another candidate. The authors explained that, hypothetically, the US courts should be protecting election integrity, but there is not a clear line of action courts take to solve the issue of foreign interference. According to Zelizer and Greenberg, the threat of foreign interference has made people afraid to vote or even work at the polls. The authors explained that if foreign interference occurs in the 2024 election, a change ought to be made. This left the audience with a confused expression—What would that change be? Zelizer responded by stating that their book is not for people to find an easy answer; instead, it features scholars coming together to analyze the issue at hand. 

The final segment consisted of questions from the audience. The first question was posed by a student at Columbia Law School, who asked whether the authors’ analysis would have been different if they had written the book after the 2000 or 1960 election. 

Zeilzer’s answer was two-fold. First, there are still some of the same election systems in place since the founding of our country (the electoral college), but now politics are in a different era. This led Zelizer to say that Donald Trump is completely changing elections by increasing partisanship and using complete party backing as a form of justification. Similarly, Zelizer described that media back then was not comparable to the diversity of outlets today, and he stated that people can more easily pick what type of media they are consuming today, leading to one-sided views. 

A second law school student raised their hand and asked whether framing a conversation where having faith in the electoral college is possible. 

Greenberg jokingly said, “No.” Zelizer chimed in and said that the United States has a promising democratic system, and unlike other countries around the world, we have an important framework that can be fixed. Greenberg added that there are parts that are fixable, and it does not make any sense to throw everything out. 

One of the final questions, posed by another Columbia Law School student, was about the 2024 election. The student wondered whether people will cite for election fraud if Vice President Kamala Harris wins by a landslide. 

Both authors agreed that it depends on the size of the margin by which she wins. Greenberg noted that people in the federal government are anticipating the election results to be questioned, so they are already gearing up to protect the results of the election. There was a hopeful rhetoric by both authors that made the audience more assured. 

As a Political Science and History student, I found this conversation extremely important. However, the lack of undergrads or people near my age was disheartening to see because we all will be voting in this upcoming election! Considering the 2024 election, there are stakes for everyone involved, and the lack of turnout at the event makes it more evident that political awareness is needed. I hope that everyone who reads this piece can take ten minutes to learn more about the 2024 presidential candidates! Register to vote for this upcoming election, and make sure to use the power that the United States has granted citizens. 

Columbia Law School via Bwarchives