Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

Political violence in the United States feels as though it has reached a crescendo in the last several months. In July of this year, there was an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during one of his political rallies. Just last week, another attempt was intercepted at one of his West Palm Beach golf clubs. Also last week, elections officials in 15 states, including Georgia, received suspicious packages meant to serve as a threat to these early voting states.

These attempts are situated against the backdrop of the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, a physical attack on Senator Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022, and even death threats to our own GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and his family well into 2021 following the results of the 2020 election.

These kinds of events used to feel uncommon or reserved for international headlines out of nations in political turmoil far from here. Yes, acts of political violence took place, but not in the same ways. For nearly a decade in the late-1960s into the 1970s, there was a spike in political violence. It died down by 1980. The major difference in the 1970s was that the violence was aimed at property to affect policy, not at people, explains Rachel Kleinfeld Senior Research Fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In the last decade, studies indicate that there has been a steady increase in political violence in the US, specifically against individuals, many of them public officials. The US ranks as the most steadily and rapidly increasing of any developed democracy.  In a study that examined acts of political violence between Jan. 6^th, 2021 and August 2023, Reuters identified 213 cases of political violence. Among these, two thirds of the cases were physical assaults and confrontations, 76 were acts of individual violence, and at least 39 have resulted in death. One such fatality was a one-on-one dispute between two Florida men arguing over Donald Trump’s business acumen.

In a 2023 Reuters/Ipsos poll of 4,500 registered Democrats and Republicans, 20% of respondents said that violence is “acceptable” if committed “to achieve my idea of a better society.” These examples highlight an important distinction. The political violence we are witnessing is not driven by a single party or faction pursuing a specific goal, but is instead fueled by divisiveness aimed at preventing the actions of those on the opposing side.

Why have our politics become so polarized and so emotionally charged to the point that we are attacking one another and public officials? Fear. Kleinfeld explains that when there is little policy overlap between politicians, people fear what the world will become if the other side wins. We begin to view out-party members as “the other” rather than fellow human beings. This makes it much easier to attack each other both figuratively and literally. Politicians play on this fear through strong rhetoric, and sometimes outright lies, to mobilize their base. This leads to heightened emotional polarization and acceptance of political violence.

There are ways to dampen fear-based rhetoric. Kleinfeld notes that politicians tend to be more ideologically polarized that the general public and the national media tend to give disproportionate attention to the most polarizing figures, distorting perceptions of “the other side.” This is compounded by the two-party system, which forces an “us vs. them” mindset. Democracies with ranked choice voting or multiple parties typically experience less polarization. Ranked choice voting, for example, prompts politicians to appeal to a wider audience, beyond just partisan extremes. Likewise, local news, unlike national outlets, promotes community engagement and split-ticket voting, which can moderate views and reduce extreme polarization.

We must normalize civility again. As the research organization More in Common reminds us, most Americans (about 67%) fall into the category of “the exhausted majority.” That is, most of us dislike the vitriol, hold a mix of views, want people to treat the other side as less of an enemy and more of a loyal opposition, and don’t like the tenor of politics today. Those of us in the exhausted majority can stop giving credence to the outsized polarizing voices. We can hold our own side accountable for unfair rhetoric. And we can condemn threats and violence. It isn’t civil and it is dangerous.

Dr. Heather Farley holds a PhD in Political Science, is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration, and an Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

We all know it is important to vote. Yet, many don’t in Glynn County. I hope that changes in the 2024 election cycle. Here’s a look at where the biggest growth opportunities are in our electorate.

Glynn county ranks as the 31^st most populous among 159 counties in Georgia with 86,172 residents (US Census Bureau 2023) and 69,488 registered voters (GA Secretary of State). We have registered a little over 7500 new voters since the 2020 General Election. Of those on the registered voter list, 60,187 are active, meaning they have participated in an election or had other contact with the state’s election system sometime in the past five years.

Demographically in Glynn County, 65% of registered voters are White, 21% are Black non-Hispanic, about 3% are Hispanic, 1.2% are Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.7% are American Indian/Alaska Native, and about 9% are categorized as “other.” Interestingly, white voters in the county skew older than any other racial demographic with 35% of white voters being in age groups over 60 years old. Among all registered voters, 25% are younger voters between 18-34 years old while 31% are over the age of 60.

Who is showing up to vote is a different picture than who can vote in our county.  In the 2022 midterm elections, Glynn County had a 57% voter turnout. Nationally, that is comparatively high for a midterm; in 2022, we saw just 46% participation in the US. Within that relatively high turnout rate, 75% of the voters who turned out to vote in the 2022 midterms were white and 15% were Black non-Hispanic. Women showed up in greater numbers with 55% of the turnout versus 45% among men. And within that large group of younger voters mentioned in the registration numbers, we only saw a 10% turnout rate. In contrast, 54% of voters who turned out were over 60. Down the ballot, Republican candidates received roughly 65% of the vote and Democratic candidates received about 33% on average. More than two thirds of all votes cast in the 2022 midterm were early and absentee votes (2022 Election Summary Report).

While I used 2022 data as a recent demonstration, we are consistent in these trends both in midterm and presidential election years in recent history. Younger and non-white voters turn out at disproportionately lower rates than older white voters.  Whether that is good or bad for your preferred candidate, it’s not great for the democratic process. When it comes to representation, more is merrier.

Here’s how you can ensure your vote in the November 5^th General Election. First, you must be registered to vote before October 7^th, 2024. You can register online or by mail at https://georgia.gov/register-vote. You should also check the Georgia “My Voter Page” to be sure you are listed as an active voter. If you’re not, you can update your information there as well.

According to the Glynn County Board of Elections, “all three county early voting locations will be open for each election in the 2024 election cycle.” For the November election, early voting will take place Oct. 15-Nov. 1^. and typically runs Monday through Saturday at three locations: Ballard Community building, Board of Elections Office, and Fire Station #2 on St Simons. Since the early voting information has not yet been published, you should verify these locations closer to October.

In the simplest terms, a democratic republic is a representative government elected by the people. For it to keep churning – and that is not a given – it requires that the people participate. My hope is that every one of you votes this November. Whether through early in-person voting, early absentee voting, or in-person at your designated precinct, the time to make a plan for how and when you will vote is now.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

On June 28^th, the Supreme Court ended a 40-year old legal precedent that fundamentally impacts the way our federal government operates. In the decision of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court ruled on a doctrine called “Chevron deference” which allows the interpretation of laws that are ambiguous to rely on agency expertise. In other words, when laws are passed that don’t lay out specifics on how to implement the law, the responsible government agency (eg. The EPA, NASA, Postal Service, etc) is permitted to use its expertise to interpret how to regulate within the law.

The courts have historically had a two-pronged approach to this. They first determine if Congress has spoken directly to the issue or if there is ambiguity. Then, they determine if the agency interpretation is reasonable. Even if the court might prefer a different interpretation, if the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, the agency’s view is upheld. agency’s view is upheld. The court saw this as more efficient, consistent, and as a way of deferring to agency expertise. Now, that efficiency, consistency, and deference is turned on its head.

This might sound a little dry, but it’s a very big deal. Representative Buddy Carter referred to it as “the beginning of the end of the administrative state” in his weekly newsletter last week. He, like many conservatives and libertarians, feels that the federal bureaucracy has become too large and imbued with too much power.

In school, we are taught about the separation of powers within the federal government. The basic explanation is that the legislative branch writes laws, the executive branch implements them, and the judicial branch interprets them through the resolution of arguments. This explanation, however, leaves out the so-called “fourth branch of government” and its role in implementation and interpretation.

Generally, the federal bureaucracy has grown in number of employees over time, with notable spikes in periods when there is an expansion of government programs like the New Deal, in times of war, and in times of economic decline. These growth periods are not met with periods of decrease in the bureaucracy, however, as programs and agencies can be difficult to dismantle. The result is that critics point to a government that has its fingers in too many areas. It turns out a lot of Americans agree.

A 2023 Gallup poll indicated that 54% of Americans believe the government is “trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses” and 44% think there is “too much government regulation of business and industry.” These numbers fall largely along party lines.

Despite these numbers, when taken individually, many Americans have a very favorable view of specific agencies such as the National Park Service, USPS, NASA, the Social Security Administration, the CDC, and the EPA. That may seem surprising, but all these agencies pulled greater that 55% favorable ratings in 2023.  

One of the effects of ending Chevron deference is that these agencies – whether we like them or not – will no longer be able to apply their expertise to interpreting the laws they must implement. For example, let’s say that Congress passes a law related to space commercialization, but the statute has ambiguous language regarding safety standards on private space missions. Previously, NASA would interpret this ambiguity, establish safety standards, and if those standards were challenged, the court would determine if they were reasonable. Now, the courts will be able to independently interpret statutory language which could lead to a completely different sets of standards than those NASA would have set. Further, different courts could interpret the statute in different ways causing inconsistency in regulatory outcomes.

Solutions could be developed in Congress by clarifying statutory language (though that could make it very difficult to pass laws), explicitly delegating authority to specific agencies, or even through the establishment of independent review bodies that could work with agencies to develop sound interpretations. Each of these solutions could help mitigate against the challenges this decision poses.

The question of whether the size and power of the bureaucracy is too large is valid and deserves critique. Regardless, reversing Chevron deference is going to have fundamental impacts on every agency of the bureaucracy with the potential to cause compliance challenges and fragmented regulatory outcomes. Congress, it’s your ball.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.