Mitch test 10/8/19 12:47 PM Eastern Time.
Armed conflict; armed group institutions
I'm not clear on the purpose of the "very democratic" to "very undemocratic" ratings (last module). Is the question whether the scenario/action is very important to democracy, whether it clearly indicates something about the level of democracy, or...?
What's abnormal (and important) is the motivation for adding the question.
Climate change is a big deal, but the exercise of power itself wasn't that unusual.
The only reason it isn't fully "important" is because most people (though not everyone) don't take such Tweets from Trump literally or seriously.
Joking about previously agreed-upon norms and Constitutional amendments is another example of authoritarian populism, and undermines the rule of law.
In itself, this could be construed as one branch of government jealously protecting its "turf". In the current context, however, it appears to be more of a pattern of obfuscation to protect a president in a manner that violates principles of the rule of law.
The comment was both ignorant and nativist. It's the action of a demagogue rather than a democratic leader.
Another corruption of the rule of law, which is fundamental to functioning democratic governance.
It's not unusual for a political party to act in ways that protect their constituents. Given the rate of climate change, this is an unfortunate part of the democratic process, though.
Yet another subversion of rule of law and demonizing of political opponents. This action smacks of a weak authoritarian ruler.
Strikes at heart of Congressional ability to engage in oversight essential for some semblance of a checks and balance system except where obvious instances of executive privilege in play.  Not here.
Motivation aside, census should collect as much information at 10 year snap shots as possible and this is a legitimate inquiry in a changing society in terms of information needed for sound programming.  Importance will depend on what is done with it, and here motivations get important.
Normal in sense that pro- and anti- environment regulations by executive branch have reflected who is chief executive since EPA created.  Important because environment has enough with which to contend already,
Falls into line with current health thinking, especially re marketing to young.  Could be very important but studies still recent on effects of e-cigs in general, so marked only mostly here
Importance attached given ideological shift in direction of lower coursts and long term effort of these appointees.
political behavior, public opinion, political leadership, policymaking
Barr appeared to not even be attempting to project an image of objectivity.
Most experts agreed that NAFTA needed to be updated, but Trump's methods for getting to that signing, his insistence on renaming the deal, as well as his overall ineptitude with Congress turned the process into a liability for the administration and the US rather than a win.
This is impeachable behavior by any historical standard.
Seemingly normal, but it was clearly tied to Trump's personal political agenda at the time.
An arbitrary an abrupt decision rather than the end point of a policy process.
In itself, a minor episode, but it the bald effort to cover up the facts of the situation and the refusal to acknowledge a mistake are alarming.
There's no good reason for a democratic officer to make such "jokes."
Was done in decades past, but current attempt is pretty clearly an effort to reduce political power of such states to maintain Republican political power.
Executive-congressional clashes over foreign policy are normal; Trump's misuse/expansion of emergency power statutes (themselves poorly written) is troubling.
Shows complete contempt for the Constitution.
My understanding is giving such medals to those who have done well in their careers is normal.
I don't know how important this is.  Perhaps it is very important. Perhaps not.
We have to have accurate information that the people trust to have a democracy.
It's not a funny joke - given that peaceful transitions of power can be a huge obstacle in democracies.
Depends on what is redacted - which we can't really know.
Undermines the idea of there being any "truth" - which is damaging to the democracy in itself.
it is an abuse of power, even apart from the fact that it's a foreign country and even it is not technically "quid pro quo." Presidents have NO business stirring up investigations/prosecutions of American systems. Weaponizing the criminal justice system against political opponents is a violation of the rule of law.
It has been done in the past and, under other circumstances, it could be relatively benign but its obvious purpose is not consistent with the census but for partisan purposes, including potential voter suppression.
There could be exceptions under certain circumstances but the facts do not warrant it in this case.
Even if it were not a crime, it would be extremely unusual for a president to become personally involved in such a request and extremely unethical, especially as it involves a political opponent.
It is not unacceptable for American elected officials to participate in a military parade but for the president to hold one under these circumstances is not only unusual but sends a potentially dangerous message about the relationship of the military with civilian government.
It is acceptable from a procedural and constitutional acceptable but the overall political trend is a little disturbing.
The fact that these sorts of questions are even being seriously asked is, in itself, very disturbing.
The Constitution forbids this expressly. It's not even funny. He's saying this as a "feeler" because he thinks he could get away with it. That's why it's important. If the rule of law stands for anything, it should never even come up as a joke, let alone have other elected officials publicly say "he has a point."
I'm OK with the Attorney General redacting information that's detrimental to national security to the public, but Congress has to know about this stuff as a co-equal branch of government. He's covering up for the president, and preventing Congress from doing its job in this case. On the other hand, the Attorney General's Office is who Mueller reported to.
This may be a bit abnormal, but who cares what Congress thinks if they aren't expressly forbidding him from doing so? Congress needs to do something and not talk so much.  Now, if he is forbidden from doing this, then that's a completely different story. The president can't sell arms to another nation if it's expressly against the law. I don't know if it is, so I can't answer definitively.
The president isn't a meteorologist. He needs to leave the weather to the experts. It's abnormal and important because it shows the extent to which the executive branch will go to cover it's mistakes and spread misinformation - to the point of creating "alternative facts." 2+2=5
It's important as a health concern. I don't know the extent of the president's powers to do this, i.e. has Congress delegated any authority to the president to do this. However, assuming they have, this is uncontroversial. People are dying because of e-cigarettes.
Please don't use "democratic" the way you do in the last questions. Democracy implies the people rule. Barely any of the scenarios listed involve the people. They involve government officials interacting with other government officials. If we keep abusing that word "democracy" in this way then we'll just have more presidents like this one committing atrocities in the name of "democracy."
again, do not agree with use of "normal" and "Abnormal"
Again, I disagrees with use of the terms "normal" and "abnormal"
Don't like use of terms "normal" and "abnormal" Who defines "normal"  Would prefer to use "usual" and "unusual"
Once again, you are begging the question
Once more - Do not like use of terms "normal" and "abnormal"  They beg a question
I sense that the survey is designed in part to come up with conclusions that suggest certaihn actions by President Tump are "abnormal."  That compromises its legitimacy
Question is loaded.  Military role ended up being minor -- a few tanks on display.  Trump failed to get what he wanted.
political scientists are such a biased sample that the whole enterprise is suspect.
The Executive cannot ignore a Congressional subpoena. While abnormal, it is becoming disturbingly uncommon and a significant breach in the checks and balances system.
The Census has historically been used in ways that are bigoted and troubling. However, since it is used for redistricting and directing federal grant funding, changes to the Census are very important.
Suggests that the president cannot be trusted with classified information. Leads one to wonder how much the IC is actually sharing with him and the quality of information he has to make policy decisions.
President's change federal policy frequently - however - the human cost of this change will be substantial.
Highly dangerous. Establishes a dangerous precedent for future elections and seems to violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution along with elections law. A deeply concerning partisan use of the power of the President.
Politicians regularly push against oversight and accountability - especially when led by members of the opposing party. However, the language is important here and accusing the member of another party of treason for routine action echoes darker moments of America's past.
President has leeway in foreign policy, but emergency powers were not necessary for this.
Seriously, why are we having this conversation. Abnormal. Authoritarian.
I'd like the obstruction of Obama's nominees to be used to add to context
The fact that you are asking this question speaks to the abnormality of the situation
This could cause serious constitutional crisis; and , the mere mention of such an event castes serious doubt in the status of American democracy and peaceful transition of power, most unfortunate comment.
Implicitly racist and un-American, every American but natives are immigrants.
Depends on the worth of their accomplishment to the American experience and socio-sports development.
Good policy meant to protect public health and clean environment.
Castes the US in the image of megalomaniac leaders and totalitarian regimes, not a practice to be emulated.
Indicative of careless executive and reducing the power of treason to evoke the worst enemies of the republic, extremely poor  choice of words for a president of the US.
It’s wonderful and enlightening. Analysis which would issue from the survey could be enlightening relative to the pressing issues of the current political dispensation in America and perhaps the state of global effort at democratization, especially in the developing world.
In the context of the President's other actions and words, this statement's importances increases.
If a foreign leader made statements like these, we'd consider it authoritarian. It is troubling that the Republic is basically hanging on because bureucrats don't follow through on presidential directives like this one.
This is a critical departure from our democratic and constitutional norms.
This is a critical departure from our norms.
The international relations of African states
These are important issues! The question about specialty might be limited. I teach at a small liberal arts college where we all have to play the role of generalists. We have three full-time faculty and two over-qualified adjuncts. Besides international relations, I also teach political philosophy and participated on panels in our recent campus discussions about the 2nd Amendment and Impeachment. I would say all of us have to be familiar with American politics at small colleges, so be careful how "specialty" is interpreted.
Musicians have routinely been awarded the medal before. This is utterly normal and similarly utterly important.  At least we're not knighting movie stars, like our cousins across the pond.
It's not completely abnormal for a president/administration to not comply with subpoenas, but the extent and nature of this particular case is fairly unprecedented.
Seems like regular politics with really nasty consequences.
This is a breakdown in the rule of law.  Did this really happen?  I have no memory of this particular statement by the president.
Honestly, I have no idea how abnormal the pressure on Ukraine is.  It seems quite plausible to me that other politicians would just have been less obvious / much better at covering their tracks.
corruption; foreign aid; development; governance
My answers were very different this time around.  Looking forward to seeing the results.
Sports heroes should not be the recipients of an honor for courage and advocacy
President Trump has sought to pack the bench with his appointees
I remember Watergate and also The Clinton Impeachment
Presidents have, since I began studying them in the 1970s, signed these kinds of MOUs. Bush did it, Obama did it, and CLinton did it.
normally, these regulations are determined through the FR methods of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
the govt has always acted to prevent harmful substances from getting into the public marketplace.
Obama did the same thing, so has every other President as far back as I can remember.
this is just more trash talk. Both sides are guilty.
it seems biased, like the other surveys I have sen from this group. To be fair, look into the details about presidential dealings from past administrations. Presidents of both parties have taken liberties with their powers and the meaning of the Constitution.
It is important as part of a larger trend of growing, unchecked executive power and the diminishment of Congressional power.
I believe citizenship is important in this country for varied reasons
Any possible wrong-doing should be investigated and the President has the right in the Constitution to do this
Nothing wrong in showing strength and patriotism
There have been far to many judicial vacancies for several administrations.
This sends a powerful message to the world about the "real" balance of power in the US political system.
Any time a president uses his/her position and power to affect anything outside his/her constitutionally mandate is an abuse of power and, therefore, important.
This pushes the boundaries of executive discretionary powers, but is not far from the norm of prior presidents.
This is a illustrative example of the consequences of both inexperience and deeply flawed personal character for public policy and national security.
Although simply words, suggests that elected monarchy is possible under out system when presidents refuse to constrain themselves.
More important for symbolic political purposes than substantive public policy decisions.
It is common practice in executive leadership systems for politics to play a major role in regulatory decisions.
Russia and Ukraine, rule of law, corruption
Keep up the great work! Very glad you are doing this project.
These are important survey. I support their continued use.
It’s bad policy, but largely democratic. The reliance on executive power to govern is worrisome.
This is a disproportionate response to a panic, but I don't think that's specific to this government. It is important because it circumvents the usual regulatory process.
Political protest, judicial politics, ethnicity and race in politics
VERY concerning- this is how dictators normalize the idea of their remaining beyond constitutional term limits.
It is legitimate for a country to want to know how many citizens and how many non-zitizens reside within its borders.
Demonstrates the racist underpinnings of the President's ideology, party, and base.
Biased question wording- built to cast shade on President Trump.
Joking about staying undermines democratic norms and the rule of law.
Other president's have used emergency powers for similar actions.   This is one reason the office of the president has grown in power over time.
This personalized foreign policy.   Trump moved from representing the country's interests to his own.   Moveover, this sets a precedent for future president's that it is ok to invite foreign powers into our election system and that foreign aid is a tool for a president to push his/her private political goals.
This fits into general regulatory behavior of the president.  What makes it abnormal is that it was done quickly with no real process.
International Security, War and US foreign and defense policy
Flagrant acceptance of KSA's murder of Kashoggi (sp?)
Using a foreign power to go after your political opponents is contradictory to a democratic republic
That was dangerous, a threat to  1) straight public safety 2) damages the trust necessary to communicate life/death information
The president diminishes his office by calling on any citizen - and especially other elected officials - to go back to where they came from.  The implication is that he has the authority to shape discourse who is and is not an American.  He does not, of course, as citizenship is a matter of law.
The rule of law ought to be supreme.  The president has the authority to pardon criminals, but in doing so s/he ought to honor the law.  That is, to pardon criminals because the president has a personal agenda places him/her above the law.
New NAFTA is important for the continued growth of the economies of these North American trade partners.
Climate change is caused by people.  GHGs like methane is a major contributor to climate change.  The United States government should be following the science as it determines how to regulate emissions.  The threat is real.  Policy making has been handed over to those who are advancing the interests of the oil and gas industry - and not the national interest.
Banning e-cigs ought to follow thorough scientific study that concludes that e-cigs are dangerous and pose a serious public health threat.  It should not be the result of an executive order.
Weather science is being compromised by the interests of the president's political agenda.  This sort of thing is not supposed to happen in an advanced liberal democracy.
Solicitation of a foreign power to interfere in American elections is a grave abuse of power.
Liberal Political Thinkers: Modern & Contemporary
breaks with precedence by DOJ in terms of independence of that branch from executive oversight
breaks with security precedent reduces our overall ability to hide how much we know about other country's activities
abnormal because previous agreement was generally stable normal in that the emergent agreement was stabilized by the three parties
Impeachable offense - clearly illegal Trump likely doesn't even understand why
appropriate response to an fast-moving emergent health hazard
political comments, often taken out of context
reported but not validated, it might have been taken out of context
agreement with other nations on consensus policy
information was advisory and at an early stage of storm's uncertain path
Some of the questions asked are unclearly written, which could be open to broad interpretation, particularly the last sections of the survey. You are asking respondents questions that have incomplete information, which results in just opinion answers.
Normalcy is difficult to define.  The root word "norm" implies moral evaluation, as though we are asked to assess the morality of the action. But going back through American history racialized language and politics was normal until quite recently in the sense that it happened, especially in a coded way.  "Normal" in  presidential evaluations is especially difficult because we've had relatively few, and the real question is how well do they match the culture and institutional boundaries of their own era (itself an imprecise measure, of course).
Republicans reliably roll back regulations.  The implicit rejection of massive scientific consensus underlying this particular regulatory intervention drops it down a notch, but barely.
Considering the number of generals to have served as presidents, plus the militarization/romaniticism of the military post-9/11 and other practices by presidents during wars on the 4th of July, among other considerations, this is not that exceptional.
American nationalism and US foreign policy
Income inequality in the developed countries
In comparison to other statements by Trump, this is less threatening to US democracy
This kind of thing has happened before, but that does not mean Barr may do this just because past Presidents have stonewalled Congress
Important in that he can now say he's fulfilled his campaign promise to do away with NAFTA, though the USMCA is not a significant departure from NAFTA.
Again, in comparison to other actions by this administration, not hugely important, but it is another example of the President's authoritarian tendency.
An important symbolic act, a telling one in the case of Trump. But not surprising that he gives it to a loyalist who happens to be a minority, so he can claim he's not a bigot.
Trump came into office opposed to smoking in general, so I'm not surprised. Perhaps a little bright spot on his rather tepid record on public health.
Area and Global Studies, with focus on Latin American and Latinx Studies
I said "not sure" on question about disproportional electoral weights of states with small populations because the US constitution is based on the premise of territories with claims to an identity and interests distinct from those of the entire nation-state. That to me is problematic, but not by definition non-democratic.
Keep ‘em coming — it’s a great project overall.  The only items I on which had a problem had to do with rating the state where my institution is located. As an emeritus faculty member I don’t really work for any institution these days, and since retiring I have moved to another state. I answered as though I were still in my old job, partly because I emphasize federalism and lower levels of government in my ratings, but I feel a little awkward having done that —
The state exists to help him. This is fundamentally wrong.
Rule of law: fundamentally important in a democracy. This is just one of many impeachable acts.
Signing the deal (which really didn't change NAFTA much at all) is perfectly normal. Of course, Trump's conduct during the whole process of acting like a toddler negotiating a real estate deal wasn't normal.
Perfectly normal politics. Also absolutely terrible. But this is just a natural product of having the ONLY major party in the world that denies science.
It's ceremonial, so who cares? But, it's also just part of the cheapening of the office that's a daily occurrence with Trump.
He has also suggested that Schiff be impeached. Which, of course, isn't an actual thing. But this is straight-up banana republic time. One of many impeachable acts he committed just that week.
It feels like there's a lot worse offenses Trump has committed than I saw. Could be the 6/17 I drew. But, there's just so much that's not OK about this presidency.
But giving the Medal of Freedom to Arthur Laffer is outrageous.
Building a cult of personality is abnormal and important.
It does have potentially far reaching implications if continued and semi-institutionalized, but as a one-time event is weird but unimportant.
Could threaten future responses to disasters, weather events, etc. if people don't trust NOAA
It's illegal to conspire with foreign governments against domestic political opponents.
This statement is deeply offensive--no president should tell another elected official to "go back to your country." But I do think that this is part of the heightened level of vitriol found in political discourse in the U.S. today. The specific statement is offensive and disturbing, but ultimately not very important.
President Trump is irresponsible in this instance--this is a serious security breach. Yes, the President can declassify information, but there are responsible instances of doing so, and this is not one of those.
I am not yet sure that this is an impeachable offense, but it may well be. This is a serious abuse of power.   What is abnormal about this is that the president engaged in this action and it was revealed. I am not confident that other presidents have not engaged in similar behavior.
The interesting thing about this is the executive overreach in which President Trump engages. This could be viewed as such an instance. But of course President Trump was quick to criticize President Obama for similar levels of executive overreach. The hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum is breathtaking.
This is an unfortunately rhetorical exaggeration on the part of the president. I do not think for a minute that there is a serious chance of treason charges against Adam Schiff, but it is disturbing that this president relies on this kind of hyperbolic statement, as he often does.
Political behavior, legislative politics, public policy
Political behavior and women and politics
The longstanding political values of this country include refraining from attacks based on racial and ethnic discrimination and hatred.
He does not seem to grasp the importance of keeping national security information secret.
Evidence that he does not understand or respect the rule of law. And more authoritarian action as well.
In keeping with the disbelief of this administration in global warning, in defiance of the views of most of  the world's scientists
More evidence of this president's fondness for the tactics of authoritarian rulers
Civil Liberties, with a First Amendment concentration
Joking about something that has been previously almost unthinkable in the past 70 years is a means of normalizing the abnormal, getting people to think about what had been unthinkable. Thus, it chips away at democratic institutions.
This move highlights distinctions between people and also serves to heighten the precarity of a significant sector of the population living in the US.
A key instance in which racism crept into public discourse in the highest office. Normalizing language that had been unacceptable in most quarters.
This is an instance of the president of a superpower using his sway to get a less powerful country to become involved behind the scenes in partisan competition and ultimately national elections. It is a clear abuse of power and a substantial blow to US democracy.
This act might seem less important on the surface. However, it is out of the strongman playbook, personalizing power.
In terms of weather prediction, it is probably not very important. But more generally, it was a key moment in the steady erosion of trust in democratic institutions and another blow to the integrity of science. The act invites some people to think, if the president will falsify evidence about something so mundane, what will he do in circumstances when much more is at stake? For others, it encourages thinking of truth and science as malleable--something to be manipulated to advance one's interests.
The judiciary is arguably the most important branch of government
Even if this is unlikely, expressing such sentiments is deeply troubling.
In a grey area of executive power; problematic, but one could see various presidents doing it.
Business as usual in the Trump Administration.  I disagree with it, but more or less normal politics for a anti-regulation R.
Weird, but especially significant. Mostly, insight into Trump's actions.
Ultimately impeachable. Perhaps the cornerstone of the impeachment process.  Maybe not SO important in itself, but within the context of Trump and impeachment, extremely significant.
More narcissism writ large, confusing the President with the nation. Still,...
Congress, interest groups, state politics
Pretty reasonable.  But the fact that these questions do seem reasonable demonstrates the perilous nature of our politics and our constitutional democracy.
Again, building an undemocratic narrative.
Joking or not, completely undemocratic behavior.
The primary issue is how rapidly things moved in this regard.  Such large changes would normally run through slower, more deliberate processes.  Also, a bit strange for a Republican administration to intervene in the market so rapidly and vigorously.
Equating congressional oversight with treason is completely unacceptable - the goal, to incite his base, is dangerous to democracy.
Our relationship with authoritarian regimes everywhere (and the Middle East in particular) should be questioned at all times. While having allies in the region is crucial, we should not be enabling those allies to behave in ways that conflict with American values. This isn't new (or isolated generally to Republican administrations), but that doesn't mean it isn't problematic.
Reasonable policy disagreements aside, this was a mild renegotiation of an existing treaty with significant implications for the U.S. economy.
This violates the oath of office and federal election law, is a dangerously authoritarian act, and sets a frightening precedent if left unchecked.
This highest civilian honor should be judiciously bestowed, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in any at all tangible way if it isn't.
Practically, I don't think this matters very much, but symbolically is quite dangerous.
Since the USMCA does significantly alter the North American Free Trade Agreement, this action was largely unnecessary.  That it occurred at all suggests some ulterior personal motive in having negotiated an agreement without substantive changes to previous agreements.
Pressuring an essential agency of the US Department of Commerce in order to avoid having to admit an error is unconscionable, and demonstrates flagrant disregard for facts.
This is not the first time Donald Trump has solicited foreign interference in the electoral process in the United States.  However, it is the first clear evidence of his having done so as an incumbent President.  Federal election code is clear about limiting foreign influence on electoral politics in the US.  This move is actually reminiscent of the Murchison letter in 1888.
While precedent does exist for awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to figures in American popular culture, doing so frequently diminishes the significance of the award.
Given the recent anecdotal evidence of severe adverse health effects from the use of e-cigarettes, the product must be subject to greater scrutiny either by the FDA, the CDC, or the Office of the Surgeon General to determine the actual risks they may pose to public health.
Article III of the US Constitution states: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  To have the President of the United States accuse a member of Congress of Treason as a result of an inquiry into the Executive Branch suggests either a) the President misunderstands the Constitutional nature of Treason, b) misunderstands the oversight function of Congress, c) misunderstands the nature of the separation of powers, d) misunderstands the principle of the Rule of Law, or e) some combination of any or all of the above.
Hermeneutics, semiotics and semantics of political preference expression; also the intersection of political thought and Indigenous American politics
Unimportant from a policy point of view. Terribly important for what it says about Trump's mental health
More checks and balances than democratization. As always.
When you can't trust the Justice Department you can't trust anything
Shows bias -- he is not a president for the people
If facts don't matter then nothing matters.
Shows President's ignorance and stupidity.
Trump has many, many failings, among which is his obvious racism and appeal to his racist base. This is an example of that.
Another example of the president ignoring the law and showing a disrespect for congressional authority to set the budget. His use of emergency powers far exceeds anything President Obama did with his executive actions.
Nothing terribly important here other than misrepresenting the "new" deal as something that it is not. Essentially it is a renewal of the previous agreement except for Trump trying to get credit for it.
Probably not a big deal in the end, but still representative of this administration's, this president's, unwillingness to follow the law and to respect the institution of the presidency, to keep politics out of ceremonial activities.
Nothing illegal here, but the Senate is not following historical procedures for proper consideration of judicial nominees. The administration does a poor job of vetting nominees and essentially the Senate is approving virtually all nominees, even those with little experience and questionable credentials.
It may seem trivial, but the issue at heart is this administration's obvious willingness to ignore experts and scientists and to misinform the public. OK, to lie to the public about anything the White House and administrative leaders care to misrepresent, mostly to keep the president happy and to deflect criticism from him, which is all too common.
Well, the timing is good! This administration is becoming more undemocratic each day, the latest being the unwillingness to recognize Congress's power to conduct oversight investigations and impeachment inquiries.
Some things are not funny, even if they are jokes.  It is reminiscent of a "gaslighter" who upon seeing a negative reaction, often claims that "It is only a joke."
Determining not to honor a legitimate subpoena (which in and of itself is questioned by Mr. Barr), is abnormal. Without knowledge of the legitimacy of the subpoena, my ranking is borderline normal.
That all are American Citizens makes this abnormal.  The actions to insult persons of color is becoming normal (which is important).
Changing the facts through administrative fiat is reminiscent to Orwell's "newspeak."
On its face, this is an inappropriate act -- I interpreted the notes supplied by the white house to mean that the use of the word "though" meant that the military aid was contingent on the request to investigate Biden and his son's activity.
Noting that something is democratic may not be the proper response category.  Democratic seems to be extremely similar to representing the populace, and not necessiliarly the undemocratic aspects which are set in our constitution (e.g., Electoral college, senate representing states, not people, etc.)
Most of these questions are probably driven by my political preferences. Why not include a partisanship/ideology question in this study? (esp. since you will probably get 80-85% D/liberal).
I rated some events as important because they corrupt long-standing practices.
Political participation, parties, research methods
It is very abnormal but semi-important as President lacks the means to make this happen (but may encourage violent attacks).
politics of identity, political violence, Middle East
This is not a joking matter;  it strikes at the heart of the peaceful transfer of power in a democracy
protections against the release of grand jury testimony are appropriate in normal circumstances but questionable in a case of this importance, as indicated by practices in prior impeachment investigations.
Overt questioning of the legitimacy of their election, and the racialized basis of that questioning, is destructive of essential democratic norms.
The confirmation process itself is largely normal, though excessively partisan for the long term health of an independent judiciary.  The administration's reliance on screening by the Federalist society and the availability of a Supreme Court seat created by blocking Obama's nominee are concerning deviations from normalcy.
Rhetorical norm violation. Importance depends on whether he acts on it.
Bad norm violation with implications for public prejudice but not governance, except indirectly so through voter prejudices. Might also affect agency action against racial and ethnic minorities.
It encourages lawlessness and a potentially unrestrained executive. Important for the potential precedent it sets.  (Worse if it goes beyond this area. The far extreme would be presidential death squads.)
Only abnormal if those judges are more absolutely committed to party loyalty than past judges.
Rhetorical norm violation. Certainly worse if he acts on it.
This is the by far the most important item so far; even to joke about this demonstrates a disrespect for democracy, and it is not clear to what extent this is a joke and to what an attempt to put ideas into his supporters' heads.
The abnormal part is that Trump had so many vacancies to fill, not that he filled them.
Would be nice to know why he does it in spite of congressional opposition.
Normal for a Republican president to do who campaigned on cutting regulations. Very important because it is a really bad idea.
Wrong even if there wasn't (sure seems like there is) a quid pro quo.
Wildly abnormal, mostly important because the president does not get to decide what facts are.
Environmental politics - behavior and organizations.
Given all that is happening so quickly, it was hard to respond to some questions. Not sure if the legislature can check the President's power, but right now it seems like it cannot.
Time to end the academic drive pretend there is globing warming.  Especially one done by humans.
All other presidents have done the same.  Why are you only, and I mean only, picking on Trump?
It is time the United States saw as its most prominent feature.
Adam Schiff should be removed from his position
Bilateral trade agreements are generally important and run of the mill. This one wasn't as the need for it was artificially created by Trump.
Thank you for doing this and for including me! Happy to take part.
The president's open racism is shocking and should not be tolerated if we are to have a broad-based multiracial democracy.
The president is undermining rule of law by offering pardons to people who would break the law.
Democracy requires a "democratic bargain,"  where by winners don't fundamentally change the rules or abuse power of the office to oppress or rig system against opponents.  Losers, for their part, have to respect right of the winners to hold office.  Investigating Joe Biden based on a personal political motivation is not fair play.
I liked it when W said dictatorship would be great if he was the dictator. Trump's hardly the only President who has said this
What id Eric Holder do in the same situation ? legislative-executive battles are pretty normal in our system.
Given the racism and nativism in the history of this country, this is nothing new or different.
Presidents have the right to declassify any information they so choose. This was odd but it does raise the lingering question that this President raised "does the bureaucracy work for the President or is it the President's boss ?"
you need a tab for stupid, petty, trivial or all of the above for this one.
Keep going on the state level questions. Good add there !!!
He is the GREATEST threat to US security right now. I fear his actions more than any terrorist organization that hates the US.
What kind of POTUS does that bullshit? And what kind of Congress let's him get away with it!?!?!?
The action is the normal. The quality of the choices are abnormal. It's all so disgusting.
This survey is necessary, at least to document beliefs of rational people during these awful times in US politics.
clear effort to intimidate Latino citizens and to shift more resources to GOP states
Trump is supposed to uphold the law, right?
Given that this runs against recent policy and seemed to have been intended to frighten non-citizens into failing to respond to the citizenship survey, it seems to have been part of a larger effort to reshape Congressional representation in a direction preferred by Trump and the Republican Party.
Except for the evidence presented during the Cuban missile crisis, the intelligence community has always guarded knowledge about its satellite capabilities. By giving evidence of these capabilities, this action threatened national security. If any intelligence community member had done this, he/she would have likely been fired and charged with a major crime, and only the Attorney General's statements about the inability of the president to be charged with a crime while in office protected the president from that fate.
Offering pardons for breaking the law constitutes an impeachable abuse of presidential authority.
I characterize this as borderline since presidents often make stupid decisions to please a particular constituency that supports them; however, the fact that it goes against the advice of virtually all experts on the issue makes it less than normal. A "normal" decision is not necessarily a good decision, and to the extent that this decision was normal, that does not change the fact that it was a really stupid decision.
This was simply craziness; the original mistake was perhaps not so bad, but continuing to maintain it long after it was shown to be wrong indicates a dangerous pathology that cannot accept reality.
Giving the medal is not an issue, except that the relationship of Rivera to the promotion of freedom seems remote; this seems more like a play to reverse in the mind of the public the president's obvious dislike for Hispanics in general.
International conflict, negotiation, and conflct resiolution
Presidential behavior should encourage adherence to our laws, which this statement does not. It would be more important than it already is if the president had not said so many other outrageous things.
The politicalization of the census deprives government of accurate actionable data. This was yet another example of reckless disregard for the efficient functioning of government.
The President is paying attention to the smooth working of the continental economy.
It is critical that the public can trust the announcements coming from NOAA and that those announcements be based on the best judgment of relevant experts. This is a health and life safety matter.
Fortunately, the Senate seems to have screened out some of the very worst candidates and the press has discouraged a few as well.
Another example of reckless opposition to the oversight function, as well as a personalization of a constitutional process.
U.S. foreign policy and U.S.-China relations
Not sure if you mean just trying to do this or in the way it was actually handled.
Represents attempt to use presidential powers for own partisan goals
This represents a presidential power but it endangers the environment
Other administrations have overriden Congressional vetoes on weapons sales. The issues surrounding the growing rogue nature of the Saudi regime make this more borderline.  It is also part of the growing overextension of presidential powers which Congress shows little willingness/ability to constrain.
Its normal in the sense that other conservative Republican administrations have taken similar action.  It grows ever more important as global warming intensifies.
Presidency, Urban Politics, Race Politics & Public Policy
Some of the last set of appropriate/inappropriate questions were difficult to answer without further context.  For instance, presidential authority to use executive orders depends on policy area and statutory base.
Democratic Institutions and Minority Politics
Latin America - democracy, authoritarianism, military politics
We have a constitution in place that sets forth terms of office - this is abnormal behavior, he is putting our democracy at risk
There are three branches of government why doesn't the president know that - he is becoming a dictator
This is an important agreement and it should include environmental and labor accords as well.  All workers in North America should be protected and US companies should not exploit Mexican workers.  CEO profits are over the top and poor workers live in poverty- this is unacceptable in a democracy
This is egregious behavior on the part of the president- this is not a third world country.
Political Parties, Interest Groups, Public Policy
This is a racist country so he's not the first politician to say that, nor is he the first President.  We have LBJ on tape called MLK "that nigger"
It's only abnormal that we found out about it
It was pretty obvious from the wording of the questions what answers you wanted
Some of the questions about how democratic actions are were confusing. They dealt with actions that may be unconstitutional, but not directly related to democracy. For instance, independent courts are Central to our constitution, but courts are the most removed from democracy, so moving influence from courts to elected officials would be more democratic, but also unconstitutional under our system.
Keep up the interesting work -- I look forward to the results every time they come out!
The lie behind the true motivation for adding that question was disgusting.
The speed at which these important positions were filled, especially when compared with the delaying tactics of the Senate during the Obama administration, gives the appearance that deliberate care was not taken by the Senate—that it was interested only in stacking the courts with conservative judges.
People’s lives are interrupted to varying degrees when dire weather warnings are issued so we MUST be in a position to trust news from national weather experts or officials who claim to be repeating the experts’ predictions.
Good questions!  Would like to see responses in national media such as New York Times or other reputable media.
This was a clear violation of modern presidential norms and was an act of political intimidation.
Another violation of modern political norms.
That wasn't normal behavior by a U.S. President.
I would rate this as doing more of the same. In other words, with the GOP-controlled Senate, I would expect it to push through its nominees as aggressively as possible because that has been the party's MO in recent decades.
Trump "jokes" as ways to priming his followers and his party to begin considering the things that he advocates. They aren't jokes. They certainly aren't funny.
The only legitimate reason that Barr would have to withhold information would be if the document contained information relevant to on-going investigations.
There have been other instances in the past where noxious questions were part of the US census (as in information about slave or free status were part of the very first census). Latinx origin was an addition to the Census (although sanctioned by the Congress at the time) during the 1930s.
Three of the congresswomen are US-born, and they already are in "their country." One is from Puerto Rico, which is also part of the US. The fourth is a naturalized citizen, who has gone through the hardships of identifying with the US.
While outright banning of previously legitimate items on the market does not happen often, and doesn't ever happen by administrative fiat, the US has banned many drugs or (more relevant here) toxic substances on the basis of general administrative choices.
African and Russian politics democracy and democratization
It seems super-squirrelly to me, but I a not a lawyer and am not sure if there is a legal defense that makes it legally okay (though still not  in the best interests of our country.)
Isn't everything with Trump pretty much abnormal?  It occurred to me if I took this survey before he took office, my previous answer would have been quite different on several items! Because when we say 'gov't of course we mean gov't collectively, but the Presidency is going to dominate much of our thinking on how 'gov't. is performing.
Borderline normal because other politicians, particularly Republicans, have similar views on the environment and regulations. So, it doesn't make me happy, nor make our planet healthier, but it's also just what happens in a democratic society.  If we had rule-by-experts (like scientists got to decide the policy for their area of expertise) that would be quite cool. But wouldn't really work...
Though Senate confirmations have been less certain in recent decades than in the past, i don't consider it that unusual that a Senate dominated by the President's party confirm his picks. I suppose it's only semi-important in the sense that there's not much we can do about it.. it's not inherently at odds with a democracy or the Constitution.
American public policy and public administration
This is an inaccurate reading of the Special Counsel statute.
This is a biased anti-Trump question. It doesn't belong in this study.
The act itself is perhaps less normal/abnormal (though it violated the Administrative Practices Act) or unimportant/important as the intent of the act to deprive places with immigrants of proper representation in governmental bodies, which is outrageous.
It's a sad event for our environment, and has important ramifications, but is not outside the scope of presidential power.
Indication of authoritarian personality, derangement or both.
Parliaments and elections, European politics
I guess I wasn't 100% sure whether 'appropriate' was meant in terms of being following regular procedures or being 'desirable' in some sense.  I went with the former.
Careless comments by President Trump are sadly common.
Dangerous to the long term ability of Congress to do its part in checks and balances of the federal government.
Fake emergencies to give more power to Trump are becoming routine.
His carelessness could deeply hurt U.S. intelligence efforts.
Part of a large effort to undermine rule of law. Loyalty is to Trump, not the United States.
Republican administrations have rolled back environmental regulations before.
What is troubling and abnormal is the logjam created during the Obama administration, leaving vacancies for the subsequent president to fill in a torrent.
This behavior denigrates the office of the presidency, motivates millions of Americans to take foolish, unwise, and unhealthy political positions, poisons our political discourse, and undermines important cultural norms about the American political creed and what makes an American citizen.
It is unwise for Congress to delegate authority over international trade agreements to the president. This replacement of NAFTA was an unnecessary political stunt.
If a previous president had the authority to unilaterally set environmental regulatory policy, then it follows that the current president has the same authority. In reality, Congress should not delegate this authority to the president of the United States.
This behavior denigrates the office of the presidency, undermines Americans’ trust in the electoral process, and invites foreign interference in American elections. This particular act is relatively unimportant compared to the hundreds of much more dangerous, serious, despicable, immoral, and corrupt actions taken by President Trump.
President Trump is both a fool and a fascist. This behavior indicates his foolishness.
This behavior denigrates the office of the presidency, motivates millions of Americans to take foolish, unwise, and unhealthy political positions, and poisons our political discourse.
American political thought, American political institutions, American political development
It does have an implicit agenda; suggesting an effort to frame Trump in an especially negative light.  To be sure, there is a lot to work with, but nonetheless there is an identifiable tilt.
This is a question that has been on census forms in the past and there is no reasonable objection to it.  The federal courts have taken it upon themselves to make political decisions which have no basis in law, but are merely the manifestations of their political preferences, and, in this case, their animus against the current president.  This is a direct threat to constitutional government.
The current president has been accused of being traitorous so often that I understand his reaction in this situation.  It's not perfect, but not inappropriate considering the circumstances.
It's actually an attempt at transparency, which is foreign to most presidential administrations.
Who cares, other than enemies of the current administration?  It was stupid of the administration, but inconsequential.
moral/value pluralism, conceptions of liberty, the rule of law
The President's designation of Alabama as in the path of a hurricane seemed to do no one harm and it infringed on no one's rights.  It was just stupid.
International law, human rights, US foreign policy
Some extension of longtime executive branch-legislative branch contention over control of foreign policy.
Displays general attitude towards actual data -- ignore it when it is inconvenient.
Too bad other substance-related epidemics weren't caught sooner.
Mostly shows idiocy; enough meteorologists in the country to set things right.
Mid-defines treason; attacks core constitutional principles.
I think that showing that a majority (or perhaps even a large majority of political scientists think Trump exhibits very inappropriate behavior will not enhance the image of the profession among conservatives in Congress.  The NSF, under pressure from conservatives, has placed the very future of "political science" as a target of funding in jeopardy.  If I am correct in my guess about the outcome of the survey, it could have disastrous effects for the profession.  What is the goal in conducing it?  Are your sure the benefits outweigh the costs?
It's been done before but not in half a century.  That's what makes it mostly abnormal.
Alas, presidents have repeatedly so acted.
A terrible policy but one based on the election returns.
If we can't trust government data then we can't make good policy.
It is completely abnormal because they were altered for reasons other than accuracy and public safety.  This makes it important.
sad face emoji.  Clearly abnormal for a president to threaten a Congressional chair for doing his job.
I'd like to know if Trump works at or is he just naturally the biggest asshole in all of American history.
Has this (un)stable genius (i.e. halfwit) of a president even read the Constitution.
Trump relates to the country as if it were his Kingdom. His manner of relating and governing his people is on the order of a Wicked King in fairy tales.
A disgusting and disturbing display of political egotism
The use of executive orders to increase/decrease environmental standards is (has become) mostly normal.
Only "mostly normal" because the problems the previous president had filling seats meant so many were empty.
Parliamentary democracy, Legislative oversight committees
The context is what makes this so significant for me; if he wasn't also repeatedly attacking the other party's loyalty, attacking the press, attempting to undermine the power of the other branches, circumventing the law, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned
This would be totally normal except for the preceding events with NAFTA and the open coercion involved.
As with many of these events, the context is what's shaping my rating. If they were occurring in isolation, they would be far, far less concerning. It's the cumulative effect that is so deeply concerning.
no sense of strategy nor importance of his position
Demonstrates the basic ignorance of Pres. Trump about separation of powers and of basic governmental procedures. The man has no knowledge of nor interest in governance.
I thought the W. Bush administration's Justice Department had reached the lowest point possible.  But I was wrong.
Elections matter.  And while think this decision is deplorable, the administration was up front in 2016 about deregulation.
This spoke volumes about Trump and his administration's lackeys.
state politics, lobbying, public policy, inequality
This is a legitimate demographic issue, for which reliable data is important.
what makes this only semi-important is the congressional refusal to secure our border with a wall, when both parties understand that walls are an effective deterrent
This is one of the key features of the Trump presidency.
Insurgency/counter-insurgency; Asian Studies; International Security
Questions seem skewed in a liberal direction.
You used the work joking. If it is not understood as such, this could become important.
Were the new policy substantially different, it would have high importance
I don't think this will set a precedent; it also was mostly a failure (since it did not show his strength)
Many of these positions were holdover openings from the Obama administration, where the Senate blocked nominees (including Garland's to the Supreme Court). This increasing polarization of the courts is problematic and important.
The survey too long and could be confusing in that one may not remember the responses to previous questions that may relate to later questions.
It's weird, and disturbing, but is not consequential.
It gives us information about the limits of executive power vis-a-vis other branches, which strikes me as important even if it's correct/appropriate (I leave that question to the constitutional lawyers).
The importance scale asks us to consider whether there are long-lasting effects. This strikes me as a data point to represent patterns that already exist, not something that changes U.S. democracy.
It is important insofar as it could kick off a generation or more of conservative judges that are not responsive to trends in the broader democracy.
political psychology & international security
Substantial attack on the rule of law and an impeachable offense to even make the offer.
Blowing up the original agreement was not normal, ceremonial signing of an agreement is normal.
The process is still constitutional, but changes to long standing norms and rules changes like the blue slip process to expedite these confirmations are not. The dominant role of the Federalist society is not normal.
The sharpie move was illegal. Also altering government scientific data to suit a fit of pique by the president is completely abnormal. It is important because it casts into doubt other government data on climate, economy, criminal justice, etc.
Parties & elections, Congress, voting behavior
Again, there is a difference between saying it and trying to do it, which would force a reclassification to abnormal.
He has not followed through yet, just suggested it.  If he follows through, it would be entirely abnormal.
Trump's action on this signifies his willingness to bend the scientific community in the Executive Branch to his will.
It occurs to me that what I thought were the necessary conditions for a state to be democratic shifted somewhat throughout the survey. I times I was simply thinking of a democratic state as one in which the people had a say. Other times I was thinking primarily about protections for political minorities. I'm not sure why I haven't thought of this before, but some anchoring vignettes might be useful at times.
Key questions unresolved about intelligence and redacted information.
There are questions here about executive power
While the AG is an executive official, historically the office has been seen as more independent of the President due to the position as the head of the department of justice and the need to remain more outside of politics.
The consequences of the question for the apportionment of districts is hugely important but the parties using whatever advantage they can get is normal. It is akin to gerrymandering.
National security should not be conducted via tweet.
It is an abuse of power and an end-run around Congress. It violates the constitutional structure of our system.
The military parade is more associated with autocratic regimes. But Trump loves pomp and circumstance so it is not surprising he wanted a big show.
It is only borderline normal because Trump has changed what normal is. And he often spouts nasty statements.
Barr overtly choosing sides, putting loyalty above legal responsibilities.
Dumb, but no real effect on policy. Sounds similar to bitter and ugly inter-party and inter-branch rivalries of 19th century.
From what I understand, USMCA is not hugely different from NAFTA. Negotiating it did fulfill a campaign promise.
Important in indicating 45's willingness to flout legal, ethical, and consitutional standards. May not be substantively hugely important to U.S. (for foreign policy).
Probably normal by historical standards; unusual only because recent presidents have often seen many of their judicial appointments blocked or delayed for long periods.
It depends partly on the meaning of normal as "regular" or "within his powers"
It's important because it is believable; both due to his narcissism, and probably also his sense that he is legally 'teflon' as long as he remains in office, and highly vulnerable to diverse suits once he leaves.
Trump seems to have personal relationships with the Saudi leadership that are probably influenced by his corporate interests, and money.
The professional agencies should be as clear of political manipulation as possible.    Of course this also has mostly to do with narcissistic preoccupations and an inability to ever admit to being wrong.
Wrapping one's self in the flag has certain traditional roles; in this case we also have a draft dodger developing a late mid-life militaristic fantasy.
the president's misuse of data is significant, but by this time most of the public expects inaccuracy from his pronouncements.
Former Speaker Ryan has apparently written that President Trump has no understanding of US government.   This seems to be the case, whereas by contrast he carries business-type vendettas into constitutional relationships.
Normative political theory with an emphasis on citizenship and republics
On the whole it seems appropriate, meaningful, and I found it worth the while.  A lot of general questions are difficult to address given the bizarre nature of the Executive Branch of the US government for the past three years.
This is part of his complete disrespect for constitutional and democratic norms, reflecting his egomania, demagoguery, willful ignorance, and drive for dictatorial power.
Incumbent's actions are so extreme they are endangering the county (list omitted) and he needs to be removed from office.
The problem here is to distinguish between the extreme violation of security protocol and the policy irrelevance of the action. It is political propaganda aimed at a domestic audience, to whip up support for US aggression, aimed at ignorant people who think that Iranian missiles mean Iranian aggressiveness, when Iran has ample reasons to strengthen its military defenses against the build-up of rhetoric and possibly US military forces against it. Bolton's departure is  helpful, indicating the Pres. is just grandstanding.
I lack knowledge of the details. I assume Mexico and Canada would not go along with something wrong.
It is unacceptable for a President to contradict scientific weather projections; it is completely bonkers to pressure NOAA when it is right and the President is wrong.
I don't have enough knowledge to judge this. I don't know how it compares with past rates of confirmation. It's comparable to what the federalists did to Jefferson. Being conservative in general is not a problem. I suspect that most confirmations will not matter, but biased, ideologically motivated judges will harm justice. I don't know how much it reflects normal partisanship and how much it reflects anti-constitutionalism among ideological republicans.
transportation pricing reform; neighborhood systems
My name is Sherman Lewis, and I do not need confidentiality.
1st off I don't believe he was joking. He has so little respect for democratic institutions & the rule of law that I believe he will try to do that or stay in office if he wins reelection.
The office of president should not be the pulpit for blatantly racist & xenophobic comments. It is completely unamerican & spits in the face of those who have sacrificed to defend out government, constitution &the values they claim  to embody.
It is extremely damaging to national security to let enemies know how good your spy capability is.
Presidents have the power to do this, but it goes against a carefully negotiated compromise on the left & center, showing the country moving from center to far right, when it has historically been more center to slightly center right.
It is 1 of many examples of how fragile the current president's ego is &how he has absolutely no respect for te law or proper governing principles.
His general pattern of scuttling anything put in place by President Obama is abnormal and important.
Symptomatic of deeper personality problems,but not a major issue in itself.
Mixture of IR, Comparative (South Asia), Political Thought, Administrative Ethics
The cover-up and intimidation were much worse than the original slip of the tongue. It's worrying that the President is surrounded by toadies.
Americans are not used to big military parades, but the rest of society is very militarized. I don't think this is a big deal, just a waste of money perhaps.
Other sources of information were available and the federal agency also reported correct information separately, so I would say this is semi-important.
Barr should be impeached. He has failed as the country's top law officer, due to his eagerness to serve Trump's interests. We thought he might be an improvement on Sessions, but he has given Trump his mob-boss lawyer, his "Roy Cohn."
The alleged leader of the free world should not be so ignorant and bigoted.
Violation of law, the Constitution and his oath of office. Impeachable.
The Republicon Party is locking in minority rule for a generation.
international organization and global environment
Unimportant for measuring democracy, important for humanity.
In some cases, there has been disregard for the quality of the judges relative to their ideological bent. By contrast, the pattern of not confirming judges during the Obama administration was highly abnormal, but I did not take that into account for this specific question.
Important mainly as part of the broader trend of the administration distorting information.
Wrong in so many ways -- undermines rule of law.
Though this particular example of pressure on an administrative agency was not very important -- the general trend of the Trump administration to do this is disturbing.
Following the Republican foot dragging on Obama nominees, this is a significant development that will have lasting political impacts.
Researching how democratic American political institutions are.
Threats against an individual who is doing their job.
comparative and international political economy
Abigail Adams said it best -- "remember all men would be tyrants if they could"
He's like a parody of a wannabe dictator
american politics, public policy, gender and politics
It is an attack on minorities, and on sitting elected representatives.
West European politics; race and ethnicity
I found this to be the most depressing round in quite a while
Trump shows no respect for the Constitution.
Congrats! Looking forward to know the results!
The scale on the original Likert was a little off, I think
the President conducting public harassment
Presidents/WH often pressure agencies to change reports/perceptions, etc; this is a trivial issue magnified by its public exposure and exacerbated by the president's inability to accept criticism (that's normal for presidents, but the current WH is even more sensitive than most, especially on stuff that matters the least (e.g. inaugural crowd size)).
Fairly normal for us to put pressure on a foreign government regarding corruption, but unusual because it involves rival for the presidency; only semi-important, however, because it pales in comparison to Nixon's efforts to sabotage peace talks ahead of 1968 election.
This does seem to be a bit more of a departure from conventional US immigration policy. Also, this type of xenophobia may be more particular to Republican administrations. However, in this issue area as well, the more general convention is for the US government to use scapegoating and division tactics (often the target of such attacks is immigrants) as a means of controlling the population and preventing class war, and that is important. As a particular instance of that larger tendency, I'd say this is semi-important.
Similar to my previous comment, its important US presidential administrations regularly arm rogue regimes, in many cases while disregarding and ride roughshod over the congress. But as a particular instance of that, its not all that important.
Its important as part of the normal quest for war and power expansion engaged in by the US across administrations. The fact that the US regularly does this is itself important, but as a particular event (this time under Trump), its not that important as its just business as usual.
I say mostly abnormal, because although the US regularly is engaged in trade with other nations, the signing of a FTA in the Americas is rare. Such agreements have important implications with regards to jobs and the state of the economy, and may also reflect the influence of particular interest groups (if they receive trade protection, for instance).
I view this as basically a normal bipartisan elite tactics to keep the masses divided along partisan lines and to keep them distracted from the more important issues. It seems pretty constant in the US.
Again, while the particular act seems somewhat unique, I view this as "old wine in new bottles". Basically, this can be viewed as part of the government's regular strategy of distracting people from important issues and by striring up partisan division (the means of doing this vary, but generally seem pretty regular). This particular act also benefits the elites from both parties in that it stirs up divisive feelings of nationalism.
An egregious breach of decorum and the Constitutional limits on executive power. This is the stuff of dictators and tyrants.
Authoritarian politics in Russia and post Soviet states
I don't actually know anything about this event
Africa, democracy  and religion and politics
Obviously a comment meant to divide and marginalize
Representative of the president's willingness to use presidential authority for personal political gain
Representative of the personality of the president, and an extension of his need for undeserved gratification.
Symbolic of the use of presidential power for personal political purposes
Blurring the lines associated with civilian control of the military. Resembles the actions of a despot
Demonizing political opponents is representative of despotic behavior, and is clearly an abuse of executive authority. Thankfully in this case it's just rhetoric.
Central to democracy is the data for reapportionment.  The citizenship question was intended to subvert such an accurate count.
Business as usual in a Republican administration.
Government scientists doing their job as scientists is critical to good governance.
Impeachable. May not be a crime, but fits Hamilton's definition of impeachable.
The revisions were comparatively minor, and the treaty has yet to be ratified by the Senate
Climate change is the single most important issue in the world today. This action demonstrates utter contempt for the world at large
This would be unthinkable for any Democratic President in my lifetime
Rivera was an outstanding relief pitcher, but relief pitchers are a lot less valuable than is generally believed. Also, this is the nation's highest civilian award. I enjoyed watching Mo pitch, but c'mon.
This is something that should have been investigated by the appropriate regulatory agency before the product came on the market
Trump is a jerk no matter what I say on this survey
As I understand democracy, if the President has been democratically elected, he should be able to exercise quite a lot of power to fulfill his campaign pledges to the electorate. It is democratic if he is able to achieve his policy outcome and undemocratic if these are frustrated by non-elected officials such as judges or civil servants.
The Constitution vests the war powers in Congress but the President, as commander in chief, does not some flexibility to exercise foreign policy.  Here, the President seems to violating congressional war powers.
Presidents conduct all power--including power policy--with an eye towards re-election.  This is "normal" and even desirable.  However, there is a difference between making policy to gain support and using the power of the presidency to personally benefit.
Experts within the Executive need to be trusted.  To politicize the weather, undermines the credibility of this expertise.
A degree of incivility is expected in a deliberative democracy.  This is over the top, however.
Would be interested to see the results over time!
answer would change if Trump admin decision was influenced by personal financial considerations.
US public law; presidential power under the US Constitution
glad you are doing this.  very dangerous time.  bizarre that daily life mainly goes on as normal as we wonder whether liberal democracy in the US will survive.
A clear disregard & disrespect for the US Constitution.
This follows partisan political approaches used by the Senate in the past.
US National Security; Public Administration; Political Philosophy
I am more and more troubled each time I complete this survey. It reflects back to me the state of affairs, that I often don't want to think about in a summative manner (and is easier to let go of, be distracted from when I am not thining about the up to date outcome).
Political power and protection of institutions is to be expected and normal.
using its major powers for minor political issues weakens the office of the presidency, typically presidents want more power.
While not OK, the use of foreign policy for personal political gain is common. The myopic concentration on a single candidate is abnormal.
Presidents appreciating various facets of human achievement with awards should be normal but is not the norm. While not typically done, it is also normal to expect politicians to use pageantry and awards for political gain.
With the same party controlling the Senate and WH, combined with a lack of filibuster, the high number of confirmations is not surprising. It will have a lasting effect on the republic.
it is important because it erodes public trust.
The more that the military is dragged into publicity matters and ignored as policy experts in matters tied to their expertise, the more problematic this event would seem in hindsight.
democratization, comparative public policy & administration
It is illegal and may lead to removal from office if pursued
How can you believe anything he says (or is that the point?)
It establishes a precedent for undermining the rule of law and executive accountability.
Although all administration try to manipulate scientific data, this undermines trust in non-partisan government agencies.
It undermines civility in politics and increases polarization.
The attorney general is supposed to uphold the law, not serve as a president's unofficial lawyer.
It's offensive, and insults both the congresswomen and their constitutents.
U.S. national security depends on having a bi-partisan foreign policy, with agreement between Congress and the President.  Having multiple "foreign policies" is a recipe for failure.
Offering a pardon ex ante is obstruction of justice.  It can affect a defendant's willingness to be truthful when questioned; and it signals that the country's chief law enforcement officer (the president) is flouting the law.
while this was a one-off event, it still is very important because it signals that one of the bedrock requirements of a democracy - access to unbiased information from an agency that affects the safety of millions of Americans - is at risk.
This is highly abnormal in United States' history.
While I agree the nation's trending away from democracy, and mostly at the direction of President Trump, some of these questions were too leading to provide an unbiased analysis of democracy in America. For example, the question about the electoral college is clearly worded to end the institution despite being foundational to the nation.
Technically, Congress should do this. That said, this does not appear to be a politically motivated move, so I think its actually one of the more normal things Trump has done.
The president is desperate to reject criticism and be found right. This is his priority as president -- not the pursuit of US interests. It very much matters that the president is willing to lie and alter documents to make himself look good.
I find the question about the small states having greater influence in an election than larger states with greater population to be a bit misleading, and to ask it without any context about WHY the founders established the electoral college system is somewhat problematic.
Evidence that this was being done for partisan reasons, and that the administration misled the courts about this were very troubling.
Betrayed presidential prejudice against elected representatives who were both women and people of color, and ignorance that three of the four were born in the US.
Other presidents have done these things, mostly based on their view of national security.  In this case, it seemed more transactional for President's personal benefit.
Speed and lack of due diligence on part of Senate was unusual.
Even if the president is joking or not entirely serious, the laws and norms regarding presidential term limits are sacrosanct.  No politician, no less a sitting president, ought to ever suggest that they be flouted for personal benefit.  If a president truly believes the 2-term limit should be altered, then he or she should make sure to publicly state that any new law abolishing or extending term limits would not apply to him or her.
This is, simply put, the gravest threat to our democratic system I have witnessed in my lifetime.  The power to impeach is a clear constitutional power designed to check political corruption, abuse, and illegality.  If the administration is not cooperating, this itself is impeachable.
Although I disagree with the president's policies and attitude toward immigrants, the question of citizenship--of who is legitimately a member and not a member of the state--is important in government. The president's tone bothers me much more than the substance of the policy.
The statement  is highly offensive, though sadly too common in our political history.
Simply put, this behavior is authoritarian and a clear abuse of executive power. The president is attempting to control the flow and substance of information.  Nothing could be more at odds with our democratic values.
Provided that the decision is based on expert opinion and went through the proper legislative processes, I have no problem with this action.  I would rather have the action originate in Congress, but the president's actions here are not atypical.
History of Politcal Thought/ Eighteenth and Ninetheenth Century (mostly Rousseau)
This is important because it engages in a liberal framework of international relations. Whereas President Trump primarily appears to use a realist framework, this shows he is not absolute in that framework. It might also be evidence of the lack of coherence in his use of framework/theory to guide his international actions (instead, domestic frameworks might explain his international actions better).
It was of a trivial matter in the larger scheme of life, which is why it is not that important. The bureaucracy did its job and the citizens of Alabama were properly informed to not be concerned with Hurricane Dorian. What makes this semi-important is that while it abnormal behavior on a trivial matter, President Trump and his administration appear to link this about something much more than just providing inaccurate information on accident.
It is normal business for the president to nominate judges and the Senate to confirm them. How the process has changed in the last forty years is another issue; but the business itself is the normal. If we wanted to judge the change in the whole process that is a different question. This is a very important action by the executive and legislatures, as we know the lower courts make hundreds of thousands of decisions that effect public policy every year.
Modern political philosophy; American political thought; the history of political philosophy; science, technology, and politics; mass political behavior
Hard for me to gauge the consequences of this.
This pretty much undermines the premise of popular sovereignty.  It crosses every line of acceptable behavior for democratic leaders.
It's abnormal, but I didn't see that it had serious consequences for citizens.
It is not important directly, but indirectly it is by normalizing lies.
Defiance of subpoenas issued in pursuit of Congress' Constitutional oversight responsibility is an impeachable offense and should be treated as such.
It becomes important if he does it. Right now it's talk, which is cheap in this administration.
Bit of an odd choice maybe but no big deal
Three were born here.  This harks back to what Nazis did in Germany.
Foreign policy should be formulated with allies and those in government concerned with it.  then the public should be informed.  It seems as if Trump has only one constituency in formulating foreign policy--those who voted for him.
It indicates a lack of respect for the judiciary or any other government actor who quesitons Trump's authority.  It implies a disprespect for the rule of law.
It will further add to the problems of air pollution.
It may save lives and has elction implications.
Their appointment seems based on their ideological purity.
This undermines rule of law, which is a defining characteristic of democracy
Protecting basic civil servants that provide social services from political interference is vital to preventing corruption.
Important to remember that Ukraine had investigated Biden and found no evidence of wrongdoing. So Trump's request to go back and investigate again implies that Trump wanted Ukraine to manufacture false evidence against his rival. This is wrong for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that it could place the president in a position of being blackmailed by a foreign power. At minimum, it implies that US foreign policy is "for sale" and could potentially be "sold" to an adversary of the US.
Suggests the weakening of rule of law and the potential for arbitrary rule by political leaders.
Attorney General and Department of Justice work for the people, not the Executive Branch
If all people are equal under the law, and the additional citizenship question intends to violate this principle, then it is very important and mostly abnormal in my opinion
Tweeting sensitive information reduces the ability of our intelligence community to do its job
This is mostly normal for a political party that values campaign contributions and corporate profits over the health of its citizens.
Violation of federal laws asking foreign countries to investigate a domestic rival, abuse of power in pressuring an ally, extorting that ally to open domestic investigations in exchange for previously Congress-approved aid, circumventing the normal processes of government to conduct a "shadow-diplomacy" and forcing out federal employees seen as blocking those efforts.  Need I go on...
It's yet another of Trump's appalling attacks on civic tolerance
Misusing the office of the president -- and US foreign policy aid -- to investigate a domestic political opponent is catastrophically bad.
McConnell has bent the rules a bit to shepherd through judicial confirmations but on the whole it's business as usual
Another of Trump's attacks on the rule of law and separation of powers.  These are things he neither understands nor cares about.
Rule of law issues go right to the heart of institutional democracy
Within powers to roll back regulations; however policy is contrary to the public interest.
Violates informal norms of acceptable use of presidential power.
Administrative rule that may not have followed process (public comment, etc.), but could be justified under law (police powers perhaps).
Violates longstanding cultural (informal norms) expectations about the use and projection of presidential and military power in the US.
The above statement is not entirely accurate.   “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came” It is not clear from, “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” alone, what President Trump may have been referring. An alternative to your (and the media's interpretation) is President Trump was referring to their congressional districts or specific cities in which the MOCs represent.
The decision itself is "normal", but the way in which Wilbur Ross attempted to make it happen is not normal. I would say its borderline normal or mostly abnormal. The way the administration is attempting to gain this information even after Supreme Court ruled against it is also borderline or mostly abnormal. It is important insofar as getting this information can shift electoral districts and representation. But this still falls under what is normally contested in our political system.
He is not following protocol for protecting intelligence sources and methods. I think these actions can further politicize not only intelligence, but more dangerously the military - there have been few presidents to my knowledge who have put the military on guard in this way -
Undermines rule of law, undermines bureaucratic professionalism and bureaucratic commitment to upholding law and constitution. Weakens checks and balances. All to a greater degree than in the past.
It might be normal (Newt Gingrich?) but its important insofar as its not just about partisanship but about equating checks and balances - checks on this presidency with being anti-American - and in general calling and investigation concerning what appears to be a valid allegation against the president anti-American. It's essentially calling efforts to uphold the rule of law treasonous, and this is qualitatively different.
It seems reasonable to want to know how many citizens of the United States there are.
He isn't the first president to engage in such end runs around Congress.
I'm not wild about questions regarding democracy because you don't define democracy.  Personally, I would prefer a system that's more republican than democratic, in the sense of how the Founders understood the difference between the two.
Encouraging foreign meddling in our elections for the benefit of the sitting president is an impeachable act.
DC Fourth of July celebrations have had a history of non-partisanship and with an absence of military presence.  Trump eroded these norms with these changes.
Reagan did the same thing.  Still not desirable.
It was abandoning NAFTA that was abnormal; signing an executive agreement trade agreement is fairly normal.
Illegal, but worse was that this was happening while he was being investigated  for (and denied) doing the same thing against Clinton.
This is authoritarian, mafia style corruption.  Unacceptable.
International conflict and cooperation; research methods.
I find the 100 point scale difficult to conceptualize, so I only answer in 10pt increments. .
It sends the wrong signal, that dissent is not tolerated.
Is it really that much different from the previous NAFTA agreement?  THe USMCA is much ado about nothing. And why didn't he join the Pan-Pacific Trade Agreement?
Climate change is real and we need to start acting like it is.
Senate held up judicial appointments in the previous administration in order to maximize the number it could nominate with a different party in power.
This is a scare tactic, plain and simple. I find this sort of practice more at home in an authoritarian state.
I say only borderline normal, because this has happened many times before, before Trump got into office, no?
Again, I think the US two-party system often works this way, with successive governments trying to improve upon the work of others in order to make themselves more electable moving forward. From what I understand, the USMCA is not a significant change from NAFTA, and is thus only semi-important (i.e. not much changed across the two agreements)
Administrations often try to roll back the legacies of their predecessors. This is part of the governance process in two-party systems like the US. BUT, methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and this rollback is thus important.
Pressuring independent agencies and researchers to match their findings with presidential sentiments is hugely problematic. Not like I'm a huge fan of technocracy, but the propaganda here combined with the dismissal of truth and science entailed herein is creepy. This sort of anti-intellectual bent, and the narcissism too, presents Trump as the classic strong-man dictator.
Another signifier of a creeping authoritarianism. With labelling and identifying of in-groups and out-groups, and then targeting them politically (the last question), the valorization of the military is another such marker of our political devolution.
Another foolish and uncalled statement from the president
Congress and the president should agree on a matter of national security.
A few of the questions are presented in such a way that they ignore our constitutional structure.  Obviously the question on the populations of the states and the electoral college ignores the many sensible reasons for this system. Yes, the president has taken unusual actions on the border issue. But here Congress has utterly failed to do its job and work with him on what is, believe it or not,  a matter of national security.  There are other issues but I'll stop here.
Latin American Politics and democratization
This episode necessarily raises serious concerns about the politicizing of agencies like NOAA, and about the consequences for the operations of all the knowledge-based agencies of the federal government.
Modern American and European political theory and philosophy
Barr, too, should clearly be impeached.  More abhorrent than this has been his personal involvement in bogus investigations into the origins of the Mueller Report and his obvious unwillingness to maintain the traditional role of the AG as the chief law enforcement office of the US and not the president's hired hack.
The damage to our intelligence capabilities, especially intel-sharing with allies is already placing the national security in danger.
Even the automakers think this policy makes no sense, but pandering to the retrograde constituencies that elected him is one of his only consistent behaviors.
If this is not an impeachable (and removable) offense, then there is no such thing.  The Impeachment power has no meaning and the Constitution is a a meaningless document.
It reflects his constant need for grandiose affirmation... the most unstable, insecure and emotionally/cognitively weak human being ever to be allowed past White House security...
It just shows how is both a pathological liar and an inept leader of his own agencies...
This tweet helped to counter a narrative that the Iranians are not pursuing nuclear weapons.  Given the media would not report it, this seems fairly normal.
Treaties come, treaties go, treaties come again.
After he had the FBI and CIA investigating him for three years, and really not finding very much, this is not at all surprising.  One would imagine that using the power of office to investigate political opponents is not uncommon.  Right?  And, again, I am hearing neighbors wondering how you can sit on an energy company board for merely being the son of a politician.  Yeah, I would investigate this too.
It seemed weird that people freaked out about this.  There just seems to be automatic reaction against anything Trump and to make every little event into a major case for impeachment.  I am hearing my neighbors and students get tired of this.  Nobody can sustain this level of animosity on all things for so long.
Considering there has been almost a three year barrage of attacks and attempts to remove the president (from almost the day after the election), it is not surprising that somebody will get pissed off by this constant barrage.  It honestly seems like the Congress is doing nothing by trying to remove the president.  Again, I hear many of my Democrat neighbors getting really exhausted by this constant attack mode and elevating everything to impeachment.  People who didn't vote for Trump are telling me that they are glad he is pushing back.
I am not a Trump supporter, but our profession has gone off the rails on the crazy train when it comes to Trump.  We are blinded by rage, and I get a sense of this in this survey.  Some of the questions on "appropriate / inappropriate" are based upon assumptions weighted against Trump, making it very difficult to give a clear answer.  For instance, I would say that it is not appropriate for a politician to use the powers of their office to investigate their opponent, but if there is an indication that someone has committed a crime or breach of ethics and it is your job to investigate this, then you should.  It amazes me that Joe Biden is being accused (by mainstream media outlets several months ago) of using his vice presidency to remove a Ukranian prosecutor in what looks like a quid pro quo, and this is okay.  But Trump looking into is not okay?  I don't get it and a lot of people who don't specifically like Trump are raising an eyebrow on this double standard.  We have faculty spouting off on this in the media and classrooms and we are rapidly losing our reputation as independent scholars.  Your survey seems to be part of the problem.
This behavior is highly abnormal and an enticement to bigoted behavior that is beneath the dignity of the office.
If the image was from a classifies system, then it revealed a capability that was better kept secret.  Trading that for a questionable political advantage is highly suspect.
Inviting lawbreaking?  An impeachable offense if there ever was one.
A role for the military is acceptable, but not similar to what the world witnessed on Oct. 1 in Beijing.
Senate confirmation of Presidential appointees is expected and normal behavior under our constitutional system.
The questions leave little room for responses that are not in total agreement.
Keep doing these with political scientists. Important for healthcheck on our democracy.
A brief moment of reasonable regulatory response...
The Republican Party fears large voter turnout and for decades has tried hard to make it more difficult for many groups to vote.
It'a a gross abuse of power, clearly impeachable.
In our planet's life-or-death crisis of climate change, it's a vote for death. Methane is 20x as harmful as CO2.
It's a gross abuse of power, clearly impeachable.
It symbolizes Trump's aspiration to absolute power, which itself is threatening our democracy.
Children's rights and empowerment; political psychology and ideology
Very timely and very important; keep up the good work!
Other AGs have become overly protective of the pres.  But this guy has completely sold out.
Don't remember ever seeing a president use the pardon as a promise to sway testimony and behavior.  But Clinton pardoned guys he should not have.
GW did similar things.  Also failed to regulate and supressed data on, for example, cell phone/driving risk.
Lots of ambassadors are there because they were big money raisers, but shocking that the president used military aid to a besieged ally as a lever to exact a bogus investigation.  He's an immoral crook, uterly without moral fiber.
The guy wants to be a military dictator.  Thirst for the trapings is in sync with his perverted view of his job.
This harkens back to the McCarthy era though that was one evil senator.  This is the president of the United States.  Criminal behavior.  No sense of the constitution or separation of powers.
Congress is reserved the power to decide how we generate funds
A President is, in advance, encouraging the breaking of laws and informing the law breakers there will be no repercussions.
Congress should set the standards. The US political system is dysfunctional.
I refuses to discuss the idiocy of the President's statements anymore
Need questions about the role of Media in all this
He wasn't joking, he was sending up a trial balloon.
Its importance goes beyond disrespect for Congress, because it also contributes to the rise of racism in the public.
While this violated norms of security, it is within the legal powers of the president.
Political interference with scientific findings, never right.
I don't know anything about Mr. Rivera, so I may be missing the point.
Politics of the environment; the American party system.
The importance is largely driven by norm violation
The importance is largely driven by norm violation and how it models behavior to the mass public
Just because i do not like does not mean it is abnormal
With the ending of the filibuster, this was going to happen.
African politics; authoritarian politics; public opinion
This step is unfortunate, but it is somewhat typical of political machinations by political parties and politicians to advantage their own policy positions. It is still a harmful thing, though.
Same as last comment. A more rational official would simply admitted that he had misspoke, and that would have been the end of it. This whole incident was childishly ridiculous.
Totally unacceptable under all circumstances. But especially the way it was done this time, withholding military aid to a besieged ally in order to get compliance with an illegal act.
If you win the election, you get to make appointments. One may not like the appointments. But when your side wins, the opposition won't like your appointments.  But all judgeships are important. And this will shift the courts in a more conservative direction.
Semi-important only because it seems to fit a larger pattern of playing fast-and-loose with the truth, and with the integrity of governmental agencies. Were it a lone incident, it would have been fairly unimportant.
A) he's totally wrong. B) he's demonizing the opposition as a smokescreen for side-stepping Constitutional mandates.
International politics, mainly Europe, Middle East, and formerly Latin America
Though all the questions were important, the survey seemed biased. Even if arguably "biased in my direction," any bias is unwanted in a good survey.
empirical testing of rational choice theories of governmental decision processes.
In this case I think that he was actually joking, but it encourages his supporters and undermines democratic norms.
Undermines democratic norms and belief in nonpartisan functioning of the justice system.  Undermines legislative oversight.
Important because it is a clearly politically motivated effort at vote suppression.
Republicans won the election and can implement their policy preferences.  However, this is another indication of executive over reach, undermining prevailing democratic norms.
Indicates hyper partisan environment and politicization of the judiciary.
He places himself above the law and the constitution. He has an authoritarian temperament. he is ignorant and malevolent. And dangerous in the extreme.
This has historic precedent. Census has been politicized in past. Intent is beyond partisan; it is malevolent an bigoted.
Congress sought to constrain this kind of presidential behavior in the 70's. Trump has contempt for separation of power and legislative role.
He routinely puts people and policy and national interest at risk with his mindless, ill considered - I would say borderline unhinged - behavior
Rejects rule of law. Ignores basics of constitutional system. assumes loylaty to leader transcends that to nation and its norms and practices.
Reverses established national policy  by exec fiat. Rejects international agreements. Ignore consensus science. Endangers the globe. Stupid and uninformed.
State and local, federalism, state constitutions
Trump is an existential threat   to our political system and pluralist society.
Trump does not have a sense of humor, as much as he tries.
American Democracy demands checks and balances to be sure that differing points of view on issues are vetted carefully.
Trump is abnormal on most events by believing his view that his viewpoint is superior to anyone else who are aware.
The President who is urging others to break the laws should be impeached for creating crimes.
It seems Trump merely sacked the NAFTA because it was brought about by President Clinton, and personally Trump hated him, and anyone who was a Democrat.
If the President undercuts trained and experienced men and women in the governmental agencies, we teeter on the edge of becoming a dictatorship.
Grand jury testimony and material relevant to an ongoing investigation should not be compromised by a subpoena.  No material damage is done to the use of constitutional congressional powers by providing redacted documents.
This is important information and has policy implications. Policies should be based on the best information obtainable.
"Break the law" in what way? Who reported this?
No harm, no foul. He's not a professional weatherman. No wild statements from the Democrats?
150 confirmations compared to what number put forward?
Left out the basis for the prosecution for treason claim.
Public opinion, voting behavior, campaigns, and political parties
Many of the questions seemed aimed at Trump and very few, if any, at the questionable activities of the news media and congressional Democrats.
Separation of powers, man! We need to rethink the subordination of the AG to the president.
Overt racism hasn't been a core element of the presidency for generations. Pairing it with an attack on a co-equal branch of government implies authoritarian aspirations, white nationalism at the highest levels, and a lack of basic respect for public service that easily spreads to public sentiment. Each of these is somewhat important. When combined, they rise to the level of "important" - a trifecta of the grotesque.
The USMCA is NAFTA 2.0 in most ways with a few important modernizing elements but it maintains so many aspects of the original NAFTA that the theater surrounding it and the grand promises attached to it are, again, farcical.
Pressuring foreign governments and using political office to advantage reelection through policy ARE normal, even if not completely desirable. Doing those things to advantage an incumbent over a specific rival is abnormal and undesirable in American democracy. They are, however, normal in autocracies.
It's a cheap political move. Cheap political moves are a dime-a-dozen, but this rises a little on the abnormality scale because it cheapens a previously meaningful award.
Mostly abnormal in recent decades and just plain farcical (not to mention a massive waste of money).
The final set of questions were difficult to answer. I can't recall the exact wording, but the question about voting for Congress and state population did not make sense to me. Do you mean the Senate? The question about birthplace and voting uses the word citizens, making it seem like a trick question - or perhaps that's the point. The questions about normal and abnormal activities and their importance were superb. Love this project.
In a separation of powers system there will be squabbles between the White House and the Congress.  There may be classified material in the full report.  Members of the committee, without the authority to do so, might leak some classified material from the report.
Starting with the GW Bush administration there has been interference by elected public officials with the work of agencies either producing or relying on scientific information to inform stakeholders and other citizens.   This will not lead to good public policy.
It's abnormal for a product already approved for consumption to be "banned."  There are health risks to this product.
It is mostly important if there are actually people out there who believe in a word Trump speaks, as there are.  Evacuations might occur that are totally unnecessary and result in wasted time, injuries, and even deaths.
Denying climate change is one thing. Using the power of the Executive Branch to erase the legacy of a Former President (Obama) is putting politics (and racism) above climate change.
This is a breach of intelligence security and indicates how out of his depth Trump is.
Just normal fascist behavior, except we are supposed to be a democratic country.
The speed with which the GOP controlled Senate approved Trump's reactionary judicial nominations after dragging their feet on Obama's mainstream nominations shows reckless partisan behavior, devoid of rational deliberation.
Environmental law, policy, and regulation
In the history of legislative oversight of the executive branch there has often been tension and lack of full disclosure.  What is unique about this case is the AG's summary of the report was substantively wrong.  It wasn't just incomplete, it misrepresented in unprecedented ways the findings of the report.
From Washington's call to avoid Foreign Entanglements to today, the independence of American political processes is an expected and necessary norm.  Particularly our electoral system.  For Presidents to seek foreign assistance in two consecutive elections is unprecedentedly and harms the very legitimacy of our system of governance.
IR Theory, USFP.  Secondary field - American Politics, American Political Thought
abnormal and important because this is a specific partisan (GOP) political strategy, not consistent with US public policy
This is a serious, critical issue in climate change reduction. It's entirely about politics, big business, and in rolling back the legacy of the Obama Administration.
Yes, this is important. The agencies of the executive branch should have independent authority to act on their experience and knowledge, in non-partisan ways, free from political interference.
who is mariano rivera and why should I care?
Wow. He actually did something that supports public health, that is in line with what the health experts recommend, and that is presidential. Why am I so surprised?
supports a "cult of personality" that is very un-presidential
Race and politics, public opinion, social movements
U.S. State Politics, Elections, and Policy
This is an example (one of many) where we can see a slow erosion of the norms that have governed democracy in America. As troubling as it is that the presidents says this is the positive reactions of the audience he speaks to.
South Asia, social movements, political violence.
Massive challenge to institutions and norms
We know why they did it. Really terrible.
Saudi Arabia gets lots of weapons. The bigger issue is defying congress.
Stupid and probably dangerous but not sure it will have long term consequences
Trade agreements have important distributional consequences
Red team Go! Wouldn’t be different under another administration. Though, to be sure, warming is an existential crisis and an enormous challenge. I just don’t know that these regulations will be the tipping point and we are not set to resolve the problem with the regulations in place.
Use 11 point scales instead of sliding scales and thermometers. Also make sure that your scales have proper midpoints.
terrible decision, but elections have consequences.
great reliever, not sure about his public contribution.  Enter the Sandman
question is always the process for loyalty
state and local govt, immigration policy and politics
This issue of President Trump's appointments to the adjudicative power (to the judiciary branch) is possibly the single most important one of most of the issues mentioned, at least from the perspective of preserving democratic institutions within the U.S. government as a whole.
International Organizations and Civil Society
Many of these issue reduce the trust in government and institutions
Conflict processes, peace, conflict resolution
Civic engagement; political behavior; religion and politics
This is how a democracy should work, senate nomination of presidents selections. This is somewhat abnormal as the senate drug its feet on these under the previous president.
Latin American Politics; Indigenous and Ethnic Politics
the problem is that such a question has political effects, such as deterring some from cooperating with the census for fear of getting into legal difficulties.  then the census becomes inaccurate.
Bush and Reagan also tried to hide the facts of climate change, so the Trump action is not so abnormal.  but that is not good.
one should act on facts and not try to politically distort facts
you have two different factors in the statement.  hyping the military on the 4th of July not so bad.  the President putting himself front and center, rather than promoting national unity, is not so good.  the President has a narcissistic disorder
the problem is politicized, far right judges and judiciary not the confirmation #s per se
Presidents should not try to intimidate critics or question their patriotism
one statement had two different factors in it, making a single reply difficult
The planet is on fire (important) but conservatives have been dousing it with fuel for decades (mostly normal)
We are not a military state (abnormal to hold a military parade), but beyond the costs of a pointless parade it didn't matter much
Criticism != treason, and trying to silence dissent through intimidation is a hallmark of authoritarianism.
Flagrant disregard for the separation of powers/checks and balances.  Again, fundamental disregard for the constitutional basis of our system.
This action shows a lack of understanding of and unwillingness to uphold the constitution.
Again, leans toward an authoritarian system.  The facts are not what the leader WISHES them to be.
Shows a pattern within this administration toward lies, exaggeration, and massaging facts to mislead the public.
Again, shows a misunderstanding of our basic political system and leans toward the definition of authoritarian rather than democratic.
Normative Democratic Theory and Constitutional Law
This is an assault on democratic governance in the United States.  By attempting to involve foreign governments in an attack on a political opponent, Trump goes beyond the actions of Nixon.
The Senate Republicans want to ensure that their views will be embedded in the judiciary for decades going forward.  McConnell tried to keep nominees of President Obama from being seated, but now is going full tilt to do the opposite.
Career government officials, including scientists, are supposed to be non-partisan.  If results can be changed to suit a government leader, trust in all types of government data is undermined.
Thank you for conducting this important survey
American Political Development; US social policy
Not entirely sure he’s joking, as the constitution and rule of law appear to have no relevance to him.
The process by which the treaty was negotiated was abnormal and somewhat damaging to international relations.
Political parties, campaigns and elections, interest groups
Constitution requires everyone in the country to be counted rendering citizenship irrelevant. There may be justifiable reasons for wanting to know the number of U.S. citizens, but the census is not the place to do that. The only reason the Trump Administration wants to know the number of citizens is for nefarious purposes since they are clearly anti-immigrant.
The Trump Administration is a bunch of anti-science climate change deniers who serve the wishes of their corporate masters.
Normal in the sense of partisan/ideological politics of the US today
There is nothing in the history of the universe that is less important than sports.  Don't ask me about this stuff.  I didn't even know it happened.
I dread filling out this survey every time I do it.  That doesn't mean it should stop.
Latin America, democracy and democratization, public health
Normal to try to make policy changes to help your party. Important because would be very consequential to elections and public policy.
Racist behavior by president encourages racism by his supporters. He has no respect for those who oppose him and essentially says they are un-American.
Shows he has no respect for separation of powers and regular order for making laws.
Semi important because it means official communication from government is propaganda and not scientific fact.
Other countries collect this sort of data, but have a history of doing so, and the origins of other countries' citizenship questions are not as blatantly political. What is unusual here is the way that the citizenship question is being used both to score political points and to intimidate respondents. This latter objective is what makes the inclusion of this question so hugely consequential. If people are reluctant to complete the census, and, as a result, the census does not accurately reflect our population, there will be massive political, social, and economic repercussions.
While the US has pursued policies to influence other countries' elections, we have long worked to guard ourselves from such foreign influence in our elections. This is a clear abuse of the power of the presidency.
Honestly, this is outside my expertise. I do not know the law surrounding what is required of the Attorney General. But it definitely sounds like the Att General is abusing his power and violating the law, thereby undermining democratic institutions and due process.
It's a bad idea from a scientific perspective as it might reduce response rates, which could lead to an innacurate census, which could be quite important/consequential on many levels. However, honestly, as a researcher, it would be great to have better data on the immigration status of different groups. Of course it could also be abused and used to deport or persecute people, which I think is the broader fear from a democracy perspective.
Giving immunity to people who break the law of the land because they are enacting the President's preferred policies clearly undermines democratic institutions and rule of law and is dangerous precedent.
It's abnormal for a head of state to weigh in on a scientific matter that is completely outside of his/her expertise to create an alternative narrative (towards some unknown end). It is important because doing this undermines trust in science and politicizes the weather, a topic that should be completely mundane and unimportant. It is also important because it could have disastrous consequences if people living in areas that will be heavily affected by a hurricane believe the President's projections and do not heed evacuation requests. It could lead the President to be directly responsible for unnecessary deaths.
Again, this is outside of my expertise. I'm sure if this is a lot more than historical numbers. It is not unusual to me that a representative body whose ideological composition matches the executive would rubber stamp his nominations. It is important since this confers lifetime tenure.
Adding questions for political objectives is normal. Doing so as a deliberate effort to manipulate electoral outcomes strikes me as ver abnormal and very important.
Misrepresenting facts for personal vindication is abnormal behavior. The example may be relatively unimportant but what it reveals about POTUS’s mindset makes it more important.
This is a great survey. If you are looking for an interesting and informative book about the quality of democracy in the U.S., you should read Evaluating American Democracy and Public Policymaking (2018, Rowman & Littlefield).
The questions seemed designed to produce a condemnation of Trump.   He does, of course, deserve condemnation.
The last set of questions should also include necessary v sufficient
Of the crazed things that Trump says daily that is no better than average.
Downgrading of congressional powers is a grave threat to democracy.
Again, further erosion of the rule of law.
I think the anti-electronic-cigarette hysteria is ridiculous. And I could imagine the Obama Administration doing the same thing.
Presidential Campaigns and the News Media
This undermines trust in government to tell the public the truth. It makes people less likely to believe vital information coming from govt sources in the future.
The executive is clearly running over congress when it comes to foreign policy.
The executive is using this power inappropriately to get away with breaking the law.
I feel like this is inline with what any republican administration would do, even though it will have a major impact on the climate/environment.
This is executive overreach. The President should not be asking scientist to align their science to the lies he fabricates to fit his agenda.
I think that banning the product outright might be over dramatic and it will have a definite impact of markets and the companies that sell the product, but I don't think its that far out of line with what other administrations have done.
Although I believe the confirmations are normal, they are important because they will have a lasting effect on judicial doctrine.
It's a "joke" but it's unclear if he is truly joking.
Ignores that the constitution specifically mandates the counting of persons, not citizens.
Attempt to restrict citizenship to only those that agree with the party of the leader.
President is using the powers of the state in order to (1) attack his personal political opponent; (2) over riding Congress's power of the purse.
The manner in which is was done is what makes it abnormal.
Ignores separation of powers and checks and balances .
it is important to the extent that the President encourages supporters to act outside the law in connection with this "joke"
it's an unwise step to take but hardly abnromal; important in connection with its potential consequences for policy
I teach in American Politics broadly: Congress, Presidency, Constitutional law
Some of the last set of "democratic-undemocratic" questions would have elicited different answers depending on the scenarios, each of which came with no particular context.
Significant about him for saying so, but unrealistic to take place.
Administrations always play significant roles in regulation through their agencies.
Branding the US version--and only our version carries the "US first" name--as a major shift in trade policy purposefully distorted the actual accomplishment. An important but modest accomplishment.
Presidents vocalizing their disagreement with some federal bureaucrats is not unusual (many Republican presidents have run against the federal government as a major theme). The issue here is that the president's pride rather than any substantive disagreement drove the commentary, and it involved an issue of safety... Folks need to heed warnings about where hurricanes are headed and where they are not.
Presidents of both parties give these out to a mix of political supporters, cultural icons, and people who deserve this high honor.
For me, the president got the policy correct. The process was the problem. There was no evidence of any careful review of the science. The news said there was a problem and the new policy popped out without any serious discussion.
Within the American cultural context, this is unacceptable. A military parade by itself would have been unusual, but the president inserting himself into it makes for a terrible, partisan precedent.
I found the first block of questions about scenarios involving presidential power to vague. Blocking an independent investigation by who (I assumed, you meant by Congress, a duly-appointed independent prosecutor, the Attorney General or a federal court). Same thing on targetting private companies. Can a president urge the prosecution of drug companies who knowingly encouraged the over-subscription of opiates? I think so. Given the current US context, I assumed here that you were referring to presidents targetting companies because they don't like the political views of their owners.
It can be difficult to interpret Trump's rhetoric (i.e., is he joking, is he suggesting something he truly believes, etc.). In general though, I believe that even joking about constitutional violations is inappropriate for public figures.
Any attempt to disrupt important state data collection is problematic.
If Trump pardons multiple administration officials for wrongdoing, it undermines the effectiveness of the rule of law and trust in the judicial system of the US.
Public law, with a secondary focus on political theory
Important because it is meant to instill fear to prevent the collection of essential information on population and demography
It demonstrates the possibility that he has authoritarian tendencies.
He is doing it for explicitly political reasons.
Presidents should not engage in potentially discriminatory rhetoric.
The executive branch can attempt to regulate such products.
President Trump used the military as a prop the way a dictator would.
The Senate is fulfilling its constitutional duty, albeit for explicitly political reasons.
Some of these questoins are leading, or state as fact which is still contested. Also, there should be an option that something is not relevant to democracy at all.
Is this true? I don't follow Tweeter and did not know that it is possible to tweet high-resolution images.
Such actions seem to be business as usual in American history.
Seems to be business as usual in Am. history to roll back regulations of previous administrations.
Seems to be business as usual in Am. government.
Not sure that quantitative characterizations regarding democracy (moderately, very democratic) are as appropriate as regarding normalcy and importance. Normalcy and importance are subjective judgments and what is extremely important for someone may be unimportant for someone else. But democratic/undemocratic should be a qualitative distinction. In the context of discussing democracy, a question whether it is democratic for a president to threaten someone should be treated differently from the one whether it is democratic if a government agency is doing one or another thing. The former is a question of personal character, the latter of procedure; personal character cannot be judged democratic or undemocratic, procedures must be so judged. A procedure is either democratic or not, not very or moderately democratic; personal threats, in distinction, are a matter of temperament, one can characterize a threat -- and the threatening person -- as bad-tempered, but bad-tempered people exist in democracies, just as very mild-tempered ones do within an aristocracy.
Given the effects this is anticipated, with good reason, on response rate it will result in a less accurate count of residents of the United States and defeat the purpose of the US Census.
Confirms the President and the GOP allow politics to prevail over normal science and the medium and long-term future of the United States and the world.
This is extraordinarily dangerous for the future of the planet and also a problem for private sector actors who have incurred costs trying to meet the higher standard.
Undoes the work of what should be an impersonal and expert bureaucracy.
This has historically been a civilian non-partisan event encouraging attachment to American democratic practices as a whole. By trying to use it for partisan advantage, Trump risking increasing citizen cynicism and reducing their attachment to the idea of nonviolent, democratic contests for power.
This is a dangerous practice when we are faced by a truly dangerous event because it misinforms people about the risks they face, and it undercuts Americans' sense that governments serve them all. It encourages  the idea that truth is not important to our policymakers' choices.
urban politics, gender and politics, non elite politics in rich democracies
Most disturbing is the use of emergency powers for situations that do not meet the severity and significance of an actual emergency.
Simply outrageous. Although, it was also presented in an odd, offhand manner that might be viewed as not an actual offer. Yet, it is still dangerous.
This is, quite simply, beyond the pale and demonstrates a truly dangerous tendency to use U.S. power for personal political gain.
This is an odd use of executive power, but not profoundly disturbing or all that significant, especially given the current context in which there are many cases of very disturbing abuses and misuses of power.
This is a strange and dangerous symbolic act, which signals an authoritarian and militaristic tendency to the U.S. population and the international community.
Again, just outrageous, if not a foolish way of demeaning the presidency, given its status as pure rhetoric.
international law, governance, human rights, narrative
Important because it would reduce participation in the Census, undermining its effectiveness and depleting resources and power from states where they are most needed. Abnormal because social scientists have demonstrated its negative effects.
Not normal for presidents to pressure foreign leaders to work on their reelection campaigns. Important because violates democratic ethics and norms.
Traditionally, military has been kept out of displays of patriotism; important because military should remain subordinate to public and civilian leaders.
Not normal for public leaders to create their own facts on such matters. Important because it indicates derangement of president.
International Organization, International Human Rights
The refusal to comply was based on a political need to protect the President from the revelation of more crimes by his administration. Barr cares nothing for the rule law, or for the professional in the Department of Justice.
This is critically important to the rule of law.  Here is the President encouraging subordinates to break the law.  It is frightening.
The decision is based on greed not science.
Facts are facts, where he likes them or not.  Might as well as chemists to walk back the oxygen theory of combustion.
Trump honors those who should not be honored; example:  the wife of a prominent GOP donor.  He has cheapened the award for those who truly earned it through distinguished service, or outstanding accomplishments.
This is another manifestation of hostility to science when the facts don't align with the administration's policies.  The same of true of information on climate change.
There are numerous nominees rated “not qualified “ by the American Bar Association.
Institutions, interest groups, political parties, LBGTQ politics
borderline normal, unfortunately: Biden as VP also intervened in Ukrainian prosecutorial / investigative processes.  However, Trump's intervention is of far greater import for US politics at this point in our history
He is failing to act as other than a private attorney.
The U.S. Senate should avoid be a rubber stamp. It should deliberate and decide, based on responses to serious questions posed to nominees.
Some of the early questions are a bit ambiguous, regarding which elements of the political system are being considered/evaluated.
What he is doing is antithetical to democracy.
There was more hype than substance to the new aspects of the agreement.
It is something only done by dictators and autocrats.
Given the ample evidence of treason by Trump himself, it is the pot calling the kettle black. I see this as pure projection on the part of Trump. Anything that he says another is guilty of means he is guilty of that exact offence.
Middle East Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, US Foreign Policy
where do I find the results fo the survey?
I made a mistake in two rounds of reading items about Very democratic to very undemocratic but stupidly, this survey does not allow the user to go back and correct mistakes
A flagrant transgression on the rule of law.
Such actions pose a National security risk
Trump’s use of the sharpie on the weather map to make his point on Alabama was both sinister and comical
Elimination of filibuster on judicial nominees was the abnormal event
The President's oath is to "...faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Trump has consistently failed this oath.
No president, executive or legislative branch official should be involved in utilizing foreign sources in unauthorized investigations of any U.S. citizen.
A public health issue is necessary for such executive action.
public policy; environmental policy and politics
As with the Schiff treason comments, it's cheap talk, but it still contributes a little to normalizing this sort of behavior.
Lots of countries do military parades on national days. I don't see this posing a threat to the constitution or liberties, though it's silly and wasteful. I'd say the ubiquitous military displays at pro sporting events is more problematic.
The incident itself mattered little and was very weird (and very much an "own goal" for POTUS). But, as an indication of how far POTUS might go to misrepresent things, it is more worrying. I guess we're lucky he wastes time on trivial pursuits such as this rather than more Nixonian aims...
Obviously, calling for a political rival to be arrested is deeply troubling...or it would be if anyone in a position of power took it seriously.  But even cheap talk of this sort does its little bit to erode democratic norms.
Sorry to answer "not sure" to the first 3 scenarios. I was probably just overthinking this, but I could imagine contexts in which these could be democratic in some sense. For example, an executive might emergency powers to enact popular policies that were being blocked by a minority in a legislature. That would be "democratic" in some sense of the word, though it would be illiberal and definitely worrying about the prospects for that country. Similarly, I could easily imagine cases of politically motivated investigations into popularly elected governments.
outrageous action by an attorney general. a complete abuse of power
Democracy cannot survive the demonization of opponents who fully support and act in accordance with democratic norms.
The incident itself is not very important, but the interference in the work of a govt agency, setting aside professional and science based judgments is very important
State and local government, public policy, and public administration
state society relations, primarily Africa
He is the first modern president to rub on an explicitly anti immigrant, racist platform . For his supporters it’s a feature not a bug.
Trump interference with science because of his fragile ego.
The Attorney General is acting like POTUS's private attorney, thus abrogating his constitutional responsibility. The system is dysfunctional.
There has never been a citizenship question on the census. Prior to 1960 the census asked about "nationality." As usual, Trump is ill-informed.
Methane in itself isn't important. Rather the problem is deregulating the environment when we ought to be redoubling our efforts in the face of the climate change peril.
So what? Does Trump know Mariano is Dominican?
Confirmation of judicial appointees is the Senate's job. The problem is the reactionary ideology that predominates these nominees.
US Foreign Policy & National Security; Diplomatic & Political History
The questions are clearly derived from the current administration's actions rather than general applicability.
Trump has made "normal" things that should never be done at all.
Joking is bizarre but not illegal. This president, however, and his supporters do not believe the constitution applies to them.
The executive branch in a democracy is not above the law
President is blatantly racist and is attacking American citizens
If there were an actual emergency it might be excused. This president uses emergency powers for personal gains.
This is a breach of constitutional authority
I don't like this policy, but it reflects a long-thread of anti-immigrant political efforts running through our country's history.
I don't like this policy, but it seems a form of "regular" politics.
Presidents are not allowed to joke about threatening American democracy.
Seeking partisan advantage in the institutional design choices of the various aspects of government isn't necessarily the best thing for democracy, but it is a fairly common activity that all parties have engaged in in various ways throughout American history.
Xenophobia is also long-standing as well-established in the US, but it does violate important norms of decorum that make it difficult for government to operate well.
Presidents usually don't leak sensitive information to the public via their social media accounts.
The GOP has a strong recent tradition of suspicion over government regulation, preferring free market solutions.
American politicians often over-react to what voters might find threatening.
state and local politics, religion and politics
Trump indicated in 2016 that he might not abide by the results of the election if he lost on the grounds that the election was rigged. In view of his understanding that he has on several occasions talked about his "absolute power", no one can take his claims lightly that he has been shortchanged by the investigations into his conduct during the 2016 campaign and his behavior in office and should have compensatory time granted to him.
I suspect that there have been occasions in the past where redactions are necessary because of ongoing or potential prosecutions. However, this is a dangerous precedent. Congress has the responsibility to conduct investigations and to oversee the executive. Barr has a history of supporting "executive supremacy". I wonder where Barr was when the Republican Congress was investigating the attacks on American diplomates in Benghazi, for example.
Presidents have done this in the past also involving Saudi Arabia. But usually they made some concessions. So, the sale of F-16 aircraft to Saudi Arabia during the Reagan administration reacted to congressional opposition by selling a somewhat stripped down version of the aircraft. Essentially, Trump has vetoed a congressional bill, and that takes a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override.
Since this question follows upon accusations toward others of treason, it is likely here that Trump was divulging classified information to a world-wide audience. All presidents occasionally make mistakes of this sort when it is to their advantage to do so. But for Trump, it's a pattern, and it is likely that it provides our adversaries with crucial information as to how the information is collected and what it is we know.
This one scarcely needs comment. But if the comment is accurate, it is grounds for impeachment by itself.
Such accusations are the death knell of liberal democracy. You cannot label your political adversaries as treasonous. Rep. Schiff is acting in accordance with his legitimate responsibilities even if one thinks that the President is innocent of the accusations. Obviously, Trump has taken an oath of office to fulfill his duties in accordance with a constitution that he either dimly understands or chooses to ignore.
Some questions have to do with norms or past precedents rather than constitutional law. In the absence of provocations and norm-breaking, I would give somewhat different responses to some questions, especially in the latter set than in the presence of clear provocations, especially when it comes to the confirmation of judicial appointments. It is probably best if we could take the partisan politics out of that. But in the presence of hyper-partisan behavior, it is not possible to accept the asymmetric advantages that such behavior confers. (See Axelrod's "tit for tat" game.) I would prefer to see an expansion of the court to an even number, perhaps 12 to alleviate some of the partisan gamesmanship.
He possesses the attributes of a tyrant, and attempts (often successfully) to bring out the worst in the people
Using the position of president to demean anyone, official or otherwise, is unacceptable; using it to appeal to racist and irrational elements in his base is beyond the pale.
Innovative use of Twitter (as JFK with TV, and FDR with radio), but more dangerous because of impulsivity and lack of discipline and clear thought.
It puts him in the position of judging his own case; it removes many restraints on his power. Clearly, it is unethical.
Nothing is more important than environmental damage.
Decades of Republican efforts (and the Federalist Society) have resulted in systematic corruption of the judiciary.
social legislation; Am. pol thought; presidency
This shows prejudice, ignorance, and lack of empathy.  This is not the way a functioning democracy operates.  A democracy allows for discussion, a divergence of views, and criticism of ideas, policies, behavior of public officials.
U.S. foreign policy should not be solely directed by one person without the (1) advice and consent of the legislative branch and (2) the expertise of those knowledgeable and experienced about foreign policy.   As we have seen this week, such policy direction leads to catastrophe, even death, and circumvents the national security interests of the U.S.
The government is not one person -- especially the president.  Information should be vetted before being shared.
This is just one example of catering to a president who is, as the saying goes, "not always right, but never in doubt."  It is dangerous for us to kowtow to such behavior.
This is a healthy response to a public health problem.
We should never think our independence is about military might.  This looks like what dictators do to show their strength -- which seemed to be the point for President Trump.
Thank you for continuing to conduct this survey!  I find the results enlightening, though a bit disconcerting, since they tend to make real my own feelings about the state of U.S. democracy.
It is a step toward the breakdown of legal order, and thus a very grave matter, for the U.S. Attorney General to act unlawfully, as Barr has done.
The U.S. political system will lose legitimacy if, by trickery and manipulation (of the kind Wilbur Ross attempted) either party "changes the rules" in ways that reduce confidence that our elected officials fairly represent the popular will.  At that point the specter of civil war and tyranny appears.  See Levitsky and Ziblatt's work on how democracies die.
US foreign policy, international security, conflict and war, prevention of war
In theory, the question itself could have legitimate uses.  However, the context matters here, and the fact that experts have indicated the question would depress response is problematic.
The people who serve in the executive and legislative branches don't have to agree with each other, but they should respect each other.  This particular comment also sends a message to the public that people who don't look like us or who have different sounding names are not fully citizens, even when they are.
Raises serious concerns about the rule of law and also separation of powers--fundamental constitutional issues.
People rely on accurate information, and what the scientists produce should not be altered to make the president feel better.
There is nothing abnormal about a Presidential Administration of a country wanting to know how many of its residents are citizens.  It is important because the issue has become politicized and clearly the system is broken. It may provide information that facilitates a shift from a family-based policy to a skills-based policy or some policy that is at least can be enforced.  It could also undercut attempts by the Democrats to encapsulate undocumented residents and bring them into their party-- a party a majority would logically be attracted to and that would magnify pressures to expand the welfare state.
MBL is trying to modernize one of the most traditional societies remaining in the world and in the process he is making changes that make him look weak. Killing Jamal Kashoggi, who had become a very inconvenient figure for the regime, helped shore up his image among the power brokers in the society.  Supporting this country, that serves as at least a weak counterweight to Iran is probably sound policy, although I would defer to Middle East experts, particularly in the military bureaucracy (not academia). Regardless, it seems entirely normal to support an ally and to assume the executive branch knows far more about foreign policy issues than Congress, particularly given its current composition.
Again, a citizen with little political experience can make these mistakes.  These mistakes can be extremely important but the cause is not just the inexperience of the President.  It is the fact that a large swath of citizens were so frustrated with the leftward drift of all of the main institutions and the decline of American exceptionalism as the country headed in the direction of a welfare state that prizes equality over liberty.  Majoritarian democracy is arguably not the best kind of democracy-- it has pernicious consequences and we are witnessing some of them.
It will not take long before these regulations are reimposed.  The issue of climate change has become so politicized that measures to combat it border on the absurd.  Iranian nuclear capabilities are a far greater threat.
The United States has to be one of the only countries in the world that holds executives to standards that can only apply where there is rule of law, in the domestic context.  It is also a country that meddles in foreign elections all the time. It would seem odd that a President would not take advantage of these morally questionable opportunities.  In the past, the press did not reveal the many moral transgressions of presidents, partly to preserve an image that would maximize presidential legitimacy domestically and internationally.
When a citizen with little political experience is elected, mistakes associated with inexperience should be expected.  There is no evidence that there were ulterior motives connected to the incident this refers to.  If it was a mistake it is completely unimportant as corrections were very available.  If it was deliberate, it would depend on their intentions and their consequences... although given alternative sources of information, it should be unimportant either way.
It seems extremely biased in favor of majoritarian democracy. Most of the questions were leading questions with no options corresponding to my positions.  It seems to be an effort to record a dissatisfaction among academic experts with changes taking place over the Trump administration.  It seems very short sighted and very biased.
It is not funny, and it's evidence that the President may not understand the Constitution and its role in our political system.
This indicates the president is living in an alternative reality, he'd like us all to inhabit it as well, and he has utterly no regard for the scientific work of civil servants.
We are running out of superlatives to characterize the seriousness and the anti-democratic nature of this president's actions and the actions of his supporters.
As someone who relies on citizenship data obtained by the census, it's important.  However, more recent developments indicate that it was a pretext.
Welcome to the world of governing by tweet! Its significance is not in the event itself, but how it captures a larger problem with access to social media and dueling systems of information.
I am positive this is not the first time this has happened, but it is a very important and ethically wrong action.
The answer here depends on what. Of time you're asking about. If you're talkin about an event like this happening in the last 150 years or more, it wouldn't be that uncommon.
One of the most destructive things the president can do, but it is within his authority to do it.
Please keep doing it. Think more about recognizing time frames (this year? Over the last 100 years? Ever?) in your questions.
There is a balance that must be maintained between congressional oversight and executive privilege.
Such a promise is a clear statement of respect for the rule of law.
Although it may appear to be a relatively innocuous event, that the elected and politically appointed leaders would feel compelled to reach that deep into the workings of the government and apply such political pressure is in fact very frightening. It actually reveals their willingness to attempt to distort reality about a myriad of things, both small and large.
Read Hamilton and Federalist 68 and be reminded that one of the greatest threats to a functioning republic is the involvement of foreign powers in domestic politics. It does not matter if the foreign power is invited or not, it is always a mistake.
This crosses the line about the proper role and powers of the executive v. the legislative branches. This is not to mention that the President is just wrong about the specifics of what treason means.
Confirming nominees should be normal and unimportant; however, because of the way that such appointees have been politicized, and obstructed by the Senate during the previous president's term, the behavior might be viewed as problematic.
not a threat he can deliver on but shows poor attitude
would be important if he were to follow through.  Also important simply as demonstration of attitude.
Super interesting.  Looking forward to seeing results.
Political parties, elections, & political culture in U.S., Canada, and western Europe
Thank you for continuing with this important project.
Political participation and voter behaviour
I mistakenly answered the question about "all votes are equal regardless of the population of their state." Please recode my answer to reflect that I think it is very democratic when voters' "power" in federal elections is entirely detached from the state in which they live (i.e., not how the senate or the electoral college works).
The Mueller report is not legally required to be disclosed to the public.  But is SHOULD be provided to the Congressional intel and defense committees who have full clearances and are normally kept fully informed on matters of national security. The Mueller report is, first of all, a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and only secondarily about Trump.  Congress needs to have the full unredacted report to develop legislation to keep US elections safe--that is national security.  To withhold it because it secondarily is about Trump is simply wholly partisan and wrong.
This is another case of the President threatening US security by making arms deals for which Congress has not authorized nor given permission.  The President has wide latitude in foreign policy when Congress does not intervene.  But in this case, Congress said no; very abnormal for the President to just ignore them and proceed.
The USMCA is virtually a rewrite of the NAFTA agreement; but since Trump voided the latter we need the former.
The US administration is increasingly anti-science.  But pressuring a non-political govt. agency to issue FALSE statements regarding something as important as a hurricane to make the President look good is something that only happens (previously) in fawning dictatorships.
Not only asking, but actually blackmailing, a foreign country to intervene against a President's opponent, by publicly announcing an investigation into a false and debunked allegation of corruption, is completely unprecedented.   Using US govt. resources to pressure foreign countries to interfere in US elections is precisely an example of what the founders feared and why they included impeachment proceedings in the US Constitution.
Trump's approval of judges is exceptionally rapid, but otherwise not abnormal.  What WAS abnormal was having so many vacancies because the GOP Senate under President Obama created these vacancies by utterly refusing to consider Democratic-nominated judges to fill open positions.
Certainly highlights areas of undemocratic practices in the US today.
I actually think this *is* a joke, among a series of other statements that are retrospectively given that tag to cover up how ignorant/foolish they are.
Senate-confirmed appointees have a duty to Congress. This administration has rejected that constitutional duty.
President Trump's declarations of "emergency" (here, for the border wall, et.c) and other rationales that defy common sense ("national security" rationales for steel tariffs, etc) show both the breadth of delegated statutory power by Congress, and what shamelessness can do with that sort of delegated power.
Utilization of the Medal of Freedom as an expression of presidential ego is not brand new. It's a shame, but not earth-shattering. (Also, no one who played for the Yankees can possibly be worthy of honor.)
Only that "democratic" is a little tricky given that there are structural elements of American constitutional democracy that do not, purposefully, reflect majority rule - and thus something that seems odd from a "democratic" standpoint might actually reflect a perfectly-functioning US Constitution. They would be observationally equivalent in that sense. Now, in the current moment that will not always be the case - plenty is going on to violate constitutional norms - but it does complicate the overall "score" for the US as a democracy. (And no, I am not going to start ranting that it's really a  republic, etc.... :))
I find this important because this kind of language primes his supporters to support this idea.
I consider such events semi-important because it's yet another illustration of the president fabricating "reality."
There is no emergency for Saudi Arabia (they aren't under attack - they're using the arms to bomb Yemen), so that wasn't appropriate.  Congressional opposition was substantively justified - Saudi Arabia is likely committing war crimes in Yemen, so the US shouldn't be supporting this, and then there is the Kashaggogi murder.
Global warming is a very important issue.  Rolling back regulations is within the president's authority. I put "borderline normal" because the Supreme Court ruled years ago that regulating greenhouse gasses is required under the Clean Air Act. The Trump administration should be implementing some alternative strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if they're going to roll back regulations.
It's obviously abnormal and I've read that it was also a criminal act.  I put mostly unimportant because it was a one-off occurrence with temporary implications.
I am troubled by this question: "A party that controls both chambers of Congress granting statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico."  A political party can't grant statehood. Congress can, however, begin the process by proposing a constitutional amendment to admit D.C. as a state.
The issue here is the content of the question. Adding a question to the census is relatively normal. Adding a question to the census with the intent to discriminate against racial/ethnic groups or residents of differing citizenship statuses is totally abnormal.   The content makes this more important than it otherwise would be, because of the potential policy consequences.
This undermines the norms of decorum in civic life, of the gravitas of elected representatives that are particularly important for visible public officials (none more so than the president.) The decay of norms of conduct is critical to the functioning of democratic institutions (see Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018).   As it is one of many episodes of this type of behavior, it is only semi-important. Perhaps more than others because of the xenophobia, racism, sexism, and inaccuracy of the comment.
This is standard laissez-faire capitalism that we might expect from a pro-business party. It's important because of the consequences to the environment and climate, which are of imminent importance today.
This is not standard diplomacy and is important, as it undermines our international and domestic credibility (as a nation and the institutions of governance/exec branch).
The longevity of judicial appointments makes this event particularly important, as their tenure will outlive the Trump Administration.   This would be a completely normal event, except that many of the judges had dubious records. In another administration, it is unlikely that jurists with the same qualifications would have been chosen.
Taken as a symptom of larger trends in the White House, this behavior is abnormal and important because it belies the protocol of the institutions, and undermines the norms of comportment that we expect of democratic officials (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018).
He shows no respect for rule of law and violation of presidential terms would be an egregious problem.
how important this is depends upon whether you think it is "joking" or not --
in the context of his other xenophobic and misogynist statements it is important
the abnormal part is claiming that NAFTA was terrible (an evaluation with which I disagree but that's not the point) and then touting the USMCA which is essentially the same with some updating -- but renamed so that it is his  NAFTA needed updating and some renegotiation so that part is what is normal
normal for there to be confirmations; not normal to rush them through after artificially creating vacancies by withholding confirmation from previous president's nominees
semi-important and mostly important seem the same to me though i realize they are on a hierarchy.
i would like for the whole explanation for each of the questions/answers to be available on this page too as i already (mostly) forgot what they were.
not sure what you meant by appropriate/inappropriate...do you mean in terms of democracy? the US Constitution? morally?
It's disturbing that the President expresses his desire to violate the Constitution to remain in power-even if it is expressed as a joke. This is the case because it is believable that he really would like to do so-and that his core supporters would desire this as well. This is what the Bolivian president is doing currently-running for  reelection even though he is not allowed to do so under the Bolivian constitution. It's disturbing b/c it would undermine American democracy, as is occurring in Bolivia. My sense is that he would not be allowed to do so in the U.S. Would the Republicans nominate him if he ran? I suppose there's nothing stopping him from running for the Republican nomination after serving for two terms. And if he won the general election, would he not be sworn in?
It's normal b/c its a policy decision through which the administration satisfies the stakeholders who support it. It's important b/c its a major environmental policy decision. One might object on moral and other grounds to the decision. But the decision is not problematic in that it is not the product of illegitimate/illegal/unconstitutional processes.
On the one hand, it's not abnormal to include the military in celebrations. On the other hand, the display of military power is.
It is abnormal for a president to engage in such a juvenile deception. Given that it was so obvious that the information he was providing was incorrect, this specific incidence of deception was relatively unimportant even if the President's systematic lying is highly problematic in general.
Part of a pattern of transgressing crucial informal norms of democracy.
If by pressuring, you mean things that involve actions, like withholding financial or military support.  If it were only Trump tweeting bad names for the Ukranian administration, it would be mostly important at most.
Well, it is unimportant in the sense that it won't happen, but would be massively important if it were even tried to be accomplished.
just talk, till he acts or seems to be doing more than poking the bear
no substantive impact; big symbolic impact (is that substantive, hmmm...)
co-equal branches of govt; Saudi Arabia is importnat in a highly volatile area
overturning predecessor's executive orders - normal; climate change impact - important
as before; substantively little impact; symbolically ridiculous and maybe scary if precedent
It is the racism of Trump's comment that stands out though even without the racist invective this comment would be beyond the pale.
I can't think of another president who has done something like this.
Semi-important only because the National Weather Service managed to correct Trump.
This is the language of an authoritarian leader.
American Political Development & Public Policy
Barr's refusal was a clear step toward politicizing the Justice dept., recalling the Nixon Justice dept.  Congressional intelligence committees review classified material all the time and it DOES NOT leak.