World Geostrategic Insights interview with Chris Toth on the sharp rise of partisan polarization and normalization of radical rhetoric across the United States, and on how the future of American democracy is increasingly hinged on the resilience of its core legal and civic institutions.
Chris Toth is a retired prosecutor, public executive, and military officer. For years, Chris shaped legal policy in the United States. He served as the Executive Director of the National Association of Attorneys General. Before that, he was the elected Prosecuting Attorney for St. Joseph County, Indiana. He also served on the board and as a vice-president of the Hague-based International Association of Prosecutors. Additionally, he spent 26 years as a U.S. Military Officer, serving in Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq. Today, he is a writer and independent consultant.
Q1 – Throughout your career, you have consistently championed the importance of bipartisan cooperation for the benefit of the public. Today, the American political landscape appears dramatically polarized, with increasingly heated public rhetoric between Democrats and Republicans. From your vantage point, do you believe that the spirit of cross-party cooperation that characterized your tenure is still possible, or has the current polarization irreversibly changed American institutions?
A1 – Politics runs in cycles. The United States has experienced great polarization before – this country fought a civil war in the 19th century. But yes, the polarization we are facing now is unquestionably the worst during my lifetime. I have great hope that it is not irreversible. The solution, however, is going to require at least three things. First, we need a renewed dedication to civility among our citizenry. We have become increasingly siloed and sheltered as a people. It used to be common that individuals of opposite political persuasions attended the same places of worship, were members of the same civic clubs, dated each other, and generally did not judge other people by their politics. That is changing. Americans are increasingly basing personal decisions as regards who or what they associate with on the perceived politics of institutions or people. Political views are increasingly viewed as more important than individual character in choosing associations. We are now even seeing this with what state or city Americans choose to reside in. As a citizenry, we need to get back to the concept that character transcends personal politics.
Second – and related to the first – is renewing our commitment to the idea that character also does matter in who we choose to lead us. Yes, history does provide some examples of individuals of dubious character who were effective leaders. But the exception does not disprove the rule: the past is usually prologue. Individuals who have demonstrated a record of integrity and honesty are more likely to uphold the rule of law and basic standards of decency than those who have a record of succumbing to their worst instincts. Both major American political parties have become adept at unapologetically excusing the bad behavior of their own candidates while utterly condemning similar behavior of the other side. A prime example of this relates to two recent US Senate candidates: Republican Ken Paxton of Texas and Graham Platner of Maine. These two individuals are prime examples of how both parties provide a pass to their own candidates for a history of ethically atrocious behavior, while hypocritically ignoring the foibles of their own candidate. For the US to get past this unfortunate period in our history we will need to put virtue before the pursuit of power.
Third, America needs to find a way to reform our process of selecting candidates. Presently, our party primary system allows the candidates of both parties to be selected by a remarkably small sliver of the electorate. During the primary process candidates must appeal to the more extreme elements of their party, who are more likely to vote and organize. In a competitive district, this problem can be self-correcting as extreme candidates are often rejected by the much more moderate electorate that votes in general elections. However, as Democrat states become more Democrat and Republican states become more Republican, the key to gaining office increasingly just involves winning the primary. This has increasingly led to extreme candidates getting elected who are out of touch with the average American and who are not interested in or can afford to compromise. This leads to a vicious cycle of partisanship that undermines the preservation of a healthy democracy.
Q2 – Recent national polls show a worrying and growing acceptance among a segment of the American electorate of politically motivated violence as a legitimate tool to “set the country straight.” As a former military officer and a man of the law, how do you assess this trend? What are the real risks to the stability of domestic democracy in the face of this normalization of radical confrontation?
A2 – The good news is that these polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans still reject violence as a political solution. Support for violence seems to be higher among younger people, which is troubling. That may be a result of young people only having lived through this period of basic, important societal institutions being under attack, and/or just that younger people are more likely to view life through a more emotional lens, one less informed by experience. Like so many other opinions teens and those in their twenties may have, such opinions will likely moderate and change with age.
As a retired soldier who has had the experience of going to war and as a former prosecutor, I can attest that violence is a very ugly thing. It has no place in a democracy. Violence leads to the rule of the mob, and the rule of the mob is the greatest enemy of the rule of law. All the horrible “isms” of our time – fascism, communism, and other manifestations of ideological extremism – have relied on violence as its primary tool to achieve power and cause great suffering and misery.
I believe most of those who say they view violence as a legitimate tool have not really thought this out and would not approve of the ultimate consequences of holding such opinions. It is easy to say violence is acceptable until you see someone bleeding to death in front of you.
I would not say we have normalized radical confrontation, but rather that we are in danger of normalizing it. Our leaders, media, and political parties need to tone down all the vitriol. Words have consequences. Most of the political violence we have seen has been committed by clearly disturbed and deranged individuals. However, were such individuals triggered by the comments of someone holding power or influence? Perhaps. If we do not get a handle on the negative rhetoric, we run the risk of such acts becoming more mainstreamed.
Q3 – Increasingly, the actions of state attorneys general and district attorneys are labeled by the public—depending on their political leanings—as “politicized” or used as a weapon of distraction and electoral conflict (lawfare). Having served in both communities, how do you defend the independence of the investigative judiciary when courtrooms become the main battleground of national politics?
A3 – Americans have a unique way of choosing our law enforcement officials such as most district attorneys and attorneys general – elections. I served on the board and as a vice president of the Hague-based International Association of Prosecutors and my colleagues from around the world were always intrigued and a bit mystified by such a process. I believe the US may be the only country in the world with such a system.
The benefits of the US system are that it increases the accountability and responsiveness of local and state prosecutors. Career civil servants can become desensitized to the consequences of their decisions. However, when you are required to stand for election to obtain an office and hold it, you must be prepared to justify your decisions, or you will not have the job for long. If the decisions of a lax prosecutor are leading to an increase in crime and victims, the voters can dismiss the prosecutor. The same is true for an overzealous prosecutor. In short, the system requires a prosecutor to be sensitive to community standards.
The disadvantage of the US system is that it can become politicized. If holding an elected office becomes paramount to a prosecutor, decisions can yield to political expediency instead of justice. In practice, most elected prosecutors try to do the right thing even if it means it will cost them the job, but there are many notable exceptions. The Duke Lacrosse case stands out in this regard.
At the federal level, the American tradition of maintaining a prosecutorial system free from political influence is essential to the preservation of the rule of law. It is also essential to maintain public trust in that system. Our 90 US Attorneys – who lead federal prosecutions – may be appointed by the president, but it has always been an important part of our federal system that their decisions need to be free from pressure by the president or any other official. The President or US Attorney General, or any other federal official, should never be seen as trying to influence a prosecutorial decision. This tradition has been under assault in recent years. This trend will have grave consequences for the integrity of the justice system and must be reversed.
Q4 – With the federal scene in Washington often paralyzed by cross-vetoes in Congress, individual states and their governors/prosecutors are assuming an unprecedented role as political substitutes, legislating with complete autonomy on crucial issues such as reproductive rights, border management, and the energy transition. Is this strong decentralization saving America from Washington’s gridlock, or does it risk creating “two Americas” that are legally and culturally irreconcilable?
A4 – I would not say that governors or attorneys general have acted with complete autonomy. All their decisions are subject to judicial review and many of those decisions are overturned at the appellate level. However, over the past 25 years or so, the 50 state attorneys general have become an increasingly powerful force in the United States in two basic ways.
First, the state attorneys general frequently come together across partisan lines to bring actions against corporations and other entities that are harming the public. A couple great examples of this are the actions they brought against the major tobacco companies and against opioid manufacturers and distributors, such as Purdue Pharma. Both actions saved many lives, both in America and abroad. When attorneys general come together in this way, they are at their best. In doing so, they step into a void that often cannot be filled by the federal government. Getting the federal government to act on any urgent issue can be like trying to turn around a battleship – it can take a long time. The state attorneys general can act far more quickly and nimbly.
Second, in a partisan fashion the state attorneys generals have increasingly challenged the decisions of the president, and occasionally Congress. Such actions reached new heights when Republican AGs banded together to frequently sue the Obama and Biden administrations, and the Democrats did the same with the Trump administrations. Here the results are more mixed. When the president acts in an extra-constitutional fashion lawsuits have been a timely and effective counterweight to presidential overreach. But actions brought when the issue is more political than constitutional, such actions can be counterproductive to the public interest. Many of these politically based lawsuits fail on appeal, something that attorneys general should reasonably anticipate and avoid. The public wants to see their AG uphold the Constitution. They also want to be protected from fraud and economic deception, and see criminal laws enforced. Any attorney general office has limited resources to spread around. When a state attorney general focuses on purely political actions they may please their base, but they are abandoning their duty to serve their greater constituency.
Q5 – You currently live in Texas, a state that is constantly at the center of the national political and economic debate, both for its hardline stance on hot-button issues like immigration and civil rights, and for the incredible demographic and technological boom generated by the arrival of manufacturing giants, data centers, and campuses linked to figures like Elon Musk. Living through this reality firsthand, how do you see Texas evolving? Do you believe this massive wave of internal migration and tech investment will ultimately soften its historically conservative political identity, or will it strengthen it as a reaction?
A5 – Yes, I am living through this firsthand! I live in a town outside Austin that just became the new headquarters of X (formerly Twitter) and is also home to several other Musk ventures, including Starlink. Texas has been highly successful in attracting industry from other states, particularly in the tech industry. This is being driven by a very favorable business environment, low taxes, dynamic and culturally rich urban centers, and good weather. Other large states, particularly in the north, have been slow to react to this economic and population migration to their great detriment.
How these changes will affect the political outlook of Texas is up for debate. A Texas Monthly article a couple of years ago looked at how migration is affecting politics and basically said it is a wash: some of the people moving here have more liberal views, but others are moving here exactly because of the current conservative politics. My own view is that it is the growing Hispanic population that will decide the direction of Texas politics in the coming years. In the 2024 election, Texas Hispanics significantly shifted right. That shift helped drive Republican decisions regarding the redistricting of Congressional jurisdictions. However, recent polling indicates that there is some “buyer’s remorse” by Hispanics with the Trump administration. The Senate election between Democrat James Talarico and Republican AG Ken Paxton is looking like it will be very close. Whether that is a function of the many scandals tainting the Paxton candidacy or it is the sign of a larger political shift, it is too early to say.
Q6 – If you were to write an essay or a play today focused on the current state of the American Republic, what would be the central conflict of the plot? What is the most urgent truth that Americans need to understand to prevent political cynicism from permanently eroding trust in democratic institutions?
A6 – The plot would center on two individuals from the same town who hold strongly different political views. They line up on the opposite side of major local political issues and come to hold each other in contempt. They ascribe the worst motives to each other and believe the other is incapable of caring about their country and neighbors. Some crises – whether a plane crash in the wilderness or a natural disaster – causes them to rely on each other for their survival. They come to find out that they are motivated by the same things: love of country, love of family, even support for the same football team. They realize that they agree on 80% of the most important life issues and come to trust the other’s motives on the issues on which they disagree. And as the old saying goes, what do you call someone who agrees with you 80% of the time? A friend.
During my military deployments, I never remember thinking about the politics of the soldiers around me. I just knew that I was surrounded by other Americans that had my back. Disagreements are an essential part of democracy. The ballot box is there to decide the outcome of those disagreements. We do not have to like each other’s views, but we cannot hate each other because of them. Hate is hard to come back from and will undermine democracy faster than anything.
Chris Toth – Retired prosecutor, public executive, and military officer, he is now a writer and independent consultant.