REDWOOD CITY – Tensions are escalating between San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus and the Board of Supervisors: The San Mateo County Sheriff is asking for an investigation into County Executive Mike Callagy, while the sheriff is standing behind him.

In a grievance to the board on Sunday, Corpus accused Callagy of undermining her authority and undermining the effectiveness of her office.

“This investigation should cover his (Callagy's) attempts to conspire against an elected sheriff, discrimination, sexual harassment, abuse of power and ongoing interference in the operations of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office,” Corpus said within the letter. “If the committee does not act, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter to the state level.”

The board is reviewing Corpus' grievance and “will take the time necessary to determine the appropriate course of action,” supervisors Noelia Corzo and Ray Mueller said Monday in an announcement on behalf of the board. Callagy “rejects the sheriff's allegations as false and defamatory” and “welcomes a full, transparent and independent investigation into all allegations made against him,” the supervisors said.

“County Executive Callagy has been an ethical public servant in San Mateo County for over 41 years,” they said. “Unless proven otherwise, the board will continue to have complete faith and trust in his leadership.”

In her grievance, Corpus paints a really different picture of Callagy. During their first meeting after her election, he told her that she had to reveal who she had met inside the district and when, Corpus said. She called the request “inappropriate and offensive.”

“As a woman of color who has endured sexual harassment in this county, I was shocked and appalled by his inappropriate behavior,” the sheriff said. “I cannot imagine he would have made such a demand of my predecessors, who were all men.”

Corpus also accused Callagy of exceeding his authority and interfering within the sheriff's office's operations. She said “a glaring example” was his decision to authorize double additional time “without involving me.” The move cost the county and taxpayers $17 million and had other consequences, in line with Corpus.

“This interference not only circumvented my authority, but also set a dangerous precedent,” Corpus said. “Mr. Callagy's actions destabilized labor relations, undermined my ability to lead effectively, and compromised safety in our correctional facilities. With Mr. Callagy's support, unions developed the false notion that their negotiations went beyond labor issues and included personnel matters.”

Corpus was apparently referring to a recent vote of no confidence in her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. The unions representing the MPs and sergeants claim Aenlle has abused and demeaned their members and exceeded his civilian role by making decisions about their duties. Corpus dismissed the vote as a political ploy by special interests to undermine her leadership and pressure her into personnel changes.

The heated disagreement comes amid an independent investigation commissioned by the Board of Supervisors into “multiple personnel allegations” related to the sheriff's office. The investigation is being led by former Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris.

That investigation took a surprising turn last week when Mueller revealed that Corpus Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan, her third deputy, had been fired after Cordell questioned him. The timing “suggests possible retaliation” against Monaghan for his participation within the investigation, Mueller said Friday in an announcement on behalf of the panel.

Cordell was asked to analyze whether Corpus took any retaliatory motion against Monaghan.

In its grievance, Corpus said Monaghan was fired not for sitting down for an interview with Cordell, but due to his “duplicity in performance and failure to expeditiously implement the goals of the Sheriff's Office.”

“This decision had nothing to do with retaliation,” Corpus said, stating that it was her decision alone as an elected sheriff to fireplace an unterminated and unclassified worker.

The sheriff suggested that the county executive – through the board – was using its position to intervene in Monaghan's dismissal, stating that the 2 had a “long personal relationship.”

“Mr. Callagy's interference in internal personnel matters is not only inappropriate, it is legally unfounded and an attempt to undermine the democratic process. It sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further destabilization of the district administration,” she said.

Corpus questioned whether Callagy would have treated her male predecessors the identical way.

“His actions are an example of the challenges women – especially women of color – continue to face in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated fields like policing,” she said.

Corpus said she was disillusioned but not surprised by the panel's response to her grievance.

“This is what I have experienced for years in this county,” the sheriff wrote in a response Monday afternoon. “Your response does not address the serious concerns I raised regarding Mr. Callagy's inappropriate behavior. It sends a clear message: If you are a woman in San Mateo County and file a complaint, you will be fired.”

Check back later for updates.

After the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, people in every single place were searching for someone guilty. Of course, the shooter was guilty, but depending in your perspective, They also blamed the Democrats, republican or each for the highly explosive partisan rhetoric that has heated up American political life and made violence an option, a minimum of for some people.

Although the event was shocking, the mood has been constructing for a while. The political times Americans live through are increasingly being described as “Crisis of democracy.“ Much has been written about growing polarizationa decline in public trust in democratic institutions and long-standing principles of behavior often viewed as “democratic norms,” and increasing public support for autocratic ideas and leaders.

Disagreements over policy and strategy have at all times led to divisions. But it’s one thing to disagree over substantive issues akin to tax rates or foreign aid, and quite one other to undermine the legitimacy of opponents.

It's about whether you portray those that disagree as fair and equal competitors or as enemies to be defeated. In this context, attempts at cooperation and compromise might be perceived as betrayal, and it becomes easier to rationalize ways during which long-standing norms – including but not limited to the peaceful transfer of power – and even laws might be ignored or subverted.

As a scholar of American politics and policyI actually have studied the causes and effects of such trends, that are making it increasingly difficult for even essentially the most dedicated public officials to control effectively. It is not any secret that Congress has been growing increasingly dysfunctional and fewer productive for a few years.

But to what extent do members of Congress themselves contribute to those problems through their public rhetoric?

As it seems, quite rather a lot.

Setback for democracy

These anti-democratic tendencies aren’t limited to the US, but once they are observed here, the primary response of many commentators is to attribute them to Trump. Scholars akin to Kathleen Hall Jamieson have noted Special features in the previous president's public rhetoric, which disappoints expectations, avoids responsibility and violates democratic norms.

Trump has attempted to forged doubt on and overturn the consequence of a national election and, more recently, has also attempted to undermine confidence within the justice system.

But these trends aren’t the work of only one person. Changes like these are shaped by the tone and content of public rhetoric from many sources—most notably other political leaders.

Over the years, many scholars have studied how candidates and incumbents communicate with the general public and located patterns of negativity, rudeness And irrational languageOne might call this “politics as usual,” but together they’re crucial components of a broader shift toward anti-democratic rhetoric, a language that leaves politics and beliefs behind and risks turning politics right into a bloody sport.

I worked with a colleague to seek out a strategy to discover and measure the sort of language amongst members of Congress.

All Tweets

We collected all official tweets—a couple of million in total—from members of the 117th Congress from early 2020 to mid-2022, spanning the 2020 presidential campaign 12 months, the election and its aftermath, and the beginning of the midterm cycle.

A pc can read text faster than any human, however it takes human attention to acknowledge phrases like “count every legal vote” as provocative somewhat than innocuous. We created a lexicon to discover anti-democratic rhetoric, and our computer-based evaluation of the tweets revealed 4 key forms of words and phrases that don’t contain substantive arguments about policy or governance, but contain a number of of the next elements:

1. Delegitimizing political opponents and the democratic norms and practices that command respect for them. This rhetorical style is more than likely to be explicitly contemptuous of democracy itself. Some notable examples could be “fake news,” “woke mob,” “stop the steal,” and “a republic, not a democracy.”

2. Autocratic pondering that adopts a powerful leadership style and other authoritarian traits and despises perceived weakness. Examples include terms akin to “weak leader,” “taking power,” and “so-called voting rights.”

3. Conspiracy theories that show an inability to tell apart truth from misinformation and disinformation, with a bent to view anything and every little thing as a nefarious threat. Examples include terms akin to “deep state,” “groomer,” “cabal,” and “socialist agenda.”

4. Ethnonationalism, including racism, xenophobia, and other types of bigotry that demonize marginalized groups—promoting an “us versus them” sentiment and a narrow view of what constitutes a real American identity. This kind of rhetoric is very more likely to be veiled somewhat than explicit, and includes terms like “open borders,” “the real America,” and “take back our country.”

Our evaluation found that using anti-democratic rhetoric increased steadily throughout the study period, with a big increase after the 2020 election.

And while some observers hoped that the aftermath of January 6, 2021, might provide a possibility to calm political tempers, that didn’t occur, a minimum of in Congress. Instead, anti-democratic rhetoric rose again after the attack on the U.S. Capitol and remained at a high level thereafter.

A classic example:

Republican U.S. Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, posted this tweet on December 10, 2021and achieved a hat trick: delegitimization, ethnonationalism and conspiracy theory, all in a single tweet.

Congress in conflict

Of course, the sort of language was not utilized by every member of Congress. In fact, only 41 members of Congress used recognizably anti-democratic rhetoric very steadily—greater than 300 times per member over two and a half years.

But that's enough to warrant attention.

While members of each parties used anti-democratic rhetoric of their tweets, Republicans used it more often, by a ratio of greater than 4 to at least one. GOP members appeared to be appealing to exactly those voters who’re particularly interested in such language.

In addition, male congressmen were almost twice as more likely to use anti-democratic rhetoric as female congressmen.

However, there have been no major differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives, although the House of Representatives was more of a Call of volatility lately.

Twitter has never been the whole political universe, and we’re still working on analyzing more traditional types of political communication, akin to press releases and opinion pieces. Our initial results show similar trends to those seen in tweets.

None of this needs to be taken as a denigration of Congress as an entire. What is obvious—and weird—is that many members of Congress have developed a communication style that undermines not only their opponents but in addition the democratic systems that give legitimacy to their very own status and power.

This will not be normal politics. It will not be mere division, although American politics is indeed increasingly divisive for over 30 years.

Antidemocratic rhetoric violates long-standing norms of political tolerance and constitutional limits on power. Without these norms and limits as guardrails, democracy is unlikely to be self-sustaining.

Such rhetoric not only makes it harder for politicians to serve the common good, it also excludes those deemed unworthy from the political process, thereby negating the concept of ​​a typical good value serving.