Is Democracy Sustainable?
Is it possible to repair and maintain the political institutions that bind this nation together?
168 is a newsletter emailed weekly on an unscheduled basis in which I share my thoughts on various topics for the purpose of discussion. Your comments are welcome so please feel free to post them. To view archived newsletters, please visit www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com.
As many Americans learned during Trump’s presidency, no country, no matter how advanced, is immune to flawed leadership, the erosion of political checks and balances, and the degradation of its institutions. Democracy is not self-repairing. It requires constant attention (emphasis added).
One hundred sixty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln issued a call to action for the nation, a call for the resolve and dedication required so “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. Referring to the founding of a nation “conceived in Liberty”, Lincoln summoned Americans to continue the development of our democratic republic
In the Preamble of the Constitution, the Framers' expressed their ideas of the purpose of government. Influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and writers such as Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, they conceived of government as a social contract between the governed and those to whom the people granted the authority to govern. Having rebelled against the tyranny of a monarchy, yet wary of an intolerant majority driven by passion (emotion), they fashioned, through a process of argument and compromise, a framework for government that disbursed rather than concentrate the government’s power. They saw governing as the process of deliberation, of the dominance of reason over passion.
Human experience tells us that change happens, though we may not be able to predict its form. The men who drafted the Constitution understood full well that changes to the system might be required, so they included a mechanism for amending it (Article V). They could not see into the future; they could not foresee states succeeding from the Union over the issue of slavery, a shift in the economy from an agrarian to an industrial base, or the startling advances in transportation and communications. I am certain those learned men of the late 18th Century would find the pace of life in 21st Century America dizzying.
In today’s political milieu, the concept of deliberation and respectful debate does not merely seem quaint, but alien. Ours is an era of instant communication that allows misinformation to compete with descriptions of objective reality derived from observation and investigation. The result is the emergence of a segment of the American public willing to jettison trust in the institutions of our society and express their fear of change by embracing authoritarianism. This is best exemplified by the election of a President whose Inaugural Address described an “American carnage” that he alone could fix. Trump understood that fueling people’s fears would lead them to embrace a political leader who promised to protect them.
When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians* support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action. -Amanda Taub in Vox, March 1, 2016
This is not a novel occurrence in the history of the world’s most enduring democratic republic. Writing in 1997, the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., recounted the past threats to democracy and, looking forward to the coming millenieum, warned that:
"The political, economic, and moral failures of democracy had handed the initiative to totalitarianism. Something like this could happen again. If liberal democracy fails in the 21st century, as it failed in the twentieth, to construct a humane, prosperous, and peaceful world, it will invite the rise of alternative creeds apt to be based, like fascism and communism, on flight from freedom and surrender to authority."
Now, in the new century’s third decade, democracy once again finds itself imperiled by authoritarian forces, both from within and without. A defeated President tarnished America’s tradition of the peaceful transfer of power by inciting an insurrection. A cadre of anti-democratic nihilists have been elected to public office. Under Vladimir Putin, Russian is working to undermine democracy in several nations, interfering in their elections and, in the case of Ukraine, military invasion. Authoritarians have come to power through elections in nations such as Hungry and Turkey. China is menacing democratic Taiwan. The post-World War II liberal world order imposed by the victorious democracies is being challenged by the authoritarian states.
The question then, as Lenin put it, is “what is to be done?” In this country, observers of anti-democratic populism offer solutions such as better education, increasing economic opportunities, and facilitating voting. Worthy policies to be sure, but difficult to enact. Democracy is by its nature messy, and system is difficult to change (e.g. a supermajority is required to amend the Constitution).
The key may be found in leadership. Schlesinger’s closing paragraph makes this point.
Democracy in the 21st century must manage the pressures of race, of technology, and of capitalism, and it must cope with the spiritual frustrations and yearnings generated in the vast anonymity of global society. The great strength of democracy is its capacity for self-correction. Intelligent diagnosis and guidance are essential. "Perhaps no form of government," said the historian and diplomat Lord Bryce, "needs great leaders so much as democracy." Yet even the greatest of democratic leaders lack the talent to cajole violent, retrograde, and intractable humankind into utopia. Still, with the failures of democracy in the twentieth century at the back of their minds, leaders in the century to come may do a better job than we have done of making the world safe for democracy.
*In this use, “authoritarian” refers to not to actual dictators, but to the personality type characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. See Teri Kanefield’s essay for an explanation of the phenomenon.