In Defense of Democracy

It’s clear that something important has changed when a sitting American President attempts to overturn the results of a fair election. Refusing to accept the outcome, he is captured on tape asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to “find” eleven thousand votes to flip the election in his favor. When he realizes that he can’t change the vote totals, he calls on his followers to storm the Capitol in order to disrupt the legal process for the transfer of power. He coordinates this mob action with a scheme to replace the democratically elected electors with a set of fraudulently created ones.

This unprecedented attack on the constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power was shocking. Perhaps even more shocking, was the fact that when an attempt was made in Congress to remove the President for his role in the mob attack, only seven Republican senators voted for his expulsion. All but two of these were defeated in the primaries that followed. It is clear, then, that this brazenly seditious behavior on the part of the President commands a sizeable degree of popular support. A big majority of the Republican Party, one of the two major political parties in America, has rallied around him and continues to uphold the fabrication that the 2020 election was stolen. Indeed, it has nominated him for the Presidency in 2024.

As disturbing as the behavior of the MAGA crowd is, the activity of the Heritage Foundation is perhaps even more unsettling. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think-tank, is the driving force behind Project 2025. Project 2025 has pulled together a coalition of more than 100 conservative organizations (anti-abortion, anti-marriage equality, anti-black Lives Matter, anti-separation of church and state, anti-climate change action, etc.). The goal is to compile a database of conservative activists and right-wing policy proposals to be ready on day-one if Trump is elected. The non-partisan employees that currently staff the Federal bureaucracy, the Department of Justice, and the judiciary will be replaced by Trump loyalists. The idea is to waste no time in constructing a conservative infra-structure intended to permanently move the country to the right. This was precisely the game plan developed by the “populist” regimes in Hungary and Poland—both of which succeeded in undermining their country’s democratic institutions

Authoritarianism is not Just a Problem for the USA

Democratic-minded Americans need to face up to the seriousness of our situation. The challenges to democratic values and institutions are widespread: they are not confined to this country alone.

We tend to see Trump/populism as primarily a response to changing racial demographics in the USA. In the ten years from 2010 to 2020, the percentage of whites (Euro-Americans) in the US population dropped by 10% –from 72% to 62%. It is estimated that within 25 years, whites will constitute less than 50% of the population. California already has more Hispanics than whites. Right-wing and white nationalist forces are using this development to stoke fears, in particular, to push a “Great Replacement” narrative. This is a conspiracy theory that claims liberals (and Jews in particular) are seeking to consolidate their power by using immigrants of color to replace America’s traditional white ethnic base.

While this racial/demographic dimension clearly plays an important part in the MAGA movement, the roots of populism are deeper and more complex than this. Authoritarianism is not just a USA phenomenon: various antidemocratic currents are gaining strength in countries that do not have our demographic issues. In their “Democracy Report 2024,” the University of Gothenburg Democracy Project compiled an extensive record of current global political trends. A few things stand out.

For the last 15 years in a row (beginning in 2009), authoritarianism has grown at a faster pace than democracy. Today, 71% of the world’s population live under some form of authoritarian government. That is an increase of 48% from ten years ago. Liberal democracies account for only 13% of the world’s population. A large part of this statistical shift is due to the policies of the Modi government that have moved India (the second most populous nation) out of the liberal democratic orbit. But even if we were to set India aside, the political momentum in the world has been to the right.

This drift to the right is not confined to countries with poorly developed constitutional systems. Almost every country in Europe, generally considered a center of democratic governance, has seen the growth of right-wing populist parties. In some, like Hungary and Poland, these Parties have come to power through democratic elections. Once in power, however, they made changes in their constitutions that affected the judiciary, the media, and the electoral process itself. These changes succeeded in undermining the fairness of their electoral systems and made removing these parties very difficult. Other populist parties have won national elections (Italy, Portugal, and Spain), but have been restrained by the presence of functioning parliamentary oppositions. Nevertheless, almost every nation in Europe is experiencing growing right-wing, populist pressure–France, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, Slovakia, Czechia, Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, etc. (Poland alone has moved in the opposite direction –to restore its wounded democracy)

Why is This Happening Now?

The world today is not Berlin of the 1930s. There is no Great Depression, mass impoverishment, nor millions of young men cashiered at the end of a world war without jobs or prospects of any kind—a potential source of shock-troops for the likes of a Mussolini or Hitler. Frankly, it does not appear that there is a simple, single explanation for why this shift to the right is taking place at this time. Rather, it appears to be the product of a confluence of a number of different problems. It would seem that it is the range and complexity of the issues facing humanity that has given rise to a search for some person or movement, some source of strength that can impose its will on an uncertain world.
Five developments have worked to create a climate that fosters authoritarianism.

1) The end of the Cold War. This is counter-intuitive. The victory of democratic capitalism was expected to bring about a more unified and democratic world community. Instead, it has become clear that the polarity that was at the center of the Cold War—the various red lines and balance of power dynamics—actually served to stabilize the international order. The break-up of the competing blocks has left nations more on their own, and has fostered the rise of regional powers (Russia, China, India, Turkey and Iran). This multi-polar world has witnessed an increase in nationalist tensions—and a drift towards war. (Gaza, Ukraine, Taiwan, re-armament of Japan, increased NATO defense spending, etc.)

2) Globalization and the scientific-technological revolution. The digital revolution and the deindustrialization of North America and much of Europe, has had a negative impact on the core of the old industrial working class. Competition with low wage regions, rising costs (housing, education, healthcare) and stagnant wages. These problems are exacerbated by the decline of trade unionism and traditional left, working- class political parties (communist and socialist).

Globalization also involves an increasing role for international economic institutions—the World Bank, IMF, and WTO; to which should be added the EC, European System of Central Banks, etc. Currently, the global economy is being largely managed by forces that lie beyond national boundaries and are independent of any truly effective democratic controls.

While globalization has multiplied world production, its negative effects on the working class and the critical role played by supra-national institutions, has engendered a nationalistic response. Populism, to a large extent, represents a coalition between a working class that is deeply suspicious of globalization and a network of corporate billionaires that fear international pressures to move away from fossil fuels towards a sustainable economy. The rise of nationalism, which supports the short-run interests of individual states against the long-run interests of the world community, threatens humanity’s ability to adapt to the ecological challenges we are facing.

3) Growing inequality of wealth. Globalization has greatly accelerated the unequal distribution of wealth. Today, the top 1% of the richest people in the world own assets valued at $38.7 trillion—45.8% of the planet’s privately owned wealth. Since 2020, the world’s billionaires have become 34% richer: their wealth increased three times faster than the rate of inflation. It is becoming increasingly clear that the presence of these vast personal fortunes is beginning to have an impact on the political processes of a number of nations. And that impact is overwhelmingly to the right.

There are 756 billionaires in the USA. In the 2020 midterms, they donated four times as much to the Republican Party ($80 million) as to the Democrats.

4) Global warming and the crisis with nature. The unfolding of a conflict with the natural world provides a backdrop to everything that is happening in the world today — killer heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, rising seas, etc. The immensity of the problem and the complexity of balancing short and long-run interests gives rise to a fatalistic pessimism that pervades much of world culture.

This pessimism feeds a cynical, me first, nationalistic response– particularly obvious in Russia, China, India and in Trump’s America.

5) Cultural transformation. It is important to recognize the critical role that cultural issues play in the emergence of contemporary authoritarianism. The last 50 years have seen dramatic changes in world culture—perhaps the most rapid and extensive changes in the history of humanity. Three elements in particular stand out. One is the gender revolution. The traditional division of labor between men and women is undergoing a radical and many-sided transformation. This lies at the center of a whole complex of issues having to do with family, marriage, reproductive processes (birth control, abortion), and sexuality (LGBTQ). These changes have added to a general sense of confusion and social turbulence. To many, they are liberating; to others, alarming.

The second has to do with the clash of modernity with traditional, religious, rural societies. Insecurity and cultural alienation has, in most cases, pushed rural communities to the right, where they have tended to join forces with disgruntled workers and the conservative billionaire club in diverting energies away from humanity’s real, and growing collective problems.

The third cultural issue has to do with race and immigration. Growing numbers of people are leaving dysfunctional and war-torn homelands in search of a better life. In general, they have migrated towards the more prosperous nations–which are mainly white liberal democracies. This is producing large scale contact between different races and cultures, which populist movements have used to stoke nationalist and racial tensions.

The rise of populist/nationalism could not have come at a worse time. Humanity is facing its gravest challenge—our out-of-control growth process is surpassing the carrying capacity of the planet. Our survival requires a massive, world-wide cooperative effort. Instead, we are breaking up into competing centers of power.

Seeing Minority as Part of the Majority

One of populism’s greatest strengths is the absence of a clear, alternative progressive vision of the future. In spite of a general opposition to communism’s authoritarian political system, there was widespread sympathy on the global left for the idea of a socialist economy. The poor economic performance of the communist countries, however, revealed deep, built-in shortcomings with totally collectivized economies. Every communist country has dropped its socialist model. Without socialism, the progressive camp found itself without a path to the future.

The Marxist revolutionary phase is over. Its demise has been accompanied by deep disillusionment. The idea that incremental reforms of capitalism might be the most realistic path forward does not appeal to a left that believed it could create a new world with one bold revolutionary stoke. Marx was wrong, a battered section of the left has concluded, there is no “there” there—no objective social reality we can mold to our liking. All that exists is a myriad of different perspectives battling to control the “discourse”–none able to address the real nuts and bolts of our predicament.

The failure of communism convinced many on the left that grand historical schemes—what they call metanarratives—are illusory: fantasies, doomed to fail. However, they propose, if we can’t raise everyone up, we can at least pull some unworthy folks down. The goal of the left, according to this perspective, should be to assist the most marginalized and vulnerable to resist their oppressors and tormentors—to strike out on behalf of racial minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the homeless, the impoverished, the colonized, etc.

There is much to admire in this stance. But it raises a question. How does a struggle to improve the lot of a minority fit into the struggle to safeguard the rights and improve the lot of the majority? Attacks on democracy are aimed at depriving the majority of its ability to determine how a country should be governed. This is where we see the necessity for a metanarrative. Without a “Big Picture” that can encompass both the minority and the majority, it is not possible to see how their interests could be mutually supporting.

Some on the left see only conflict in the relationship between minorities and majorities. The equal rights sought by Black Americans, they argue, can only be acquired at the expense of whites—by depriving whites of their “privileges.” If equality for Blacks could only be won by taking something away from whites, whites would have no interest in supporting such a movement. Indeed, many of those who see things this way have concluded that oppressed minorities can only advance their interests by rejecting majority rule—by obstructing the exercise of democratic rights on the part of those they disagree with. Such rights, they insist, are simply “tools’ of majority power. As a result, they feel entitled to disrupt meetings and speaking events, and even, in some instances, to use physical intimidation. This is a serious mistake. Disparaging democratic protections discredits the left and contributes to the attack on democratic values. Indeed, it will be the marginalized and vulnerable that will suffer most from any eclipse of democratic rights.

I came of age in America during the 1950s and 1960s, and I have seen the effectiveness of a different approach–of a positive, inclusive, pride of country metanarrative.

By framing the struggle for equality as the realization of the promise of “liberty and justice for all” inscribed in our nation’s founding documents, the rights gained by Black Americans do not appear as something that was taken from somebody else. They are seen as measures that strengthen our democracy, that serve to create “a more perfect union” as called for in the Preamble to our Constitution. Seen in this light, the fight for equality appears as something that is in all our interests—indeed, a patriotic duty.

When we look at the real world we live in, we see example after example where the democratic rights gained by Black Americans have played a positive, indeed, critical role in providing a majority committed to the cause of democracy and instrumental in addressing the needs of all working-class Americans.

What Is Democracy?

In this section, I want to look at the nature of democracy. On first glance, this might seem unnecessary. Democracy is something that almost every American believes they understand. It’s always been here: it’s like the air we breathe. It’s about the right of a majority to choose its government through fair elections. That’s right. But more needs to be said. Elections and majority rule are vital components of democracy. But they do not give us the whole picture.

Democracies are complex: they have vulnerabilities and they need institutional reinforcement. The most common form of government in the world today calls itself a democracy. But it’s not the kind of democracy we in the USA are familiar with. It is, rather, something the Gothenburg Democracy Project calls “electoral autocracies.” This term describes the governments of countries like Iran, Russia, Hungary, Belarus, etc. They hold elections, but they control who can run for office, what kind of information the voters are able to receive, and how the elections are organized. This kind of “democracy” exists, basically, to place a “majority” stamp of approval on leaders who never have to face a real opposition. These are sham democracies.

What we think of as a “true” democracy is what the Democracy Project calls a “liberal democracy.” Liberal democracies, like electoral autocracies, are based on elections and majority rule. The difference lies in the steps they take to guarantee that the electoral process stays fair and open. Majority rule, if it exists without strong institutional supports, has a fatal weakness. There is danger that a given majority may seek to change the rules of the game and make it virtually impossible to vote them out of office. This has been the path followed by most electoral autocracies.

The distinguishing feature of a liberal democracy is that it puts limits on the power of the majority. it is designed to ensure that a minority will have the opportunity to become a majority. The key to this is a bill of rights. This was the great invention of the American constitutional system. The First Amendment guarantees three fundamental rights. 1) Freedom of speech and the press—freedom of information. 2) Freedom of assembly—the right to organize public meetings, and 3) Freedom to oppose the government–the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

We tend to think of our Bill of Rights in individual terms—the guarantor of our personal liberties. But in equal measure, it guarantees our political rights—our ability to organize and challenge any given majority. Individual liberties and political rights are, in fact, indivisible.

The final piece of the liberal formula is an independent judiciary. This is necessary to ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not infringe on the rights guaranteed under a nation’s bill of rights.

Almost no one will admit to being opposed to democracy. Instead, they attack different parts of the institutional package. The most common targets are 1) sources of information—the media, internet, means of communication, etc. In the name of opposing “fake news” they nationalize TV stations, close newspapers, and penalize addressing certain topics (Russia). 2) Undermining the independence of the judiciary is another favored approach. In Israel, for instance, the far-right majority in the Knesset argues that the Supreme Court is being “undemocratic” in blocking the extreme laws desired by the current legislative majority. Poland, Hungary, and Turkey have followed this path.

Defending Democracy

The American constitutional system was the first modern democracy. It is based on a brilliant document—but one that is not perfect. Our constitution emerged through a series of compromises, and it embodies a number of flaws. The most egregious was its accommodation to slavery. However, even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, our democracy still falls short of a one-person, one-vote ideal. Its defects are clearly laid out in an excellent book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (The Tyranny of the Minority). Basically, small states and rural communities are favored over large states and urban areas. The authors estimate that the Democrats will have to win by a 4% margin in order to carry the Electoral College. The book highlights what is perhaps the greatest flaw of all—the difficulty in amending the Constitution. Ratification requires 2/3rds of the Congress and 4/5ths of the states. Something very hard to imagine.

So, here we are. We have got to win the popular vote by something like 6 million votes to avoid a Trump victory.

I believe we can do this if we can get the American people to understand what’s at stake in this election. Partly, this involves educating people about the political invention that truly made America great–and what it would mean to lose it. But alongside of this, we need to develop a vision of where this country needs to go –-what we could accomplish as a nation if we could address our problems as a united people.

But that’s another essay.