I read a piece this morning that was published in The New
York Times, entitled “5 Midterm Lessons for American Democracy.” It appears in The Interpreter newsletter,
which is authored by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub. A general link to that column can be found
here.
Their article raises some salient points regarding the state
of American democracy. However, it
misses the mark on others.
The first postulation in the article is that the “U.S.
avoided a legitimacy crisis.” I would
contend that we are in the midst of a crisis, one that is supported and
propelled by many far-right conservative public officials, their staffers, allied think
tank officials, and (critically) powerful economic interests.
Moreover, I would further argue that racism, misogyny,
homophobia, transphobia, and hostility against those who belong to religious
minorities (those who practice such faiths as well as atheists, agnostics, and
freethinkers across the spectrum) are not merely deeply ingrained in such forces,
but they are also actively stoked in order to encourage societal divisions and
thus prevent democratic challenges to our socioeconomic and political
structures.
For example, voter suppression efforts in many states tend
to disenfranchise Black voters at much higher rates compared to other racial
populations. This is a deliberate
strategy intended to create electorates as favorable as possible for
conservative candidates and causes. Such
practices, which manifest themselves in many ways in different jurisdictions
but all to the same effect, are in and of themselves a crisis of
legitimacy. If voters cannot exercise
their franchise, do we truly live in a democracy? Or if you are one of those who say, “Actually,
we live in a republic…” fine, but how can we have a representative form of
government if the governed cannot have a protected voice in electing their
representatives?
The second point raised is that “the risk of future legitimacy
crises may have grown.” Yes, the author
and I agree on that basic theory. We may
have different beliefs as to “why.” I
have argued elsewhere that we may be leaving “Political Time” in favor of a
politics which is more embedded in “Cultural Time” .... specifically, the rise
of popular culture as a force in our politics and how it shapes who we elect,
how we debate issues, and how it impacts our perceptions and behaviors. For example, Trump is an “entertainer” who is
deepening his support among his target viewership in order to receive their
adulation, make wheelbarrows full of money for himself and his family, and (potentially)
obtain a pick-up for another four-year season.
He keeps tossing out incendiary language because it helps him meet his
short-term needs. He, alongside his enabling
cronies, do not care about the long-term well-being of the Republic.
Unless we have a politics grounded on the rule of law, with
a commitment to small-l liberal values, we are at an increased risk of
demagoguery and the subversion of law by those who hold political power (and
their agents who operate on their behalf).
This cultural shift isn’t the only reason why the risk of
legitimacy crises might have increased; I agree with some of the authors’
arguments, for example, gerrymandering to game the system is a problem. Legal challenges to fundamental rights and courts
that are out of sync with where the majority of Americans stand on social and
political issues erode confidence in institutions and in the belief that laws
will be fairly enforced. Again, this has
been happening for a while now and if you are looking for a red-line that shows
where the crisis began, look behind you.
For the reasons mentioned above, I concur with their third
point, “social polarization is likely to get worse” in the near-term. I believe that the 2020 presidential election
cycle is going to be one of the ugliest this nation has seen. There will be coded and uncoded appeals to
white nationalism, and to narratives that could easily come from old-line
European fascists. Trump, his minions
and the “malefactors of great wealth” who stand to benefit from his continuance
in office are going to employ every divisive strategy under the sun, no matter
how much it corrodes the national dialogue, to re-elect their “man in 1600.”
The articulation of point four, the so-called “Latin
Americanization of the U.S.” is not appropriate. Frankly, it is problematic as it paints a
very broad brush when you are thinking about 639 million people living across
33 nations. Yes, there are some Latin
American countries currently undergoing some turmoil (Venezuela being a good
example) and some that are hurtling off in a very troubling direction (Brazil coming
to mind). The larger point regarding “delegative
democracy” is a legitimate concern. Our
checks and balances do not seem to be working.
For example, the cowardice among many prominent Republicans, especially
those in public office, to stand up to the authoritarian rantings of Trump is
appalling and an abdication of their responsibilities to the nation.
Regarding their somewhat truncated fifth point regarding there
being “mostly good, if mixed, signals for global democracy,” I think they did
not avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss how structural changes can
help build stronger democracies world-wide.
For example, I believe that a disaggregation of economic
power (some good old-fashioned trust-busting) and the passage of laws that
promote greater economic democracy along with other Constitutional or
parliamentary reforms (depending on the nation) will help empower everyday
people while impairing the ability of “the powerful few” to gather the fuel
they use to sow discord.
Am I saying
that we should immediately bring into being in the United States the “common
ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange?” While public and democratic control over
select parts of our economy would help ensure that “people are being put ahead
of profits,” it is not necessary to transform our society into some form of
socialist utopia by tomorrow. However,
if we want our citizenry to enjoy effective liberties, not just the liberties
they might possess if they became wealthy, then we need to have stronger safeguards
built into our system. A higher minimum
wage is one such safeguard, Medicare-for-All is another, making higher
education far more affordable to facilitate economic mobility is yet another. This is hardly radical, it’s social democracy…a
new New Deal for our time, practiced at the national, state, and local
levels.
And it is grounded in what our
principles are supposed to be: fair
play, equality under the law, treating our neighbors as we would wish to be
treated, and providing a helping hand to our neighbors who may be going through
a tough time (as we would wish to be helped if the same happened to us). Right now, there are forces in our society
opposed to such fundamental concepts, because they see them as threats to their
power.
If we want to preserve our
democracy, we can’t simply rely on voting in members of Party X to solve our immediate problems. We need to hold them accountable and we need
them to press for systemic reforms that transfer clout from “the few to the
many.” Vigilance does not end when the
polls close. In a democracy,
electioneering and governing (and the nexus between the two) rely on an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Obstacles to the flow of information and to engagement should be
eradicated so every American, to the greatest extent possible, can have an
authentic say in how we as a society operate.
And those are my thoughts on “lessons for American democracy”
following the Midterm elections. This is
likely to be a format I employ for future posts, so I hope you enjoyed it.
In solidarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment