Thanks for the opportunity to write a piece for the LP. Often in writing about polarization and people's perceptions, I hear the criticism "but that view isn't true." I want to emphasize that conflict/polarization dynamics are largely about perceptions, not about who's right or wrong. Some of the views about what's undemocratic I talk about in this piece I myself disagree with. It's important to recognize that perceptions matter, no matter who's stances are more right or wrong, and it's important to see that perceptions naturally grow darker and more pessimistic in a toxically polarized environment like ours. And anyone who cares about persuasion and getting things done must be willing to grapple with perceptions.
The left uses the courts and the administrative state (which are largely non-elected entities) to implement items that would never have a prayer of being passed in Congress. Pretty undemocratic.
The Russian Collusion Hoax, where Obama used a fabricated story as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, is 1000x worse than what Nixon did, and pretty un-democratic.
The use of lawfare in the 2024 campaign - the appraisal dispute, the campaign finance kerfuffle, tactics to keep Trump off the ballot - are highly undemocratic.
Finally, the left's use of obscure judges to frustrate Trump's agenda - as if implementing an executive order is a-ok, while reversing it is not - is highly undemocratic. Like it or not, many of the policies Trump is implementing were supported by the electorate.
Republicans believe that "democracy" means nothing more than "democrats getting their way." So yeah, they are cynical. With good reason.
Agree with Brent Nyitray. There seems to be a crescendo of what the Democratic progressive Left once labeled false moral equivalence intended to distract from the central issue of our times: Namely, the ghosted presidency of Joe Biden and the increasingly clear evidence that the Party highjacked the highest office in the nation for partisan and/or personal gain. The national security risks and constitutional damage alone merit a slew of criminal indictments aimed at getting to the bottom of it and holding accountable those responsible.
I think the democrat party is basically a mix of "by-any-means-necessary" ideologues and grifters. Both sides tolerated each other because they were getting what they wanted.
Good article—it gestures to the real political fault lines here, which despite appearances don’t map one-to-one onto the parties.
“Finally, the left's use of obscure judges to frustrate Trump's agenda - as if implementing an executive order is a-ok, while reversing it is not - is highly undemocratic.”
Regardless of whether this method of foiling the implementation of an agenda is correct or not, it was done to Obama and Biden as well, it’s not a Democrat or left-specific thing. They issued far fewer executive orders and passed more legislation, though. It only looks like it’s worse with Trump because he’s done very little except issue a record number of executive orders. He passed the Laken Riley Act and other than that (and the BBB) has not bothered enacting much legislation through Congress—y’know, where things are supposed to be *voted* on.
“The Russian Collusion Hoax, where Obama used a fabricated story as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, is 1000x worse than what Nixon did, and pretty un-democratic.”
Even if we accept this not-very-accurate version of the Russia affair—for which there are valid criticisms, no doubt—this is simply not comparable in scale to attempting to incite a mob at the capitol to enter the halls of Congress and stop the counting of the electoral votes of an election you lost, and then trying to use fake electors to reverse the result—AFTER you have had a fair hearing in the courts over your complaints. The latter is simply a more fundamental attack on the machinery of liberal democracy than using a questionable source for a FISA warrant.
“Republicans believe that "democracy" means nothing more than "democrats getting their way."
This is quite a silly view given that Republicans got their way plenty under George W. Bush, but regardless, the fault line is not Rep/Dem, it is liberal vs. illiberal, and the parties contain a mixture of both groups. There is a bit more illiberalism in the GOP right now because they have normalized Trump’s Orban-style soft authoritarianism, but there are illiberal elements in the Democratic Party, too, and there’s no guarantee they don’t get worse. Sadly, because of the way social media works, the voices of those liberals are drowned out, because “let’s compromise and respect each other’s differences” doesn’t get you retweets like ‘own the libs!’ or militant woke-ism does. I speculate the growing ranks of non-affiliated voters is where they go to hang out—and is the principle force behind the existence of Never-Trump Republicans and anti-woke Democratic centrists epitomized by figures like Bill Maher or Andrew Sullivan.
‘The Left’ is not a monolith, and neither are the parties. Unless you’re willing to declare Ruy Teixiera and AOC and Xi Jinping are all indistinguishable ideologically. Are you really willing to make that claim?
I remember Thomas Friedmann lusting over China's ability to get things done. If there is a lot of ideological daylight between the CCP and the Western left, I don't see it.
In the US, I think the left is the entity that consists of the Democratic Party, NGOs, the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, K-12 education, Madison Avenue, and the Administrative State. Almost all of these institutions are supposedly "non-political."
The ideological box that is permitted is quite narrow, all things considered. There are all sorts of ideological litmus tests that must be met in order to be a member in good standing.
So you’re essentially ignoring the existence of the center-left, and the actual ideological structure of Western society, so you can craft lazy, reductive political arguments.
Well you’re entitled, I suppose, but I think Ruy and the folks at the TLP, who are mostly old-school social democrats that fall somewhere, ideologically speaking, along the centrist left, (see: the books and articles they actually write) will not appreciate being lumped in with the beliefs of the CCP,
I think the point is that either party can play their "Big Tent" philosophy until it compromises what they profess to stand for. The vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with the kooky progressive Left Woke wing of today's Democratic Party. Until the moves toward Ameruca's political center and away from the Left, its popularity will remain in the upper teens and it will remain out of power. That's the "science" Democrats ignore.
Am I the only one concerned that a duly elected president was unable to fulfill all the duties of president and was not removed under the terms of our constitution? Apparently unelected staffers (or whomever) carried out presidential duties. My question is, who are these usurpers and what is their punishment? Clearly an undemocratic administration.
I see the "progressives" constantly hating anyone but themselves and their opinions, and engaging in rank hypocrisy when it comes to that whole democracy thingy. They tried to get Trump excluded from the ballot, and they replaced their own party's nominee without any votes. They have no credibility with me.
However you define democracy the central point is always that the main input to the system must be the will of the people and the output must clearly reflect that preference. In 2016 and 2020 Bernie Sanders was clearly the presidential front runner yet he was denied the nomination through the machinations of the DNC. In 2024 there was a show primary with one candidate up until the point Rep. Dean Phillips entered the race. When it became undeniable that President Biden was not up to the task, the DNC installed an unpopular candidate who clearly did not represent the choice of the electorate. No vote offered, take it or leave it. So if we want to save democracy just maybe it would be best to practice it.
That would be Bernie "Three Dachas" Sanders, the son of Brooklyn Stalinists. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree. Oh, and his lovely wife looted Burlington (VT) College on its way to bankruptcy. Them Socialists. So clean.
I don’t know if I have commented on an article in the last decade or ever, honestly, but I am going to comment on this one. I appreciate this article immensely. I have friends and also a spouse! that share politically different views. Way back when, during the COVID mayhem and afterwards, I clung to what I thought it meant to be a democrat. However, in the last year or two, I have succeeded in listening with an open mind to my republican comrades. It does not always go as planned but it has not been catastrophic. And, for me, it has lead to more compassion, insight, and ability to see the choices of my own party in a more objective light. But not do not feel like I have a home in either party. Either way, I find this article to be an incredibly ACCURATE, non-partisan assessment of the general dynamics between- and within- the two parties. Oh how I wish there was a third!
Good article. I’ll leave my opinions on the two parties aside, other than my red line for any politician, and one that I think is based on verifiable, objective results, is elections. If you lie about losing an election and try to usurp that process, you are immediately disqualified from holding the office you are pursuing. I don’t care if it’s on the right or the left. Once you try to delegitimize that process, you have begun walking down a dark path and are unfit to lead the people you purport to serve.
Right, but that's not how most of Trump suporters actually see what happened. No matter how obvious it might seem to you, others dont see it that way. I think Biden probably lagitimately won in 2020 but I certianly wouldn't count on it. Regardless, it was not seriously investigated and the fake establishment "consensus" that routinely calls Trump's accusations "false" instead of just unproven or unsupported, comes across as highly suspicious and a big red flagg to many. The way Trump went on about it when combined with some of his other actions on the other hand also further contributed to me not trusting him. Not that I trusted him anyway. But the things recently uncovered about the Biden adminestration are hardly endevering of trust in the Democrats!
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand most Trump supporters don’t see it that way, but that doesn’t negate that Trump is, in fact, the most egregious bad actor in this regard.
I am glad you are inclined to think Biden won the 2020 election. You may already know, but dozens of Trump-appointed judges threw out his lawsuits alleging fraud and other foul play. It was universally acknowledged among all reputable journalistic outlets, left right and center. Ultimately, one has to ask the question: If multiple sources are confirming the same thing, including in courts of law, then maybe they’re all on to something?
I think part of the issue is his die hard supporters refuse to acknowledge/believe anything negative about him, and whatever he says must be true. I have seen some MAGA folks on social media refuse to believe that he and Musk actually had a falling out, even though it’s right in front of everyone’s faces. It reminds me of that George Orwell quote: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
I have sympathy for those are unknowingly misled, but at a certain point I lose patience will willful ignorance and a refusal to break free from confirmation bias and tribal thinking. A lot of good people fall into that trap, but it is very difficult to tolerate it when there is no effort made at discerning what is true and what isn’t, particularly when the stakes are high (as the 2024 election was).
And yes, I certainly agree Biden’s selfishness, lack of awareness, and pride, as well as all the Democrats who covered for him, has caused voters of all stripes to lose trust in the Democratic Party. They deserve the abysmal polling they have. I still think they are the healthier party, so long as Trump leads the Republican Party. But I am not going to make excuses for Biden and the Democrats, that’s for sure. Biden is a big reason that we have Trump 2.0.
We will still have to in part agree to disagree then. The thing is, everything you write about Trump supporters is a major generalizarion and similer acusations have often been made of Democrats. And I do agree that many Trump supporters are like this. But far from all of them are. For Democrats they are more split in some ways, but are in a very top down secular religion like authoritarian structure. But all these things are in fact highly desputed by many.
So is your claim that all major reputed sources agreed regarding Trump's claims about the 2020 election. Maybe what you consider credible sources agreed, but what others regard as such did not agree about his claims. Your side does not determine what is credable anymore, -so called fact checkers have shown they are just mouth-peaces of power.
And, I actually said I think his claims could be true, -I just havent seen enough evidance and I certianly don't trust Trump either! His claims were never seriously looked at however, just supressed for political reasons and a false consensus was manufactured and enforced. That is not in and of itself evidence that they are true however, but niether is their anything definetive to discredit them. No matter how much you might insist to the contrary does not make it so. The same principle applies to anyone of course.
But there is no true consensus on these issues, and nothing was definatively proven either way about the 2020 election. Period. Again, the only consensus was a false maufactured one.
I have not trusted either the Democratic nor the Republican party leadership since the 1990's at least, and for me Trump as differant as he is, is not an exception to this, -anyone who does trust either one is being foolish at best IMHO.
In the end, Trump has been actively supporting a genocide overseas, as did Biden. How can one be any less credable then that??? Enough said.
You both might be interested in this. I had a section in my book Defusing American Anger that was aimed at both “sides” understand the “other side” on issues of election distrust. If you want to read that, it’s here: https://www.american-anger.com/post/election-distrust (was too long to put on Wix apparently so I just linked to a google doc).
I am specifically talking about the MAGA die hard who defend whatever he does. Definitely don’t think all Trump supporters are like that.
And yes, I think what count as reputable sources—well established *journalistic* outlets and not big media organizations, despite their clear flaws—all agreed, as a matter of fact, that Trump lost in 2020. Based on what you said there, I see why people could dispute that Trump actually won—anyone can say, “Well, based on what *you* consider to be reputable journalism, Trump won. Not on what *I* consider to be reputable. But that is precisely the problem. There is a standard of journalistic ethics and integrity that serious news outlets try to follow—reporting the facts, being honest, *correcting their errors.* So, for example, even though the New York Times is no doubt demonized by MAGA and Americans who are otherwise skeptical of “legacy media,” their reporting, as a matter of substance and integrity, still bests getting one’s news from other sources online (say social media) that do not have any or little appetite for those standards. Ditto the Wall Street Journal. And just because an outlet may be biased and lean one way or the other (they all do to some extent), doesn’t mean their reporting is always bad or that they don’t have their facts straight most of the time. That is the key difference—they hold themselves to a higher standard of journalistic accountability that many other online sources do not. So while there may be disagreement about which ideology one prefers, all reputable news organizations hold themselves to a higher standard. Even National Review, which is an unapologetically conservative outlet, bases their underlying reporting on a rigorous analysis of facts. You should listen to Sam Harris’ episode of the 2024 election called “The Reckoning.” He lays all this out very well.
I appreciate your skepticism of Trump and of people in power (very healthy), but what you are saying, that there was “no definitive conclusion about the 2020 election,” is simply false. Like I said, in courts of law, where evidence presented by lawyers is scrutinized to the highest degree, *universally* discredited Trump and his team’s claims of election fraud. There is all sorts of misinformation and disinformation out there arguing the contrary, but it’s simply not true and does not change the underlying factual assessment and conclusions of, I will say again, litigation that was in many cases determined by *Trump’s own appointed judges.*
On your last point, the supporting of genocide, I think I would dispute that term as it is being thrown around now. What Israel is doing is not equivalent to true intentional genocide. Israel is fighting Hamas, terrorists who want them wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas is hiding among innocent civilians so when Israel seeks to fight back, innocent people die. It’s the ultimate form of nihilism, and Hamas couldn’t care less. They *want* innocent people to die.
Yet, there are legitimate criticisms of how Israel is going about the war given Hamas is weak enough now that it can’t plot another October 7th. But that is a whole other can of worms that we could go on about for a long time. What is certain is things in the Middle East are extraordinarily dangerous right now, especially now that Israel has escalated their conflict with Iran by bombing their nuclear facilities. Hopefully nations of good will can all find a way to de-escalate the chaos there.
At any rate, I am grateful for your thoughts and conversation, my friend.
I am going to reply seperately in this comment concerning just your claims regarding Israel. Israeli officials have been caught lying about almost everything regarding Hamas and the situation in Gaza, except when they contradicted themselves to admit the truth. I am well aware that Hamas can be bad, -which is part of why Netanyahu has helped fund them(!) But what they do is almost nothing compared to the level of violence the IDF is doing and has long been engaged in. Israeli leaders at this point have zero credibility. Netanyahu cannot even travel to most countries is he would be subject to arrest for crimes agaimst humanity.
Israel is unequivocally commiting a genocide through a mass bombing and starvation campaign. We can see it with our own eyes. They have provided zero evidance for most of their claims regarding Hamas hiding people but IDF solders have repeatedly admited (it's on video!) to using Palistinians as human shields. Most buildings in Gaza have already been destroyed or severely damaged. There can never be justification for that.
The only people in the know who are still insisting this is not genocide are Zionists who support genocide but insist it must be called something else because genocide sound bad! Anyone attempting to downplay what Israel is actually doing (trying to expand and possibly start World War 3 in the name of ethno-religious supremacism) is discrediting themselves at this point. That of course includes most Western leaders including Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, etc.
I disagree with your assessment of the facts here. I know Bibi and the far right in Israel are corrupt, but that does not change the fact that it is primarily Hamas responsible for the horror in Gaza.
We could go on and on about this, but to be honest, I am short on time to do so (I have a board exam to study for. Ha). I appreciate your feedback, I really do. But we will have to agree to disagree for now.
Let’s keep communicating on other issues. All my best!
But no, -your claim that my statement that there is "'no definative conclusion" about the 2020 election' is simply false", is itself false. Agian, the judges and other legal scholars you mention never seriously investigated the matter. Lawfair was practiced and some people were threatened. There is some evidance but nothing conclusive. The claim of a universal consensus by legal experts was a lie however, a manufactured but enforced lie from colusion by legacy media, federal agencies and corporate security state partners. End of discussion. You are free to disagree of course, but I do not wish to continue this argument. Just let it go.
The New York Times in particular have also been cuaght lying repeatedly about many things over the years. Legacy media have by now largely discredited themselves. They do not have higher standards of journalistic integraty then some of the people they slander, such as Mat Blumenthal and his 'The Greyzone', Mat Taibbi, etc (who actually have a far better track record if one looks closely), because legacy corporate media serve primarily as propaganda for a deeply corrupt national establishment.
One of the things that frustrates me about political commentary from both sides is the ahistorical nature of it. If ignoring a court order or threatening to is an assault on democracy then Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, and FDR killed it long ago. And the courts are hardly the bastions of constitutional order that whoever is winning at the moment likes to portray them as. There have been many incidents of decisions ranging from constitutionally flawed to deeply immoral. The Supreme Court never did back down from Dred Scott. It took a civil war with 1M dead and 3 constitutional amendments to make that go away.
I read a lot of history and have for about 70 years so lack of that perspective tends to set me off. I generally admire Jefferson though his defiance led Marshall to punk him with Marbury. I don't admire Lincoln but he gave the best defense of defiance in Merriman and was totally correct. FDR's economic management left something to be desired IMO, but he was the best wartime President we ever had and he was correct in his defiance which involved trying the German sabotage team by military tribunal.
Well done. I largely agree with all of this and it shapes my political worldview. The moral comparison to Democrats and Republicans with respect to democracy is unequal as the MAGA Republican movement is a response and reaction to previous threats to democracy as you have pointed out here: elimination of the electoral college for example. There were also calls to pack the Supreme Court. The COVID era gave us a supercharged understanding of the threat... the bureaucracy and its authoritarian power and the fact that it is primarily Democrat in political support.
The Democrat platform is not only the front-side attack of American democratic principles, but it is also an attack on principles of liberalism that back the idea that is America.
"At the end of the day, the test of Trump’s commitment to democracy and the Constitution may come down to whether he respects the rule of law. If he routinely ignores court orders and tries to bypass constitutional checks, that’s a red line—a more objective boundary—for harmful actions than subjective debates over what is or isn’t democratic."
The problem with this view is that the Democrats are the primary party of the Professional Managerial Class regime that have captured and control most of our institutions including our judicial system. When the law has been weaponized by Democrats for politics, then politics must be weaponized against the law.
"The problem with this view is that the Democrats are the primary party of the Professional Managerial Class regime that have captured and control most of our institutions including our judicial system."
i.e., the PMC's 'experts' must not be allowed to maintain their stations, because democracy is only democracy when they have been ejected from it.
Sounds familiar:
"Because the mass movement of Nazism was nonintellectual in the beginning, when it was only practice, it had to be anti-intellectual before it could be theoretical. What Mussolini’s official philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, said of Fascism could have been better said of Nazi theory: “We think with our blood.” Expertness in thinking, exemplified by the professor, by the high-school teacher, and even by the grammar-school teacher in the village, had to deny the Nazi views of history, economics, literature, art, philosophy, politics, biology, and education itself. Thus Nazism, as it proceeded from practice to theory, had to deny expertness in thinking and then (this second process was never completed), in order to fill the vacuum, had to establish expert thinking of its own—that is, to find men of inferior or irresponsible caliber whose views conformed dishonestly or, worse yet, honestly to the Party line."
And, to be said of the most hated creature of all in this view, the academic:
"In order to be a theory and not just a practice, National Socialism required the destruction of academic independence. In the years of its rise the movement little by little brought the community’s attitude toward the teacher around from respect and envy to resentment, from trust and fear to suspicion. The development seems to have been inherent; it needed no planning and had none. As the Nazi emphasis on nonintellectual virtues (patriotism, loyalty, duty, purity, labor, simplicity, “blood,” “folk-ishness”) seeped through Germany, elevating the self-esteem of the “little man,” the academic profession was pushed from the very center to the very periphery of society."
-Milton Sanford Mayer, 'They Thought They Were Free: the Germans 1933-1945'
I’m hard pressed to see how advocating the end of the Electoral College makes one “undemocratic.” However, I will grant the author that at least at the grass roots level, there are a number of people on the left who have a questionable attitude towards democracy. Certainly, on college campuses, speech codes, diversity “loyalty” oaths, cancel culture and like are good examples of undemocratic attitudes on the left.
Having said that, the problem is far worse on the right, especially at the elite level. Trump’s attempt to overturn an election he clearly lost in 2020 and willingness of his supporters to glom onto “fraud” claims that no court found credible and still continue to repeat them today suggests pervasive undemocratic attitudes both at both the elite and grassroots level of the Republican Party.
Even the Founding Fathers were concerned about what our writer calls “the tyranny of the majority “. The small states were worried about being dominated by the more populous states in a direct democracy. Remember there was no country then, just a collection of states trying to agree on a framework.
The same is true today. If we had direct elections most of the states would have zero power or influence in Washington. Hence the idea of the electoral college was born. It keeps all 50 states engaged in our elections and government. A pretty elegant solution when you think about it. Overall, we’ve never again had the caliber of politicians we had back then, well before our self-serving political party duopoly emerged.
Neither party wants honest elections. If they did, it would be easy. Vote in person unless you're disabled and can't get to the polling place. Paper ballot tabulated by optical scanners. Major elections over a 3-day holiday. Photo I.D. to vote.
Portions of the Democratic party are indubitably illiberal and anti-democratic in instinct, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. But the party has never supported its leader in anything like a unilateral and illegal attempt to throw out the result of an election it lost, as in the case of the 'sacking of the Capitol' to stop Pence's counting of the electoral votes and the fake electors scheme.
When Harris lost last November, she and the party accepted the outcome, despite things like direct threats by Trump to go after his critics. Four years before, when Trump lost, he did not accept the outcome, and his party humored his attempts to reverse it until people were literally invading the halls of Congress. That is the difference in the two parties on the issue--the GOP is way worse at this point.
At the leadership level, at least. There are lots of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are properly appalled by the January 6/Fake electors affair and the illiberal forces within the party. But they get no hearing in the media. I had hoped they would be able to make common cause with (small l) liberal Democrats, but the media environment makes moderation and collaboration practically impossible.
Our system of financing campaigns is by far the least democratic part of the way we elect. Neither party will even consider a candidate for most federal or state offices unless that person can self fund or raise millions of dollars in cash.
Politicians are thinking of getting re elected the day after the win an election, and the way to get re elected is with enough cash to open campaign offices and fund trainings for paid staffers.
Our system of government is very corrupt and undemocratic, because of money. What is the main concern of the current budget bill being worked on,,,, tax breaks for the wealthy.
Beyond the wealthy, there are also "the groups" and the people donating to groups are also well to do though not billionaires. Act Blue is a juggernaut. Emily's List, Americans for Prosperity. Oh and Dark Money, untraceable millions.
Trump's refusal to accept the 2020 elections was very bad, but then Trump is a nutter, and I voted for him.
Money in politics is the symptom. You need to change one of the causes, regulation or threat of regulation. I have a 500 sq.ft house I have rented out for the past 40 years. Recently I joined a landlords association which employs two lobbyist to warn us about what the legislature is proposing. And yes I make regular political contributions, to protect myself. My rental income is an integral part of my retirement income.
I rented out our old house for a couple of years. Then sold it. Looking at the market again during covid I realized tenants can simply stop paying the rent.
In an ideal world the tenant and the landlord would equally influence the legislator and there would be some sensible regulations to protect both. I wonder who lobbies for the tenants, in my state they seem to have the upper hand. Higher incomes would help.
In my dark blue state the landlords are at the short end of the stick. We have many, many heavily funded activist who continually increase the owners responsibility and reduce the tenants requirements. To evict a tenant, who is actively damaging a rental, takes a minimum of 45 days, and that’s if you start immediately and proceed flawlessly. Hence rentals are higher due to the need to pay; lawyers and constructors. And did I mention we have very high property and income taxes in this state? Part of the solution is to: make it easier to permit and build units, make it easier and more common sense to evict bad tenants, and just let us get on with our public service of providing housing. If it were easier to evict tenants, I could give anyone who seemed sincere a chance. As it is there are categories I won’t rent to because they have special status and are even harder to evict. You are right about higher income being a solution. Fortunately we now have back the president who “in his the first three years of his last term saw the average income of each quintile grow every year.” We need a lot of repair to the economy since our last president who “in the first three years every household quintile experienced a decline in their real incomes.” https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/02increasing-income-inequality-under-trump-and-the-democrats/
I'd like to respectfully add--stressing that this applies to *Trump*, specifically, and not the GOP or to Americans that haven't paid attention--that while I sympathize with the sentiment expressed in the article's conditional
"If [anyone] want[s] to convince their fellow Americans that Trump poses a threat to democracy,"
...I would say that, to anyone who has been paying attention, (which, again, is not everybody) if this proposition is not already true, it will probably never be true. Trump has, *among other things*:
I.) Gone after multiple universities whose policies he doesn't like with extremely stringent measures
II.) threatened judges with impeachment if they don't rule his way
III.) ignored Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with
IV.) gone after law firms that formerly prosecuted him
V.) sued (while being the CiC) media outlets that report on him (or his political opponents) in ways he doesn't like
VI.) used the office of president to finance his own memecoin and secure contracts for the business organization he never disowned upon ascending to office, enriching himself to the tune of billions of dollars
VII.) rejected the legitimacy of elections he has lost and pardoned those who attacked the U.S. capitol behalf of this rejection
VIII.) attempted to overturn an election he lost using extralegal means (such as stopping electoral counts and enlisting fake electors)
...If, knowing all this, someone doesn't see the man as a threat to democracy, there is very little chance they will ever see him as such, regardless of what he does.
Also, thus far Trump does appear to be respecting the rule of law. He is pushing the letter of the law to limits a lot of people aren’t used to, and he is very willing to accept that his actions will be subject to legal challenge. Indeed, even before he was president he made an art of using the law to his advantage in this way. But he has lost some of those challenges, and he has not fired any judges or gotten rid of the court system, or taken away the right to vote. The people screaming that we are about to lose “our democracy” look increasingly silly when the horrors they predict don’t materialize.
Democracy also means accepting the results of the democratic process. It was wrong when Trump refused to do so in 2020. It’s wrong now, when Democrats seem so reluctant to accept that Trump was democratically elected and is what a little more than half the people wanted.
Yes both sides are guilty of being undemocratic and yes it very much depends on how you define it. This was/is a constant theme of the Democrats regarding Trump. I always knew they were just ‘preaching to the choir’. This was never going to persuade a voter not already in your camp. However, they obviously feel very strongly about it as they never stop saying it.
Jim Crow represented an almost 100 year effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The following is a list of policies implemented by state governments and local communities during Jim Crow.
Poll Taxes: Required voters to pay a fee to vote.
Literacy Tests: Required voters to pass a test demonstrating their ability to read and interpret complex legal or constitutional passages.
"Understanding" Clauses: Required voters to "understand" or "interpret" a section of the state or federal constitution.
Grandfather Clauses: Exempted individuals from poll taxes and literacy tests if their ancestors had the right to vote before 1867.
Gerrymandering: Drawing electoral district lines in ways that diluted the voting power of African American communities.
Intimidation and Violence: Threats, beatings, bombings, and lynchings were used to deter African Americans from registering to vote or going to the polls.
Both parties were less than committed to expanding democracy during the Jim Crow era. The most racist president in the 20th century was Woodrow Wilson. The defeat of Strom Thurmond in 1948 and Barry Goldwater in 1964 were key moments in the expansion of democracy. There is still strong de facto segregation of America 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Just to remind us all, it was the Democrats that supported slavery. After losing the Civil War they enacted Jim Crow laws. Wilson was indeed very racist, but he was followed by the vastly under appreciated Warren Harding, who went to the South and called out their racist policies to their faces. Still, it took the Civil Rights Act and a lot of brave action to get us where we are today.
Most of our early presidents owned slaves even while they knew it was wrong and in defiance of the Constitution. Kinda sounds like many of today’s politicians who vote their interests over those of the country.
Now you're going back almost 100 years (Woodrow Wilson). "Strong de facto segregation" - is this due to CURRENT government laws and policies, or is it poverty driven?
The Urban Institute reports that a typical white person lives in a neighborhood that is 75% white and only 8% African American. A typical African American person lives in a neighborhood that is only 35% white and 45% African American.
Sorry for the late question, but why was there no mention of the very undemocratic internal processes and procedures of the Democratic Party? The internal election of the DNC board is only the latest example of how the party uses "elections" as a fig leaf for engineering predetermined outcomes. "Superdelegates" is a much more egregious example: the mechanism enshrines the Orwellian principle that "some animals are more equal than others." The high-level party machinations that stamped down Bernie Sanders' momentum in 2016 and 2020 was just a warm-up to the full-on suppression of democracy within the Democratic Party in 2024, ensuring that rank-and-file voters were given no real opportunity to vote for an alternative to President Biden - which not only gave the nomination to an incapable nominee but also drove RFK Jr. and his supporters out of the party. And despite all the talk of a pretend "mini-primary" to make it look like rank-and-file voters would have some kind of input, however meaningless, into the selection of Biden's replacement after his withdrawal, the party couldn't even pull that off.
Maybe instead of blustering about "threats to democracy" from Trump and the Republican Party (which is really just whining about Democrats' inability to win elections), Democratic Party grandees should stop pretending they know better than the rand-and-file voters and instead try to follow the will of those voters - you know, democratically.
Thanks for the opportunity to write a piece for the LP. Often in writing about polarization and people's perceptions, I hear the criticism "but that view isn't true." I want to emphasize that conflict/polarization dynamics are largely about perceptions, not about who's right or wrong. Some of the views about what's undemocratic I talk about in this piece I myself disagree with. It's important to recognize that perceptions matter, no matter who's stances are more right or wrong, and it's important to see that perceptions naturally grow darker and more pessimistic in a toxically polarized environment like ours. And anyone who cares about persuasion and getting things done must be willing to grapple with perceptions.
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong <----NOBODY'S RIGHT IF EVERYBODY'S WRONG
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
What a field day for the heat (Ooh ooh ooh)
A thousand people in the street (Ooh ooh ooh)
Singing songs and they carrying signs (Ooh ooh ooh)
Mostly say, "Hooray for our side" (Ooh ooh ooh)
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
You better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
You better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
You better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: Stephen Stills
For What It's Worth lyrics © Cotillion Music Inc., Springalo Toones, Ten East Music, Richie Furay Music
The left uses the courts and the administrative state (which are largely non-elected entities) to implement items that would never have a prayer of being passed in Congress. Pretty undemocratic.
The Russian Collusion Hoax, where Obama used a fabricated story as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, is 1000x worse than what Nixon did, and pretty un-democratic.
The use of lawfare in the 2024 campaign - the appraisal dispute, the campaign finance kerfuffle, tactics to keep Trump off the ballot - are highly undemocratic.
Finally, the left's use of obscure judges to frustrate Trump's agenda - as if implementing an executive order is a-ok, while reversing it is not - is highly undemocratic. Like it or not, many of the policies Trump is implementing were supported by the electorate.
Republicans believe that "democracy" means nothing more than "democrats getting their way." So yeah, they are cynical. With good reason.
Agree with Brent Nyitray. There seems to be a crescendo of what the Democratic progressive Left once labeled false moral equivalence intended to distract from the central issue of our times: Namely, the ghosted presidency of Joe Biden and the increasingly clear evidence that the Party highjacked the highest office in the nation for partisan and/or personal gain. The national security risks and constitutional damage alone merit a slew of criminal indictments aimed at getting to the bottom of it and holding accountable those responsible.
I think the democrat party is basically a mix of "by-any-means-necessary" ideologues and grifters. Both sides tolerated each other because they were getting what they wanted.
Good article—it gestures to the real political fault lines here, which despite appearances don’t map one-to-one onto the parties.
“Finally, the left's use of obscure judges to frustrate Trump's agenda - as if implementing an executive order is a-ok, while reversing it is not - is highly undemocratic.”
Regardless of whether this method of foiling the implementation of an agenda is correct or not, it was done to Obama and Biden as well, it’s not a Democrat or left-specific thing. They issued far fewer executive orders and passed more legislation, though. It only looks like it’s worse with Trump because he’s done very little except issue a record number of executive orders. He passed the Laken Riley Act and other than that (and the BBB) has not bothered enacting much legislation through Congress—y’know, where things are supposed to be *voted* on.
“The Russian Collusion Hoax, where Obama used a fabricated story as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, is 1000x worse than what Nixon did, and pretty un-democratic.”
Even if we accept this not-very-accurate version of the Russia affair—for which there are valid criticisms, no doubt—this is simply not comparable in scale to attempting to incite a mob at the capitol to enter the halls of Congress and stop the counting of the electoral votes of an election you lost, and then trying to use fake electors to reverse the result—AFTER you have had a fair hearing in the courts over your complaints. The latter is simply a more fundamental attack on the machinery of liberal democracy than using a questionable source for a FISA warrant.
“Republicans believe that "democracy" means nothing more than "democrats getting their way."
This is quite a silly view given that Republicans got their way plenty under George W. Bush, but regardless, the fault line is not Rep/Dem, it is liberal vs. illiberal, and the parties contain a mixture of both groups. There is a bit more illiberalism in the GOP right now because they have normalized Trump’s Orban-style soft authoritarianism, but there are illiberal elements in the Democratic Party, too, and there’s no guarantee they don’t get worse. Sadly, because of the way social media works, the voices of those liberals are drowned out, because “let’s compromise and respect each other’s differences” doesn’t get you retweets like ‘own the libs!’ or militant woke-ism does. I speculate the growing ranks of non-affiliated voters is where they go to hang out—and is the principle force behind the existence of Never-Trump Republicans and anti-woke Democratic centrists epitomized by figures like Bill Maher or Andrew Sullivan.
The left isn't liberal, not in the least. It has no use for freedom when it is in charge.
Republicans may have a blind spot on abortion, but the Democrats have a blind spot on damn near everything else.
‘The Left’ is not a monolith, and neither are the parties. Unless you’re willing to declare Ruy Teixiera and AOC and Xi Jinping are all indistinguishable ideologically. Are you really willing to make that claim?
I remember Thomas Friedmann lusting over China's ability to get things done. If there is a lot of ideological daylight between the CCP and the Western left, I don't see it.
In the US, I think the left is the entity that consists of the Democratic Party, NGOs, the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, K-12 education, Madison Avenue, and the Administrative State. Almost all of these institutions are supposedly "non-political."
The ideological box that is permitted is quite narrow, all things considered. There are all sorts of ideological litmus tests that must be met in order to be a member in good standing.
To me, the modern Western Left is the Borg.
So you’re essentially ignoring the existence of the center-left, and the actual ideological structure of Western society, so you can craft lazy, reductive political arguments.
Well you’re entitled, I suppose, but I think Ruy and the folks at the TLP, who are mostly old-school social democrats that fall somewhere, ideologically speaking, along the centrist left, (see: the books and articles they actually write) will not appreciate being lumped in with the beliefs of the CCP,
How does the center-left distinguish itself from the "woke left?"
I think the point is that either party can play their "Big Tent" philosophy until it compromises what they profess to stand for. The vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with the kooky progressive Left Woke wing of today's Democratic Party. Until the moves toward Ameruca's political center and away from the Left, its popularity will remain in the upper teens and it will remain out of power. That's the "science" Democrats ignore.
Am I the only one concerned that a duly elected president was unable to fulfill all the duties of president and was not removed under the terms of our constitution? Apparently unelected staffers (or whomever) carried out presidential duties. My question is, who are these usurpers and what is their punishment? Clearly an undemocratic administration.
I see the "progressives" constantly hating anyone but themselves and their opinions, and engaging in rank hypocrisy when it comes to that whole democracy thingy. They tried to get Trump excluded from the ballot, and they replaced their own party's nominee without any votes. They have no credibility with me.
However you define democracy the central point is always that the main input to the system must be the will of the people and the output must clearly reflect that preference. In 2016 and 2020 Bernie Sanders was clearly the presidential front runner yet he was denied the nomination through the machinations of the DNC. In 2024 there was a show primary with one candidate up until the point Rep. Dean Phillips entered the race. When it became undeniable that President Biden was not up to the task, the DNC installed an unpopular candidate who clearly did not represent the choice of the electorate. No vote offered, take it or leave it. So if we want to save democracy just maybe it would be best to practice it.
Bernie lost in the primaries, nothing was taken from him.
That would be Bernie "Three Dachas" Sanders, the son of Brooklyn Stalinists. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree. Oh, and his lovely wife looted Burlington (VT) College on its way to bankruptcy. Them Socialists. So clean.
I don’t know if I have commented on an article in the last decade or ever, honestly, but I am going to comment on this one. I appreciate this article immensely. I have friends and also a spouse! that share politically different views. Way back when, during the COVID mayhem and afterwards, I clung to what I thought it meant to be a democrat. However, in the last year or two, I have succeeded in listening with an open mind to my republican comrades. It does not always go as planned but it has not been catastrophic. And, for me, it has lead to more compassion, insight, and ability to see the choices of my own party in a more objective light. But not do not feel like I have a home in either party. Either way, I find this article to be an incredibly ACCURATE, non-partisan assessment of the general dynamics between- and within- the two parties. Oh how I wish there was a third!
Good article. I’ll leave my opinions on the two parties aside, other than my red line for any politician, and one that I think is based on verifiable, objective results, is elections. If you lie about losing an election and try to usurp that process, you are immediately disqualified from holding the office you are pursuing. I don’t care if it’s on the right or the left. Once you try to delegitimize that process, you have begun walking down a dark path and are unfit to lead the people you purport to serve.
Right, but that's not how most of Trump suporters actually see what happened. No matter how obvious it might seem to you, others dont see it that way. I think Biden probably lagitimately won in 2020 but I certianly wouldn't count on it. Regardless, it was not seriously investigated and the fake establishment "consensus" that routinely calls Trump's accusations "false" instead of just unproven or unsupported, comes across as highly suspicious and a big red flagg to many. The way Trump went on about it when combined with some of his other actions on the other hand also further contributed to me not trusting him. Not that I trusted him anyway. But the things recently uncovered about the Biden adminestration are hardly endevering of trust in the Democrats!
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand most Trump supporters don’t see it that way, but that doesn’t negate that Trump is, in fact, the most egregious bad actor in this regard.
I am glad you are inclined to think Biden won the 2020 election. You may already know, but dozens of Trump-appointed judges threw out his lawsuits alleging fraud and other foul play. It was universally acknowledged among all reputable journalistic outlets, left right and center. Ultimately, one has to ask the question: If multiple sources are confirming the same thing, including in courts of law, then maybe they’re all on to something?
I think part of the issue is his die hard supporters refuse to acknowledge/believe anything negative about him, and whatever he says must be true. I have seen some MAGA folks on social media refuse to believe that he and Musk actually had a falling out, even though it’s right in front of everyone’s faces. It reminds me of that George Orwell quote: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
I have sympathy for those are unknowingly misled, but at a certain point I lose patience will willful ignorance and a refusal to break free from confirmation bias and tribal thinking. A lot of good people fall into that trap, but it is very difficult to tolerate it when there is no effort made at discerning what is true and what isn’t, particularly when the stakes are high (as the 2024 election was).
And yes, I certainly agree Biden’s selfishness, lack of awareness, and pride, as well as all the Democrats who covered for him, has caused voters of all stripes to lose trust in the Democratic Party. They deserve the abysmal polling they have. I still think they are the healthier party, so long as Trump leads the Republican Party. But I am not going to make excuses for Biden and the Democrats, that’s for sure. Biden is a big reason that we have Trump 2.0.
We will still have to in part agree to disagree then. The thing is, everything you write about Trump supporters is a major generalizarion and similer acusations have often been made of Democrats. And I do agree that many Trump supporters are like this. But far from all of them are. For Democrats they are more split in some ways, but are in a very top down secular religion like authoritarian structure. But all these things are in fact highly desputed by many.
So is your claim that all major reputed sources agreed regarding Trump's claims about the 2020 election. Maybe what you consider credible sources agreed, but what others regard as such did not agree about his claims. Your side does not determine what is credable anymore, -so called fact checkers have shown they are just mouth-peaces of power.
And, I actually said I think his claims could be true, -I just havent seen enough evidance and I certianly don't trust Trump either! His claims were never seriously looked at however, just supressed for political reasons and a false consensus was manufactured and enforced. That is not in and of itself evidence that they are true however, but niether is their anything definetive to discredit them. No matter how much you might insist to the contrary does not make it so. The same principle applies to anyone of course.
But there is no true consensus on these issues, and nothing was definatively proven either way about the 2020 election. Period. Again, the only consensus was a false maufactured one.
I have not trusted either the Democratic nor the Republican party leadership since the 1990's at least, and for me Trump as differant as he is, is not an exception to this, -anyone who does trust either one is being foolish at best IMHO.
In the end, Trump has been actively supporting a genocide overseas, as did Biden. How can one be any less credable then that??? Enough said.
You both might be interested in this. I had a section in my book Defusing American Anger that was aimed at both “sides” understand the “other side” on issues of election distrust. If you want to read that, it’s here: https://www.american-anger.com/post/election-distrust (was too long to put on Wix apparently so I just linked to a google doc).
Thank you!
I am specifically talking about the MAGA die hard who defend whatever he does. Definitely don’t think all Trump supporters are like that.
And yes, I think what count as reputable sources—well established *journalistic* outlets and not big media organizations, despite their clear flaws—all agreed, as a matter of fact, that Trump lost in 2020. Based on what you said there, I see why people could dispute that Trump actually won—anyone can say, “Well, based on what *you* consider to be reputable journalism, Trump won. Not on what *I* consider to be reputable. But that is precisely the problem. There is a standard of journalistic ethics and integrity that serious news outlets try to follow—reporting the facts, being honest, *correcting their errors.* So, for example, even though the New York Times is no doubt demonized by MAGA and Americans who are otherwise skeptical of “legacy media,” their reporting, as a matter of substance and integrity, still bests getting one’s news from other sources online (say social media) that do not have any or little appetite for those standards. Ditto the Wall Street Journal. And just because an outlet may be biased and lean one way or the other (they all do to some extent), doesn’t mean their reporting is always bad or that they don’t have their facts straight most of the time. That is the key difference—they hold themselves to a higher standard of journalistic accountability that many other online sources do not. So while there may be disagreement about which ideology one prefers, all reputable news organizations hold themselves to a higher standard. Even National Review, which is an unapologetically conservative outlet, bases their underlying reporting on a rigorous analysis of facts. You should listen to Sam Harris’ episode of the 2024 election called “The Reckoning.” He lays all this out very well.
I appreciate your skepticism of Trump and of people in power (very healthy), but what you are saying, that there was “no definitive conclusion about the 2020 election,” is simply false. Like I said, in courts of law, where evidence presented by lawyers is scrutinized to the highest degree, *universally* discredited Trump and his team’s claims of election fraud. There is all sorts of misinformation and disinformation out there arguing the contrary, but it’s simply not true and does not change the underlying factual assessment and conclusions of, I will say again, litigation that was in many cases determined by *Trump’s own appointed judges.*
On your last point, the supporting of genocide, I think I would dispute that term as it is being thrown around now. What Israel is doing is not equivalent to true intentional genocide. Israel is fighting Hamas, terrorists who want them wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas is hiding among innocent civilians so when Israel seeks to fight back, innocent people die. It’s the ultimate form of nihilism, and Hamas couldn’t care less. They *want* innocent people to die.
Yet, there are legitimate criticisms of how Israel is going about the war given Hamas is weak enough now that it can’t plot another October 7th. But that is a whole other can of worms that we could go on about for a long time. What is certain is things in the Middle East are extraordinarily dangerous right now, especially now that Israel has escalated their conflict with Iran by bombing their nuclear facilities. Hopefully nations of good will can all find a way to de-escalate the chaos there.
At any rate, I am grateful for your thoughts and conversation, my friend.
I am going to reply seperately in this comment concerning just your claims regarding Israel. Israeli officials have been caught lying about almost everything regarding Hamas and the situation in Gaza, except when they contradicted themselves to admit the truth. I am well aware that Hamas can be bad, -which is part of why Netanyahu has helped fund them(!) But what they do is almost nothing compared to the level of violence the IDF is doing and has long been engaged in. Israeli leaders at this point have zero credibility. Netanyahu cannot even travel to most countries is he would be subject to arrest for crimes agaimst humanity.
Israel is unequivocally commiting a genocide through a mass bombing and starvation campaign. We can see it with our own eyes. They have provided zero evidance for most of their claims regarding Hamas hiding people but IDF solders have repeatedly admited (it's on video!) to using Palistinians as human shields. Most buildings in Gaza have already been destroyed or severely damaged. There can never be justification for that.
The only people in the know who are still insisting this is not genocide are Zionists who support genocide but insist it must be called something else because genocide sound bad! Anyone attempting to downplay what Israel is actually doing (trying to expand and possibly start World War 3 in the name of ethno-religious supremacism) is discrediting themselves at this point. That of course includes most Western leaders including Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, etc.
I disagree with your assessment of the facts here. I know Bibi and the far right in Israel are corrupt, but that does not change the fact that it is primarily Hamas responsible for the horror in Gaza.
We could go on and on about this, but to be honest, I am short on time to do so (I have a board exam to study for. Ha). I appreciate your feedback, I really do. But we will have to agree to disagree for now.
Let’s keep communicating on other issues. All my best!
But no, -your claim that my statement that there is "'no definative conclusion" about the 2020 election' is simply false", is itself false. Agian, the judges and other legal scholars you mention never seriously investigated the matter. Lawfair was practiced and some people were threatened. There is some evidance but nothing conclusive. The claim of a universal consensus by legal experts was a lie however, a manufactured but enforced lie from colusion by legacy media, federal agencies and corporate security state partners. End of discussion. You are free to disagree of course, but I do not wish to continue this argument. Just let it go.
The New York Times in particular have also been cuaght lying repeatedly about many things over the years. Legacy media have by now largely discredited themselves. They do not have higher standards of journalistic integraty then some of the people they slander, such as Mat Blumenthal and his 'The Greyzone', Mat Taibbi, etc (who actually have a far better track record if one looks closely), because legacy corporate media serve primarily as propaganda for a deeply corrupt national establishment.
I couldn’t disagree more, but we will respectfully agree to disagree here.
One of the things that frustrates me about political commentary from both sides is the ahistorical nature of it. If ignoring a court order or threatening to is an assault on democracy then Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, and FDR killed it long ago. And the courts are hardly the bastions of constitutional order that whoever is winning at the moment likes to portray them as. There have been many incidents of decisions ranging from constitutionally flawed to deeply immoral. The Supreme Court never did back down from Dred Scott. It took a civil war with 1M dead and 3 constitutional amendments to make that go away.
Insightful comment, Richard, thanks for this.
I read a lot of history and have for about 70 years so lack of that perspective tends to set me off. I generally admire Jefferson though his defiance led Marshall to punk him with Marbury. I don't admire Lincoln but he gave the best defense of defiance in Merriman and was totally correct. FDR's economic management left something to be desired IMO, but he was the best wartime President we ever had and he was correct in his defiance which involved trying the German sabotage team by military tribunal.
Well done. I largely agree with all of this and it shapes my political worldview. The moral comparison to Democrats and Republicans with respect to democracy is unequal as the MAGA Republican movement is a response and reaction to previous threats to democracy as you have pointed out here: elimination of the electoral college for example. There were also calls to pack the Supreme Court. The COVID era gave us a supercharged understanding of the threat... the bureaucracy and its authoritarian power and the fact that it is primarily Democrat in political support.
The Democrat platform is not only the front-side attack of American democratic principles, but it is also an attack on principles of liberalism that back the idea that is America.
"At the end of the day, the test of Trump’s commitment to democracy and the Constitution may come down to whether he respects the rule of law. If he routinely ignores court orders and tries to bypass constitutional checks, that’s a red line—a more objective boundary—for harmful actions than subjective debates over what is or isn’t democratic."
The problem with this view is that the Democrats are the primary party of the Professional Managerial Class regime that have captured and control most of our institutions including our judicial system. When the law has been weaponized by Democrats for politics, then politics must be weaponized against the law.
"The problem with this view is that the Democrats are the primary party of the Professional Managerial Class regime that have captured and control most of our institutions including our judicial system."
i.e., the PMC's 'experts' must not be allowed to maintain their stations, because democracy is only democracy when they have been ejected from it.
Sounds familiar:
"Because the mass movement of Nazism was nonintellectual in the beginning, when it was only practice, it had to be anti-intellectual before it could be theoretical. What Mussolini’s official philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, said of Fascism could have been better said of Nazi theory: “We think with our blood.” Expertness in thinking, exemplified by the professor, by the high-school teacher, and even by the grammar-school teacher in the village, had to deny the Nazi views of history, economics, literature, art, philosophy, politics, biology, and education itself. Thus Nazism, as it proceeded from practice to theory, had to deny expertness in thinking and then (this second process was never completed), in order to fill the vacuum, had to establish expert thinking of its own—that is, to find men of inferior or irresponsible caliber whose views conformed dishonestly or, worse yet, honestly to the Party line."
And, to be said of the most hated creature of all in this view, the academic:
"In order to be a theory and not just a practice, National Socialism required the destruction of academic independence. In the years of its rise the movement little by little brought the community’s attitude toward the teacher around from respect and envy to resentment, from trust and fear to suspicion. The development seems to have been inherent; it needed no planning and had none. As the Nazi emphasis on nonintellectual virtues (patriotism, loyalty, duty, purity, labor, simplicity, “blood,” “folk-ishness”) seeped through Germany, elevating the self-esteem of the “little man,” the academic profession was pushed from the very center to the very periphery of society."
-Milton Sanford Mayer, 'They Thought They Were Free: the Germans 1933-1945'
I’m hard pressed to see how advocating the end of the Electoral College makes one “undemocratic.” However, I will grant the author that at least at the grass roots level, there are a number of people on the left who have a questionable attitude towards democracy. Certainly, on college campuses, speech codes, diversity “loyalty” oaths, cancel culture and like are good examples of undemocratic attitudes on the left.
Having said that, the problem is far worse on the right, especially at the elite level. Trump’s attempt to overturn an election he clearly lost in 2020 and willingness of his supporters to glom onto “fraud” claims that no court found credible and still continue to repeat them today suggests pervasive undemocratic attitudes both at both the elite and grassroots level of the Republican Party.
Even the Founding Fathers were concerned about what our writer calls “the tyranny of the majority “. The small states were worried about being dominated by the more populous states in a direct democracy. Remember there was no country then, just a collection of states trying to agree on a framework.
The same is true today. If we had direct elections most of the states would have zero power or influence in Washington. Hence the idea of the electoral college was born. It keeps all 50 states engaged in our elections and government. A pretty elegant solution when you think about it. Overall, we’ve never again had the caliber of politicians we had back then, well before our self-serving political party duopoly emerged.
Neither party wants honest elections. If they did, it would be easy. Vote in person unless you're disabled and can't get to the polling place. Paper ballot tabulated by optical scanners. Major elections over a 3-day holiday. Photo I.D. to vote.
There would never have been a Union if it was simply a straight democracy. Why would any of the 13 colonies want to be ruled by New York City?
There is nothing in it for them - just a headache.
Actually, at the time Virginia had the highest population.
This is more or less where the balance stands.
Portions of the Democratic party are indubitably illiberal and anti-democratic in instinct, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. But the party has never supported its leader in anything like a unilateral and illegal attempt to throw out the result of an election it lost, as in the case of the 'sacking of the Capitol' to stop Pence's counting of the electoral votes and the fake electors scheme.
When Harris lost last November, she and the party accepted the outcome, despite things like direct threats by Trump to go after his critics. Four years before, when Trump lost, he did not accept the outcome, and his party humored his attempts to reverse it until people were literally invading the halls of Congress. That is the difference in the two parties on the issue--the GOP is way worse at this point.
At the leadership level, at least. There are lots of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are properly appalled by the January 6/Fake electors affair and the illiberal forces within the party. But they get no hearing in the media. I had hoped they would be able to make common cause with (small l) liberal Democrats, but the media environment makes moderation and collaboration practically impossible.
No mention of money?
Our system of financing campaigns is by far the least democratic part of the way we elect. Neither party will even consider a candidate for most federal or state offices unless that person can self fund or raise millions of dollars in cash.
Politicians are thinking of getting re elected the day after the win an election, and the way to get re elected is with enough cash to open campaign offices and fund trainings for paid staffers.
Our system of government is very corrupt and undemocratic, because of money. What is the main concern of the current budget bill being worked on,,,, tax breaks for the wealthy.
Beyond the wealthy, there are also "the groups" and the people donating to groups are also well to do though not billionaires. Act Blue is a juggernaut. Emily's List, Americans for Prosperity. Oh and Dark Money, untraceable millions.
Trump's refusal to accept the 2020 elections was very bad, but then Trump is a nutter, and I voted for him.
Money in politics is the symptom. You need to change one of the causes, regulation or threat of regulation. I have a 500 sq.ft house I have rented out for the past 40 years. Recently I joined a landlords association which employs two lobbyist to warn us about what the legislature is proposing. And yes I make regular political contributions, to protect myself. My rental income is an integral part of my retirement income.
I rented out our old house for a couple of years. Then sold it. Looking at the market again during covid I realized tenants can simply stop paying the rent.
In an ideal world the tenant and the landlord would equally influence the legislator and there would be some sensible regulations to protect both. I wonder who lobbies for the tenants, in my state they seem to have the upper hand. Higher incomes would help.
In my dark blue state the landlords are at the short end of the stick. We have many, many heavily funded activist who continually increase the owners responsibility and reduce the tenants requirements. To evict a tenant, who is actively damaging a rental, takes a minimum of 45 days, and that’s if you start immediately and proceed flawlessly. Hence rentals are higher due to the need to pay; lawyers and constructors. And did I mention we have very high property and income taxes in this state? Part of the solution is to: make it easier to permit and build units, make it easier and more common sense to evict bad tenants, and just let us get on with our public service of providing housing. If it were easier to evict tenants, I could give anyone who seemed sincere a chance. As it is there are categories I won’t rent to because they have special status and are even harder to evict. You are right about higher income being a solution. Fortunately we now have back the president who “in his the first three years of his last term saw the average income of each quintile grow every year.” We need a lot of repair to the economy since our last president who “in the first three years every household quintile experienced a decline in their real incomes.” https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/02increasing-income-inequality-under-trump-and-the-democrats/
I'd like to respectfully add--stressing that this applies to *Trump*, specifically, and not the GOP or to Americans that haven't paid attention--that while I sympathize with the sentiment expressed in the article's conditional
"If [anyone] want[s] to convince their fellow Americans that Trump poses a threat to democracy,"
...I would say that, to anyone who has been paying attention, (which, again, is not everybody) if this proposition is not already true, it will probably never be true. Trump has, *among other things*:
I.) Gone after multiple universities whose policies he doesn't like with extremely stringent measures
II.) threatened judges with impeachment if they don't rule his way
III.) ignored Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with
IV.) gone after law firms that formerly prosecuted him
V.) sued (while being the CiC) media outlets that report on him (or his political opponents) in ways he doesn't like
VI.) used the office of president to finance his own memecoin and secure contracts for the business organization he never disowned upon ascending to office, enriching himself to the tune of billions of dollars
VII.) rejected the legitimacy of elections he has lost and pardoned those who attacked the U.S. capitol behalf of this rejection
VIII.) attempted to overturn an election he lost using extralegal means (such as stopping electoral counts and enlisting fake electors)
...If, knowing all this, someone doesn't see the man as a threat to democracy, there is very little chance they will ever see him as such, regardless of what he does.
It’s not democracy, it’s “our democracy.”
Also, thus far Trump does appear to be respecting the rule of law. He is pushing the letter of the law to limits a lot of people aren’t used to, and he is very willing to accept that his actions will be subject to legal challenge. Indeed, even before he was president he made an art of using the law to his advantage in this way. But he has lost some of those challenges, and he has not fired any judges or gotten rid of the court system, or taken away the right to vote. The people screaming that we are about to lose “our democracy” look increasingly silly when the horrors they predict don’t materialize.
Democracy also means accepting the results of the democratic process. It was wrong when Trump refused to do so in 2020. It’s wrong now, when Democrats seem so reluctant to accept that Trump was democratically elected and is what a little more than half the people wanted.
Yes both sides are guilty of being undemocratic and yes it very much depends on how you define it. This was/is a constant theme of the Democrats regarding Trump. I always knew they were just ‘preaching to the choir’. This was never going to persuade a voter not already in your camp. However, they obviously feel very strongly about it as they never stop saying it.
Jim Crow represented an almost 100 year effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The following is a list of policies implemented by state governments and local communities during Jim Crow.
Poll Taxes: Required voters to pay a fee to vote.
Literacy Tests: Required voters to pass a test demonstrating their ability to read and interpret complex legal or constitutional passages.
"Understanding" Clauses: Required voters to "understand" or "interpret" a section of the state or federal constitution.
Grandfather Clauses: Exempted individuals from poll taxes and literacy tests if their ancestors had the right to vote before 1867.
Gerrymandering: Drawing electoral district lines in ways that diluted the voting power of African American communities.
Intimidation and Violence: Threats, beatings, bombings, and lynchings were used to deter African Americans from registering to vote or going to the polls.
The Civil Rights Act ended Jim Crow. That was 60+ years ago.
Both parties were less than committed to expanding democracy during the Jim Crow era. The most racist president in the 20th century was Woodrow Wilson. The defeat of Strom Thurmond in 1948 and Barry Goldwater in 1964 were key moments in the expansion of democracy. There is still strong de facto segregation of America 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
What is "de facto segregation?" Would it be the "progressive" demands for "black affinity housing" on campuses?
https://www.newsweek.com/black-students-only-housing-washington-university-1633265
Stop trolling.
Ah yes. When a "progressive" is challenged and scared to answer, he calls the other person a "troll." How pathetic can you be?
Stop trolling.
Just to remind us all, it was the Democrats that supported slavery. After losing the Civil War they enacted Jim Crow laws. Wilson was indeed very racist, but he was followed by the vastly under appreciated Warren Harding, who went to the South and called out their racist policies to their faces. Still, it took the Civil Rights Act and a lot of brave action to get us where we are today.
Most of our early presidents owned slaves even while they knew it was wrong and in defiance of the Constitution. Kinda sounds like many of today’s politicians who vote their interests over those of the country.
Warren Harding was the first president to denounce lynching and supported legislation making it a federal crime.
However, the race massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma and in Rosewood, Florida occurred during his administration.
Stephen Douglas supported each new territory deciding for itself whether to adopt slavery. Lincoln responded that "A house divided cannot stand."
Now you're going back almost 100 years (Woodrow Wilson). "Strong de facto segregation" - is this due to CURRENT government laws and policies, or is it poverty driven?
You tell me.
You made the assertion - what specifically do you mean?
The Urban Institute reports that a typical white person lives in a neighborhood that is 75% white and only 8% African American. A typical African American person lives in a neighborhood that is only 35% white and 45% African American.
Sorry for the late question, but why was there no mention of the very undemocratic internal processes and procedures of the Democratic Party? The internal election of the DNC board is only the latest example of how the party uses "elections" as a fig leaf for engineering predetermined outcomes. "Superdelegates" is a much more egregious example: the mechanism enshrines the Orwellian principle that "some animals are more equal than others." The high-level party machinations that stamped down Bernie Sanders' momentum in 2016 and 2020 was just a warm-up to the full-on suppression of democracy within the Democratic Party in 2024, ensuring that rank-and-file voters were given no real opportunity to vote for an alternative to President Biden - which not only gave the nomination to an incapable nominee but also drove RFK Jr. and his supporters out of the party. And despite all the talk of a pretend "mini-primary" to make it look like rank-and-file voters would have some kind of input, however meaningless, into the selection of Biden's replacement after his withdrawal, the party couldn't even pull that off.
Maybe instead of blustering about "threats to democracy" from Trump and the Republican Party (which is really just whining about Democrats' inability to win elections), Democratic Party grandees should stop pretending they know better than the rand-and-file voters and instead try to follow the will of those voters - you know, democratically.