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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Once again, a lot of words and a lot of ideas but basically miss the real deal. The American people care about issues and of course the American people differ on most of these issues. And they do not care if you call it a republic or a democracy or a democratic republic what they want is to have legislation, and legal decisions that favor their point of view
I want to write a long, detailed response elaborating on why I think both the Trump administration and the Democratic party are very clearly much more concerned with consolidating power and influence and promoting.their preferred agendas than either the Democratic process, the Constitutional Republic, or the will of the majority, and neither have even the slightest whiff of concern for how their policies impact the public at large except to the extent it impacts these things, but for now I'll just say not only do I think this, but I think it is so blindingly clear that I have trouble not losing respect for people who somehow manage to convince themselves that either of these groups is acting on any principled basis or gives a flying f*ck about, say, the working class.
They are awful & undemocratic in very different ways, and i do think it's important to go over the individual ways in which they are authoritarian threats to our traditional liberal society and the whole idea of a free republic, because if each side keeps putting the blame on the other (sometimes accurately, sometimes in ways that are obviously untrue and loopy, sometimes completely missing real dangers) while pretending their own is fine, both sides are just going to keep getting worse (that extends to a large part of each side's base), but i don't have the energy or time roght now, so I'll just agree with the other comment that put in bold the song lyrics "nobody's right when everybody's wrong."
Nazi propagandist Herbert Krier wrote in the 1920s that "American immigration legislation shows that in the USA a clear understanding has been achieved that a unified North American Volk can only emerge from the 'Melting Pot' if wholly foreign racial population masses are not tossed in with the core population.'
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Once again, a lot of words and a lot of ideas but basically miss the real deal. The American people care about issues and of course the American people differ on most of these issues. And they do not care if you call it a republic or a democracy or a democratic republic what they want is to have legislation, and legal decisions that favor their point of view
I want to write a long, detailed response elaborating on why I think both the Trump administration and the Democratic party are very clearly much more concerned with consolidating power and influence and promoting.their preferred agendas than either the Democratic process, the Constitutional Republic, or the will of the majority, and neither have even the slightest whiff of concern for how their policies impact the public at large except to the extent it impacts these things, but for now I'll just say not only do I think this, but I think it is so blindingly clear that I have trouble not losing respect for people who somehow manage to convince themselves that either of these groups is acting on any principled basis or gives a flying f*ck about, say, the working class.
They are awful & undemocratic in very different ways, and i do think it's important to go over the individual ways in which they are authoritarian threats to our traditional liberal society and the whole idea of a free republic, because if each side keeps putting the blame on the other (sometimes accurately, sometimes in ways that are obviously untrue and loopy, sometimes completely missing real dangers) while pretending their own is fine, both sides are just going to keep getting worse (that extends to a large part of each side's base), but i don't have the energy or time roght now, so I'll just agree with the other comment that put in bold the song lyrics "nobody's right when everybody's wrong."
Nazi propagandist Herbert Krier wrote in the 1920s that "American immigration legislation shows that in the USA a clear understanding has been achieved that a unified North American Volk can only emerge from the 'Melting Pot' if wholly foreign racial population masses are not tossed in with the core population.'