The Illness of our Democracy

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on political theory at Harvard, suggests three symptoms of a failing democracy: first is the strength, or lack thereof, of the public’s support for the democracy; second is public support for non-democratic forms of government; and, third is whether anti-system parties or movements are gaining support.    Examples of these symptoms abound.  The illness did not crop up overnight and in many ways it is the result of many years of identity politics and a selfish focus on immediate gratification rather than the responsibilities that a democracy requires of its citizens. 

Much of the public is willing to accept, back, and defend actions that demonstrate a lack of support for the democracy.  For example, despite the fact that most legal scholars agree that Judge Gorsuch, while a conservative, is a very mainstream and qualified judge, Democrats nearly unanimously support a filibuster.  The filibuster and the resultant invoking of the so-called “nuclear option” are less actions than results of a system which is not functioning.  The sham of the Democrats pretending to objectively question Gorsuch and their however rationalized filibuster show an interest in their political power and playing a game of payback rather than care for our democracy and its systems.  The Democrats already did away with the 60-vote requirement for other judicial positions, and their filibuster is performed with the knowledge that it will produce the removal of that requirement for Supreme Court justices as well.  They have no interest in compromise or in supporting our democracy but only in their selfish political posturing.  Understanding and the idea of compromise, necessary ingredients of our democracy’s health, are becoming nothing more than a memory.  The Democrats seem to have no interest in serving the people or our democracy, but only their own self-interest and their own power.  

There is also a dangerous acceptance of the suppression of free speech and free thought, characteristics of non-democratic forms of government.  Not only do we see speech codes and political correctness often exceeding rationality, we have people believing it is OK  and even their right to shout down and silence those with whom they do not agree.  But, perhaps more frightening, and more threatening to the health of democracy, is the inability of politicians to be objective and of the people to become informed citizens.

Take for example the change in the Russia/leaks/unmasking commentary since news emerged that Susan Rice, a close advisor to President Obama, intentionally, and with no apparent non-political purpose, unmasked the names of then candidate Trump and his team and sought out information about their conversations for the year prior to the Trump inauguration.  It is certainly interesting how Mr. Schiff and his fellow Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about the likelihood that Team Obama was spying on Team Trump.  Perhaps even more interesting is that the media has suddenly lost all interest in this story and seems to have done so as soon as it became apparent that they could no longer claim that the story was completely unfounded and could no longer use the story to attack President Trump’s credibility. 

With such obvious bias and apparent inability to be objective on the part of the media, one wonders where to find the actual facts about anything without (and this is essentially an impossibility) doing the full research on one’s own.  And, with the obvious bias of elected officials who should be putting the country (including serious and likely illegal spying and leaking) ahead of the power of their political party and themselves, one wonders how we can truly have confidence in the state of our democracy.

Related to the lack of free speech and especially reflective of the third symptom is the lack of tolerance for any views other than one’s own and a suppression of those views by leaders that demeans the very groups to which they present themselves as saviors.  We see this in the many movements today based on identity politics and non-acceptance of diverse viewpoints.  The women’s movement claims to speak for all women, but won’t tolerate a woman with an anti-abortion position or one who holds conservative Republican or fundamentalist Christian views.  Groups that represent various minority groups claim to speak for the entire class and cannot tolerate a member of that class holding a different or diverse viewpoint.  Rather than accepting that individuals, even those within an identifiable segment of society, can hold many different views and have different hopes and dreams, the current groups driven by identity politics are unwilling to accept such freedom of thought.  Not only does this demean the very group represented by assuming the inability of its individual members to think for themselves, it also reflects the narrow-mindedness that is the enemy of our democracy and symptom of its illness.

Today’s identity based movements use blame as fuel and fail to truly empower the individuals making up the movement.  They pit one group against another in an effort that tears our democracy apart.  Thinking that the members of any identity group must all think and act alike is terribly demeaning to the true spirit of the group’s members.  Thinking that the way to their empowerment is to attack, blame, and hate another group is not empowering but degrading and divisive.  And, it is a symptom of a sick democracy:  suggesting that those who do not hold your views, that they could not possibly hold other views of their own free will and hence those views must have been imposed upon them by some evil force or entity is not the thinking that supports a healthy democracy.  Tolerance and understanding of the views of others is a key ingredient in a healthy democracy; this intolerance for views other than one’s own and an acceptance and support of those who perpetrate such bias and intolerance and ultimately undemocratic views, is a symptom of a very ill democracy.   It demonstrates the third sign of a failing democracy: that parties and movements that are anti-system and non-supportive of our democracy are gaining support.   

It is not President Trump or his administration who are destroying the health of our democracy. I’d like to think the Trump administration is trying to heal it, though I am not sure that they can; they certainly could use the support of those who care about our democracy and can definitely do without the lock-step of the Democrats trying to undermine them at every turn.   Trump was elected by the people and is trying to serve the people and keep the campaign promises that got him elected.  It is the Democrats who are furthering the illness by not respecting our democratic institutions, by failing to accept or even hear any viewpoint other than their own, by trying to de-legitimize and destroy the duly elected administration and instead present their anti-system party as the only appropriate leaders for our country. 

Our country is in trouble.  People need to wake up, educate themselves, think for themselves, and go about the business of healing what has become a very ill democracy.  This illness did not happen overnight, but it became serious over the last eight years as many people became blinded by immediate and selfish gratification and the effects of a very strong game of identity politics played by the Democrats.  Many do not know, others have forgotten, what our once healthy democracy looked like.  It is time to educate, to remember, and work to heal this very ill democracy in order to keep it from dying.