History, "I’m Right" vs Democracy

“A man gets some people around him and begins to oppress and dominate others…

I don’t know. But in the history of the world, that’s what happens.”

Senator Mitt Romney on the history of democracy (a sign of male aggression on a global scale?).

We often hear how frail democracy is, how the American effort at democracy is an “experiment,” and how global trends are witnessing a growing proclivity to use the election process to subdue and even eliminate democracy to substitute a rigid, often intolerant form of autocracy. Venezuela. Hungary. Poland. Russia. Turkey. Egypt. Israel. Italy. The United States. Etc. We are witnessing far more autocracy in nascent political systems as opposed to opting for a truly democratic form of government. Checks and balances are fading. Judicial systems are either losing their power, being usurped by autocratic appointees or simply controlled by a minority with autocratic leanings. This is nothing new, of course, as seen in the greatest recent example: Hitler’s election, seized autocracy and utter devastation of freedom and Germany itself. That movement is increasing momentum even here in the United States. I should say “particularly” in the United States.

Milan Svolik, a Yale University Professor of Political Science, focused on this historical reality of “democratic backsliding,” which has manifest itself with surprising strength here in what most in the world believed was unbreakable democracy. Here are some of the insights from Professor Svolik in an interview by Rick Harrison, published by the Yale Institute for Social and Policy Studies, November 6th: “My reading of the contemporary state of democracy in the U.S. is that the question is not really about how likely democratic backsliding is. Because it is happening now. Most people are worried about Trump, but the level at which backsliding has been happening — even before Trump — is the state level…

“American federalism is unique in the following sense: the states get to set their own rules for the conduct of elections. I’m not aware of this being the case anywhere else in the world. In most countries, even if they have a federal constitution — think Brazil or Germany — elections are conducted according to a uniform format set at the national level. But in the U.S., the ability of states to set their own rules for the conduct of elections creates opportunities to tilt the playing field in favor of the party that currently controls the state legislature and the governorship…

“[Interviewer: You’re talking about extreme partisan gerrymandering, voter ID laws, restrictions to early voting or voting by mail — stuff like that.] Yes, and while it has primarily been the Republican party that has been pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional and legally acceptable in order to gain an electoral advantage, what worries me is the emergence across states of a partisan tit-for-tat in this domain.

“[Interviewer: Like when Democrats in the New York State Legislature approved a redistricting map that was thrown out by the state’s top court for being unconstitutional?] Yes. This occurred just before last year’s midterm elections. What was concerning to me were the justifications offered by New York Democrats: Because Republicans had engaged in similar gerrymanders in states like Texas and Florida, they argued, the Democrats would only be a disadvantaging their own party if they refrained from doing the same when they have the opportunity.

“[Interviewer: And this creates something of an anti-democratic arms race?] Yes. That might not be the intention in any single case, but in the aggregate, that is the dynamic that is emerging. The claim is we would like to play fair, but because the other side is not, we cannot afford not to gerrymander…

“Political scientists often survey people and ask questions like ‘how important is democracy to you?’ People across the world tend to effectively answer ‘very important.’ They might not believe democracy is perfect, but they generally do believe it is the best form of government available. And yet when faced with the type of dilemmas that mirror real-world political tradeoffs, people will be willing to sacrifice democratic principles for a preferred policy outcome. Particularly among strong partisans or in elections with stark choices, people are willing to prioritize partisanship over democratic principles.”

The imposition of one very rigid perspective by a minority on the majority is a clear symptom of this trend, effectively touting that the ends justify the means… even if that means a clear rejection of representative democratic rule. It may be religious fundamentalism masquerading as a “moral values” or a “culture” war. It may embody extreme discrimination or deep racial or ethnic bias. But the vector is clearly anti-democratic. It happened in ancient Greece, Rome and the Middle East. And it is now happening in the United States.

We even make up words – like “woke” or a “right to life” – to sanitize those anti-democratic efforts. But make no mistake, American democracy itself is on the line. Describing 2024 as “another election as usual” is attempting to deflect the reality of a “retribution” driven autocracy against a “issues as usual” litany of economic, political and foreign policy concerns. 2024 is so much more than an “issues” election!

But some on the receiving end of these anti-democratic trends are fighting back. Indeed, the effort to censor books is one of the most obvious forms of rising autocracy: “She refused to ban books, many of them about racism and the experiences of LGBTQ+ people. And for that, Suzette Baker was fired as a library director in a rural county in central Texas… ‘I’m kind of persona non grata around here,’ said Baker, who had headed the Kingsland, Texas, library system until she refused to take down a prominent display of several books people had sought to ban over the years.

“Now, Baker is fighting back. She and two other librarians who were similarly fired have filed workplace discrimination claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And as culture war battles to keep certain books from children and teens put public and school libraries increasingly under pressure, their goal is redemption and, where possible, eventual reinstatement… So far, it’s a wait-and-see whether the claims will succeed — and set new precedent — in the struggle between teachers and librarians around the country who oppose book bans and conservative activists who say some books are inappropriate for young minds.

“The fight has involved a record number of book-banning efforts, some libraries cutting ties with the American Library Assn. — which opposes book bans — and even attempts to prosecute librarians for allowing children to access books some consider too graphic… At least one terminated librarian has gained a measure of success.

“Brooky Parks, who was fired for defending programs on anti-racism and LGBTQ+ stories she organized for teens at the Erie Community Library north of Denver, won a $250,000 settlement in September. Reached through the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the settlement requires her former employer to give librarians more say in decisions involving library programs.” Mead Gruber writing for the Associated Press, November 10th. A small victory. It is still shocking to me how many Americans prefer “party” over “country.” Democracy cannot stand in this environment.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I remain stunned how few Americans really understand that our very form of government is teetering and may fall under the disguise of another “garden variety” issues election.