For all of the laments and warnings that democracy is on the ropes in the United States, there are relatively few declarations of what the speakers and writers mean when they say “democracy”. Here’s what I mean. For me it has several components.
One of those components is summed up in the Latin phrase Vox populi lex suprema—the will (literally “voice”) of the people is the supreme law. It is related but not identical to something written by the Roman orator and statesman Cicero: Salus populi lex suprema (the welfare or good of the people is the supreme law).
The second component is the protection of certain rights: the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to own property, and others. A government of delimited powers is implicit in this component. The people are limited in what they can expect from the government by the law.
The final component is a system of enforced laws under a common law framework. In a common law framework the written law (“black letter law”) and precedent both play a role. Unless narrowly construed a civil code system in which the law always applies to every situation but it is the judge’s role to determine how is a formula for tyranny.
I think that altogether too much weight is being placed on the mechanics of voting these days. Saddam Hussein would be delighted. Voting alone is not enough to ensure democracy. There’s more to it than that. The candidates for whom you may vote, the legitimate casting of votes, and what happens after the voting takes place are all important as well.
It is in that last step that I think our system falls short. At the federal level the party leadership has entirely too much power. Representatives should feel bound by what their constituents want rather than what their party leaders demand. When the main role of elected representatives is to ratify the decisions of party leaders, I think that calling it a “democracy” is a stretch.
There are ways that could be remedied. We are in dire need of civil service reform. At the national level the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader have entirely too much power. Any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose legislation which is brought to the floor for a vote and any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose amendments to legislation. Neither the House nor the Senate will reform on its own.
IMO a number of the thorniest issues would be resolved quite easily under a more democratic (in my terms) system. Most Americans think that a) the state has an interest in the life of the unborn; b) up to a certain point there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal; and c) it is completely legitimate for state to ban late term abortions. Neither political party takes that position. The Democratic position is that the state has no interest in the life of the unborn; the Republican position is that states should ban abortion.
Similarly, with immigration most Americans think that our borders should be significantly more controlled than they are at present but that immigration in considerable numbers should remain possible. Neither political party takes that position.
I dont think may people would disagree with a lot of this. We certainly have problems after the votes are determined. However, the current issue of concern which I dont think should be minimized is that the false claims about the election (every investigation has found nothing) being stolen is leading to people saying or hinting that they would be willing to nullify and ignore election results to declare winners they like. We have someone running for governor in PA who has made that claim.
So we already have POTUS elections where the one with fewer votes wins but at least that is in the rules. This is not in the rules. Then add in the voter suppression efforts. Finally, remember that the claims about voting fraud and stolen elections has been going on for over 20 years and nothing has been found. The DOJ appointed new people just to look for fraud and didnt find any. State GAs have run on fraud but didnt find any. Panels have been set up and nothing was found. Partisan auditors brought in and nothing found.
Almost everything else would require the two parties to work together. Not happening.
Steve
I disagree with your generalized version of each party’s take on abortion. Republicans have a more diverse opinion on what kind of restraints should be placed on abortion. Even in Congress there are members who actively dissent when abortion issues arise, especially during confirmation hearings. Collins and Murkowski come to mind as those supporting pro choice over pro life candidates and policies. The Democrat party, however, rarely, if ever, breaks rank dealing with abortion. Even the Supremes ruling Roe vs Wade as unconstitutional, abortion rights were merely given over to the states to determine not the federal government. Consequently, 50 laboratories, with different constituencies, will be able to decide what kind of abortion perimeters fit their state’s needs and demographics. That sounds more like democracy being practiced than denied.
As for immigration, this has become a wedge issue between parties. At one time Dems supported tightening up the border, limiting illegal crossings, as late as the Obama era. However, when Trump arrived the popular stance was to oppose every policy and recommendation he put forth — ones they had earlier called for —- whether it showed promise or not. Even when it came to Dreamer legislation, the prior administration was willing to accept 1.2 million of this group in exchange for limiting or ending other immigration loopholes such as chain immigration. The Dems proposed other remedies, which was seen by some as ways to circumvent Trump from taking any credit for a Dreamer solution.
As for Democracy comprised of freedom of speech, religion, the press, property ownership, limited government upheld under a common law applied equally to all people, how has that gone under the current democrat administration? In fact the reason elections have gotten so contentious is that over half the country no longer trust how the elections are being processed with adequate oversight. When you have thousands of affidavits considered as frivolous citizen complaints by the political establishment, during the last election, with countless more seeing election violations and discrepancies with their own lying eyes, there is bound to be discontent in the public at large. Follow this with massive censorship of any medical, political, election opinion dissenting from the protected narrative issued by the government, people become restless in their search to reinstall what they earlier experienced and defined as true democracy.
The word “democracy” has pretty much lost any well-defined meaning, which is why you had to explain what you meant. For some people it means rule by the majority without any minority rights, for others it means what the US has now.
I would note that by your definition of rights the EU and the other Anglophone countries are not democracies. None of them recognizes freedom of speech or of the press.
The Electoral College (and once upon a time, the Senate) is a States’ right, not a personal right. So the fact that the Electoral College vote does not always conform to the popular is really an irrelevancy.
Since the 1950’s, liberals have used the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to enact “laws” that they cannot pass by any legislature. You can argue that is anti-democratic, and conservatives generally do so, but many of the decisions expanded minority rights. That at least is in the spirit of the Founders intent to protect minorities. But, as we have just seen, what SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS can taketh away.
However, the current issue of concern which I dont think should be minimized is that the false claims about the election (every investigation has found nothing) being stolen is leading to people saying or hinting that they would be willing to nullify and ignore election results to declare winners they like.
The 2020 election introduced a whole swath of new protocols and unequal dynamics that were very controversial. The universal mail-in voting, using outdated, inaccurate voter registration roles, all unto itself, provided fodder for “cheating.†Then you have the flood of election changes, pushed through at the last minute, diminishing much of the oversight usually demanded of ballots personally requested (not universally mailed) by people. Signature verification almost vanished as did requirements for filling out all the info required on the ballot’s envelop, requiring a ballot to even have an envelop, and the proper delivery of ballots within established time constraints. PA demonstrated especially egregious and suspicious tactics in finally rendering a number showing who “won†the election. In states where ballot harvesting was illegal, it still happened. In swing states money poured in from Zuckerberg, creating more drop boxes (having no chain of custody) in dem precincts that were unmonitored, and the hiring of poll watchers who ran polling according to their rules, keeping conservative watchers at bay, unable to adequately see the processing of ballots. Although, various lawsuits chronicled such abuses and sightings of abnormal procedures being done, the courts dismissed most of these cases before any evidence could be reviewed. Only one lower PA court did go through the evidence, saying it showed merit, passing it forward to a higher court who ruled against it for process reasons.
None of the above, though, seems to even warrant questioning by the Dems or establishment republicans, who only wanted the WH cleared of it’s occupant. The fact that 19 out of 20 bell weather counties, formerly held as reliable weathervanes for an election’s winner, Trump won by double digits, seems insignificant and brushed aside by those loving the 2020 results. The fact that Trump was far ahead when the ballot counting was suddenly stopped in 7 states (had never happened before), and when resumed had Biden in the lead, raises no question marks as to how something like that could have happened! Finally, punctuating the conclusion of the 2020 election with “it was fair,†and anyone saying otherwise is only trying to “nullify and ignore the election results,†is really only nullifying the real concerning observations that on-the-ground people experienced. Those real time concerns simply don’t go away because someone says you should blindly accept their view of the election, and not what your eyes and own reasoning says.
I don’t sleep well at all.
In the wee hours of the night I listen to the traffic, the young and restless speeding and accelerating to the limits of the vehicle for excitement.
And then also to the sirens crying in the night for that traffic to make way for the rescuers, who never ask fault before administering aid.
I think what an amazing thing that is, young, energetic, trained and capable professionals on the way in the hour of need, whether or not you can pay, whether or not you are at fault , they come.
Is that not the product of Democracy?
People through the process creating the world in which they want to live.
So do Democrats. But the parties themselves aren’t that nuanced. I’ve characterized each party’s position. If you have a better characterization, please state it. You can see the characterization in practically every political ad ad nauseam. The phrasing the Democrats use is “a decision between a woman and her doctor” and “government should not be involved”. That last reminds me of nothing so much as “get government hands off my Medicare”. In the positioning “a woman and her doctor” the government is already involved.
“If you have a better characterization, please state it.”
I think you are characterizing the more extreme portions of each party. Political ads are get-out-the-base driven and reflect that.
This…. :
“Most Americans think that a) the state has an interest in the life of the unborn; b) up to a certain point there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal; and c) it is completely legitimate for state to ban late term abortions.”
I think most accurately reflects the majority of people, of either party. Evidence would be the coalescence around some sort of 15-week standard and exceptions for medical issues, incest etc.
Separately, I appreciate the general observations on democracy. However, the politicians, pundits and media declaring the threats to democracy are simply spewing errant nonsense, transparently attempting to score political points through fear.
That’s closely aligned with my point. The extreme portions of each party largely have control of the party apparatus for each party. At most they represent 25% of the American people. That is completely undemocratic.
Understood. But, for example, I would remind that your often used admonition that Republican economic philosophy starts and stops with tax cuts is a broad brush, and incorrect, assertion best characterized as feeding that extremist view.
If you have a better characterization, please state it.
I see the Democrat party as advocating for “abortion on demand – an extreme interpretation of abortion rights. IOW, to the democrat party, pro choice means the mother’s right to terminate a baby any time as long as the baby is still in a woman’s womb. This kind of cart blanche waiver to discontinue a life is supported by a majority during the 1st trimester. However, during the 2nd trimester support begins to wane, to where it reverses itself during the last 3 months of a pregnancy. Rarely, though, does the dem party acknowledge these diminishing percentages of support during the later stages of pregnancy. Instead, what is touted are the early pregnancy numbers in order to claim that “most†people are abortion supporters, slamming republicans even though many republican states are far from absolute in gauging when abortion is appropriate, legal or not. Some determine hearing the heartbeat is an abortion limit line. Others have legislated for up to 15 weeks being the legal window to abort a baby. But, again the claim often asserted is what a Maryland friend accused republicans of doing — taking away the abortion rights of women.
Not exactly. It’s what Republicans agree on and can accomplish. There are other things that are more talking points than actual policy positions. Take shrinking government, for example. Although every recent Republican president has run on it, none including Reagan has actually accomplished it. Quite to the contrary the GWB administration rather than eliminating any departments actually added one (DHS).
” often used admonition that Republican economic philosophy starts and stops with tax cuts is a broad brush”
Totally agree that the philosophy is much broader. I think the philosophy has been changing and I dont think there is brand agreement on stuff like free markets on the right anymore, but there is a lot of philosophy. However, in practice, tax cuts is the only belief that is acted upon.
“abortion on demand”
I dont think this really exists for late term pregnancies. By that I mean a woman walks in and says I want an abortion even though I am 36 weeks pregnant just because I want one. Never seen it nor heard of it. Any late term abortion would need to have a good reason for the physician and nurse team to go along with it. The physiological trespass is pretty much the same for a very late term abortion vs delivery and a delivery pays better. Its much less for most people between 15 weeks and at some point late in pregnancy. Link to article explaining some of this.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer
Steve
Steve
Dave Schuler: What I Mean By Democracy
Modern democracies are complex systems where power is distributed at multiple levels and with network connections across numerous levels: executive, legislative, judicial; federal, state, local; elections, representation, and regulatory authority; public and private property; public infrastructure and entrepreneurship; families, churches, neighborhoods; corporations, clubs, civic organizations, lobbying groups, political parties; robust markets and a social safety net; individual and collective liberties; etc. These complex networks make the system robust and capable of evolutionary change.
In complex networks under pressure, there will be many small changes, the occasional large realignment, and the rare revolution. Even after a revolution, however, many networks will survive, but that doesn’t mean to minimize the disruption and uncertainty revolution entails. That’s why “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
I think that’s true in relatively small countries with high social cohesion. Here I think it makes them elephantine and incapable of change.
But it dodges the question. Is our present system in which the primary loyalty of elected representatives is to the party leadership and the views promoted by the party leadership are not particularly well-aligned with those of the constituents a democratic one? I don’t think it is by any stretch of the language. I think it’s oligarchic.
One of our comments is stuck in moderation.
Hmm. I don’t see it.
Dave Schuler: Hmm. I don’t see it.
Sad. It was rather long. Editing ‘jan’ to ‘Jan’ resulted it in giving a message, “You can no longer edit this message.”
Feel free to delete this and our previous comment about the missing message.
Dave Schuler: Voting alone is not enough to ensure democracy.
Quite so. A code of law seen as just is a prerequisite to democracy.
Dave Schuler: At the national level the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader have entirely too much power.
That can be changed by simple majority vote in each chamber.
Jan: over half the country no longer trust how the elections are being processed with adequate oversight.
There is reason to distrust the influence of money and foreign interests in the campaigns, along with structural issues such as gerrymandering, but no evidence of significant fraud in the electoral system itself.
bob sykes: I would note that by your definition of rights the EU and the other Anglophone countries are not democracies. None of them recognizes freedom of speech or of the press.
That is not correct, however, all rights have limitations.
bob sykes: So the fact that the Electoral College vote does not always conform to the popular is really an irrelevancy.
It’s not irrelevant as modern political systems are inherently unstable if they don’t broadly reflect the will of the people.
bob sykes: Since the 1950’s, liberals have used the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to enact “laws†that they cannot pass by any legislature.
Some people have never gotten over desegregation and the Equal Protection Clause.
Jan: Only one lower PA court did go through the evidence, saying it showed merit, passing it forward to a higher court who ruled against it for process reasons.
Most of your claims are unfounded. You might start with this:
Jan: This kind of cart blanche waiver to discontinue a life is supported by a majority during the 1st trimester. However, during the 2nd trimester support begins to wane, to where it reverses itself during the last 3 months of a pregnancy.
That support wanes when cases are introduced. Should the state force a woman to carry an unviable baby to term? Does the pain of the dying newborn count in this equation? What risk to the mother’s life does the state bureaucracy consider reasonable? 25%? 50%?
You’re cute. It can’t even come to the floor without the permission of the House Speaker. Can you imagine any foreseeable Speaker of the House allowing it to the floor? I can’t.
The most minarchist Speaker of the House of my lifetime did not bring such a measure to the floor during his tenure. It won’t happen.
Dave Schuler: It can’t even come to the floor without the permission of the House Speaker.
The first thing every new congress does is vote on their rules. If they want a weaker Speaker, they can do that. In fact, the Freedom Caucus is pushing for decentralization of power in the House of Representatives, in anticipation of a Republican takeover.
Dave Schuler: Here I think it makes them elephantine and incapable of change.
Complex systems resist rapid change but allow evolutionary change. American social institutions have changed very significantly over the last few generations.
Dave Schuler: Is our present system in which the primary loyalty of elected representatives is to the party leadership and the views promoted by the party leadership are not particularly well-aligned with those of the constituents a democratic one?
That’s always been the case to some degree. As the world globalizes, however, there is increasing alienation from older institutions. Has the system not always been oligarchic, waxing and waning perhaps? The parties are much more polarized nowadays, and that is leading to increasing political dysfunction. Are we missing something? . . . Rereading your original post . . .
Dave Schuler: Representatives should feel bound by what their constituents want rather than what their party leaders demand. When the main role of elected representatives is to ratify the decisions of party leaders, I think that calling it a “democracy†is a stretch.
Many democracies have much stronger party discipline than the U.S. The bigger problem seems to be the increasingly polarized two party system. And that is a result of first past the post elections, the structure of the Senate, and gerrymandering of the House of Representatives. Throw huge amounts of money, foreign influence, and misinformation into the mix.
The first thing the House does is elect the Speaker. The rule can’t even come to the floor without the permission of the Speaker of the House. Both parties want to preserve their power and that means the Speaker’s power.
Dave Schuler: The rule can’t even come to the floor without the permission of the Speaker of the House.
The Speaker can’t make them vote for the rules.
Dave Schuler: Both parties want to preserve their power and that means the Speaker’s power.
Of course. So, the party in power chooses to have a strong Speaker. This isn’t new, though.
“It is in that last step that I think our system falls short. At the federal level the party leadership has entirely too much power. Representatives should feel bound by what their constituents want rather than what their party leaders demand. When the main role of elected representatives is to ratify the decisions of party leaders, I think that calling it a “democracy†is a stretch.”
I don’t think this is true. Our parties are historically weak, and party leadership currently has low influence. This is why the President, Speaker, and Senate Majority leader have become even more influential in recent years, because they are filling the hole left by the defenestration of the parties as coherent political entities. The parties today are essentially brands with no central guidance.
While the holders of those three offices (Speaker, Majority leader and President) have tremendous power in their respective positions, they still have to manage the divisions within each caucus, which are significant. Factions in each party are, today, much less afraid to go against what the Speaker, Majority leader or President want because their individual power (the ability to get reelected) no longer depends on what “the party” or party leadership thinks. In the old days, individual representatives had to rely on the party apparatus to support their reelection campaigns and that gave the parties leverage to get individual members to go along on some votes.
None of that really exists today, or it’s at least much weaker. Most campaigns are now self-funding with lots of individual donors. They get donations by saying controversial stuff that then gets put on TV.
And then add to this mix the “democratic” primary system. Since most seats are safe today, the primary concern of most current office-holders is stopping a primary challenge. That’s their greatest fear. And here parties are largely irrelevant. Anyone can run in a primary as either a Republican or a Democrat and if they win that contest by a bare plurality and if they are in a safe seat, then they will get elected. There is no “party” that can stop that.
So this is an example where too much “democracy” is a bad thing. We’re at the point where our political parties are historically weak, and weaker than parties in any remotely comparable democracy. The parties cannot even determine who their own candidates are. They have no control over their own “brand.” Plurality winners in low-turnout primary elections is “democratic” but results in small but motivated and organized factions gaining power they wouldn’t otherwise.
In my view, for democracy to work, it requires some undemocratic institutions and rules. And if we are going to have political parties (and that’s unavoidable), then they ought to be more than brands and have some political coherence.
“It’s not irrelevant as modern political systems are inherently unstable if they don’t broadly reflect the will of the people.”
The problem with the mismatch between the EC and popular vote is mostly the result of the House not increasing in size for a century. If the size of the House increased, then that adds more EC votes for more popular states and smaller districts mean a much-reduced chance of a mismatch.
That is something that is technically very easy to do, but it’s difficult politically because no one in the House wants to see their power diluted by increasing the size of the body, and since most representatives are in “safe” seats, they do not want to run the risk of having to run for election in a smaller and potentially more competitive district.