Democracy isn’t just a form of government. It’s the commitment to two entwined ideas—the powerful obey the rules, and the powerless can hold them to account.
"They think those in control treat citizens like subjects, or even cattle, ruling over them as they please. They believe these would-be rulers think, because they bear the correct credentials, they know what’s best and moral, whatever the masses through their democracy claim to want. Even if blessed by duly-enacted processes, that isn’t democracy" - Yep!
I like your definition, I would express in a slightly different way:
Democracy is a *characteristic* of a government, NOT a *kind* of government. It’s the commitment to two entwined ideas—the powerful obey the rules, and the powerless can hold them to account.
The problem is the choice of rules the people expect the powerful to obey - and enforce.
Without respect for the life and liberty of the individual - above any other “greater good”, above even a majority vote, restricted only when one’s conduct forms a clear, present, and significant threat to others’ lives and liberty - dominance and “take one for the team” submission will remain as it is today.
That is the condition we have brought upon ourselves, by looking to our societal elites inside (and outside) government to be our problem-solvers and caregivers of first resort, authorizing them to leverage the coercive force of law to impose what we think today to be the “greater good” upon all, individual rights be damned.
The more we ask government to do for us, the more power and opportunities we give its operatives to do to us.
You are right that the specific rules are as important as the necessary and fundamental principle that the powerful follow those rules and the powerless can make them do so. The US already has a set of rules (the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and other amendments) that was wisely negotiated to balance the rights of individuals and states with a limited grant of power to the federal government to act in certain prescribed areas for the protection and benefit of the nation. The problem has been all three branches of government, and both major political parties, violating the Constitution. Sometimes this has been a clear breach of the letter of the Constitution. But more often it has been a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution’s principles, stretching and blurring the boundaries of the checks and balances and limitations on powers over a long period of time so that the current uses and limitations on governmental power are far different from what the Constitution originally envisioned. To renew the republic, we need to adhere to the principle that everyone in a position of power follows the letter and spirit of the Constitution, including those in the Trump administration who are undermining the Constitution they proclaim they are restoring. You can’t protect and restore the Constitution by violating it. That just creates more instability and precedent for the Constitution to become as meaningless as it is in any authoritarian state.
I don't disagree that our policy elite has gone wrong (and I've written about that a lot!) However, that doesn't mean it's not always critical to ensure power always follows the rules and is policed to ensure they do. Maybe once in a while the folks in charge will be people truly doing the right thing and we would be better off if they were not constrained, but a lot of the time people attracted to power aren't people who should have it and intend to use it for selfish, corrupt, or counter-productive purposes. And we can never know which they are in the moment. As our Founders wisely believe when structuring this republic, the most important protection of the people is to constrain power. It might stop you from doing a few good things, but the many very bad things it stops far outweigh them.
I’m always skeptical when I hear defenders of “democracy” making proclamations. I have met too many of its loudest defenders who were naked authoritarians under the surface. They believed anyone’s rights or any legal restrictions could be overwritten with 51% of the vote. Usually they are either Canadian or European and not American but I have encountered the same thing in this country.
This is true of all good things. If people believe in an idea because it's important, predators and sociopaths will seek to attach themselves to that idea to do their unworthy deeds. Doesn't mean the idea wasn't correct, but that we must always be wary of the honeyed words of predators and sociopaths who say the right things to do evil.
The author writes “As populists, they [the American right]…believe authority comes…from the direct blessings of the people”
The author also writes “Vladimir Putin is duly elected.…He’s even legitimately popular..[yet] everyone knows modern Russia isn’t truly democratic."
If Putin is legitimately popular, then doesn’t he have the authority that comes from the direct blessings of the people? How is he different from what the American right wants?
"They think those in control treat citizens like subjects, or even cattle, ruling over them as they please. They believe these would-be rulers think, because they bear the correct credentials, they know what’s best and moral, whatever the masses through their democracy claim to want. Even if blessed by duly-enacted processes, that isn’t democracy" - Yep!
I like your definition, I would express in a slightly different way:
Democracy is a *characteristic* of a government, NOT a *kind* of government. It’s the commitment to two entwined ideas—the powerful obey the rules, and the powerless can hold them to account.
The problem is the choice of rules the people expect the powerful to obey - and enforce.
Without respect for the life and liberty of the individual - above any other “greater good”, above even a majority vote, restricted only when one’s conduct forms a clear, present, and significant threat to others’ lives and liberty - dominance and “take one for the team” submission will remain as it is today.
That is the condition we have brought upon ourselves, by looking to our societal elites inside (and outside) government to be our problem-solvers and caregivers of first resort, authorizing them to leverage the coercive force of law to impose what we think today to be the “greater good” upon all, individual rights be damned.
The more we ask government to do for us, the more power and opportunities we give its operatives to do to us.
You are right that the specific rules are as important as the necessary and fundamental principle that the powerful follow those rules and the powerless can make them do so. The US already has a set of rules (the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and other amendments) that was wisely negotiated to balance the rights of individuals and states with a limited grant of power to the federal government to act in certain prescribed areas for the protection and benefit of the nation. The problem has been all three branches of government, and both major political parties, violating the Constitution. Sometimes this has been a clear breach of the letter of the Constitution. But more often it has been a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution’s principles, stretching and blurring the boundaries of the checks and balances and limitations on powers over a long period of time so that the current uses and limitations on governmental power are far different from what the Constitution originally envisioned. To renew the republic, we need to adhere to the principle that everyone in a position of power follows the letter and spirit of the Constitution, including those in the Trump administration who are undermining the Constitution they proclaim they are restoring. You can’t protect and restore the Constitution by violating it. That just creates more instability and precedent for the Constitution to become as meaningless as it is in any authoritarian state.
I don't disagree that our policy elite has gone wrong (and I've written about that a lot!) However, that doesn't mean it's not always critical to ensure power always follows the rules and is policed to ensure they do. Maybe once in a while the folks in charge will be people truly doing the right thing and we would be better off if they were not constrained, but a lot of the time people attracted to power aren't people who should have it and intend to use it for selfish, corrupt, or counter-productive purposes. And we can never know which they are in the moment. As our Founders wisely believe when structuring this republic, the most important protection of the people is to constrain power. It might stop you from doing a few good things, but the many very bad things it stops far outweigh them.
I’m always skeptical when I hear defenders of “democracy” making proclamations. I have met too many of its loudest defenders who were naked authoritarians under the surface. They believed anyone’s rights or any legal restrictions could be overwritten with 51% of the vote. Usually they are either Canadian or European and not American but I have encountered the same thing in this country.
This is true of all good things. If people believe in an idea because it's important, predators and sociopaths will seek to attach themselves to that idea to do their unworthy deeds. Doesn't mean the idea wasn't correct, but that we must always be wary of the honeyed words of predators and sociopaths who say the right things to do evil.
However many subscribers you have… It should be more.
I couldn't agree more!
The ‘rules’ have changed over the years- please read ‘The Death of Common Sense’. Or UnAccountable- both by Phillip Howard
How do you mean?
I appreciate your thesis, and I appreciate your optimism. I hope you are right.
The author writes “As populists, they [the American right]…believe authority comes…from the direct blessings of the people”
The author also writes “Vladimir Putin is duly elected.…He’s even legitimately popular..[yet] everyone knows modern Russia isn’t truly democratic."
If Putin is legitimately popular, then doesn’t he have the authority that comes from the direct blessings of the people? How is he different from what the American right wants?