Steven Levitski and Daniel Ziblatt have recently published an article in the NY Times Sunday Review asking, "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?" Anyone who would ask that question has an answer in mind. They answer, of course, in the affirmative and end with the reassurance that "American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency." Having said that, however, one wonders. As many have suggested in various ways, Trump is symptomatic of the disease, and there is plenty of evidence that a sort of anti-democratic virus is disrupting the body politic of America. Consider, for example, what is happening in North Carolina, where, as the Times also reports, "Amid a tense and dramatic backdrop of outrage and frustration, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature on Friday approved a sweeping package of restrictions on the power of the governor’s office in advance of the swearing in of the Democratic governor-elect, Roy Cooper." That, perhaps, is even more portentous of Democracy's Demise.
Levitsky and Ziblatt suggest that "Democratic institutions must be reinforced by strong informal norms," the first of which is "partisan self-restraint and fair play. For much of our history, leaders of both parties resisted the temptation to use their temporary control of institutions to maximum partisan advantage, effectively underutilizing the power conferred by those institutions." Let me admit, first of all, that I'm not altogether sure our political parties have "resisted the temptation" until just recently. I have found myself going back to basics, as it were, and re-reading some of the documents of our founding as a nation, and the difficulties we face today are nothing particularly new and were anticipated by James Madison as "faction." In one of the seminal passages of the Federalist Papers, he writes, that the latent causes of faction are "sown in the nature of man, and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity according to the different circumstances of civil society." He goes on to write:
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders, ambitiously contending for preeminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions, whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to cooperate for their common good.
We do not need to be acute observers of the current political scene to agree that "the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts." Religion, perhaps, is a principle source of more frivolous and fanciful distinctions, and is a strong contender as the most virulent cause of faction, but Madison felt that the "various and unequal distribution of property" was also great, and would suffice. As Madison put it, "those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society." I would agree, but add the caveat, "if people can discern their distinct interests." For reasons that I will come back to, in today's political climate, there is so much confusion, and so little relief, that people find it difficult to decide among their own interests, much less among those competing to represent those interests. Suffice it to say that the constitution was intended to regulate "these various and interfering interests," and to involve "the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government." And indeed, it does seem to take some sense of "partisan self-restraint and fair play" to get on with "the necessary and ordinary operations of government." I would agree, but would again add the caveat, if people could agree on the "necessary operations of government."
Clearly what is happening in North Carolina is factionalism at its worst, and they have succumbed to the temptation to use their temporary control of the state legislature to maximize partisan advantage, and violates anything resembling "fair play." Moreover, it violates "an even more basic norm" or "the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern." It's not unique to North Carolina, nor is it unique to elected officials. Public Policy Polling, for example, found that "only 53% of Trump voters think that California's votes should be allowed to count in the national popular vote. 29% don't think they should be allowed to count, and another 18% are unsure." While 29% is still a distinct minority, even among Trump voters, it is nevertheless telling that nearly half, 47% of Trump voters, would disenfranchise California entirely or are unsure. As Rachel Maddow asked, what does that mean? Should dissenting votes simply not count? Should California be forcibly excommunicated from the union? Whatever it means -- whether the answer is just an expression of disdain for those who inhabit the land of "fruits and nuts," ignorance of the American political system, or an actual desire to vex and oppress those who dissent -- the polling results, along with the machinations in North Carolina, clearly indicate that the disagreement between factions has reached a sufficiently virulent fever pitch where one faction cannot "accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country" and calls into question whether the other side is even, what? American? As Levitsky and Ziblatt suggest, "without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled," and one doesn't need to do much in the way of research to discover that "governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism."
The feeling may be mutual. I have to admit there is a part of me that wouldn't be terribly disappointed if Texas decided to succeed from the union, or for that matter California. Given the choice, given my own predilections, I would move to California, and I would do so without the least hesitation. Perhaps we DO need smaller, more homogenous nations. Again, going back to basics, there was a good deal of discussion about the absolute size of the nation, and whether a nation, even of 13 loosely confederated states, was simply too large for democracy. By "democracy," the founders meant what might be referred to today as "direct democracy," where the "public good" is decided, as Madison put it, by "the people themselves, convened for that purpose." The logistic difficulties of "convening the people," of course, are obvious, but Hamilton, at least, felt acutely dangers of the short-sighted and overweening passions that could sweep over "the people," transforming them from a deliberative body into a mob. The constitutional solution to this was a "republic," and again, as Madison put it, "the two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are, first, the delegation o the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." It is, in short, a representative government, democratically elected, and it was hoped that the people would elect those "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations." As Madison recognized, however, "the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister design, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people." Absolute size was seen as a protection for the former against the latter, making it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts, by which elections were often carried." Madison believed that the most deeply held prejudices, and consequently the most contentious tempers that arose from them, were local. As he put it, "the smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it." Following on that, "the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party." Following on that, "the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression." Spread over larger territories, the strictly local factions would cancel each other, and allow greater interest in the greater good. What Madison did not predict, and given the time in which he wrote could not have predicted, was the growth of modern lines of communication.
I do believe, along with Chomsky, that the GOP is the most dangerous organization in the world today, for some of the same and for different reasons. It is, to borrow a word from Thomas Frank, the party of "derangement." He traces the source of the derangement, correctly I think, to the Great Backlash, "a style of conservatism that came snarling onto the national stage in response to the partying and protests of the late sixties," though I would also suggest that his dismissive tone would engender some of the same backlash. It was not simply the parties and protests of the late sixties, but the fundamental challenge they presented to what many, the Silent Majority, felt were fundamental American values -- religion, racial and gender hierarchies, and love of country. If LSD opened the gates of perception and provided a different variety of religious experience, it was not one that could be endorsed by heartland Americans. Equal rights were one thing in the abstract, another thing when it actually encroached on a privilege so long established that it seemed hewn into the bedrock of social order by nature and nature's god. If Vietnam brought home the vicious reality of the American anti-communist crusade, it was nevertheless America's war, America's crusade, and one could not question it as a policy decision, or the authority that prosecuted it as a policy decision, without being in some way treasonous. America, love it or leave it, as the bumper stickers of the time had it. The counter culture of the 60s and early 70s was indeed just that, an insurrectionist counter culture, and so it is not surprising that there was a backlash by THE culture. More by default than design, the GOP took up the cause of the culture against the insurrectionist counter culture, and cultural anger was "marshaled to achieve economic ends." We have been fighting the "culture wars" ever since, and for those engaged in the battle, it is fought in deadly earnest, but Thomas has it right, I think, when he tells us that it is the "economic achievements -- not the forgettable skirmishes of the never-ending culture wars -- that are the movement's greatest monuments," though again his dismissive tone again would engender some of the same backlash. The culture wars are not simply a clash between a "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" liberalism and a "revival tent" conservatism, but the more fundamental conflict setting cosmopolitan against parochial values, setting the urban and urbane against the rural and unsophisticated, the over-educated elite against the under-educated, but more genuine, more down to earth, more common-sensical folk. The culture wars go back to the very beginning of our republic, the clash between the New York values of Hamilton, who by the way favored abolition, and the Monticello values of Jefferson, who might have had qualms about slavery, but fewer about the racial hierarchy or the maintenance of his coterie of slaves.
The culture wars, of course, will go on, and on, and on, and on. The liberals seem to be winning, but each successive victory is a pyrric victory, in part because there will always be a fresh outrage to enrage the cultural warriors on either side of the divide, and it will continue to distract and confound any economic agenda the liberals might want to advance. The liberals DO seem to be winning the culture, but this just seems to create another species of "derangement." THE culture can now see itself engaged in a rear-guard action, engaged in a resistance movement against the usurpations of an illegitimate authority imposing an illegitimate culture. THE culture can now see itself as the victim, forced to tolerate the intolerable, with all the moral authority that accrues to the victim, the white male fighting the impositions of the femi-nazis with all the valor of the French resistance of old. What to make of it? On the one hand, although it is a discredited meme, one can (I can) actually hear Trump say that, if he ran for president, he would run as a republican because republican voters are so stupid. If I want to distract my dog, all I have to do is say "treat," and he runs to the pantry door doing the "puppy dance" in anticipation. If I want to distract a republican from my economic agenda, all I have to do is say "gay marriage!" and they will run to the ballot box to register their disdain. As Thomas put it, "the trick never ages," and the distracted republican will "vote to stop abortion, [but] receive a rollback in capital gains taxes." The deranged republican will "vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors, receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive social security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining." It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see the economic elite cynically using a fresh outrage, a fresh slab of red meat, to distract the republican voter from the actual economic agenda -- cynically shouting "OMG! Gay marriage!" a distraction amplified on evangelical and conservative radio from the economic buggering they actually get in the halls of congress.
To use Madison's words, "the effect has been inverted." Men of vicious temper have first obtained the suffrages, and then betrayed the interests of the people, and Trump may be the biggest, and ultimately, the last such betrayal. May be. As Livitski and Ziblatt suggest, we may muddle through, but as they also suggest, the signs are all there. "Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe," as they put it, "the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a 'litmus test' to identify anti-democratic politicians," and he had at least three indicators -- a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments." Of course, "Trump tests positive." The litany of offenses is familiar. He actively encouraged violence among protestors at his rallies, suggesting he would cover the legal fees of those who actually acted on his incitement. He pledged to "jail" Hilary Clinton, his political rival, and did much to encourage, nothing to discourage, the chants of "lock her up." He threatened legal action against unfriendly media, among them the NY Times, but perhaps the most egregious offense against democracy was the suggestion "that he might not accept the election results." To follow through on any of these "promises," of course, would be the initial acts of a dictator.
Of course, it couldn't happen here, and so, not to panic. Everything will be fine. The American people wouldn't stand for it, and the Constitution has sufficient checks and balances to prevent an outright coup. Still, these are not just Trump's threats or tactics, they have been "normalized" as GOP tactics, endorsed by a sufficient number of people to place him in the white house. Although there is some room for some skepticism and doubt, the number of hate crimes, with their explicit intimidation and implicit violence, has spiked since the election. As the continuing outrage in North Carolina indicates, even in the face of a broad electoral victory, giving the GOP effective control of the government throughout the US, they STILL will not accept the few instances where they have lost. If the public policy polling is any indication, there even seems to be a core of GOP supporters who would actively support, or not actively resist, the disenfranchisement of the opposition, a disenfranchisement that has been going on for some time through the gerrymandering of districts and the measures to insure voting integrity, to prevent the imagined millions of votes that were cast fraudulently for Clinton. It is an insidious claim, insofar as we all know just who Trump and his supporters believe cast the fraudulent votes and where they cast them. It wasn't white folk, but those people who speak Spanish and Farsi on the streets of Chicago and Detroit. It wasn't in Idaho or Indiana, but in California, in LA and San Francisco, and so of course! the votes of Californians shouldn't be tallied. So, again, just to drive the point home, "governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism." And it doesn't take much to begin the process of militarization -- a series of minor terrorist incidents, or another major incident on the order of 9/11 -- and the right's vaunted fear of marshall law may well become a reality, much to their delight, as they use "the old trick," as Madison put it, "of turning every contingency as a resource for accumulating force in government."
The first line of defense against the usurpation of the presidency has failed. Despite the clear indications that the election was, so to speak, hacked by the Russians, the electoral college has given Trump sufficient electoral votes to assure a Trump presidency. I am not altogether confident that other lines of defense will succeed to check or balance the promised excesses. There is something of the Maginot Line about any discussion of constitutional checks and balances, and with the GOP in control of the government, virtually top to bottom, one suspects the defenses could be easily over-whelmed. In truth, one suspects they have already been over-whelmed. Although the GOP has taken on the persona of la grande resistance to the "liberal" coup, and even though they have ostensibly "won" they continue to target Obama as though he were the font of all evil in the world, there is, as I have suggested elsewhere, already something Vichy about the democratic party. Battle after battle on the cultural front has gone to the left, only enraging further those on the right, enflaming their aggrandized sense of aggrievement, but the economic battle has been lost, and the electoral battle has gone to the right. The people know they are being buggered sore. One suspects that many Trump voters -- those who might find him personally distasteful, but voted for his ostensible "change" agenda -- may even know that they are being treated like a hobo's whore by the GOP, but then the so-called alt-right, Trump's real party, is only slightly less enraged at the entrenched GOP elite than they are by the entrenched Democratic elite. They are both cut from the same piece of cloth. Wars take money. Wars of attrition take even more money, and both parties have "sold out" to big money interests. The Wikileak hack of Clinton's Goldman Sachs "conversations" were not examined for content, but vilified for occurring at all (a vilification to which Clinton herself, with her characteristic reserve, contributed by not releasing them early enough for actual examination). There is, as the Washington Post put it, the eternal mystique of Goldman Sachs, and the biggest betrayal of all, a betrayal that Trump seems to be flaunting on the world stage, is this: vote to get big money out of politics; receive Goldman Sachs in an inordinate number of cabinet positions.
So what happens next? Trump may well give the culture warriors of the alt-right some long awaited victories, but such victories will simply provoke a reaction, which prove a pretext for a reaction to the reaction, which no doubt will provoke even greater resentment. We fought one civil war over the "old divides" of north and south, urban and rural, new economy and old economy, and always race, race, race. Why not a second?
No comments:
Post a Comment