Let’s see if I can avoid turning WordPress into Reddit or worse yet, Facebook.
So Jill begins with a short plug for an upcoming book, How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The book sounds interesting, but if it shares the same theme as the rest of the original piece (OP), it’s unlikely I’ll buy it.
It seems that while writing their book, Levitsky and Ziblatt identified four characteristics exhibited by democratic leaders making the precarious move towards authoritarianism.
- The leader shows only a weak commitment to democratic rules.
- He or she denies the legitimacy of opponents.
- He or she tolerates violence.
- He or she shows some willingness to curb civil liberties or the media.
Now, I realize that these aren’t Jill’s ideas per se but I’ll make a few points regardless. Denying your opponent’s legitimacy is part of the political toolkit. It happens in every country, at every level, and from every party.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a video of British MP Jess Phillips laughing at her colleague’s request to discuss gender disparities in education, suicide, and custody rates on International Men’s Day. Nothing is more de-legitimizing than ridiculing someone’s sincerity. For a more local example, here’s Hil-Dog’s famous “deplorables” bit.
I have some historical examples too:
- The Philippics by Demosthenes c. 345BC
- The Philippicae by Cicero c. 44BC,
- the Presidential Election of 1796 — John Adams / Thomas Jefferson
- the Presidential Election of 1828 — John Quincy Adams / Andrew Jackson
Anyways, back to Jill.
One of the biggest safeguards of our democratic republic is built into the Constitution: 3 independent branches, and most especially the independent judiciary.
I find this idea interesting. We were all taught in grade school that the three branches of government exemplify the whole checks and balances thing. Only later, upon finding de Tocqueville and The Federalist Papers, did I come to understand that the dominance of one branch over the others isn’t the only way our democratic republic may die. Here’s a quick history lesson.
Originally, the United States were governed under the Articles of Confederation. The government it created was impotent because the Second Continental Congress was more concerned about a tyrannical central government than a tyrannical branch of government (see Federalist No. 26–28, 44–46, 62-66, 68, and 75–77).
As a second point of evidence, I present the 17th Amendment. Senators were elected by state legislatures prior to its ratification in 1914. The intention was to have the upper class, because they were assumed to be more educated, represented in the Senate and the lower and middle classes represented in the House (see Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville for a great glimpse at early American politics). I’ll have to write another post about the federal government prior to amendments, laws, and Supreme Court rulings.
Remember how he has been quietly padding the judiciary with ultra-conservative judges, starting with Neil Gorsuch in the Supreme Court.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 The Appointments Clause
It’s his job guys. President Obama wasn’t supposed to appoint Right-wing judges, and President Trump isn’t supposed to appoint Left-wing judges.
Think of how he has questioned the legitimacy of judges who interfered with him. Remember how just a couple of weeks ago he referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a “deep state”? And how he referred to the mainstream media as the “enemy of the American people”?
Let’s analyze that first sentence.
“Think of how he has questioned the legitimacy of judges who interfered with him.”
Okay, questioning seems far more passive than interfering — just saying. I’d rather have someone tell me to stop breathing than try to stop me from breathing. Even if I set the semantics aside, I still see an issue with the way this is framed; it’s dishonest.
If you find yourself getting an itchy keyboard finger, sit back, take a few deep breaths, and try separating what you’re feeling from the argument I’m about to make.
Watch this. I know he’s inarticulate and kinda hard to look at, but his reasoning seems solid. Pointing out a possible conflict of interest isn’t an attempt to de-legitimize someone. I’m gay, and if I were asked to serve on a jury for some Jeffery Dahmer type, I’d expect the defense attorney to recognize my possible bias and invoke his right of peremptory challenge ejecting me from the pool.
I don’t care to elaborate on the “deep state” thing beyond pointing out that no one ever really knows what the government is up to until someone commits a crime by telling the public or enough time has passed to make discussing the event boring (see Tuskegee Experiments, Iran-Contra, Edward Snowden’s leaking of domestic surveillance operations, Chelsea Manning’s leak, Operation Paperclip when Nazi scientists were given amnesty in the US).
Finally on this quote, it definitely raises some flags when politicians use phrases like “enemy of the people.” Any time a politician invokes “the people” it triggers some little cynical part of my brain. I blame history.
Rules that say an opponent is just that – an opponent – not an enemy and not somebody to be taunted, harassed and bullied, nor called a criminal and jeered with chants of “Lock her up!”
Are opponents also racist, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic deplorables too by chance? I don’t think so, and I hope anyone reading this doesn’t either.
One very simple way to check rather or not you’re respecting an opponent is to take a second to analyze what you are saying/thinking.
If you are coming up with points against their character — regardless of the justification — then you aren’t.
If you are coming up with points against their explicit motivations or logic, then you are.
Every senior Republican opposed Trump because he ticked the boxes on the authoritarian leader checklist.
They opposed him because he is a populist first, a Republican second, and a conservative last. But since humans are rational animals, they knew that endorsing Clinton would be like pressing the GOP’s self-destruct button, and it’s not like the Democrats would welcome them in. No, they would also make the rational choice and exploit their opponent’s internal chaos to assume power for decades.
In power, he has fired the head of the FBI for doing his duty, just as Putin, Orbán, Chavez and Erdoğan have fired public officials they could not control.
Check out my last citation of the Constitution.
Anything else simply adds to the divisiveness, the polarization, and that is not beneficial to the protection of our democracy.
The word ironic comes to mind.
I didn’t vote for Trump (primary – Sanders, final – Clinton). I thought he was moron, but calling someone half of your brothers and sisters voted for an extremist, demagogic, racist separatist because you find him personally distasteful is not a unifying message.
We really need to take some self-control as a nation and start choosing reason over emotion.
This sort of thing is why I don’t think I’ll ever vote Democrat again. The Left has become so intellectually bankrupt that they now believe ad homs are arguments. If you feel disgusted by a politician — they make it easy — then aim at their policies and explain why they are wrong. Don’t settle for the human equivalent of poop-flinging.
Braving Sirens 