And America’s
Democracy — even in a democratic republic like ours, rather than pure democracy — is contingent. When you try it in the less developed parts of the world, you typically get “one man, one vote, one time.” And by less developed I don’t mean less economically developed — though that generally applies too — as less morally and civically developed. But now that kind of “less developed” describes us too. . . .
We used to say “politics ain’t beanbag,” but there were limits, on both behavior and rhetoric. The opposition was a political movement to be defeated, not an evil to be extirpated. The stakes in elections may have been high, but they weren’t existential. Nobody feared death or prison just for losing an election.
That sort of thing was for banana republics, like Brazil.
Now we have prominent Democrats talking about throwing their opponents in jail, seizing Elon Musk’s companies — after throwing him in jail for, I dunno, the crime of being in opposition I guess — and enacting various changes, like packing the Supreme Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, and opening the borders to ensure that no election can remove them from power again.
That’s “late democracy.” Very late.
As I wrote then, John Adams said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
A moral and religious people doesn’t crow about imprisoning or executing its political opponents, or locking politics down to ensure that they reign forever.
And people who do that sort of thing lose the protecting cloak of legitimacy (though they will try to cling to it). If norms don’t protect their opponents, what’s the argument for not seizing power by force and stringing them up? The paper walls of court-packing and state-adding are no protection against the universal political solvent, force.
Caesar crossed the Rubicon and took Rome because his political opponents were going to subject him to sham trials and probably take his life. The last residuum of the old Republic couldn’t stop him, and Rome became a less lawful place. (Arguably, this was just the final step after Marius and Sulla, and maybe the Gracchi, started wrecking the Republic.)
Some of you out there may nod your heads and approve the idea of regime change by force. But it’s nothing to hope for. At best it’s a perilous necessity that is very likely to make things worse — like hitting the hyperspace button in the old “Asteroids” game. It might save you, or it might destroy you.
The American Revolution was a perilous enterprise, but they had a much better ruling class than we do. I mean, just look around.
Anyway, I’d say for now to listen to the Hitchhiker’s Guide and “don’t panic.” As many people are noting there have been successful presidencies even after worse midterm losses.
(By the way, impeaching Clinton was idiotic. If it had succeeded, it would have just meant Al Gore could have run as an incumbent in 2000, which probably would have put him over the top in what turned out to be a super-close election.)
Our system has survived many threats, though it’s true that we had a Civil War over one of them, and in some sense the original political/constitutional system did not entirely survive it.
But here’s a cautionary note. Just a few election cycles ago, Mohammed Abdulrahman El-Sayed and James Talarico would have been utterly unelectable. Now they’re winning candidates. In this world, much conventional wisdom based on politics in the old world is no longer valid.
That’s life in Late Democracy. Be well.
No comments:
Post a Comment