After reading this post, Walker asked:
Spoiler: A surprising number of people prefer a “strongman” to rule-of-law democracy.
Let’s start with a definition of liberal democracy. I like Lincoln’s definition: “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and balances , and always changing with deliberate changes of popular opinion and sentiments is the only true sovereign of a free people.”
For a more complete definition of “liberal democracy,” how about:
The drafters of the Constitution liked the idea of liberal democracy—but they limited “the people” to white (mostly landowning) men. We’ve basically been fighting over who should be included in “we the people” ever since.
Political psychologists talk about the authoritarian disposition—the theory that some people are inclined toward authoritarianism. (For more on that, see this post.)
But the answer: “People who prefer authoritarianism have an authoritarian disposition,” is sort of circular, right?
Maybe we should come at the question from a different angle. How about, some people reject democracy because they:
🔹Reject diversity,
🔹Don’t like boring politics,
🔹Demand rapid change,
🔹Reject compromise, and
🔹Are completely sure they’re right.
(There is overlap, and I’m probably forgetting something.)
“Reject diversity” is included in the classic definition of right wing authoritarianism. Right wing authoritarians “defer to established authorities,” and “show aggression toward out-groups when authorities sanction that aggression.” In other words, They don’t like “out-groups” and can be cruel toward them.
The cruelty springs from the dislike.
Here is Tucker Carlson (Fox) explaining that diversity is not a strength. And here’s Katie Hopkins, pictured with Ann Coulter, praising Russia as being “untouched by the myth of multiculturalism and deranged diversity“
The problem for them is that democracy tends to expand and become more inclusive. When it becomes more inclusive (like what happened after the modern Civil Rights movement and Voters Rights Act) that’s when they reject it.
Next:
🔹Some people don’t like boring politics.
Some Trump supporters like Trump because he’s entertaining. When democracy works well, it’s boring. A lot of people dozed off in school when the teacher talked about “civics” and “three branches of government.” 😴Following all those procedures will not keep you on the edge of your seat. News programs will find it harder to be entertaining and captivate audiences.
MPBA (Make Politics Boring Again).
News shouldn’t be entertainment. When news is entertainment, the truth stop mattering. It’s all about the show.
This brings us to:
🔹People who demand rapid change.
In the words of Ziblatt and Levitsky, democracy is slow, grinding work:
If you don’t believe it, run for local office and try to get something done. Checks and balances, and separation of powers naturally slows things down. The only way to make rapid change is to eliminate checks and balances and consolidate power. This creates a situation that allows a strongman to step in.
One appeal of the strongman is he can blast through the slow-moving process and get things done fast.
Next we have:
🔹Reject compromise
Democracy requires compromise. Purists who won’t compromise are not democratic (even if the result they want is more democracy).
In the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich urged Republicans to reject compromise. Many scholars (including Ziblatt and Levitsky) point to that as a time the Republican Party took a sharp turn toward authoritarianism.
“My way or the high way” is not democracy. It’s autocracy. “This is the way it has to be” are the kinds of words spoken by a strongman.
During the primaries, a frustrated Sanders supporter told me that the Democratic Party should bypass the vote and nominate Sanders because (1) he is the better candidate, and (2) not doing so sends a message to young people that they and their votes don’t matter. I tried to explain why this would be undemocratic.
This brings me to Learned Hand’s quotation: The Spirit of Liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right👇
For the full context, click here. (Learned Hand was really his name. He was one of America’s most respected judges. Naming a child “Learned” is risky, but it worked out well for the Hand family.) I first saw the quotation when researching my biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who quoted it in a lecture.
It took me a long time to understand why the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. “I am right. I am the authority. Listen to me, and only me,” isn’t democratic and leads to a demand for purity and refusal to compromise.
When we’re not too sure we’re right, we listen, and compromise, and are more inclined to bring people together.
To be clear: I’m not advocating compromising with the KKK. I’m advocating coalition building, creating as big a tent as possible, and respecting procedures.
When we’re not too sure we’re right (and we don’t insist on purity) we are better able to pull together a large enough majority to bring about positive changes and resist autocracy.
Big tents get messy.
