Liberal democracy is messy, appears inefficient, and is never fully satisfying to anyone. But is has one singular property that no form of authoritarian or autocratic government has. It has moral content that respects the right of its opponents to voice their objections peaceably without fear of government sponsored retribution. The ideals of liberal democracy separate it from political movements that say they are democratic but dislike liberal democracy for its messiness, believing governments capable of authoritative, unequivocal decisions with greater efficiency is better.
Every party, bloc and movement on the American political scene claims to represent democracy, the Constitution, and what it means to be American. But not all agree liberal democracy is the best way, even though it’s been the foundation of the nation’s political ideals since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. With each succeeding generation, the understanding of what liberal democracy means has been modified in new ways, the Constitution amended to expand protection of civil rights, the franchise, more equal treatment under the law for more people, and so forth. As times changed, the federal government took on more responsibility to see that food and drugs are safe, laws adopted to make businesses accountable to the public as well as investors and owners, and issues that knew no boundaries addressed on a national scale. It’s an evolutionary process that is liberal democracy working for the common good of all and protecting the civil rights of each. It is the process of creating a more perfect union. Not everyone agrees it’s the America they want. They want all the good things liberal democracy has provided but are distrustful of too many voices having a say in what the government does and how it operates. It would be better if a few people with the right ideas and values were empowered to make decisions for the country.
Just to be clear what has evolved into today’s far right has little to do with liberal vs. conservative. Liberal democracy requires both liberals and conservatives to retain its health and vitality. Liberals tend to favor a more activist government addressing a broad spectrum of needs across the country. Conservatives are a restraint on liberal enthusiasm. They see no need to do something that doesn’t need to be done or spend money that doesn’t need to be spent. While liberals want to expand civil rights, conservatives want to make sure existing individual rights are not jeopardized. Both liberals and conservatives desire the best for the nation as a whole with each side well populated by big egos jockeying for position, power and t.v. airtime. There was a time when Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives. The sides began to flip in the1920s, accelerated in the 30-40s, and were fully reversed in the 1950s. Democrats have held the liberal torch and Republicans the conservative fire extinguisher ever since.
The current U.S. Congress, especially the House of Representatives, no longer has a classical conservative side. What the media has labeled far right extremism has captured the GOP, at least for the present. Like every extremist movement, its many parts have a hard time cooperating. Each part attracts a camp of followers who are inclined to reject everything outside their camp. One camp prefers a confederation of independent states under a limited federal government concerned mainly with defense and interstate transportation. Another camp prefers a strong federal government under the authority of a unified executive to whom the legislature and judiciary are subordinate. A third camp, generally called libertarians, wants a strong federal government but one that stays out of the business of business. These camps have been around a long time and have become adept at pushing and prodding Congress and presidents to bend in their direction. They have one thing in common, each defines itself by its own set of non-negotiable social values it believes should be the law of the land, imposed on all without reservation.
There have always been malcontents with no real agenda, who traffic in political fear mongering and exhibit deep emotional distrust of government in any form. They created a lot of noise and caused serious damage in the 20th century with hard driving scare tactics warning of an imminent communist takeover of the nation. The 21st century has seen a new manifestation in the form of what’s loosely called Trumpism. Its followers seem intent on dismantling liberal democracy, replacing it with a vague idea about an authoritarian executive who will impose a narrow, restrictive brand of Christian nationalism, whatever that is. If they have any central value it appears to be the fear of things related to sex and gender. It’s hard to tell but they seem to have a vision of an insulated U.S.A. walled off from demographic and social changes in order to become a (white) middle class paradise like they imagine once existed.
The health, welfare and future of America depends on a recommitment to liberal democracy and the reestablishment of a responsible conservative movement. Can that happen? I think it can but it will require a renewed commitment to the common good accommodating the welfare of all people regardless of class, color, ethnicity or (it seems ridiculous to have to say this) sexual orientation. There is an American way and immigrants must be told what it is and what to expect. It is not the mythical seat of a white middle class nuclear family, but the ideal of liberal democracy unique in its being One out of Many (E Pluribus Unum).
Would love to see this as a guest essay in our local paper SOON 😺