Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon, Jr. recently made the case that many Democrats and others, including President Biden, talk too generally about saving democracy and about the Republican Party being anti-democratic. He notes that, “democracy” “is becoming a buzzword. It’s invoked too often and in imprecise ways, essentially as a synonym for “good” or “things I agree with.” We need less general talk about “saving democracy” and more about specific policies and principles that we want to defend and promote.”
Bacon’s argument comes down to making sure that talking about democracy doesn’t remain at a vague and ultimately abstract level, and it’s music to my ears when Bacon urges pro-democracy politicians and others to talk specifically about what they mean by democracy, and how to strengthen it. As I wrote last week, “when Joe Biden defends democracy either too abstractly or in a way that fulsomely embraces a political system that many millions see as corrupt or unresponsive, he undercuts what, superficially speaking, should be an uncontroversial point for most people and a rallying cry for the majority.” And as others have noted, democracy isn’t just an idea, it’s also a lived practice, and insisting on specificity is a way of instantiating democracy with meaning and direction. In the spirit of his own critique, Bacon writes that, “I want greater majority rule,” and goes on to enumerate the concrete ideas he supports to advance this, such as limiting gerrymanders and abolishing the Senate filibuster (and in President Biden’s defense, I think the idea that the majority should be able to exercise power is a key subtext of his pro-democracy speechifying, even if it’s not always articulated as fully as possible).
But while talking more concretely about pro-democracy measures is a very good idea, there is an equal need for more wide-ranging discussions of what we mean when we talk about “democracy” or “American democracy” that go beyond its mechanisms or the basic concept of majority rule. Now, if this were “merely” a fight between the Democrats and an increasingly anti-democratic Republican Party — a party that sees democracy as increasingly problematic due to its reliance on a shrinking base of conservative white voters — then perhaps a battle over the mechanics of democratic representation would be sufficient, with faith that a majority would logically end up supporting reforms that advance the majority’s interests.
However, the continued presence of Donald Trump on the American political scene, and of his acceleration of anti-democratic tendencies in the GOP into a full-fledged authoritarianism, means that the country is in a state of conflict over whether democracy should even continue to be our form of government. With Trump’s reported plans to re-make the presidency into an office without guardrails, his accession to the Oval Office for a second time would very likely constitute a decisive rupture with the democratic (if often flawed) continuity that the nation has known since its founding. For proof of his intentions, we need look no further than the fact that he is already the first president in American history to attempt a coup to stay in office — an act so heinous that many in our country simply refuse to believe it happened. Were he to gain office again, why on earth would anyone ever expect him to leave willingly?
This means that when Democrats and others talk about protecting democracy against Trump and the GOP, they are effectively talking about two related, but distinct, anti-democratic threats. On the one hand, the American majority faces a combination of arguably undemocratic institutions like the Senate (which awards disproportionate power to low-population, generally rural states that hew increasingly to the GOP) and actively malevolent Republican measures, such as voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts meant to dilute and deny Democratic votes, which in turn stymy the ability of a democratic majority to rule in the way it wants. On the other hand, should a second Trump presidency occur, democracy would very likely experience an extinction-level event that would make the purging of voter rolls in Florida look like a mere trifle by comparison.
The first is an agonizing and unjust suppression of democratic mechanisms that in turn sabotages a whole host of majority preferences in favor of minority views; the other encompasses but also far outreaches that first danger, involving the very likely threat of grotesque injustice (including the jailing and even murder of political opponents), other gross humans rights abuses against citizens and non-citizens alike (concentration camps for undocumented immigrants, summary execution for shoplifters), and the wholesale deployment of violence to maintain political power. With the extreme threat posed by Trump, in other words, the loss of democracy inevitably means the loss of freedom, of physical safety, and of material well-being (as the suspension of the rule of law would likely result in rapidly accelerated economic inequality as the richest among us engaged in ever more unrestrained, predatory behavior). It is this larger concept of democracy — one that encompasses freedom, security, and the basic assumptions of quotidian existence in the U.S. — that Democrats and others need to foreground when they talk about the enormous threats we face. (And if you don’t want to take my word for the very real possibilities and dangers of a de facto Trump dictatorship, I strongly urge you to read this recent Robert Kagan essay on this very topic and see if it doesn’t leave you chilled to the bone.)
The danger posed by Trump and his allies (including, we need to add, many GOP elected officials who, for purposes of analytical simplicity I’ve (generously, temporarily, and grudgingly) hived off until now into a somewhat less malevolent camp) should rightly be an impetus to Democrats and others to talk about how our current democracy undergirds the fabric of our daily lives and expectations — a discussion distinct from specific measures to protect it, and from the vague democracy talk that Bacon criticizes. Such a stark threat requires a frank and honest discussion of the freedoms, rights, and opportunities that even our imperfect democracy affords most of us — a panoply of daily facts that we all take for granted, and that would be obliterated if Trump returned to power and enacted his dreams of a de facto dictatorship (likely abetted by a complaisant Republican congress, as Brian Beutler recently noted).
This would be a necessarily expansive discussion that takes democracy as a keystone and a starting point, but would also entail talking about the freedom, the solidarity, the security, and the ideals of equality that a democratic government enables. With our democracy gone, little else that is accepted as baseline for our society would remain in any stable or meaningful sense. With Donald Trump’s team already contemplating invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with any demonstrations against his election, it’s not going too far to extrapolate that his would be an administration comfortable with directing its loyalists in the military and local police forces to dispense frontier justice to identified enemies, and to intimidate other Americans to keep in line. Lest you think I overstate the president’s violent lunacy, think again to his January 6 incitement of militants, right-wing extremists, and Christian nationalists to physically attack the U.S. Capitol and send America’s legislators fleeing for their lives. Anyone who believe this is a man who would hesitate to have his enemies killed is too naive to contribute meaningfully to discussions of current American politics.
But even if you might temporarily convince yourself into thinking that Trump’s self-restraint would keep him from unleashing violence on those he considers “vermin,” then you might stop to consider what the suspension, or even deep erosion, of the rule of law might mean for our collective existence. Nothing and no one could be relied on — not the deed that says you own your house, not the statute that says your employer can’t fire you because of your religion, not the understanding that a newspaper can publish the news without government agents showing up to shut down its printing press (or internet server), not the premise that you can walk down the street without fear of being attacked by Trump-inspired and -pardoned white nationalist street thugs.
The very real possibility of the United States being plunged into an authoritarian nightmare by Trump and the GOP can be best illuminated by a direct, honest accounting by elected officials, members of the media, and others of how it would destroy the fabric of American life — our freedoms, our basic expectations of safety and security — that most of us take for granted. As part of doing so, Democrats and others must make an unabashed, affirmative case that attempts by a president or a party to nullify majority power and throw American society into chaos are an unforgivable threat naturally opposed by every reasonable citizen.
From this perspective, sweeping declarations of the primacy of democracy very much have their place — so long as they are joined with clear reminders that democracy is inseparable from the free society and security that most of us take for granted. Attention to the existential threat of GOP authoritarianism, and a public discussion of the free society that democracy makes possible, can in turn catalyze support for the concrete pro-democracy actions that will help protect us from this danger (rolling back gerrymandering, reforming the Senate, etc). Equally, such a discussion might galvanize a less tangible but equally important change: a collective solidarity against these unprecedented threats to our society posed by an extremist minority.
I want to be clear that I’m not saying Democrats should abandon the policy-level fight against the GOP, whether it be in the realm of economics, social justice, or the environment, in favor of talking all democracy, all the time. Neither am I saying that the Democrats should give a pass to GOP sabotage of democracy that doesn’t amount to full-on imposition of an authoritarian regime. However, talking about the big picture — the conjunction of democracy and freedom, of democracy and both physical and material security — in the context of the extreme threat posed by Donald Trump and the GOP provides a powerful narrative for rallying opposition to Republican erosion of the majority’s ability to wield power. Doing so might also provide a fresh perspective on policies that bear not just on democracy but on the nature of the free and secure society that most of us want (for instance, how restrictions on abortion eviscerate women’s freedom and equality, as well as undermine their security by leading to needless death and misery, and how this erosion of freedom is a direct consequence of a general degradation of democracy).
If Donald Trump is stupid and malign enough to openly signal his deranged dictatorial plans for a second term in office, then Democrats and others should be smart enough to use such unprecedented political evil to savage and otherwise demolish both him and the political party that provides Trump such a welcoming home. Engaging in a substantial public discussion about the nature of democracy and the world it makes possible is essential to delegitimizing the Republican Party in the eyes of the American majority — a delegitimization necessary not just for Democrats and democracy supporters to win in 2024, but to continue rolling back this authoritarian tide over the coming years.
As Trump secures the GOP presidential nomination and continues into general election mode, it is likely that the distinctions between the threat he poses versus the threat posed by the broader Republican Party will become all but meaningless. The GOP will doubtless close ranks around him, and in the name of party unity will either explicitly endorse, or tacitly endorse by their silence, his horrifying plans to remake American government and society in his own hateful image — even as the reward for his dominance is a host of policies pleasing to the far right and white Christian nationlists. As a defense against further authoritarian radicalization of the GOP, a Democratic narrative that links democracy together with mass belief in a free society may yet serve as a wedge — or even a sword — with which to take apart an emerging Republican consensus that is diametrically opposed to long-standing basics of American life and patriotism.