Sen. Mike Lee’s tweets in opposition to “democracy,” defined

It’s not typically that you simply see a US senator declare that “we’re not a democracy,” not to mention to color that as a great factor. But that’s precisely what Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) did in a pair of tweets spanning Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, arguing that “democracy isn’t the target; liberty, peace, and prospefity [sic] are.”

“We wish the human situation to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that,” Lee writes.

This may occasionally sound like an endorsement of authoritarianism, and there’s purpose to assume it really is. However understanding Lee’s feedback on their very own phrases requires just a little extra charity — and subtlety.

On the American proper, there’s a lengthy custom of arguing that the USA is a “republic, not a democracy,” a distinction its proponents hint again to the founders. It facilities not on whether or not a nation holds aggressive elections however the extent to which it places constraints on majorities from limiting the rights of minorities. Democracies, on this definition, enable for untrammeled majority rule; republics put in place guidelines that forestall legislators from utilizing their energy in tyrannical methods (assume the Invoice of Rights).

Conn Carroll, Lee’s spokesperson, framed the tweets in that custom in an announcement, saying that latest Democratic proposals to reform America’s political establishments quantity to the dangerous type of “democracy” the founders warned about.

“At a time when Democrats need to pack the Court docket, eradicate the Electoral School, and switch the Senate into the Home, it is rather good that Individuals are re-reading The Federalist Papers to rediscover why the founders put these particular republican checks on democratic ardour into the Structure,” he informed me in an electronic mail.

The issue is that the underlying studying of early American paperwork is sort of mistaken. When the founders inveighed in opposition to “democracy,” they had been warning in opposition to one thing very totally different — direct democracy fairly than the election of representatives — that isn’t actually on the desk in trendy America.

The spin supplied by Lee and others on the correct, traditionally talking, originated as arguments for curbing democracy within the strange sense of the phrase — the power of majorities to enact common insurance policies (that conservatives disapproved of). Warning in opposition to “the tyranny of the bulk” serves as a justification for minority rule.

It could additionally function justification for one thing worse. At a time when President Trump is looking for the prosecution of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, whereas each he and Vice President Mike Pence refuse to decide to a peaceable switch of energy, this sort of speak isn’t only a innocent dispute over political principle.

It’s mental scaffolding for a constitutional catastrophe.

The republic versus democracy distinction, briefly defined

It’s true that the founders had been deeply involved about tyranny of the bulk — the passions of the various resulting in a trampling on the rights of the view. It’s additionally true that they had been deeply skeptical about one thing they known as “democracy.”

“Democracy by no means lasts lengthy,” John Adams wrote in 1814. “It quickly wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There by no means was a Democracy But, that didn’t commit suicide.”

However once they discuss “democracy,” they don’t imply the idea as we ordinarily perceive it. Because the New York Instances’s Jamelle Bouie exhibits in a wonderful 2019 column, the founders had been really preoccupied by democracy as practiced in historical Athens, a society the place all grownup male residents voted on coverage measures fairly than electing representatives to do the voting for them:

When James Madison critiqued “democracy” in Federalist No. 10, he meant the Athenian type: “a society consisting of a small variety of residents, who assemble and administer the federal government in particular person.” This he contrasted with a “republic” or “a authorities by which the scheme of illustration takes place.” Likewise, in a 1788 speech to the New York ratification conference, Alexander Hamilton disavowed “the traditional democracies by which the individuals themselves deliberated.” They “by no means possessed one good characteristic of presidency,” he stated. “Their very character was tyranny; their determine deformity.”

Briefly, what we name “consultant democracy” as we speak — a system of presidency the place individuals elect leaders to make coverage — is what the founders known as a “republic.” Their assaults on “democracy” within the Athenian sense doesn’t imply that America shouldn’t be a democracy within the modern sense.

These days, the phrases “democracy” and “republic” usually consult with totally different sorts of issues in comparative political science. “Democracy” contrasts with “authoritarianism,” referring as to whether the top of presidency (who makes coverage) is chosen in free and truthful elections. “Republic” contrasts with “monarchy,” referring as to whether the top of state (the symbolic chief of the nation) comes from a hereditary line of succession.

Alexei Druzhnin/Sputnik/AFP/Getty Pictures

You’ll be able to have democratic republics like the USA, the place the elected president is each head of presidency and head of state. You’ll be able to have democratic monarchies, like the UK, the place the elected prime minister is the top of presidency whereas the monarch is head of state. You’ll be able to have authoritarian republics, like Russia, and authoritarian monarchies, like Saudi Arabia.

Lee’s definition of “democracy” is out of step with each the best way the founders used the time period and the best way most political observers use it as we speak. It’s an idiosyncratic definition discovered nearly completely amongst American conservatives — in a manner that reveals some deeper issues within the trendy conservative undertaking.

Why Lee’s anti-“democracy” tweets matter

A few of the earliest contrasts between “democracy” and “republic” in Lee’s sense, based on Cornell historian Lawrence Glickman, got here from conservative opponents of the New Deal. On the time, President Roosevelt bought his insurance policies — each home and overseas — as a way of defending and enhancing American democracy. A few of his opponents, who noticed the president’s redistributive agenda as a type of incipient authoritarianism, used the “republic versus democracy” distinction as a counter.

“There isn’t any surer method to destroy our authorities than to champion laws below the guise of democracy, which piece by piece undermines the checks and balances of our republic,” anti-New Seller H.W. Prentis Jr. wrote in 1939.

The John Birch Society, a radical faction within the postwar conservative motion, helped popularize the “republic versus democracy” distinction within the 1950s and ’60s. In accordance with Nicole Hemmer, a historian of the conservative motion at Columbia College, the concept actually took off on the correct through the conservative battle in opposition to civil rights laws and Supreme Court docket rulings increasing the franchise.

“It goes again to the ‘republic, not a democracy’ chants from the 1964 [Republican] conference,” she tells me. “Conservatives rejected the one-person-one-vote commonplace of the Warren Court docket, a set of arguments deeply entangled with their opposition to the Black civil rights motion.”

John T Bledsoe/PhotoQuest/Getty Pictures

That is the important thing transfer, the second by which a seemingly innocuous terminological dispute really takes on actual stakes. It reveals how trendy conservatism has lengthy had a built-in mental justification for ruling with out common assist.

The Birch-style “republic, not a democracy” argument permits Republicans to solid strikes to develop democratic alternatives and make authorities conscious of common assist for explicit insurance policies — abolishing the Electoral School and filibuster, per Lee’s spokesperson — as examples of the dangerous type of “democracy,” of giving an excessive amount of energy to the individuals and thus enabling oppression. Instruments that enable for minority rule, for Republicans to control even when majorities of voters reject them, are transmuted into options of our good “republic.”

Clearly, there are circumstances by which counter-majoritarian establishments are good and justified — the First Modification, for instance, protects freedom of speech and faith in opposition to majorities that may fairly simply flip in opposition to them. One of the vital tough questions in political philosophy, endlessly debated in tutorial journals, is how societies ought to navigate between the democratic precept that majorities rule and the liberal precept that sure rights might by no means be permissibly violated.

However the custom Lee is working out of goes additional than that. It casts doubt on probably the most primary democratic precept: that the individuals who win the general public’s assist ought to rightly govern. It takes such an excessive place on what ought to be out of bounds that it may be used to argue that Democrats with the ability to implement their coverage agenda is itself a type of tyranny.

“As early because the late 1980s/early 1990s, Pat Buchanan is spearheading a sharper suspicion of democracy that may turn into more and more influential on the correct,” Hemmer says. “It comes and goes — clearly, the neocons appreciated the rhetoric of democracy — however it’s fairly clear that the GOP has come to embrace minoritarian and anti-democratic politics.”

Within the context of the 2020 election, the anti-democratic pressure embodied by Lee’s rhetoric takes on significantly severe significance.

President Trump has been clear that he believes any Biden win shall be fraudulent; he has refused to decide to accepting the outcomes of the election and even agreeing to a peaceable transition of energy. The Republican Social gathering as a complete has largely aided and abetted this method, most notably by insisting on the fiction of large voter fraud and enacting insurance policies on the state stage that make it more durable for Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote.

The concept that majority rule is intrinsically oppressive is essentially an embrace of anti-democracy: an argument that an enlightened few, that means Republican supporters, ought to be capable to make selections for the remainder of us. If the election is shut, and Trump makes a severe play to steal it, Lee’s “we’re not a democracy” argument gives a ready-made justification for techniques that quantity to a type of authorized coup.

Assist preserve Vox free for all

Tens of millions flip to Vox every month to know what’s occurring within the information, from the coronavirus disaster to a racial reckoning to what’s, fairly presumably, probably the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has by no means been extra important than it’s on this second: to empower you thru understanding. However our distinctive model of explanatory journalism takes sources. Even when the economic system and the information promoting market recovers, your assist shall be a crucial a part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If in case you have already contributed, thanks. If you happen to haven’t, please contemplate serving to everybody make sense of an more and more chaotic world: Contribute as we speak from as little as $3.