These are admirable feelings and initiatives. But “democracy” is becoming a buzzword. It is invoked too often and imprecisely, primarily as a synonym for “good” or “things I agree with.” We need less general talk about “saving democracy” and more about the specific policies and principles we want to defend and promote.
Although democracy has been debated for centuries, Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sparked renewed interest in the issue. Debates about the state of democracy in America and around the world intensified significantly after Trump’s election and remained prominent even after he left office. That makes sense. Trump’s 2016 campaign suggested he wouldn’t live up to traditional norms of democratic government — like admitting defeat and leaving office without incident after losing an election — and that turned out to be true. Since Trump remains on the political scene (and could become president again), it is entirely appropriate to continue talking about democracy.
But our discussions about democracy go far beyond Trump. Activists and even some experts increasingly describe the Electoral College, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are either undemocratic institutions or at least obstacles to the democratization of the United States. Practices that long predate Trump, such as gerrymandering and billionaires spend a lot to finance campaigns and buy media organizations, are presented as threats to democracy. So there are many republican politicians alongside the former president and conservative ideologies like Christian nationalism.
I myself have been part of this trend. I now use the terms “democratic” and “anti-democratic” much more than I did before Trump. I don’t think we’ve been wrong to use these terms so often over the past eight years. And I firmly reject the idea that this talk of democracy is wrong simply because it has led to more criticism of Republicans than Democrats. Political violencerejection of election results and other extreme behavior all come more from the right than the left.
But I fear that we now have too much vague talk about democracy. Part of the problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of democracy. It’s fair to say that democratic nations generally have regular elections in which most adults can participate, basic individual rights such as freedom of speech, and a general philosophy that political power ultimately rests with the public.
This leaves a lot of things undefined. For example, black Americans faced many obstacles in exercising their voting and political rights before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Does this mean the United States has only been a democracy for 58 years? Is it undemocratic for a candidate to be elected president after winning the Electoral College count if he or she lost the popular vote?
If “democracy” is not clearly defined, what should we do? A useful approach is to define democracy more precisely. Many experts view democracy as a continuum, not a binary system. So no question: “Will America continue to be a democracy?” but rather: “Is America becoming more or less democratic?” Freedom House, which studies governments around the world, has a list of standards by which it evaluates countries. It still classifies the United States as “free” (not “partly free” or “not free”), but the insurrection of January 6, 2021and other events caused the organization to lower the United States’ freedom score from 89 in 2017 (on a 100-point scale) to 83 today.
Thomas Zimmer, a professor of history at Georgetown University, argues that what America is really debating – and has been throughout its history – is: “How much democracy and for whom?“Our tensions aren’t really about whether to have elections, but about whether black people in past eras and transgender people today should have the same rights as others.
Two prominent voices in today’s debates about democracy, Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, argue in their new book: “Tyranny of the minority» let “be America it will be a multiracial democracy or else it won’t be a democracy at all.” “Multiracial” is an important modifier; neither the United States before 1965 nor many democracies in the world today have shared political power among more than one ethnic or racial group.
I often take this approach: more fluid and nuanced discussions about democracy. But I’m starting to think people should just express their real goals instead of invoking the term “democracy.”
For example, I want greater majority rule. The United States should elect its presidents by popular vote, not the Electoral College. The Senate should get rid of the filibuster, which allows lawmakers representing a minority of Americans to routinely thwart the views of the majority.
I want an electoral system that increases voter power and options. The move to proportional representation would likely result in the creation of more political parties. Limiting gerrymandering would make our votes more meaningful.
I want a political media that prioritizes truth and accuracy over bipartisan neutrality. I also want a press that openly defends certain principles, like trying to make voting easier, not harder.
I want more economic and political equality. We should raise taxes on the super-rich because no one needs a billion dollars and also because such wealth inevitably ends up distorting politics, like Elon Musk buying Twitter and making the platform harder to use .
And to be specific about what I don’t want, the problem with Trump is that, as president, he tried to prevent independent investigations of himself while pushing for investigations of his political rivals and refused to admit his electoral defeat and instead attempted to overturn the results. And, if elected to a second term, he would fire nonpartisan government officials and replace them with people who are loyal to Him.
The list of reforms and policies I favor are the kinds of things that democracy experts say make America “more democratic.” And Trump’s behavior, they would say, is “undemocratic.”
I do not disagree with this framing. But I fear that many in the anti-Trump camp will invoke “democracy” because the term automatically positions them as right and their political rivals as wrong. This shifts the debate from real-world policies and practices to an abstract and widely supported ideal (democracy).
It’s best to be very specific about the policies and principles we support and oppose. For example, I’m generally wary of banning any type of information. But the problem with recent Republican attempts to ban books is not that they are “undemocratic”; it’s that they’re trying to prevent people from learning morally right, evidence-based concepts. Many Republican lawmakers don’t want children to learn that racism is often systemic, not just individualized bias, or that some people don’t feel comfortable living according to the sex they were assigned at birth. .
We should discuss these ideas and determine whether it is appropriate to limit their spread, without relying on a generalized conversation about democracy.
Moving from generalities about “democracy” to specifics allows for a more honest debate. It’s also probably a better political strategy. It’s unclear whether voters care about democracy in the abstract. But election results this year and in recent years suggest that Americans are strongly opposed to ban books, limit abortion And deny the election results.
If Trump-aligned Republicans take control of the presidency and both houses of Congress next year, it could be said that they would end American democracy as we know it. But it’s simpler and probably more effective to simply say that they will end America as we know it – and therefore must be stopped.
