Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chris Nathan's avatar

Although the intent is admirable, this article is sorely lacking in rigor. In the first paragraph Sheri Berman calls the iconic expression of democracy - electing your guy - a “threat to democracy.” In the second paragraph she calls the equally iconic expression of democracy - elected representatives representing their constituents' interests - a threat to democracy because those representatives “prioritized the advancement of favored policies.” A sentence later she condemns what most people would consider a fine example of democracy working as it needs to because the elected people “delivered on [those] priorities.” That’s how democracy is supposed to work, even when you personally disagree with the priorities in question.

Obviously the author, a professor of political science at Barnard, doesn’t really object to those basic expressions of a functioning democratic political system. What she does object to is the weakening of popular and widespread support for the “norms and institutions” which make functioning democratic political system possible. Her prime example is the Weimar Republic, an authentically democratic system which collapsed in 1933 because it lacked the norms and institutions to defend itself. Its own people - including many of its leaders - considered it illegitimate.

We don’t want that happening here. We are not going to keep our constitutional democracy if its prime actors steadily undermine its legitimacy. I admire Ms. Berman for the even handed criticism of her own party. Ill-advised modifications to our institutions for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals (packing the courts, firing the Senate parliamentarian, ending the filibuster) will absolutely reduce the essential legitimacy on which our system depends. I would admire Ms. Berman even more if she would specify rather than simply insinuate the institutional modifications which she claims her opponents have made. “They elected a jerk” doesn’t count. Healthy democracies - including ours - can elect and unelect “disrespectful” people. Maybe we even need one now and then, but that’s not the same as reordering the system itself. A case may be made that both sides of the aisle are up to the same thing, but the author has not made it.

Expand full comment
Sinchan's avatar

Republicans went along with Trump because they liked his lowering of environmental standards? This is probably partly true, but we can also be a bit more thoughtful/less partisan. The kind of environmental standards that the Left wants is resisted by many because they believe it would cost jobs in their communities and threaten their economic future. Can we acknowledge that people on the other side have some legitimate concerns, even as we disagree with their proposed policies?

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts