23 Comments

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

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

Expanding or “packing“ the court, which Professor Berman refers to, is playing by the rules. The rules, that is the Constitution, says Congress appoints the Supreme Court. There is no defined number of justices and the number of justices has varied over the last two centuries. Putting more justices on the Supreme Court is precisely playing by the rules.

Expand full comment

With just a twist or two of fate, Bernie Sanders could have eked out a narrow victory over Jeb Bush. We have two parties struggling with populism, and right now the Democrats are doing a marginally better job handling it.

Expand full comment

When the left doesn't like the results of democracy, they label it "populism."

Expand full comment

Perhaps this noble battle for American democracy is already lost. Social trust among cultural tribes is utterly broken. And pervasive media entities are intent on keeping it so. As a life-long member of the sensible center -- and one who normally avoids catastrophic thinking -- that's a distrubing thought. But having once thought it, I then thought this: So what? Break the country up. Here's a snapshot of how it could be done. Form a Continental Congress. Agree on basic human rights, free markets, complete freedom of movement across borders, easy immigration. Each of the 50 states then holds a referendum, with say 55-60% needed to join the Blue or Red country. Failing that, you're in the Purple country. At any time a state can hold another referendum to leave their country and join another. On the material surface of life, where we mostly live, little would change. In the political and cultural spheres, my guess is the Blue and Red would do poorly. Their elites would be exposed as fools. Over time, a sensible center would emerge and grow the Purple. Thoughts, anyone?

Expand full comment

Where to begin ? Any discussion of defending democracy must begin and end with electoral integrity and civics education. The seminal 2004 Carter Baker report (prepared after 2000 election) was implemented in Florida and a few other jurisdictions, but dropped like a hot potato in other areas, particularly Democratic jurisdictions intent on pursuing the most marginal of practices, like no ID mail in ballots and no limit harvesting. Not a single country in the world - not one - accepts these kinds of risks, which far outweigh any benefits. The refusal of modern hyper-partisans to address concerns is a major source of dysfunction in our political system. Arguments against these necessary guarantees installed in every modern democracy from South Africa to India to Denmark are rarely made in good faith.

Expand full comment

Thank you for a well written piece

Expand full comment