Thanks for this Sahil. It helped me be more careful about my own language when thinking about how not to morph my opinions into what is pro-democracy and what is not.
This group is helping me realize the importance of minority rights, norms, and institutions in a democracy. For example, President Obama recently said the filibuster was a "Jim Crow relic," in contradiction to his earlier opinion on the matter. That was disappointing to me to see him switch his opinion just as his own side is poised to gain power. Power is so seductive to individuals, and that is why we need norms and institutions to help tamp down that temptation.
I would love to see a piece here, or even a series of pieces, thinking deeply about the filibuster. It will most likely be a pressing question for our democracy soon.
Meh. The Senate is profoundly anti-democratic even without the filibuster. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton warned against requiring supermajorities for routine legislation because they led to gridlock in the period between the American revolution and the Constitution.
It was very rarely used until Clinton came into office, at which point it started rising every year to the point that with Obama there were twice as many as in the previous administration. Also, in 1970 Robert Byrd basically removed the rule that to filibuster you have to... actually filibuster! It used to be that a filibuster would stop all Senate business while someone stood there for hours reading the phone book. Now there is a two-track system were the mere threat of filibuster is enough to halt passage of a bill, but other Senate business can continue.
And now because of it, neither party really gets to enact their agenda. I'd rather see agendas implemented so we can judge parties by their results instead of their complaints about obstruction.
I'm not a fan of this "the Senate is anti-democratic" talking point. It's wrong on multiple counts.
#1 - The Senate represents the votes of the States as members of the United States. Each State gets 2 votes, so all states are represented equally. How is this (in a vacuum) undemocratic?
#2 - It ignores the fact that the Senate is only HALF of the Legislative branch. Now, if you want to talk about the House being "anti-democratic", I'm all ears. Representation in the House is far more skewed with a frozen number of Representatives and each member of the House not representing the same number of voters.
#3 - The United States isn't a democracy. It's a Federal Republic.
I'm with you on judging parties by their results rather than their obstruction.
1) Just because something is in the Constitution does not mean it's democratic. 2) the Senate does not just impact the Senate. It plays a very important role in the Electoral College.
I agree about the number of representatives issue.
I second that. A series of arguments for how to best move democracy forward in the United State. Examine the filibuster, electoral college, admission of additional states, voting rights laws, campaign finance, dark money and political free speech, etc. We agree on the problems. This is the debate we need to have to move towards solutions.
If we wish to criticize Orban (which we absolutely should) it's for Liberal, rather than Democratic reasons and that's more than solid ground as i see it. The policies in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere that we liberals wish to criticize are morally and politically wrong because of their deviance from liberal, rather than democratic values. We shouldn't want a non-liberal or illiberal democracy, for precisely the reasons that political philosophers have outlined since antiquity.
It's possible for a regime to be either Liberal or Democratic independent of the other. Political liberals committed to the fundamental tenets of liberalism as an abstract philosophical project need not necessarily want to see those values implemented within the framework of democratic governance. Some form of benevolent technocracy, for example, could conceivably implement liberal protections of rights and freedoms while citizens live their lives free from the burden of governing.
Liberalism and democracy are (and always will be) in profound tension with one another. Liberalism strives to protect the conscientious rights and freedoms of all, but especially minority groups, since their inalienable rights cannot be devalued by the happenstance of finding themselves in the minority. Democracy, on the other hand, not only promises an open, participatory, and responsive political regime, but it also ascribes a moral power to the will of the majority that can easily descend into the tyranny of the majority.
For sure, Orban is likely stifling the vote, and elections in Hungary are far from free and fair, but he did rise to power on a clear majoritarian mandate. Overall, leaders such as Orban are less so compromising the democratic character of their regimes (democracy, of course, is an elastic term and can be applied in a variety of ways without suffering from conceptual stretching) than they are removing or undoing the liberal character of their democratic regimes.
When Orban proclaims himself the progenitor of "Illiberal democracy" he's neither wrong nor necessarily undoing at least part of the democratic character of his government. In many ways this illiberal version of democracy is reflective of the Classical fears associated with the regime type, and it was the incremental addition of Liberal political principles that prevented modern western democracies from falling into the age-old trap.
Thanks for writing this great piece Sahil. Never thought about it from this perspective and it will now be an important aspect in how I view the discussions surrounding budding autocrats. Perhaps this is also another example of how a contamination can happen that makes all the politics of budding autocrats seem undemocratic.
Good piece, thanks. Linguistic vagueness and slippage is an occupational hazard in activism, particularly on the left; rigor and specificity are hard lessons for many to learn. I would be curious to hear from the community if there are ideas for helping to drive better language, and clearer discourse, across the spectrum.
One word that is overused is "fascism." I would like to see an article that discusses what are the steps along the road to fascism and how to recognize specific actions that lead to it. Also, is this something only on the right? If so, then what words should we use for Lenin's/Stalin's authoritarianism?
Here's an image of the early warning signs of fascism i've seen thrown around online that I believe used to be in the holocaust museum. The fine print says these signs began to show themselves during the Bush/Cheney admin.
I don't think there's a step by step authoritarian/fascist manual but if you're interested in learning more about fascism and authoritarian states there are plenty of scholars who have written articles on their parallels with modern America and why it looks problematic.
Great idea! David Runciman riffs on this in his book How Democracy Ends. He thinks that Western democracies are too different— too affluent, too elderly, and too networked—than they were pre-WW2 to fall into fascism again. He takes issue with people like Timothy Snyder and Madeline Albright who spread the warning signs for that kind of thing, and argues that fascism is a 'young man's game.' He isn't complacent about the potential for disaster of different kinds, but he raises some interesting points on the dangers of historical parallels with slippy language.
Sahil, remembering that anti-liberal does not mean anti-democratic is something I've been continually reminding myself of as a cure to that paranoia you mentioned.
Though what I continue to question my conservative friends on is, "At what point can/do we recognize we are approaching a true fascist point of no return?" There are plenty of stories from 1920s and 30s Germany or Spain as Hitler and Franco rose to power. Many of those stories are of liberals showing the same "paranoia" you mentioned, as well as many intellectuals and conservatives dismissing the warning signs every step of the way. Your anecdotes of conservative praise for Hungary's current gov't is another perfect example, as are America's Voter suppression gerrymandering efforts of the last 20 years and the Senate's enabling of Trump's constitutional violations.
So my question for you, with an abundance of evidence that the Trump admin is not merely a conservative worldview that happens to skew illiberal, where do you see the value of painting liberals as alarmists? I mean, even those I considered alarmists in early 2017 have been proven right. I'm open to a reframe on this if you have one.
Where I think we have common ground, is that I continue to check my own biases to recognize when those on the left begin to promote illiberal ideas in the name of liberalism.
Could we get some clarity on what the changed electoral rules are referred to in the para below? I followed the links and didn't emerge clear and I think it's fairly key to the argument.
"The hostile takeover of Index was only the latest step in a long-running assault on Hungarian democracy. Since coming to power in 2010, Orbán has turned Hungary’s state broadcaster into a propaganda machine, eroded the independence of the judicial system, forced a leading university out of the country, and changed the electoral rules to make it virtually impossible for the opposition to win power."
There's a lot to take apart here, but some of the major differences between the previous and current electoral system are: (1) there is now just one round of voting instead of two; (2) there are no turnout requirements; (3) for the 106 constituency seats, whoever wins the most votes wins the Parliament seat; there are also 93 party-list seats awarded proportionally according to the votes. Under the previous system, the constituency seats as well as the party-list seats were awarded proportionally. There are many other differences, and maybe I've missed some of the important ones. (I live and teach in Hungary but am in no way an expert on Hungarian politics.) But clearly the current system favors the largest party (in this case Fidesz). To have a chance of posing a serious challenge, the opposition would need to unite and gain support.
P.S. Local elections are a somewhat different matter. Last October, Budapest elected a liberal mayor, Gergely Karácsony (an energetic and inspired leader, from what I have seen so far). A few other cities elected liberal mayors as well.
Thank you for this piece, which makes an important distinction between illiberal and anti-democratic governments. A factual correction: the Hungarian parliament voted in June to end its special emergency powers; these powers officially expired at midnight on June 17. Now, many are concerned about a new health emergency law that has been approved in its place. But in any case it is different from the emergency powers that the government assumed in March. From everything that I can see, elections will proceed on schedule (the next general elections will be in 2022).
It is worth asking why Donald Trump's appaling threat to delay the elections does not seem (yet) to have legs. It is not because of the scruples of DT. Institutions in the US are still strong enough to withstand this anti-democratic gambit. Partisan undermining of these institutions benefits no one. Threats of court-packing by the left are a good example.
I take your point and think there is some truth here. At the same time I don't believe that legislation reflecting the will of the people is as likely to make it to the ballot as legislation favoring a minority of powerful, well-funded interests. Thus, the legislative process (to me) doesn't seem as democratic as it should be either. Both are imperfect.
This isn't a refutation of the argument being made (a valid argument in my opinion). Garland's lack of a up or down vote is NOT a good reason to change the court to guarantee the outcome, it's just an excuse.
You're right, the number of Justices is not set. And if the Democrats take over and pack the court, don't you think the next time Republicans have the chance they'll just pack it MORE? And if they do that it'll be the exact people now cheering on the packing that will complain the loudest.
It'd be great if everyone remembered that two wrongs don't make a right, but in fact only compounds the problem.
Thanks Sahil, this is a good reminder to keep our definitions straight when criticizing these government policies.
Thanks for this Sahil. It helped me be more careful about my own language when thinking about how not to morph my opinions into what is pro-democracy and what is not.
This group is helping me realize the importance of minority rights, norms, and institutions in a democracy. For example, President Obama recently said the filibuster was a "Jim Crow relic," in contradiction to his earlier opinion on the matter. That was disappointing to me to see him switch his opinion just as his own side is poised to gain power. Power is so seductive to individuals, and that is why we need norms and institutions to help tamp down that temptation.
I would love to see a piece here, or even a series of pieces, thinking deeply about the filibuster. It will most likely be a pressing question for our democracy soon.
Meh. The Senate is profoundly anti-democratic even without the filibuster. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton warned against requiring supermajorities for routine legislation because they led to gridlock in the period between the American revolution and the Constitution.
It was very rarely used until Clinton came into office, at which point it started rising every year to the point that with Obama there were twice as many as in the previous administration. Also, in 1970 Robert Byrd basically removed the rule that to filibuster you have to... actually filibuster! It used to be that a filibuster would stop all Senate business while someone stood there for hours reading the phone book. Now there is a two-track system were the mere threat of filibuster is enough to halt passage of a bill, but other Senate business can continue.
And now because of it, neither party really gets to enact their agenda. I'd rather see agendas implemented so we can judge parties by their results instead of their complaints about obstruction.
I'm not a fan of this "the Senate is anti-democratic" talking point. It's wrong on multiple counts.
#1 - The Senate represents the votes of the States as members of the United States. Each State gets 2 votes, so all states are represented equally. How is this (in a vacuum) undemocratic?
#2 - It ignores the fact that the Senate is only HALF of the Legislative branch. Now, if you want to talk about the House being "anti-democratic", I'm all ears. Representation in the House is far more skewed with a frozen number of Representatives and each member of the House not representing the same number of voters.
#3 - The United States isn't a democracy. It's a Federal Republic.
I'm with you on judging parties by their results rather than their obstruction.
1) Just because something is in the Constitution does not mean it's democratic. 2) the Senate does not just impact the Senate. It plays a very important role in the Electoral College.
I agree about the number of representatives issue.
I second that. A series of arguments for how to best move democracy forward in the United State. Examine the filibuster, electoral college, admission of additional states, voting rights laws, campaign finance, dark money and political free speech, etc. We agree on the problems. This is the debate we need to have to move towards solutions.
If we wish to criticize Orban (which we absolutely should) it's for Liberal, rather than Democratic reasons and that's more than solid ground as i see it. The policies in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere that we liberals wish to criticize are morally and politically wrong because of their deviance from liberal, rather than democratic values. We shouldn't want a non-liberal or illiberal democracy, for precisely the reasons that political philosophers have outlined since antiquity.
It's possible for a regime to be either Liberal or Democratic independent of the other. Political liberals committed to the fundamental tenets of liberalism as an abstract philosophical project need not necessarily want to see those values implemented within the framework of democratic governance. Some form of benevolent technocracy, for example, could conceivably implement liberal protections of rights and freedoms while citizens live their lives free from the burden of governing.
Liberalism and democracy are (and always will be) in profound tension with one another. Liberalism strives to protect the conscientious rights and freedoms of all, but especially minority groups, since their inalienable rights cannot be devalued by the happenstance of finding themselves in the minority. Democracy, on the other hand, not only promises an open, participatory, and responsive political regime, but it also ascribes a moral power to the will of the majority that can easily descend into the tyranny of the majority.
For sure, Orban is likely stifling the vote, and elections in Hungary are far from free and fair, but he did rise to power on a clear majoritarian mandate. Overall, leaders such as Orban are less so compromising the democratic character of their regimes (democracy, of course, is an elastic term and can be applied in a variety of ways without suffering from conceptual stretching) than they are removing or undoing the liberal character of their democratic regimes.
When Orban proclaims himself the progenitor of "Illiberal democracy" he's neither wrong nor necessarily undoing at least part of the democratic character of his government. In many ways this illiberal version of democracy is reflective of the Classical fears associated with the regime type, and it was the incremental addition of Liberal political principles that prevented modern western democracies from falling into the age-old trap.
Thanks for writing this great piece Sahil. Never thought about it from this perspective and it will now be an important aspect in how I view the discussions surrounding budding autocrats. Perhaps this is also another example of how a contamination can happen that makes all the politics of budding autocrats seem undemocratic.
Thanks, Frederik! I think that's definitely the case. These aren't easy lines to draw.
Good piece, thanks. Linguistic vagueness and slippage is an occupational hazard in activism, particularly on the left; rigor and specificity are hard lessons for many to learn. I would be curious to hear from the community if there are ideas for helping to drive better language, and clearer discourse, across the spectrum.
One word that is overused is "fascism." I would like to see an article that discusses what are the steps along the road to fascism and how to recognize specific actions that lead to it. Also, is this something only on the right? If so, then what words should we use for Lenin's/Stalin's authoritarianism?
Here's an image of the early warning signs of fascism i've seen thrown around online that I believe used to be in the holocaust museum. The fine print says these signs began to show themselves during the Bush/Cheney admin.
https://twitter.com/dhlovelife/status/1287250983043698688?s=20
I don't think there's a step by step authoritarian/fascist manual but if you're interested in learning more about fascism and authoritarian states there are plenty of scholars who have written articles on their parallels with modern America and why it looks problematic.
Great idea! David Runciman riffs on this in his book How Democracy Ends. He thinks that Western democracies are too different— too affluent, too elderly, and too networked—than they were pre-WW2 to fall into fascism again. He takes issue with people like Timothy Snyder and Madeline Albright who spread the warning signs for that kind of thing, and argues that fascism is a 'young man's game.' He isn't complacent about the potential for disaster of different kinds, but he raises some interesting points on the dangers of historical parallels with slippy language.
Sahil, remembering that anti-liberal does not mean anti-democratic is something I've been continually reminding myself of as a cure to that paranoia you mentioned.
Though what I continue to question my conservative friends on is, "At what point can/do we recognize we are approaching a true fascist point of no return?" There are plenty of stories from 1920s and 30s Germany or Spain as Hitler and Franco rose to power. Many of those stories are of liberals showing the same "paranoia" you mentioned, as well as many intellectuals and conservatives dismissing the warning signs every step of the way. Your anecdotes of conservative praise for Hungary's current gov't is another perfect example, as are America's Voter suppression gerrymandering efforts of the last 20 years and the Senate's enabling of Trump's constitutional violations.
So my question for you, with an abundance of evidence that the Trump admin is not merely a conservative worldview that happens to skew illiberal, where do you see the value of painting liberals as alarmists? I mean, even those I considered alarmists in early 2017 have been proven right. I'm open to a reframe on this if you have one.
Where I think we have common ground, is that I continue to check my own biases to recognize when those on the left begin to promote illiberal ideas in the name of liberalism.
Could we get some clarity on what the changed electoral rules are referred to in the para below? I followed the links and didn't emerge clear and I think it's fairly key to the argument.
"The hostile takeover of Index was only the latest step in a long-running assault on Hungarian democracy. Since coming to power in 2010, Orbán has turned Hungary’s state broadcaster into a propaganda machine, eroded the independence of the judicial system, forced a leading university out of the country, and changed the electoral rules to make it virtually impossible for the opposition to win power."
You can find some information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Hungary#The_voting_system_after_2012
There's a lot to take apart here, but some of the major differences between the previous and current electoral system are: (1) there is now just one round of voting instead of two; (2) there are no turnout requirements; (3) for the 106 constituency seats, whoever wins the most votes wins the Parliament seat; there are also 93 party-list seats awarded proportionally according to the votes. Under the previous system, the constituency seats as well as the party-list seats were awarded proportionally. There are many other differences, and maybe I've missed some of the important ones. (I live and teach in Hungary but am in no way an expert on Hungarian politics.) But clearly the current system favors the largest party (in this case Fidesz). To have a chance of posing a serious challenge, the opposition would need to unite and gain support.
P.S. Local elections are a somewhat different matter. Last October, Budapest elected a liberal mayor, Gergely Karácsony (an energetic and inspired leader, from what I have seen so far). A few other cities elected liberal mayors as well.
Thank you for this piece, which makes an important distinction between illiberal and anti-democratic governments. A factual correction: the Hungarian parliament voted in June to end its special emergency powers; these powers officially expired at midnight on June 17. Now, many are concerned about a new health emergency law that has been approved in its place. But in any case it is different from the emergency powers that the government assumed in March. From everything that I can see, elections will proceed on schedule (the next general elections will be in 2022).
It is worth asking why Donald Trump's appaling threat to delay the elections does not seem (yet) to have legs. It is not because of the scruples of DT. Institutions in the US are still strong enough to withstand this anti-democratic gambit. Partisan undermining of these institutions benefits no one. Threats of court-packing by the left are a good example.
I take your point and think there is some truth here. At the same time I don't believe that legislation reflecting the will of the people is as likely to make it to the ballot as legislation favoring a minority of powerful, well-funded interests. Thus, the legislative process (to me) doesn't seem as democratic as it should be either. Both are imperfect.
This isn't a refutation of the argument being made (a valid argument in my opinion). Garland's lack of a up or down vote is NOT a good reason to change the court to guarantee the outcome, it's just an excuse.
You're right, the number of Justices is not set. And if the Democrats take over and pack the court, don't you think the next time Republicans have the chance they'll just pack it MORE? And if they do that it'll be the exact people now cheering on the packing that will complain the loudest.
It'd be great if everyone remembered that two wrongs don't make a right, but in fact only compounds the problem.
Also because McConnell blocked dozens of Obama lower-court judges.