Vote to preserve American democracy
Many voters are uninformed about the history and meaning of the political system that is fundamental to our constitutional republic and now under attack- liberal democracy.
Our form of government confers rights to the individual, is egalitarian and universal. This commentary will attempt to demystify liberal democracy by comparing it to other democratic alternatives.
American liberal democracy is defined as a representative republic in which the power of government is limited. Constitutionally-established norms and democratic institutions are followed to protect the rights of individuals. American liberal democracy is committed to the rule of law and places limitations on the power of elected officials by maintaining a separation of powers. The United Kingdom, Canada and Germany are also liberal democracies.
By contrast, a “direct democracy”, like ancient Greece or local government in Switzerland, is a form of government in which the laws and policies are made directly by voting citizens rather than by their elected representatives. Direct democracy might work in a small community, but is impractical in a large country.
The third democratic model, gaining acceptance around the world, is an “illiberal democracy.” This prototype is a representative democracy with few limits on the power of elected leaders. In modern illiberal democracies like Hungary and Egypt, “presidents for life” control most institutions, including elections, the press, and the courts. MAGA Republican leaders are attempting to replicate aspects of the illiberal model in America.
Since our nation’s founding, members of all political parties have generally agreed that liberal democracy is the basis of our constitutional republic. While there have always been political debates about ideas, policies and procedures, there has also been a consensus on the importance of our Constitution and democratic institutions. It is critical for voters to understand that, regardless of their different positions on policy, they have consistently sang from the same sheet of music when it comes to preserving our form of government.
In my study of liberal democracy, I have come to appreciate the writings of the journalist Adam Gopnik, who writes for The New Yorker. Gopnik provides a stirring defense of our democracy’s traditions and relevance. He is fair in his analysis and often very funny. His best-seller, “A Thousand Small Sanities,” and his reviews of the recent plethora of books on liberal democracy provided background for this commentary.
One of the most relevant of Gopnik’s points is explaining the difference between winning and losing a national election when both political parties are following that “same sheet of music,” and when one party seeks to tear up this long established plan in order to follow illiberal rules.
The differing political positions between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996, and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 were monumental, but all those candidates believed in liberal democracy. Carter, Dole and Romney all conceded defeat, their partisans were disappointed, but their parties accepted their losses. Our republic remained strong and open to competing views.
In 2024, for the second time in our history, liberal democracy is under direct attack. Gopnik tells us, “We may be months away from the greatest crisis the liberal state has known since the Civil War.” Gopnik has followed the MAGA movement and seen evidence that “patriotism is being replaced with nationalism, pluralism with tribalism, impersonal justice by the tyrannical whim of an autocrat who thinks only to punish his enemies and reward his hitmen.”
How is liberal democracy unique from other philosophical and religious ideas that have captured the attention of humankind? Gopnik explains, “You can’t really be a Marxist without believing that a revolution against the existing capitalist order would be a good thing. You can’t really be a Christian without believing that a dissident rabbi was crucified and later rose from the dead.”
Liberal democracy on the other hand is not about uniformity of belief. It is the framework for the operation of a democratic government. Within liberal democracy, political leaders with opposing views are free to stake out their positions to gain additional support.
The political scientists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson have pointed out in their landmark work, “The Narrow Corridor” that a liberal democracy has a set of rules and institutions designed to keep a democratic nation within a narrow corridor. Within this corridor, the government and the people are in constant conflict to maintain a free and fair nation. There are no absolute political, social, or religious principles that control liberal democracy. The only requirement is that there must be a democratic mechanism to permit the constant adjustment of policy as opinions shift over time.
Gopnik believes that to understand liberal democracy one needs to ignore the set dogma of political philosophers and consider real events. He suggests we study the history of the Obama administration on health care. Following extended debate among competing interests and all of the conflict, and criticism, America now has a patchwork, compromise solution for a just health-care system.
As this example shows, under democratic liberalism, “there are no ideal stories about the unimpeded pursuit of freedom and fairness, only compromised stories of adjustments and amendments.”
In this election, no other issue is as paramount as preserving American liberal democracy. After this goal is accomplished, there will be ample opportunities for disagreement and compromise on what the future should look like. Most importantly, all of our citizens will continue to sing from the same songbook that has always guided our nation.
Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.