Voters have a pretty low opinion of the media.
Only 19 percent of Americans have a favorable view of them, according to one recent NBC News poll. There are a lot of reasons for why that is the case, but one that shouldn’t be overlooked is that the media don’t hide their contempt for voters. Take this New York Times article—please—”Colombia and ‘Brexit’ Show Why a Referendum Can Be Dangerous“:
Oh, where to begin. First, it’s worth noting that the referendum on the Thai constitution was by no means a free and fair election. As such, it shouldn’t be lumped in with the referenda that were. The military junta that runs Thailand forbid opposing views from being expressed and only promised to hold elections after the referendum on the constitution cementing the military’s governing power was held (facts that were curiously acknowledged later in the same article). The whole episode was patently undemocratic, and to suggest that voters in Thailand “eroded their own rights” is misleading and irresponsible.
Second, the entire framing of this article is alternately risible and baffling. Isn’t the entire point of referendums that they give voters a chance to “upend their governments’ plans”? And, frankly, it’s just insulting that baked into the piece is the assumption that all of these referenda are “dangerous.” Is Brexit really dangerous? There are arguments that it will be economically damaging to the United Kingdom, to be sure. But a majority of U.K. voters seemed to think that lacking sovereign control of their immigration policy at a time when terror attacks are increasing across Europe is much more dangerous. And it’s hardly a ridiculous argument.
Third, the notion that this idea is given credence because of some abstract cabal of “political scientists” is interesting. Indeed, it is true that too much democracy can be a problem—or at least that was the opinion of political scientists such as Madison, Jefferson, Jay, Hamilton, et al. This is why America is a constitutional republic as opposed to a pure democracy. Alas, the history of America’s progressive movement over the last century or so has been to transcend constitutional restraints in favor of What the People Want. You can draw a straight line from progressives passing the 17th amendment and introducing state-level referenda in the early 20th century to current New York Times columnists arguing for the abolition of the Electoral College.
But during that time, the increasing democratization—and it’s not been all bad, to be sure—has overwhelmingly benefited the agenda of the kind of people who read and write the New York Times. But democracy will only get you so far when your goal is progressive utopia. Abortion and gay marriage victories have been mostly anti-democratic, given the relative influence the courts have had setting policy versus that of legislatures and the voting booth. Additionally, the Obama presidency has been one of unchecked executive authority being used to do everything from empower Iran’s nuclear program to undermine the existence of single-sex bathrooms. And Donald Trump now raises the specter of a populist revolt—and a troubling one that many more principled conservatives warned would be the direct blowback of forcing a progressive cultural and political agenda, regardless of voters’ wishes.
The idea that the New York Times is suddenly very concerned that voters in the United Kingdom might clamp down on immigration, or that voters in Colombia might want not want to hand over 10 seats in their congress to a Marxist–Leninist terrorist group, seems a bit self-serving. If this keeps up, pretty soon—possibly as soon as November—voters here in America might get the idea they can go ahead and “upend their governments’ plans,” antsy New York Times reporters and egghead political scientists be damned.
