For the first time in my life, I am worried about the future of American democracy. A republican constitution depends, to a greater extent than is often allowed, on people’s unhesitating acquiescence. Why is Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House? For the same reason that a $10 bill is worth $10 — namely, that enough people act as if it were so.
For the system to work, people have to accept the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution. They need to elevate the process over the outcome, to be ready to give their allegiance to the guy who won under the rules, even if they loathe him. The winner, for his part, must accept the legitimacy of the opposition and the constraints on his own authority. Take these guardrails away, and very quickly, things collapse.
Not even President Trump’s loudest supporters claim that he is scrupulous in his respect for the balance of power. Indeed, they are his loudest supporters precisely because they enjoy it when he threatens to jail opponents and sacks officials who refuse to do his bidding. Trump’s autocratic tendencies are not, on their own, enough to wreck the system. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the danger of what they called “Caesarism” — that is, the possibility that a strongman with popular support might ignore the limitations on his authority. They designed the Constitution precisely to prevent such abuses. No, the real threat comes when the population at large loses interest in checks and balances.
In response to the coronavirus crisis, Trump issued a series of decrees — on student loans, unemployment relief, payroll taxes — that trespassed into the space set aside for the legislature. The president’s justifications for these encroachments implicitly conceded their impropriety. For example:
“Democratic Members of Congress have twice blocked temporary extensions of supplemental unemployment benefits. Political games that harm American lives are unacceptable, especially during a global pandemic, and therefore I am taking action to provide financial security to Americans.”
Republican members of congress, though aware that their prerogatives were being violated, did not protest. Instead, they pointed to similar violations by Barack Obama, who also implicitly conceded the unconstitutional nature of his interventions:
“To those members of Congress who question my authority or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”
There is something unbelievably depressing about the GOP’s tu quoque defense. When Republicans objected to Obama’s executive overreach, their argument was that no president should behave that way. Now, their argument is that it is fine for their guy to do what his predecessor did.
This latter argument accords with voters’ rough, visceral sense of fair play. But it is incompatible with liberal democracy. America has for some time been dividing into two hostile tribes, both of which applaud from their own side what they howl down as abuses from the other, both taking for granted that the ends justify the means. Those few members of congress who apply the same standards evenly find themselves sidelined or, like Justin Amash, cast out.
Until very recently, that polarization was happening against the backdrop of strong economic growth. But now, as in the 1930s, we face the prospect of a deep recession — always a catalyst for authoritarianism.
Imagine throwing an ambiguous election result into the mix. Perhaps the popular vote and the Electoral College tally differently. Perhaps there are doubts about the legitimacy of postal ballots. Do you imagine that either side would graciously accept arbitration?
There has been a lot of comment about Trump’s attacks on due process, culminating in his crass call for postponing the election. Less remarked has been an equivalent tendency on the other side. The New York Times recently reported on a project in which various electoral scenarios were wargamed, including Joe Biden winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College. Playing the role of Biden was Hilary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, a man with impeccably mainstream Democrat credentials:
“Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.”
Can anyone doubt that that is a plausible scenario? The United States is again lumbering into a presidential election where both parties have nominated unfit candidates — the one a dictatorial bully with no respect for the rules, the other a senescent hack propped up by his supporters like one of those old Soviet leaders. Neither man, in a disputed outcome, would put national reconciliation before his own ambitions. Nor, indeed, would either man’s supporters. All the ingredients for a breakdown are in place.
