Why the Strong Man?


                I was raised to believe that the United States is a democracy. While it’s not a pure democracy, as citizens we have the right to vote for our leaders and in many cases issues of importance. You might call this a hybrid democracy, but at the very least it is a representative democracy. Now, the nation’s founders were worried about factionalism and so they created checks and balances that remain with us. Sometimes these checks and balances work well and at other times they are problematic (I would say the electoral college is one of the problematic elements, but that’s for another essay). Of course, things have changed over time. We’ve moved from legislatures appointing senators to direct elections. We’ve expanded the franchise so that race would no longer be a hindrance to voting (15th amendment—"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” ) and women (19th Amendment— “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” In both cases, Congress has the right to enforce these rulings and did so through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (this Congressional Act has largely been gutted by the Supreme Court).

                Now, as for whether we are a republic but not a democracy, let’s keep in mind that the term republic has different meanings in different places. Thus, it is true that the United States is a republic, but it’s also true that not all republics are the same. For example, there is the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Republic. Both define themselves as republics and in the case of Russia allow voting, but in neither case would I describe them as being democracies, pure or otherwise. Many countries have elections, but the winners are often predetermined. It’s not much different from the outcome of a pro wrestling match. Hopefully, the United States is a different kind of republic from Russia. Hopefully, the United States is the kind of republic that provides for free and fair elections (that’s called liberal democracy) so that representatives can be chosen who represent the citizens. The system is not perfect—especially since some states have found ways of predetermining elections through gerrymandering or by suppressing votes (by making it more difficult to vote).

                I first got the opportunity to vote in 1976 after I turned eighteen. I was among the first group of eighteen-year-olds to vote in presidential elections. I’ve been voting ever since, and I take that right very seriously. It was determined back in the 1970s that if eighteen-year-olds could be drafted into the military and thus die for their country they should have the right to vote for the people sending them off to war. Of course, when the Constitution was written access to voting was quite limited. In fact, it was limited largely to white men with property. As noted above that began to change after the Civil War with the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment. These two Amendments seem to me to be quite important and need as much protection as say the 2nd Amendment! Or, is only the 2nd Amendment Sacrosanct?

                So, is the United States a republic? Yes, though the word republic or republican is mentioned only in Article 4, Section 4, where the Federal government pledges to provide for a republican government in each state (by republican the Constitution doesn’t envision the current party by that name, which was not born until the 1850s). Is it a democracy? Well, it’s not a pure democracy as in ancient Athens, but it allowed for popular participation in government (though it had its limits including the electoral college and at the time the indirect election of Senators, who were appointed by the legislature until the passage of the 17th Amendment). What emerged is essentially a representative democracy, and as such is a republican form of government.  

                I write all of this as a precursor to my primary question. Why is it that many Americans are willing to throw away the principle of democracy and embrace autocracy/authoritarianism? In other words, “why the strong man?” If we treasure the principles of liberty and freedom, including the right to vote for our leaders, why are growing numbers of Americans attracted to strongmen like Victor Orban of Hungary? Orban is by all accounts a strong man who controls the levers of power by limiting the press and the ability of the opposition to function effectively (he coined the word “illiberal democracy,” whatever that involves). He’s also a Christian nationalist (and proudly so), which might be one reason many on the right are attracted to him (I just want to remind my readers that the United States is a highly diverse nation). Of course, the former president of Brazil, who also styles himself as a populist strong man and something of a Christian nationalist, recently appeared to great fanfare at the CPAC convention.  Of course, there is Donald Trump who also appeared at CPAC, presenting himself in similar terms. As for Trump, we know that he admires Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un. Then there is Ron DeSantis, who is accumulating power in Florida so he can punish any and all who disagree with him. He’s sounding a lot like Victor Orban (and his vision of “illiberal democracy”).

                So, why this embrace of authoritarianism? I find it ironic that many, including DeSantis, complain about “cancel culture” and talk about restoring freedom while they take steps to cancel “culture” they don’t like while removing freedom of speech and thought from those who don’t think the same way they do. That applies to schools and businesses. Is freedom something only some folks can enjoy? While those who stand in opposition don’t have that luxury?

                Now, Jesus doesn’t say anything about the virtues of democracy. After all, he lived under Roman imperial rule. His fellow Jews might want to throw off Roman rule, but democracy wasn’t necessarily the chosen alternative. So, I don’t have a biblical word for us. However, in moments like this, I often turn to Reinhold Niebuhr.  So, as we ponder the situation, we find ourselves in, especially the attraction of some to forms of populist authoritarianism, consider this word from Niebuhr:

Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. In all nondemocratic political theories the state or the ruler is invested with uncontrolled power for the sake of achieving order and unity in the community. But the pessimism which prompts and justifies this policy is not consistent; for if it is not applied, as it should be, to the ruler. If men are inclined to deal unjustly with their fellows, the possession of power aggravates this inclination. That is why irresponsible and uncontrolled power is the greatest source of injustice. [Reinhold Niebuhr: Theologian of Public Life, p. 254].

I put the first sentence in italics as it is both well-known to many and captures why we need democracy. The remainder of the quote explains why our human inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. Consider what is intended by a politician who tells you first that only they can solve our problems, and then when called to account for behavior tells us that they are above the law (unindictable). As Niebuhr helpfully points out in his writings, the value of democracy is that it allows the citizen to push back against those in leadership. To lose that ability might make things more orderly, but is it what we want? 

Comments

Popular Posts