The stability of our democracy is contingent not only on the legal safe guards outlined in the constitution, but on the maintenance of a tolerant, and well-educated electorate. Seymour Lipset argues that public cohesion and support for the democratic process is essential in creating a democracy which can sustain itself over multiple generations and survive transitions of power. If people do not buy into the democratic system and would rather fight than compromise, no legislative framework, no matter how meticulously planned, can keep the structure afloat. One need not look far in our contemporary political landscape to see that this social requisite is in jeopardy. If we are to address this crisis of public trust and cohesion and guard against the challenges to democracy seen throughout the world, we must reinvigorate the sense of mutual respect amongst citizens and cultivate tolerance on an individual level.
Countless articles have been written examining the ways in which Twitter, Facebook, and the 24-hour news cycle have erased any sense of civility found in public discourse and facilitated tribalism by increasing the quantity and decreasing the quality and diversity of media we consume. The consequences of this can be seen in online reactions to the Jussie Smollet case. Regardless of the whether the claims made by either side were correct, the speed, ferocity, and overall attitude with which politicians, celebrities, and ordinary people either condemned or supported Mr. Smollet was unfit for what should have served as a serious moment to investigate and reflect. This breakdown in effective communication has only exacerbated already rising rates of antisocial behavior. Paul Howe in “Eroding Norms and Democratic Deconsolidation”, noted how since the early 1980s there has been a steady uptick in the degree to which people view socially damaging behaviors as acceptable, especially those ages 18-24. This growing mentality which puts the interests of the self over the interests of the whole is fundamentally incompatible with our political system given that compromise and self-sacrifice are essential to the democratic process.
We must of course also take into consideration the role of President Trump. Trump’s style of campaigning and governing is in a word blunt. Prior to his entrance into politics, the behavior of politicians was often measured as to elicit as little controversy as possible. Trump has seemingly adopted the polar opposite approach. His opponents view his rhetoric as blatantly flying in the face of inclusion and equality, undermining the work that has been to improve America’s tolerance of diversity. His statements regarding undocumented immigrants, women, and native Americans have been at minimum in bad taste, and at times seem specifically designed to infuriate his opponents. However, to his followers this an affirmation of everything they have been feeling, someone willing to make their plight as struggling Americans a priority, break the pretense which surrounds identity politics, and demolish the D.C. status quo.
Neither side is completely without merit. The economic needs of poor working-class Americans have largely gone unaddressed by both the left and the right, and in the face of increasing income inequality many Americans feel that they have been forgotten by the elite globalist class. It should be noted however that Trump was only able to take advantage of this frustration given the heated ideological stalemate which griped political discourse. In the words of William A. Galston, the recent rise in populism represents, “an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism”. Put plainly, Trump’s presidency represents a push back from those who feel that the democratic process has been unresponsive and decided that civil debate was simply not a tolerable option. Furthermore, the he argues that the broader trend of tribalism in politics represents a threat to the social precedencies of a liberal democracy, rather than a direct challenge to the system of democracy itself. All that said, it is not far-fetched to believe that doubts about democracy as a whole combined with partisan mistrust could result in further, more concrete democratic backsliding. If Trump was to lose in 2020 and refuse to concede his position, then we could very well see the anger advance beyond message boards and town halls, and onto the streets.
This aura of political hostility is particularly acute on college campuses. In 2017, mass riots broke out at UC Berkeley after conservative speakers had been invited to campus. The protesters overwhelmed the authorities, smashed windows, and started fires, resulting in numerous injuries and over $100,000 in damages. Their banners read, “This is War”, and “Become Ungovernable”. The threat possessed by a group of people who are so zealous in their beliefs as to literally become ungovernable is obvious, and while this was an isolated and rare incident, it does highlight that even universities, centers dedicated to promoting diverse schools of critical thought, have fallen victim to forces which drive people to lash out rather than engage in debate and conversation. As such, the ideological homogeneity found in American academic circles, media, and our own personal news streams only serves to create attitudes which react with opposing ideologies in explosive and unproductive ways.
Ultimately what is needed is a fundamental shift in the way citizens empathize with one another. The viability of this change, as well as where it shall come from remains uncertain. What is certain however is that if we continue to view any challenge to our respective narratives as an existential challenge to our core values, then we cannot expect to bridge the gaps which threaten to undermine the American experiment and democracy the world over.
Photo by Scott Strazzante, Creative Commons Zero License
Charles,
Very well put. I do hope that many more open their eyes to the damage we have inflicted upon ourselves with this type of behavior, as I could not agree more on the point of our social conversations becoming increasing boorish because of demonization of “the other side.” It’s quite easy to see that outrage culture has become so prevalent given the premise is so simple. Whether your ideologies be right leaning, left leaning, or anything in between; calls for “You should be upset as X and here’s why” have permeated every sect of our society due to its addictive nature. We are of course social beasts by nature, so it is only logical that we tend to follow the larger group…even if it could be considered a type of Orwellian “groupthink.”
To be fair, there is much to be angry about in times such as these. Terrorism, wars, climate change, wealth inequality, racism, sexism, identity, geopolitics, and the list goes on. But you’re absolutely correct to point out that our tempers have become whetted with the introduction of social media and the 24-hour news cycle. These platforms have become outlets for us to endlessly babble and brawl with each other over complex issues boiled down to their simplest and most inflammatory forms.
I also want to touch on the subject of universities that you mentioned in your article. I find that it is with great trepidation that I admit that the current academic political climate confuses me greatly. The more I read and listen on what those who claim themselves to be “intellectuals” are doing, the more I have begun to realize that our academic environment is equally guilty. Our educational microcosms have bred outrage, censorship, and public shaming rather than promoting critique, disagreement, and debate. Blaming individuals rather than examining the greater social context, fostering intolerance and divisiveness, the creation of the “with-us-or-against-us” ethos, and the blatant silencing of those with a different viewpoint are so collectively ingrained in our minds, that it’s difficult to see a way past them.
Let’s face it, outrage sells. Whether it be social media or mainstream news outlets, there’s money to be made in the industry of anger.
Hi Charles, I found your blog post interesting and would like to comment on a few points that you made. Firstly, I agree that developing a sense of mutual respect amongst citizens to provide tolerance on an individual level is essential. However, I believe that the key of preventing backsliding comes from both our citizens and politicians. In “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy,” Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg say that “the quality of our democracy will depend on what happens on the streets, what happens in legislative backrooms and, most importantly, what happens at the polls.” Our current leader, promotes the populist idea of delegitimizing the oppositional side which I think heavily contributes to our current political climate. The reasons for society’s growing inability to have civil discourse are complex, but the disconnect between ourselves and our politicians is heavily impacting these acts of non-civil discourse.
Charles, I appreciate the premise of your post, but it seemed to be missing an important aspect of “the guardrails of democracy” as outlined by Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die. You address the idea of mutual toleration regarding the population, but this cleavage begins with the elected officials, there inability to concede power to the opposite party, and a continuing failure to practice restraint when flying in the face of a norm. The speed with which a politician is willing to subvert longstanding democratic norms has led to a vicious cycle of the erosion of our norms. The legal safeguards of our democracy, as outlined in the constitution, create very few concrete modes of operation. This, while intentional so as to allow democracy to grow, has now backfired and procedure has increasingly been weaponized to help whichever party gain a leg up in the short term. This focus on short term party gain rather than long term American gain has created the disillusionment with government that we see today. If politicians are unable to put the country first despite that being the job of an elected official, then it is nearly impossible to expect the American population to put the country first, and the cleavage only intensifies. Change needs to begin from the top down, as these elected officials should be setting the example of open discourse on tough topics for civilians to follow, not the other way around. Levitsky and Ziblatt believe that parties should be the gatekeepers for our democracy in the US, is it then reasonable to expect Republicans and Democrats to put democratic norms ahead of party power?
I think that, of all of the factors that are vital for the establishment and endurance of any democracy, “public cohesion and support for the democratic process” are among the very most important. In a system that draws its power from the people, there is an inherent and irreplaceable need for an electorate that is committed to the process. Undoubtedly, if future generations of Americans wanted to replace our republic with a socialist or fascist state, they have the power to. Even the constitution, arguably our strongest unit of protection against democratic backsliding, is of little use if more than two-thirds of the states wish to change or reject it.
This leads me to think of the “loyal opposition,” as described by Linz and Stepan. The people making up a democracy have to believe that the “existing political institutions are better than any others that might be established, and that they therefore demand obedience” (Linz & Stepan 1978). I think that, to better understand how the modern difficulties of cooperation we face can lead to democratic erosion, we can also look at the causal chain described by McCoy (2018). In her 5 steps towards illiberalism and democratic erosion, I think America lies somewhere around the third, which entails zero-sum perceptions and heightened threat perceptions of the “other side.” We certainly need to find ways to reinforce a respect for the democratic process, and, in my personal opinion, support more centrist candidates to reinvigorate cross cutting cleavages.