A previous blog (ref. “Majority Pejoraty”) addressed how America’s political system has not always served the interest of the majority. This disfunction has had an especially harsh impact on a subset of that majority, specifically, the less privileged among us. While our republic’s politics has too often muted the will of many—including some of the privileged, it has systemically silenced the voice of others.
The term “majority” can refer to two distinct but somewhat overlapping groups: a voting polity or the whole population. For too long, “majority” has often been used to define that voting bloc gifted by birth or circumstances as white or wealthy. But that bogus definition has long been a misnomer for it favors a selective part of the body politic over the whole. The descendants of white colonists and white immigrants still retain privileged status. But an ever-expanding plurality of them have joined Martin Luther King’s coalition of conscience and now identify with a new population majority that also includes racial, ethnic, LGBTQ, and recently naturalized citizens. While white privilege and inherited wealth may still define social class and can bias who gains access to education and chosen careers and who receives fair treatment in the courts and before law enforcement, they no longer define this new and growing population majority. Instead, they are representative of a political subset of our population—a diminishing voting polity. And, to the extent they demand political influence as a self-perceived right of birth or circumstance, they favor policies that serve their interest over concern for a free pluralist society’s failure to provide equal opportunity and equal justice for all. By contrast, the new emerging majority is growing and holds a new vision for America’s future—or rather, a reclaiming of Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom.” His vision outlined a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That government cannot be controlled by the power exercised by the privileged or monied class, but by an electorate comprised of all citizens in a democratic republic. On November 19th, 1863, exactly 157 years ago at this writing, an ailing Abraham Lincoln climbed a podium at Gettysburg and urged America to rise from war and divisiveness and be reborn into universal freedom. On that day, he was defining a new electorate and a new vision for America.
And a new electorate has recently gained traction in this 2020 election cycle—though just barely. In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the difference between the old and new majorities appears to be between three or six million voters, respectfully. But the growing disparity between the old and new political agendas is much greater. The old majority tended to vote “center-right” and often for a Republican Party that favored the more privileged. To that purpose, its Republican candidates pretended to adhere to a traditional Reaganite conservatism agenda, advocating for free trade, state’s rights or federalism, corporate wealth (frequently explained as “trickle down” economy), and balanced budgets. But, in recent times, the Republican Party prioritized one agenda above all else: hold onto office and dominate the Federal apparatus of power. Of course, both political parties have competed for power, but over the last three decades, the Republican Party has gradually abandoned its previous justifications for this competition. While pretending to war against a mythical socialist totalitarian state, it has undermined legislative compromise and now supports a totalitarian executive. At his whim, Republicans have ignored their previous agenda while endorsing isolationist trade policies, interfering with the states’ rights to conduct free and fair elections, and reducing taxes levied on the wealthier amongst us at the expense of an exploding Federal deficit. Any member of the new majority might question the Republicans’ commitment to the general welfare. More specifically, were they supporting or voting –
➣ for a national public health plan to control a pandemic or
➣ for an extension of affordable healthcare and the preexisting condition insurance ban or
➣ for equal opportunity to gain wealth/income via tax reform, training, and education programs or
➣ for mitigation of climate change or
➣ for renovation of America’s infrastructure or
➣ against foreign interference in our elections or
➣ against the criminal use of government institutions for private gain or
➣ against immigrant internment camps or
➣ against flagrant child abuse of migrant children separated from their parents or
➣ against racial/ethnic/gender discrimination, such as systemic racism in our justice system or
➣ against abandonment of America’s global leadership in maintaining peace and justice throughout the world?
The simple answer is “no.” This more recent version of the Republican Party has abandoned long held American values. In fact, it supported little or no policies that could benefit most Americans, including many of its own Party members. Instead, it supported a so-called “populist” demagogue who promised to make an apocryphally great America by fiat in the very manner of a would-be tyrant. And that support has denigrated many of our democratic institutions. Its final coup de eta was the failure of Republican Senators to remove Trump from office after reviewing substantive evidence supporting his impeachment. Thereby, they tilted the arc of our democracy towards the reemergence of mid-twentieth century fascism—that is, when more than 400,000 American soldiers sacrificed their lives to defeat fascism. This version of the Republican Party presents a radical threat to the very soul of America.
By contrast, when this new majority demands access to healthcare and effective public health policies during a pandemic, it is clearly exercising its inalienable right to life and to that Constitutional provision for its general welfare. If the new majority risks arrest for protesting systemic racism in civic commerce, the criminal justice system, or policing, then it is clearly exercising its rights of redress and due process as outlined in the Constitution’s initial amendments. If the new majority decides to vote out of office a President found guilty of abuse of power and conspiring with a foreign power to undermine a free election, then it is merely enforcing Article II provisions that Republican Senators failed to exercise. If the new majority decides to vote out of office those Senators who disgraced their oath of office by exonerating a President proven guilty of bribery, extortion, and flagrant abuse of power, then it is merely exercising its Constitutional right and demonstrating its allegiance to a democratic republic. None of these actions characterize a socialist totalitarian initiative—as President Trump paradoxically exclaims—but demonstrate the will of a free electorate in a duly formed democratic republic.
The new majority also seeks full representation and opposes any attempts to suppress the vote or stop the vote count. Clearly, the right to vote defines a democracy. The XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI Amendments further extend or modify this right. Though States administer their voting systems, they must honor the right to vote as a basic precept of our democracy and abide by these Constitutional amendments. After all, Federalism is defined in our Constitution as an integral component of our American democracy, not its enemy.
Ironically, President Trump has blamed the States—especially Democratic States—for the proliferation of the pandemic. Who believes that President Trump’s abdication of any responsibility for fighting the pandemic is an exercise of federalism? His aide de camp, Jared Kushner, claimed that the FEMA stockpile of personnel protective equipment (PPE) belonged to the Federal Government and not to the states. Really? Then what is the purpose of PPE or who benefits from its use and why do Americans pay Federal taxes for FEMA’s purchase of it? In truth, this Administration has abandoned its responsibilities to the states and to its citizens. It operates as if the President is the sole power to which all citizens, states, and institutions owe absolute obeisance and loyalty. Even after losing a national election, it continues to operate like a directorate within the former socialist/communist state of the Soviet Union, exercising its power in its own interest rather than that of American citizens. And, of course, that interest can only be the President’s personal interest. Perhaps, this lame duck American directorate explains why the only major world leader who has not congratulated the President Elect is Vladimir Putin. The Russian President must be alarmed that his acolyte’s actions to dismantle democratic institutions and disrupt a free election have been repudiated. Let us hope this reversal of Putin’s 2016 victory has made it a pyrrhic one.
Having stated the case for this emerging and growing majority, what should be said of the old guard, now the new minority? Some of its wealthy component may fear losing influence over government policy. And it seems likely that the wealthy will be asked to pay more taxes—although the only tax increases currently proposed are simply a rollback to the previous Administration, i.e., the status pro ante. Is a tax increase for a small minority of the wealthiest among us a fair price to pay for policies that serve the general welfare of the majority?
Our real concern is not for the rich, their wealth secures their future. But we should be concerned for the cult-like followers of President Trump. They are now part of this new minority in an expanding population. Their grievances are mostly real and based upon the degradation of democratic policies/norms and the deceit of elected representatives of both parties. Why did they cheer their chosen leader as he fought the “deep state,” the press, and his democratic rivals? They adopted his grievances as their own. Most likely, they felt disconnected to their government, for their elected officials acted more as delegates than representatives. Did they not hold office more in the manner of a Roman Consul, serving only the interest of an imperial party? Politicians who pretend to serve the public interest while acting in their own or Party interest are hypocrites. Certainly, they are guilty of abandoning the electorate’s trust and their oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Office holders of both Parties have often failed in this regard.
Since 1992, one Party has reacted more aggressively to hold onto power as it witnessed a comparative decline in its plurality of registered voters. As a result, it has crossed both legal and ethical lines to suppress votes, to use Congressional investigations as political weapons, to gerrymander districts, to quell census taking, to bend laws in service of wealthy campaign donors, to purge voter records, to stymy a free election or stop vote counts with spurious legal actions, and, unbelievably, to allow a rogue President to abandon Federalism and every other canon of the Republican Party in exchange for his support. And, of course, his support has no value without the unquestioned support of his followers. They see themselves in him, their grievances represented in his, and their reprisal against a government that has failed them in his battle with an alleged “deep state.” Thereby, the Republican Party has entered into a quid pro quo relation with its President, as he has with his followers. As a result, the Grand Old Party no longer exists as such. It has evolved into the Party of Trumpism. And that fact should raise concern for Trump’s followers. For it was never their interest or welfare that he served, but only his own. And, sadly, the same must be said of the Party he now owns.
There is hope that the past will not be prologue to the future. After a lengthy campaign, the victorious President Elect wants to bring the country’s factions together. Presumably, he would address the needs of all Americans, including Trump’s followers. Perhaps, the Republican Party will be inspired to join in this effort. But how does that Party change from uncompromising legislative naysayer to the loyal opposition. Well, it must reorient itself to its former premises as the Party of Lincoln and to a Reaganite dedication to the Constitution. That reorientation could be the key to viable compromise around the basic Constitutional prerequisite “to promote the general welfare” over the vitriol and divisiveness of the Trump Administration. But that reorientation seems unlikely in the foreshadowing of 70+ million Trumpian votes. To quote Shakespeare’s Ophelia after losing her mind, “we know what we are, but know not what we may be.”
What then can change an electorate that no longer believes its government serves its interests? Instead, it believes in a deep state that undermines those interests. It no longer trusts Washington elites who pretend to represent its interest while hypocritically serving their own. Whether that interest is money or influence, the result is the same: a fractional government divorced from its primary purpose, which is public service. This outcome for America is unsupportable for it deviates from the democratic ideals upon which this Republic was founded. Unless our publicly elected representatives of both Parties come together and serve the interests of the electorate rather than their careers or financial prospects, that electorate will not be represented or their interests, served. In other words, the disfunction introduced by Party leadership must cease, else our democracy will. (Is this indictment an attempt to cast shade on the Senate Majority Leader? Well, not exactly. Mitch McConnell is just one symptom, not the sole cause.)
A functioning government that professionally addresses the interests and needs of its democratic electorate is a healing remedy for what ails America. Founded on principles of honesty and service, such a government wins the trust of those it serves. It can then unify a people around a common cause. But it cannot succeed in concert with the divisiveness President Trump has so surgically opened within the body politic. At the very heart of the American experience is an ideal that perhaps no nation has ever attempted to adopt: “all men are created equal . . . are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights.” America then aspires to be a country “with liberty and justice for all.” Though it no longer has slaves, it still struggles with systemic racism. Although for the past hundred years women have had the right to vote, they still earn less than men in the same occupation. Europeans and millions from nearly every country in the world have migrated to this country “yearning to breathe free.” And yet America has adopted a xenophobic and racist migration policy, closed its borders to people seeking asylum, separated children from their families, and imprisoned them in internment camps. Can we repudiate these missteps and regain our journey to a more perfect union?
Both Americans and migrants to America want to believe in America as the land of opportunity. And most Americans harbor no ill will to the rich. Instead, they revere the story of those who attained wealth and/or position through their own efforts. More than half our tech companies were founded by immigrants. And immigrants hold about 60% of the “essential” jobs—the nurses, caretakers, farm workers, truckers, programmers, grocery clerks, and so on. But many still feel the promise of America is a ring beyond their grasp. They find themselves riding a merry-go-round that returns endlessly to the same starting place without the promised reward. They might live on a reservation with little infrastructure or in a community with ill-equipped schools and little or no employment opportunities. Under President Trump the phrase “land of opportunity” is an illusory scam like a degree from Trump University. He uses it, like other faux patriotic bromides, to gain political power for himself, not for the benefit of others. “Opportunity” then becomes a pseudonym for the foulest scam. Can we restore opportunity in this land of promise? This new majority is demanding it.
Perhaps we Americans need to reacquaint ourselves with the concept of “all men are created equal” and its derived axiom, “liberty and justice for all.” The “all” in these axioms necessarily excludes the concept of privilege. So how does one define “privilege”? (For the many thousands who follow this blog, you will not be surprised if I revert to etymology.) It is derived from privus, “private,” and lex, “law.” And it is “granted as a particular benefit, favor or advantage” (ref. Webster’s dictionary). The Constitution, especially the first ten Amendments, define our rights as Americans. But no reading of these rights includes white privilege or a special dispensation for the wealthy. In fact, our founding documents condemn the very concept of privilege unless it is redefined as liberty and justice for all. In that context, the only privilege an American has is the freedom to pursue and have a fair chance to attain any education, job, career, or lifestyle he or she desires. But there is no “private law” that guarantees the outcome of his/her pursuit. America, then, is about opportunity, not privilege.
When the Preamble dedicates the American people to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare,” that dedication preemptively excludes rampant divisiveness and the suppression of the less privileged. Therefore, America cannot be America when it fails to conciliate factions or to support equal opportunity. The inability to compromise between diverse political persuasions, to resolve disputes without vitriol and riots is a failure of the American ideal. You may argue that “to fail is human.” True, but to strive for the ideal is American!
America cannot be the “land of opportunity” if it excludes specific minorities from equal justice, the right to vote, an education, a chosen career, or any socially acceptable lifestyle. To understand the concept “opportunity,” one must recognize the power of potential. Every human being has potential at birth. And that power is activated by individual effort and by social circumstances. Society has the power to unleash that human potential, or at least to remove obstacles from its path. When this social power is misused to the detriment of the less privileged, America becomes a nation of the “haves” and “have nots.” It becomes hostage to the privileged class. Systemic racism, economic or civil injustice, and prejudice of all stripes derive from this anti-democratic perversion of power. Since a democratic government is derived from the sovereign power of its people, this potential perversion can and will result in an illiberal democracy. The new majority seeks to avoid that catastrophe.
This blog has readers from around the world, including Russia. Many of them have witnessed the rise of totalitarianism and recognize how a society can unwittingly regress into its clutches. Many Trump supporters seem unaware of his threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, it behooves all who believe in America’s promise to reach out to those bewitched by Trump and to address their grievances. Most especially, we must demand that the people we choose to represent us begin to address the rights and grievances of all Americans. If, instead, they blindly follow political leadership or the dictates of lobbyists, they will hide their true intent and construe their words accordingly. Then they become hypocrites and cowards—more specifically, abject failures in adhering to their oaths of office and to the Constitution. These are the failures that breed not only discontent in the electorate but the very spirit of insurrection.
More than seventy million citizens just voted for insurrection against the American system—perhaps unwittingly. They succumbed to the belief that our democratic voting system was a fraud, that a strongman would erase the hypocrisy of elected officials (the euphemistically designated as “politically correct”) and would punish the institutions of government that failed to address their righteous grievances. To the extent their grievances enshrine the beliefs of white supremacy and of a privileged or controlling class, they represent a cancer on our democracy that harkens back to slavery and the robber barons. Those grievances would demand every opportunity bequeathed by government and society to the systematic exclusion of blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Native Americans, asylum seekers, the queer, the tired, poor, and “huddled masses yearning to be free.” More even than Trumpism and a recalcitrant Republican Party, these grievances or beliefs are a cancer in our body politic. They ignore truth and reality in exchange for being emotionally and morally supported by a political tribe. Leaders like Donald Trump thrive on bending the disaffection and victimhood of erstwhile supporters into a force that allows them to wield the power of office. Only when they attain absolute power is it obvious that the power they seek is not for the sake of their aggrieved followers. They seek absolute power, unaccountable to others, and solely for their own aggrandizement. They create a self-serving fiction and suppress all who contend with the truth. They lie incessantly to create an incoherent web so formidable as to overwhelm any attempt at deconstruction.
Democracy, as Churchill intimated, may not be much better than any other form of governance, unless we make it so. It does not exist by itself, but by the effort and dedication of its citizens. We are accountable for our democracy. And we must hold accountable the representatives we elect to preserve its institutions. The power of the vote is one expression of citizen accountability, as witnessed in the recent election. Equally important is Roosevelt’s declaration that we should not be governed by fear. We must never allow an elected leader to stir panic and fear of others as the means by which such a leader might assume absolute power as the ultimate fixer of all our problems (“only I can”). No society can address internal or external conflicts without mobilizing its members to respond together and without fear. Americans have come together in the past to fight foreign adversaries, to liberate those unjustly treated, and to protest civil injustice, like systemic racism. America succeeds when its citizens act together to preserve the ideals and principles upon which it was founded.
We Americans can never again assume our democratic institutions will stand alone without our support. They can be corrupted or made impotent by a demagogue and his political allies. As the historian of tyranny, Timothy Snyder wrote “virtues are inseparable from the institutions they inspire and nourish.”˟ So much of our government then depends upon norms and practices exercised by people of good will. Its institutions and tripartite structure cannot function to serve our interests or general welfare if allowed to benefit a few privileged or just one wanton dictator grasping for absolute power. What can be said of the White House also applies to all our government institutions: it is the people’s house and the people’s government. As such, Americans must unite as a people whether Democrat or Republican, privileged by fate or not, but equally committed to the land of opportunity and to its egalitarian promise.
___________________________________________________________
˟Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom,” p. 13.