Without outside interference, my brain has been comparing and contrasting ideas regarding the ascendency of the Nazi party in Germany in 1933, the culpability of Martin Heidegger* and the fragility of Democracy. I ask, “Can we understand the historical times we live in, and can we act collectively in a positive way to ensure that truth (what is) is debated and not covered up?”
Authors Levitsky and Ziblatt (L and Z) take a look at democracies around the world that have died. Although some have died from a military coup, others have gradually grown more and more authoritarian. These are the cases that are compared with the situation in the United States today under the Trump presidency. And they will sound familiar to Canadians who are just one election removed from the government of Stephen Harper.
The first idea these authors put forward is that there is an unwritten understanding between citizens in a democracy of a larger belief system that cannot be found in the constitution or in the law books. This involves a commitment to dialogue and compromise in order to prevent totalitarianism from happening. In the United States it is called a system of checks and balances. The constitution does not list every single situation that is conceivable and gives each branch of the government (the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branch) considerable power. But U.S. presidents have not in the past (save the administration of FDR) used the power of veto, the power to declare war, the power to stack the court, to the extent that they could, because of their belief in the balance of the three branches of government. The Senate has the power of advice and consent. But they have generally confirmed the appointments to the Supreme Court if they were qualified, and have not politicized the judicial. The House and Senate could, if they wished, hold a president hostage by not authorizing funds for programs. But, until recently, this has not happened. The Congress can filibuster to prevent action on a bill, but this negative power has in the past been rarely used. The Constitution does not say how many positions there are on the Supreme Court. Several times in the past presidents have added or subtracted judges but not with overt political intent. Impeachment has not been used in a casual manner and was not intended to be used, since it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which means it must to some extent be bi-partisan. The unwritten understanding, the cement that holds a democracy together, is imbedded in the “robust norms of mutual toleration and forbearance.” Three cases that have challenged America’s democratic institutions are the presidency of FDR, McCarthyism, and the Nixon administration. But, in those cases, the U.S. did not go “off the rails.” “Politicians from both parties – and often, society as a whole – pushed back against violations that might have threatened democracy.”
In the second half of this book, authors L and Z point to three moves by U.S. governments that are slipping toward an authoritarian regime.
The first move is “Capturing the Referees.” Not all Republicans, although they may vote for the leader of their party, support all the positions and actions of their representative. Democracy depends upon dialogue within a party. If some of the party faithful are censored, threatened or coerced, democracy has failed. The press has always taken a critical position, more so when the government is unpopular, and less so when it has a high level of support from the people. But the integrity of journalism itself has not been questioned to the extent that it is today. The term “Fake News” undermines the confidence of the public in their ability to make decisions or even argue a position. Bombastic language, lies, generalities and abstractions instead of facts, and the threat of cyberwarfare neutralize the press and the media.
The second move is “Sidelining Players.” This involves stricter voter identification laws based upon the false claim that voter fraud was widespread in the United States. In this situation, in effect the imposition of a “modern day poll tax,” poor voters of colour, recent citizens, and rural voters were discouraged from voting at all or were turned away at the voting booth. President Trump’s claim that voter fraud denied him votes (in states that Hilary Clinton won) undermines the public faith in the electoral process.
The third move is “Changing the Rules” or tipping the playing field. For example, gerrymandering of Congressional districts is used to make sure the outcome of an election will be to a particular party’s advantage. The appointment of the president’s family to high positions in the government, where they are able to read and act on classified material and to act with the authority of the president, is tantamount to creating a dynasty. The power of the NRA is also covered in this book, prior to the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In supporting the NRA, the government is encouraging a citizen militia that may prove useful to it at some future date.
Here I will add my personal opinion: that conspiracy theories, whether in spy novels, 911 critics, or Bilderberg narratives, foster fearfulness. If the fabric of democracy is really based upon “robust norms of mutual toleration and forbearance,” then mistrust of other citizens is the acid that will dissolve it. There is a general fear that democracies are in decline all over the world. The authors show that this is not true, but if it is believed to be true, then that belief will weaken our resolve to protect democracy from totalitarianism.
The last chapter of this book is entitled “Saving Democracy.” The authors point to the 1960s and 1970s, when true racial equality was finally fought for (repressive laws and attitudes having become the norm in various forms after the Civil War). In their opinion, people fearing loss of white supremacy flocked to the Republican party. This increasing polarization is what threatens Democracy; the authors fear that a cultural “war” will rip the country in two. Instead, they plea for cross cultural alliances and compromise, for the moment, on some fronts in order to push hard on other fronts. I feel the sense of danger that these authors are talking about, and I have to support their plea: that we keep our eye on the big picture, that freedom to speak our truths is something we all hold as precious, and that we cannot afford to let that die. The idea of Democracy is the glue that can hold us together.
Roberta Cory
------------------------------
*Martin Heidegger was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century and the motivation for Hannah Arendt’s work, postmodern thought, feminist thought, and deconstruction. In Heidegger’s Germany of 1933, suppression of alternative “truths” (including firing of professors, performing book burnings, issuing propaganda and using brain washing techniques, and encouraging conspiracy theories) and persecution of Jews, gypsies, LGBT groups, Catholics, Quakers, and the physically and mentally “abnormal” gave the green light for extremism and the darkest forces of human nature to actualize themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment