Giving Up on Democracy?

My friend P.J. asked me recently if I thought it was possible that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party had given up on “trying to win a democratic game.” That is, have they decided–finally realized, is perhaps more appropriate–that there really is no hidden conservative majority lurking three standard deviations away from the center of the political distribution, so they’ve said, “screw it, let’s just rewrite the rules to ensure minority governance”?

I’m not sure they’ve consciously done so, but their behavior indicates that at least unconsciously that’s their game. In 1992 Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey drafted a “Contract with America,” which, despite being much-mocked by Democrats, was a purposeful attempt to sway public opinion to their side. Whether they proposed good policy prescriptions or not,* this was very much a democratic effort.

But that’s not what they’re doing these days. Instead we have the following:

  1. An authoritarian pro-life agenda (as opposed to a democratically responsive pro-life agenda);
  2. Undermining voting rights;
  3. Demanding an absolute minority veto over public policy.

First, where they have the majority in state legislatures they are pursuing a pro-life agenda that is so far out of the mainstream that it is a repeated political loser for them. While this can be explained as principle over pragmatics, it is also clear that they are intent on legislatively enacting their principles regardless of whether the Demos agrees with them.† There is, of course, a time and place for standing for principle against a public that is wrong, and given the pro-life position on personhood this is not unreasonably such a time and place. But unlike standing against slavery, genocide, military interventionism, or an out-of-control war on drugs, their principled position requires them to override the basic human dignity of a large portion of the Demos, subjecting them to violations of their personal autonomy and regarding them as mentally incapable of making their own decisions.

Second, they are trying to undermine voting rights in multiple ways. One was their attack on ACORN, which successfully killed it. I haven’t looked too deeply into ACORN, so I don’t know whether or not I care specifically about its demise, but I do know the attacks on their voter registration efforts were fraudulent. They were criticized for turning in fraudulent registrations, but in fact they were required by law to turn in all voter registration forms,‡ and reportedly they had themselves separately compiled and noted the ones they suspected were fraudulent. The attack was simply designed to eliminate an organization that did a bang-up job of registering mostly minority voters, which of course means mostly Democratic voters. In other words, the attack on ACORN was for the purpose of gaining “electoral” victory by diminishing the voting pool in a non-random manner; by ensuring that some eligible citizens would not exercise their right to vote, solely because they would be likely to vote against the Republicans. Their more recent efforts at redefining polling places to limit their availability in minority neighborhoods and at/near college campuses again seeks to reduce the number of citizens exercising their right to vote, and again in a biased, non-random, way. Seeking to persuade your own supporters to get off their duffs and vote is legitimate; seeking to constrain the other side from getting off their duffs and vote is election-rigging.

Finally, there is the latest effort to create an absolute minority veto over public policy: the Republican hardliners in the House say they will refuse to support any budget bill that does not defund PPACA (aka PPACA, ACA, and Obamacare), and they are happy to force a government shutdown to get their way. This is not governing; it is a statement of intent to disallow governing to continue unless their demands are met. They don’t even represent the majority of their own party, much less the majority of the House, and it seems they’ve forgotten that their party itself is the minority in the Senate. Whatever most Republican legislators may privately think of PPACA, it’s clear that between the Republican center and the Democrats the majority of Congress supports keeping government open with PPACA funding. But the right wingers have nothing but disdain for majorities, and are not interested in being bound by them.

Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, said, “Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.” Yes, but you also have to do it in the right way. If this were a great moral crusade, like opposing slavery or supporting civil rights or even opposing abortion, he might be justified. But not this. If anything, it’s the supporters of government ensured health care who have the stronger moral argument. When your side has people cheering the slogan of “let him die,” you just can’t successfully claim the moral high ground.** Sometimes acquiescing to democratic outcomes you don’t like–until you can change the Demos’s minds–is in fact doing the right thing.

It’s not impossible, given time and control of key positions in the political architecture, to use the machinery of democracy to undermine democracy. Is this in fact what conservative hardliners are doing in America right now? It sure looks like it.

* The House Republicans celebrated on the Capital steps when they passed a series of bills to put the Contract into statutory policy, but they forgot that the Senate was not a rubber stamp and that even in the House they were nowhere close to a veto-proof majority. In the end, only one part of one item in the Contract became law.

† In part, this is a consequence of partisan gerrymandering. Many of these legislators are in fact being responsive to their own distict’s majority. But the partisan gerrymander–engaged in by both parties–is itself an anti-democratic institution to the extent it dampens government responsiveness to changes in the public mood; or to be more precise changes in the national median voter’s mood.

‡ Imagine if organizations that do voter registration did not have to turn in all their forms. Think of the ease of pumping one’s own party registration up in comparison to the other, and think of the would-be voters who thought they’d registered, only to get turned away at the polls.

** I’m no fan of PPACA, either, but sometimes when you’re in the minority you have to face reality.

About J@m3z Aitch

J@m3z Aitch is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.
This entry was posted in Politics in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Giving Up on Democracy?

  1. lancifer666 says:


    I agree with most of your thoughts on this subject. The one caveat is that many Tea Partiers, and some others, see Obama Care as a “line in the sand” with socialism on the other side. Thus they do view it as a moral imperative to stop it at all costs.

    I think this is simplistic nonsense, sadly the US has been slipping towards socialism since the New Deal. But this the way many conservative Republicans view this issue.

    Jim De mint, President of the Heritage Foundation, was recently here in Indy speaking. He was adamant that everything possible, including de-funding the government if necessary, MUST be done to stop implementation of the ACA.

    He thinks that if the House passes a bill that allows funding of everything but the ACA that it will then be the responsibility of the Democrats to either acquiesce or have to take the “blame” for the shut down.

    This makes me wonder if he has suffered some sort of brain damage that has effected his memory. This was the same strategy that blew up in the face of Newt and the boys when they tried this back in the Clinton administration. The media crucified them with constant stories of the “hardships” of ordinary Americans caused by the callous partisan obstructionism of the evil and greedy Republicans.

    It was the beginning of the end for Newt’s power and influence in the House.

    I’m sure that the Democrats are licking their chops hoping that the Republicans repeat this blunder.

  2. J@m3z Aitch says:

    I agree with your caveat, but as you say, it is simplistic nonsense. Let’s face it, places like Canada and Great Britain are basically capitalistic countries, despite having national health care. More socialist than the U.S? Sure, but a hallmark of the simple-minded is the tendency to see all big concepts in binary terms rather than as existing on a continuum.

    As for thinking they’ll successfully get the public to blame Obama, they’ve got a severe case of cranial rectitis. These idjits are actually going around saying that the public’s low approval rating of Congress is evidence of why they’ll support Congressional Republicans on this issue. But Congressional Republican’s approval ratings are about 2o percentage points lower than Obama’s.

  3. Matty says:

    They are like someone trying to cheat at a sport but the really worrying thing is from their rhetoric they sound increasingly like someone who will punch the referee until he declares them the winner. Not that the far right fantasies of armed uprising seem at all likely but the more the political leadership talk the language of war against their enemies the more chance someone will take it literally.

    I say this by the way as a fan of free speech who would absolutely not solve this problem by trying to silence those who use violent rhetoric (as opposed to actual threats) but it is worrying.

  4. lancifer666 says:


    I wouldn’t worry about armed insurrection or even a smattering of armed idiots shooting public officials quite yet.

    This is just the Tea Party doing what they do, ranting and railing. The Republican leadership has to pay them some attention but I doubt they are dumb enough to let them drive the GOP bus over a cliff.

    Of course they were the same party that nominated Sarah Palin to be VP so who knows.

  5. Matty says:

    Good to know, and to be clear I was thinking far more of the smattering of armed idiots end of the spectrum than the insurrection end. If you were anywhere near that it would be a lot more obvious.

  6. sadly the US has been slipping towards socialism since the New Deal.

    Not really. It goes back at least to the Erie Canal, and arguably back to the New England institution of tax-supported public schools and roads. It really took off in the mid-19th century with public water and sewer projects along with publicly-funded fire protection.

    If anything, the PPACA is closer to the Federal land grants to establish continental rail networks — public support to establish a system of private services.

Comments are closed.