Liberals need to start planning for a post-authoritarian future and rebuilding stronger institutions that a rogue president can’t so easily take over and weaponize again
I think political experts thinking that "American democracy" is degrading is the real issue that has led to where we are today, and no one seems to be talking about it.
The author writes that we need to be committed to "fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and democracy," but is that how it works? Isn't it fundamental principles of freedom and equality *OR* democracy?
Not to mention the fact that America is not, nor has ever been a democracy, but is in fact a rights-protecting republic. Not to mention that in a democracy, Trump and MAGA is exactly what you'll get.
I think it's important to get the basics right, before making grand plans about changing the Constitution.
To that end, here's the definition of the basics, for what it's worth coming from a random internet person:
The term Liberal is where the function of government is to protect your individual rights. This in turn leads to a capitalist economic system.
The term Democracy is where the function of government is to do what the majority want. This in turn leads to authoritarianism.
So, terms like "liberal democracy," that you hear thrown around by people claiming to oppose authoritarianism, make as little sense as terms like "anarcho capitalism," or "square circle."
I think a more realistic plan for reconstruction would be something like this:
1. Address the distinct lack of expertise in the field of politics. From professors to pundits, anyone who is paid to discuss the subject of politics, needs to actually have an understanding of this subject, not just personal opinions. Basically, experts in the field of politics need to be held to the same standards as experts in any other field.
2. The job of these experts is then to mainstream the politically literate ideas of America's founding, like individual rights, and rights-protecting government in the culture. The spreading of these ideas was the real substance of the American Revolution in the first place. Today, these ideas will go hand in hand with advocacy for capitalism.
3. Once the above steps are complete, we will see a massive shift away from authoritarianism and towards rights-protection AKA liberal AKA freedom. No changes to the Constitution are even needed to do this.
Then, once we've solved the actual problems in politics, we can begin moving forward again and discuss things that actually need changing in the Constitution. But those things aren't really covered in this article. It would be things like getting rid of the interstate clause, the general welfare clause, etc. All things that provide loopholes for bad actors to have the government violate our rights.
But I think the real issue is one of expertise in the field of politics. Until we first address that, and have people at least using basic words correctly, then we are not even providing a speed bump as we move towards authoritarianism.
The enemies of liberal values are winning without any real opposition in the mainstream at all.
Finally, someone willing to address how we are going to fix these issues when Trump is gone. How do we rebuild the government infrastructure he has decimated? What laws need to be passed to close Constitutional loopholes and encode limits that were previously abided by norms? I have not heard mention of any of that from anyone on the Democratic side and I have repeatedly asked. Where’s our Project 2029 and why is no one working on one? We need a playbook for Reconstruction.
Andy, thanks for this and I have learned long ago to defer to your expertise in these matters. These are some pretty random thoughts
Under the current Constitution and the current Supreme Court any "reconstruction" effort will face many challenges. Constitutional changes will likely never find the number of states willing to ratify any new amendments. The current SCOTUS is likely to get worse and even more corrupt in the next few years. This SCOTUS would probably never have forced Nixon to surrender the "smoking gun tapes" to Congress.
The founders did in fact create a basis for a serial or sequential monarchy and attempts to impose term limits on the executive and Congress were affirmatively rejected. Washington did not seek a third term in office because he was exhausted (and perhaps he intuited that he would likely not live through a third term) and not because of some high minded principle. Grant and Wilson did campaign for a third term but were rejected by their parties.
The Constitutional vision for Executive power was to be balanced by a robust Legislative branch willing and able to assert its own power. But it did not foreclose the possibility of an executive accumulating power especially if that power was delegated or transferred from the legislative branch of its own volition.
The Electoral College has never operated as described in the Federalist Papers. Had it functioned as imagined by Hamilton anyone as lawless and corrupt as Trump (and probably several others before him) would never have been sworn into office. Today the Electoral College has tended to work as an election nullification machine. Perhaps the popular vote should become the deciding electoral vote. Or perhaps the "winner take all" system of assigning electoral vote be replaced by the Maine/Nebraska system. Or perhaps eliminate the popular vote altogether and come up with a way of revitalizing the Electoral College as designed.
1/3 of America is affirmatively in favor of an authoritarian government that they wrongly believe will compensate for the perceived failure of democratic institutions. They have given up on politics and the high cost of being an informed citizen. Another 1/3 of America will tolerate (though in varying degrees) authoritarianism if it doesn't disrupt their daily lives or exact an intolerable personal cost. Some of them can be persuaded but some of them are reflexively hostile to the Democratic party--- or prefer to live with the devil they know rather than inviting one in that they don't trust or really understand.
Any sustained effort at reconstruction will require bipartisan action that spans multiple Congressional elections and administrations (who are on board with the project) unless the "liberal democrats" become and remain an absolute majority in Congress and have an executive power similar to that being wielded by the current office holder.
So any reconstruction depends on voters in free and fair elections electing a Congress that will actually assert itself in a bipartisan fashion against the executive (of whatever party). The Democrats should stop focusing on Trump and start campaigning against the do nothing/know nothing Republican Party as an institution.
If a peaceful protest of 7 million doesn’t get their attention, how about a one day national strike? Exclude hospitals and essential services, but a way to say to our House and Senate, “you work, or we don’t either.”
Strikes work in other countries because they have smaller economies and stronger labor unions. Only 9.9% of American workers are unionized and the largest share of those are government workers many of who are already not working. Most Americans are under "at will" labor laws and many employers can just tell any strikers to not bother coming back to work.
Andy, your plan is wise and welcome. Thank you Also, by envisioning the situation we strive to create, we already live in it psychologically, so this is helpful in multiple ways
Greetings from The Netherlands. I had a look at many photos and videos in the Dutch media, the NYT and The Atlantic from your No King's Day. What puzzles me is this: where are the young ones? It looks like mostly boomers and Vietnam-protesters are on the streets. And next it does not look very serious, rather "fun to be here, like the good old 70's". Am I right?
Hello from Nevada. I went to a Carson City protest. I saw people from all age groups, young to old and everything in between. Much of it was joyous to the point of silliness but not without reason. Mocking an authoritarian is a classic way of riling him. Also, the regime is trying to falsely portray the protest movement as dark and ominous, but really we are just everyday Americans, so smart people resisting the regime (with increased effect and decreased)risk) advised their fellow protestors to wear cheerful costumes, and we did.
Getting the younger generations engaged is something that needs to be worked on, for sure. They have become distrustful of government (with good reason). We absolutely need to get younger people in power to address the needs of them. The old cronies aren't hearing them.
Ah, that's a great picture: fools and jesters speaking truth to power! The angry and serious- meaning IMO anxious- men have always been afraid of a good laugh, of the sound of the Jester's little bells! It's a very powerful message to kings and caesars.
Any list of people you'd be smart not to disagree with includes Andy Craig. Bravo Andy! You are exactly right. The way forward is forward, not wistful looking back. That's how you turn into a pillar of salt.
I think a useful first step that doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment would be amending the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that capped the House of Representatives at 435 when our country had “only” 106 million people. Today we have 347 million. Having more representatives would bring them back to a much closer relationship to their constituents. It would also give more populated areas more voice than they currently have compared with the power of the rural vote, which is why I’m sure this will be controversial.
This comment is written from New Zealand, where we do not have a President and we have 5 main political parties - AND A DEMOCRACY THAT IS STILL AN UNDEMOCRATIC SHAMBLES. I recently wrote the following about the New Zealand political situation ...
As a young businessman, all the business books I read taught me that being competitive was the be-all and end-all of business success. Fifty years wiser, I now think that our culture’s emphasis on competing to win is wrong. I accept that friendly competition in an activity that could lead to an individual improving their fitness, skill or knowledge can be beneficial – subject to the caveat that “winning” is not rewarded. As I see things now, “winning” is the harmful part because for someone to win at least one person (and often many) have to lose. Often the winner also becomes a loser at a later time because the cost of “winning” was too high. As examples; the rugby player who gets concussed and becomes a mental zombie in their later years, or the businessperson who works too hard, habitually shortens sleep and ends up with insomnia and depression.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now believe that basing democratic governments on competing political parties is completely dumb. Such a system of government is inherently biased towards creating “winners” and “losers”. And, as happens in sports such as marathons, the end result is an awful lot more “losers” than “winners”. While some might assert that competition is necessary to spur innovation and improvements to living standards, my belief is that innovations and improvements mostly occur because an individual just happens to think a novel thought. As examples, I can’t imagine the concept of the wheel arising from a competitive endeavor, nor can I imagine a competition spurring Sir Ernest Rutherford to invent the nuclear model of the atom.
If other readers agree that basing our democratic government on competing political parties is illogical, what innovative improvements could be made? As thought starters, I suggest the following:
1) Limit donations to political parties to a small amount, while also creating a government funded website for every electorate to provide equal opportunity marketing for every candidate wishing to stand as an MP.
2) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term. (There would be no “Party votes” as under MMP.)
3) Support every MP by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from the MP’s electorate and allow the CAG to fire the MP if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the MP is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
4) Require a minimum consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a less competitive parliament more representative of the general population. More importantly, parliament would be subject to refreshment on a monthly basis. If some MPs are getting things wrong in the public’s view, parliament’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months (and as rogue MPs get fired by their electorate).
Can someone point out to me the passage in the Constitution that gives a single man the power to keep the people's House out of session indefinitely for his own political ends?
The Constitution does not give a single man the power to keep the House of Representatives out of session indefinitely, whether he is President or Speaker of the House. It says the Congress must meet at least once a year and neither house can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house.
That's another thing we need to fix. And there needs to be rules that say the speaker can't refuse to swear in a duly elected house representative within a week of the election that they won. The fact that they refuse to is reprehensible.
I think political experts thinking that "American democracy" is degrading is the real issue that has led to where we are today, and no one seems to be talking about it.
The author writes that we need to be committed to "fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and democracy," but is that how it works? Isn't it fundamental principles of freedom and equality *OR* democracy?
Not to mention the fact that America is not, nor has ever been a democracy, but is in fact a rights-protecting republic. Not to mention that in a democracy, Trump and MAGA is exactly what you'll get.
I think it's important to get the basics right, before making grand plans about changing the Constitution.
To that end, here's the definition of the basics, for what it's worth coming from a random internet person:
The term Liberal is where the function of government is to protect your individual rights. This in turn leads to a capitalist economic system.
The term Democracy is where the function of government is to do what the majority want. This in turn leads to authoritarianism.
So, terms like "liberal democracy," that you hear thrown around by people claiming to oppose authoritarianism, make as little sense as terms like "anarcho capitalism," or "square circle."
I think a more realistic plan for reconstruction would be something like this:
1. Address the distinct lack of expertise in the field of politics. From professors to pundits, anyone who is paid to discuss the subject of politics, needs to actually have an understanding of this subject, not just personal opinions. Basically, experts in the field of politics need to be held to the same standards as experts in any other field.
2. The job of these experts is then to mainstream the politically literate ideas of America's founding, like individual rights, and rights-protecting government in the culture. The spreading of these ideas was the real substance of the American Revolution in the first place. Today, these ideas will go hand in hand with advocacy for capitalism.
3. Once the above steps are complete, we will see a massive shift away from authoritarianism and towards rights-protection AKA liberal AKA freedom. No changes to the Constitution are even needed to do this.
Then, once we've solved the actual problems in politics, we can begin moving forward again and discuss things that actually need changing in the Constitution. But those things aren't really covered in this article. It would be things like getting rid of the interstate clause, the general welfare clause, etc. All things that provide loopholes for bad actors to have the government violate our rights.
But I think the real issue is one of expertise in the field of politics. Until we first address that, and have people at least using basic words correctly, then we are not even providing a speed bump as we move towards authoritarianism.
The enemies of liberal values are winning without any real opposition in the mainstream at all.
Finally, someone willing to address how we are going to fix these issues when Trump is gone. How do we rebuild the government infrastructure he has decimated? What laws need to be passed to close Constitutional loopholes and encode limits that were previously abided by norms? I have not heard mention of any of that from anyone on the Democratic side and I have repeatedly asked. Where’s our Project 2029 and why is no one working on one? We need a playbook for Reconstruction.
Andy, thanks for this and I have learned long ago to defer to your expertise in these matters. These are some pretty random thoughts
Under the current Constitution and the current Supreme Court any "reconstruction" effort will face many challenges. Constitutional changes will likely never find the number of states willing to ratify any new amendments. The current SCOTUS is likely to get worse and even more corrupt in the next few years. This SCOTUS would probably never have forced Nixon to surrender the "smoking gun tapes" to Congress.
The founders did in fact create a basis for a serial or sequential monarchy and attempts to impose term limits on the executive and Congress were affirmatively rejected. Washington did not seek a third term in office because he was exhausted (and perhaps he intuited that he would likely not live through a third term) and not because of some high minded principle. Grant and Wilson did campaign for a third term but were rejected by their parties.
The Constitutional vision for Executive power was to be balanced by a robust Legislative branch willing and able to assert its own power. But it did not foreclose the possibility of an executive accumulating power especially if that power was delegated or transferred from the legislative branch of its own volition.
The Electoral College has never operated as described in the Federalist Papers. Had it functioned as imagined by Hamilton anyone as lawless and corrupt as Trump (and probably several others before him) would never have been sworn into office. Today the Electoral College has tended to work as an election nullification machine. Perhaps the popular vote should become the deciding electoral vote. Or perhaps the "winner take all" system of assigning electoral vote be replaced by the Maine/Nebraska system. Or perhaps eliminate the popular vote altogether and come up with a way of revitalizing the Electoral College as designed.
1/3 of America is affirmatively in favor of an authoritarian government that they wrongly believe will compensate for the perceived failure of democratic institutions. They have given up on politics and the high cost of being an informed citizen. Another 1/3 of America will tolerate (though in varying degrees) authoritarianism if it doesn't disrupt their daily lives or exact an intolerable personal cost. Some of them can be persuaded but some of them are reflexively hostile to the Democratic party--- or prefer to live with the devil they know rather than inviting one in that they don't trust or really understand.
Any sustained effort at reconstruction will require bipartisan action that spans multiple Congressional elections and administrations (who are on board with the project) unless the "liberal democrats" become and remain an absolute majority in Congress and have an executive power similar to that being wielded by the current office holder.
So any reconstruction depends on voters in free and fair elections electing a Congress that will actually assert itself in a bipartisan fashion against the executive (of whatever party). The Democrats should stop focusing on Trump and start campaigning against the do nothing/know nothing Republican Party as an institution.
If a peaceful protest of 7 million doesn’t get their attention, how about a one day national strike? Exclude hospitals and essential services, but a way to say to our House and Senate, “you work, or we don’t either.”
Strikes work in other countries because they have smaller economies and stronger labor unions. Only 9.9% of American workers are unionized and the largest share of those are government workers many of who are already not working. Most Americans are under "at will" labor laws and many employers can just tell any strikers to not bother coming back to work.
How would this one-day national strike be different from a national holiday, aside from not being listed on the calendar?
Andy, your plan is wise and welcome. Thank you Also, by envisioning the situation we strive to create, we already live in it psychologically, so this is helpful in multiple ways
Greetings from The Netherlands. I had a look at many photos and videos in the Dutch media, the NYT and The Atlantic from your No King's Day. What puzzles me is this: where are the young ones? It looks like mostly boomers and Vietnam-protesters are on the streets. And next it does not look very serious, rather "fun to be here, like the good old 70's". Am I right?
Hello from Nevada. I went to a Carson City protest. I saw people from all age groups, young to old and everything in between. Much of it was joyous to the point of silliness but not without reason. Mocking an authoritarian is a classic way of riling him. Also, the regime is trying to falsely portray the protest movement as dark and ominous, but really we are just everyday Americans, so smart people resisting the regime (with increased effect and decreased)risk) advised their fellow protestors to wear cheerful costumes, and we did.
Getting the younger generations engaged is something that needs to be worked on, for sure. They have become distrustful of government (with good reason). We absolutely need to get younger people in power to address the needs of them. The old cronies aren't hearing them.
Ah, that's a great picture: fools and jesters speaking truth to power! The angry and serious- meaning IMO anxious- men have always been afraid of a good laugh, of the sound of the Jester's little bells! It's a very powerful message to kings and caesars.
I like how you phrased that. Yes!
Any list of people you'd be smart not to disagree with includes Andy Craig. Bravo Andy! You are exactly right. The way forward is forward, not wistful looking back. That's how you turn into a pillar of salt.
Question. Agreeing we need reconstruction, do we also need a Nuremberg?
I think a useful first step that doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment would be amending the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that capped the House of Representatives at 435 when our country had “only” 106 million people. Today we have 347 million. Having more representatives would bring them back to a much closer relationship to their constituents. It would also give more populated areas more voice than they currently have compared with the power of the rural vote, which is why I’m sure this will be controversial.
This comment is written from New Zealand, where we do not have a President and we have 5 main political parties - AND A DEMOCRACY THAT IS STILL AN UNDEMOCRATIC SHAMBLES. I recently wrote the following about the New Zealand political situation ...
As a young businessman, all the business books I read taught me that being competitive was the be-all and end-all of business success. Fifty years wiser, I now think that our culture’s emphasis on competing to win is wrong. I accept that friendly competition in an activity that could lead to an individual improving their fitness, skill or knowledge can be beneficial – subject to the caveat that “winning” is not rewarded. As I see things now, “winning” is the harmful part because for someone to win at least one person (and often many) have to lose. Often the winner also becomes a loser at a later time because the cost of “winning” was too high. As examples; the rugby player who gets concussed and becomes a mental zombie in their later years, or the businessperson who works too hard, habitually shortens sleep and ends up with insomnia and depression.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now believe that basing democratic governments on competing political parties is completely dumb. Such a system of government is inherently biased towards creating “winners” and “losers”. And, as happens in sports such as marathons, the end result is an awful lot more “losers” than “winners”. While some might assert that competition is necessary to spur innovation and improvements to living standards, my belief is that innovations and improvements mostly occur because an individual just happens to think a novel thought. As examples, I can’t imagine the concept of the wheel arising from a competitive endeavor, nor can I imagine a competition spurring Sir Ernest Rutherford to invent the nuclear model of the atom.
If other readers agree that basing our democratic government on competing political parties is illogical, what innovative improvements could be made? As thought starters, I suggest the following:
1) Limit donations to political parties to a small amount, while also creating a government funded website for every electorate to provide equal opportunity marketing for every candidate wishing to stand as an MP.
2) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term. (There would be no “Party votes” as under MMP.)
3) Support every MP by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from the MP’s electorate and allow the CAG to fire the MP if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the MP is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
4) Require a minimum consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a less competitive parliament more representative of the general population. More importantly, parliament would be subject to refreshment on a monthly basis. If some MPs are getting things wrong in the public’s view, parliament’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months (and as rogue MPs get fired by their electorate).
Can someone point out to me the passage in the Constitution that gives a single man the power to keep the people's House out of session indefinitely for his own political ends?
The Constitution does not give a single man the power to keep the House of Representatives out of session indefinitely, whether he is President or Speaker of the House. It says the Congress must meet at least once a year and neither house can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house.
That's another thing we need to fix. And there needs to be rules that say the speaker can't refuse to swear in a duly elected house representative within a week of the election that they won. The fact that they refuse to is reprehensible.
As someone who was sentient during Bush, Obama, and Biden, I would welcome a movement such as this. Assuming it’s sincere.