“You can
fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of
the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
Democracy Destroys Itself
Liberal democracy is a social condition under which the rule of law prevails over the rule of men and in which mechanisms to renew and convey the consent of the governed are in place, such as an accepted electoral system and free speech. Renewal is an intrinsic trait to this condition, naturally generating questioning and creativity of ideas and methods. This trait dovetails with the economic system of capitalism, which also thrives on renewal or, as Schumpeter coined it, creative destruction.
This serendipitous match between the political condition of liberal
democracy and the economic system of capitalism has generated the greatest rise
in general wellbeing in the history of civilization. It has allowed the
knowledge accumulated in the previous 6,000 years to generate a world in which,
over the span of 300 years, famine, disease and ignorance have diminished to a
fraction of their previous prevalence. Advances in science and technology,
widespread access to education and health care and increased standards of
living worldwide have occurred as a direct result of liberal democracy and its
economic cousin, capitalism. This combination has proven to have the greatest capacity
to unleash throughout society the potential of its individuals to harvest the increased
opportunities offered to them.
But democracy and capitalism represent a threat to continued privilege,
because they are inherently renewal mechanisms –and no one wants to get
“renewed.” Privilege can come in many forms: political, economic, social and
racial, or any and all combinations of these. When privilege uses power to
assert itself politically, it undermines the creative dynamics of democracy. Capitalism
creates economically powerful entities and individuals by its process of market
renewal and innovation. These entities and individuals will likewise use their
power to protect their earned privilege by undermining the very same processes
and free markets that allowed them to rise, manipulating markets to their advantage.
These actions are triggered by the expected self-preservation instincts.
The nature of democracy and capitalism as mechanisms for renewal and innovation is what makes them inherently weak and subject to continuous attacks by those that have used democracy and capitalism to accumulate power and privilege. Just like the combination of democracy and capitalism fosters opportunity to create innovation and shared prosperity, the combination of power and privilege actively stifles such opportunity to create innovation and prosperity.
I begin one of my books, “La Venezuela imposible,” with the assertion that, historically, democracy is
not a natural condition for society. It is fiction to believe that even today,
in “advanced” western societies such as the U.S. or Western Europe, democracy is
favored by everyone; even less so in other societies more distant from Western
tradition and history. As illiberal regimes gain strength, the threat
to a condition that has fostered opportunities for growth and prosperity
throughout the world becomes an ominous, growing reality.
---
A Question of Goals – “Death to Intelligence!”
The United States faces a dilemma; a dilemma having to do with its goals
as a society. In a recent essay by Gerald Russello, on the positions on conservative and
postmodern politics, it is stated that politics is the way we speak to one
another to identify and further the common good—our goals. For years, that was
the case in the United States and many countries under its influence, all
gazing at that “city upon a shining hill” which President Reagan spoke about, referencing Reverend Winthrop. It
was a simple goal encapsulated in a universal “American Dream,” mostly
understood as a proper home, education, health and security, all part of a
growing middle class in which our children would lead better lives than the
ones we had. That was the understood common good. Partisan discourse revolved around the
ways and paths to achieve such a goal, not on the goal itself.
The condition has changed. “Grievance politics,” groups of all sorts
fighting to preserve, assert or appropriate privilege have arisen to pursue
disparate goals for society, rending a cleavage manifested in "political
correctness," "cancel culture," or paramilitary groups and outlandish
conspiracies. Those who believe in democracy as a renewal mechanism to
achieve the common good are being overtaken by those who use democracy to accumulate
power and maintain their interests. In the United States this looks like the
unimpeded accumulation of monopoly power by legacy corporations, “systemic
racism” and misogyny in many government and private bureaucracies, and the use
of electoral sleight of hand to impose minority rule. The goal does not seem anymore to
create opportunities to achieve the American Dream for all; it seems to be to
attain and retain power in order to defend the privilege of some by impeding the creative
forces of renewal.
Polling would suggest that approximately 40 to 60% (adding “right” and
“left”) of Americans are comfortable undermining the mechanisms of democracy as
long as their own interests and privileges are protected – or believe they will
be. This is one explanation for the current wide range of support for Donald
Trump (it is not only “white men without college degrees”) from a steady core of the electorate.
Privilege seeks to eliminate opportunities for potential rivals, leading
to policies weakening a basic compact of liberal democracy: prosperity rises by
growing a strong middle class. Limiting education and health care, for example,
perpetuates cycles of poverty for the underprivileged by hampering their
opportunity to compete and prosper, become part of the middle class and fulfill
the “American Dream.” Limits to opportunity ensure privilege is retained.
In previous iterations of the illiberal condition, we see more open and brazen attacks on education culure and culture, as in the notorious assertion by
Francoist General José Millán Astray: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!”
(“Death to intelligence! Long live death!”) during his infamous exchange with
Miguel de Unamuno at Salamanca University in 1936, at the beginning of the
Spanish Civil War. Or the notorious line in the play by Hanns Johst: "When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun" (Schlageter, 1933). While in the swing toward a condition of liberal democracy it seems as if such positions are "left behind," the legacies of intolerance live on in any society as a seed ready to
sprout anytime.
----
Finding "Some of the People"
A key contribution of capitalism is the embrace of win-win propositions
in transactions. Adam Smith explained that when a customer buys a loaf of
bread, both the baker and the customer obtain something they want. General
wellbeing (GDP) increases and commercial laws and contracts are codified from
that simple idea. This was contrary to previous practice, in which strongman
rule commonly prevailed, albeit somtimes also codifed but not neutrally, with justice not so blind. Win-lose propositions are the basis of mercantile societies
and, by extension, communism. The wealth of a nation was measured by its accumulated treasure relative to the treasure of others, not by the number of transactions creating shared wellbeing within it. Many of the privileged subscribe to the idea that
if others gain privilege, they themselves will lose it, their treasure, so they do everything
in their power to prevent it from happening.
When democracy is understood as an environmental condition (as opposed to an “evolved” form of government) which allows in its better iterations rising prosperity and wellbeing – win-win propositions –the swings of nations from authoritarian rule, to democracies, to oligarchies and other governance arrangements are better understood. It is misleading to categorize “mature” or “developed” politics or governmental institutions, implying linear progressive improvement. Forms of governance swing back and forth among various types, some more conducive to allowing the common good and some more intent on protecting privileges for the few: the insiders, the partisans, the members, the race, etc. - a populist promise even if it means totalitarian crackdowns.
So, how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing
that a society based on renewal and win-win propositions is a lie, contrary to
their interest? That a nation works best when ruled by a permanent minority of
“smart” people, in a gerrymandered (or fraudulently) vote into office in some
cases, and appointed (or self-appointed), for life in others? And how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing that liberal democracy
is aligned with their interests, in pursuit of an abstract, imperfect and unattainable common good for all (“The American Dream”) --and that their fellow citizens believe in democracy too?
Polling would suggest that numbers probably hover around 40% for each of
those groups in the United Ststes, probably similar in other countries. The remaining 20% are the ones all sides try to “fool some of the
time.” But because illiberal forces are opposed to, and deft at managing to
their advantage, “free and fair elections” and free speech, they have a better
chance of fooling “persuadables” and keeping the apathetic on their couches (or
voting meaninglessly), than those promoting liberal democracy values; or they just have a
better knack for stealing elections. That is why the condition of liberal
democracy is permanently fragile.
----
"Venceréis, pero no convenceréis"
The 2020 election in the United States is significant as a shining,
prime exemplar of these issues. This election is unusual because it brings
forth a broad coalition of forces that believe in liberal democracy and
supports the alternative to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated does
not. The usual figures on the left that would be expected to oppose a
Republican president, no matter who, do not make this coalition noteworthy.
Some of these even have suspect liberal democracy credentials themselves and do
not risk much by their opposition to the current president.
What is unusual is the large number of long time Republicans and
conservative leaders and figures that recognize the threat that the incumbent
and those supporting him represent to norms, institutions and even laws supporting
the condition of democracy in the United States; what is unusual is that former
members of all administrations, even of this one, have voiced their concern
about the distortion of institutions that protect government and the people,
such as law enforcement, intelligence and security, justice and others; what is
unusual is that pundits in administration friendly media such as FOX or the
Washington Times -some with power and some since sidelined- or
traditionally conservative writers in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal
or The New York Times, question the democratic integrity of the president;
and what is unusual is that former members of the inner circle, of the
administration at large and of the Republican party as a whole are willing to
risk excoriation, careers and livelihood to raise the alarms in this matter.
The illiberal coalition in power knows it is in the minority and behaves accordingly. It rushes legislation and appointments that strengthen their long term privilege and slows down those which do not. The coalition in power is doing whatever it can to interfere with free and fair elections. The coalition in power behaves as if it knows it is in the losing side of an election, which polls and demographics strongly suggest. In my book, Campaign Journal 2008, I point out that a successful professional politician is one capable of building broad coalitions towards a goal which he or she strongly believes in and can "sell" to others, maximizing results. The illiberal coalition in power seems uninterested in the idea of goals or broad coalitions, or "selling" ideas to earn votes and supporters, only in the idea of protecting privilege.
I return to the exchange between General Millán and Unamuno in the University of Salamanca in search for clarity on the dangers faced by the United State in the democracy crucible in which this condition is always forged anew. I return to those words from a scholar that universally ring true as a warning against interest above nation, and were a warning about the horrors of the Spanish Civil War about to be unleashed upon that country:
"You will win, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken."
Perhaps, then, democracy shall not perish from this earth after all.
