Democracy is a fragile form of government. It consists of humankind’s loftiest principles supported only by rules created and monitored by altogether fallible beings: us. And we have proven over time to be unreliable and inconsistent caretakers of this precious system, at times even setting aside some of its central requirements in the service of very undemocratic impulses.
Both major American political parties have participated in these insults to democracy. We need only recall the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the gaming of Congressional voting districts (gerrymandering) to favor one or the other party.  But never has a major party assaulted the premises and requirements of democracy so consistently, deeply and on so broad a front as has the current Republican Party.
Leading the assault, of course, is the American president. He embraces dictators and autocrats around the world while undermining our democratic allies in Europe and the Americas. In his eyes the former are strong, the latter weak. Of North Korea’s Kim, Donald Trump asserted that ‘He speaks, and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same.’  My people.
But he reserves his most fulsome, consistent and dangerous embrace for the leader of the United States’ most persistent adversary, Russia. The most shocking demonstration of his allegiance took place last week in a press conference in Helsinki. There he stood only feet from Russian President Vladimir Putin–twelve of whose military intelligence officers have been indicted for working to undermine the 2016 election in Trump’s favor–and aligned himself with Putin’s ‘strong and powerful’ denial of Russian interference in the election rather than with the opposite and unanimous conclusion of the United States’ own intelligence organizations. This behavior was sufficiently shocking that former CIA director John Brennan called Trump’s behavior in Helsinki ‘nothing short of treasonous.’ Two days later Trump asserted that the Russians were no longer targeting U.S. elections, directly contradicting his own director of national intelligence, Dan Coats. To date the President has not ordered any federal action to defend the country against future Russian attacks on our elections.
His anti-democratic affection for Putin remains unexplained. Reasons still in contention include that Trump’s businesses have been funded in part by shadowy Russian financiers (the potential reason for his failure to release his tax returns) and that the Russian government is blackmailing him with sexual kompromat obtained during a visit to Moscow in 2013. In any event, Trump’s attacks on our Western allies and alliances–NATO, the European Union–much better serve Putin’s interests than our own. They undermine the relationships that have helped contain Russian expansionism and other behavior that threatens democratic values–for example, meddling in European elections.
Trump also does Putin’s nefarious work when he attacks the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election as a ‘hoax’ and a ‘witch hunt,’ and when he calls the media ‘the enemy of the people,’ a particularly noxious phrase with deep authoritarian roots. With this twin campaign he attacks two pillars of democracy: the rule of law and a free press. In doing so he forswears his allegiance to the Constitution and his presidential oath to protect and defend it.
And where are the Republicans? The party’s national politicians are typically missing in action–that is, when they are not actively seeking to subvert Mueller’s investigation.
Trump’s Helsinki performance drew criticisms from some GOP members of Congress, but with its control of both houses of Congress the party has shown no appetite for taking action, even to protect the nation from Russian interference in future American elections. While the Senate Intelligence Committee recently concluded that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump, the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign had colluded in the Russian interference (an effort to pre-empt the Mueller investigation), and criticized the nation’s intelligence organizations for mishandling their own investigations. House Republicans have also attempted to erect a smokescreen against the Mueller probe, calling in May for a second special counsel to investigate what they allege is improper conduct by the FBI and the Justice Department in their investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign, the Clinton emails, and Russian interference. This week conservative House Republicans introduced a resolution calling for the impeachment of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Mueller investigation for the Justice Department.
The failure of the Republican Party in Congress to rein in even Trump’s most aggressive moves against democratic principles and systems reflects in part a raw political calculation. Members don’t wish to risk their re-electability by taking on a president who remains highly popular within the party. Even after Helsinki the President enjoys an 85 percent job approval rating among Republicans. Indeed, one poll finds that 79 percent of Republicans approve of the way Trump handled his press conference with Putin. As striking, Republican support of Russia as a potential ally or friendly nation has nearly doubled since 2014–to 40 percent of poll respondents. (Democrats’ support has declined slightly, to 25 percent.)
In view of such polling results, it is important to remember not only that Trump lost the popular vote in the 2016 election by 3 million votes, but also that fewer than 25 percent of citizens claimed GOP membership in 2017, a number that rises to 33 percent if independents who lean Republican are included. (The corresponding numbers for Democrats are approximately 32 percent and 47 percent.) And the Republican Party numbers have been declining.
Unfortunately history teaches that under the right conditions, an energized minority party cannot only win power, but can overturn a society’s key governing institutions.  As with Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy in the 20th century, those conditions include growing populist sentiment rooted in economic distress and the pursuit of nationalist glory.  Commonly they include the identification of internal enemies for scapegoating and even eliminating–stigmatized on the basis of race, religion or creed–and powerful propaganda mechanisms that seek to rewrite reality to keep the regime’s supporters passionate and majorities passive.
These are precisely the processes in the U.S. that Trump recognized, gave voice to, and enlarged in his campaign. As president, he regularly reinforces them as his Administration’s leading propagandist, using social media and mainstream outlets alike to amplify his incessant lying and racist comments. The GOP offers little pushback to his damaging distortions.
American democracy has seldom been this brittle–or vulnerable. Only concerted action by all small ‘d’ democrats can secure it for future generations.
Once again, you point out really complex dynamics with clarity and terrific documentation (reference to various articles, etc.). I am hoping that you will have an opportunity to highlight some positive actions from the small “d” democrats in your next post. We can only hope……
Democracy: overrated and inefficient?
Looks increasingly to me that we may need a more efficient form of government than democracy, or at least a very different from of democracy going forward. Just like in times of war and emergency, we surrender our control and freedoms to those who can make quick decisions and most efficiently direct the use of resources, we now have a worldwide, human race existential crisis looming which will necessitate similar changes and coordination on a massive scale. The time is past where we can focus such discussions at the level of political party or nation state or any level short of the planet that sustains us.
Staying our current course of democracy deadlock in the face of increasingly dire warnings from nature, will further delay critically needed changes in domestic policy not to mention international relations.
Of course, I am assuming the ascent to power of a leader with uncommon enlightenment and humanitarian motives who will be able to inspire the masses to make the sacrifices needed, or, more likely force the issue economically. This is a far cry from the current US GOP leadership who are pulling up the ladders and scrambling to ensure themselves a spot in the lifeboats.
Can we really visualize such an enlightened leader coming to power through democratic means?
Democracy is slow, inefficient and lately shown to be subject to takeover by media stars or subtle messaging by unsavory interests. Even conducting a fair election seems impossible given gerrymandering and census inaccuracies. Can you imagine putting it to a vote to, for example, remove subsidies to the meat industry which are an impediment to sustainability but would result in the price of a hamburger going to a more natural level of $20, reflecting the true cost of today’s lunch to our descendants. The short sighted self interest of an electorate would sink this and most other needed policies for the human race to become sustainable. More ominously, we don’t have much time left to work on overcoming our various opinions and letting the course of democracy operate.
Dictatorship, given the right dictator, may be mankind’s best hope of survival.
Forget the various current politics. Forget domocracy as we have known it. We and our children and, OMG our poor grandchildren are in for a very rough ride. Its time to start thinking about ways to take our civilization forward past the next few years.
The great silence that we hear back from the cosmos in response to our search for other intelligent civilizations that have solved the sustainability problem may be the most sobering thought of all concerning the difficulty of our work ahead.
A fine analysis, Peter. Especially pleased to see that you note that “fewer than 25% of citizens claimed GOP membership in 2017.” This vital fact is omitted by almost all commentary. And can one win elections with 25%?
One point to contend: I’m not fond of analogies to Nazi Germany. Remember that Hitler’s Germany had no tradition of a viable civic sphere , no independent judiciary, and only an extremely unstable experience with democracy (Weimar).
Stephen Kalberg