Trumping Democracy

Since his election to the presidency in 2016, quite a number of commentators have declared that Donald Trump represents a threat to American democracy. These claims seem based as much upon Trump’s bombastic rhetoric as his actual conduct. “The president has talked more than he has acted,” conceded one critic. Nevertheless, several commentators have compared Trump to such demagogues as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or even to Mussolini and Hitler who used democratic processes to take power but then systematically dismantled their nations’ democratic institutions.
But, in truth, far from posing a threat to democracy, Trump has reinvigorated democratic politics in America. Trump is a polarizing political figure, but this is precisely what American democracy has needed—a disruptive force to combat the institutional lassitude and public disengagement that can afflict democracies. Trump’s presence and comportment have expanded political participation and civic engagement, reminded Congress that it is a co-equal branch of government (with oversight powers), unsettled the smug and self-satisfied federal bureaucracy, challenged the domestic spying and political machinations of intelligence agencies, and broadened the scope of political debate.
I certainly recognize that this argument will not be popular among most Democrats and even some Republicans who seem to share, if nothing else, a visceral dislike for Trump that can cloud their political judgements. I certainly do not object to criticisms of Trump’s policies or behavior. These can and should be debated and we acknowledge that many of Trump’s programmatic ideas seem based upon transient impulses and are subject to the president’s frequent changes of mind.
I do, however, take issue with critics who see in Trump some sort of dictator-in-waiting. This “resistance” literature generally points to such matters as Trump’s tendency to
denigrate and disparage political opponents, his frequent charge that major media organizations
publish “fake” news about him, and his sharp criticisms of federal bureaucracies, courts, law
enforcement agencies and other institutions when these have thwarted his programs, as evidence
of Trump’s authoritarian and antidemocratic tendencies. These critics have cited as a further indication of Trump’s real agenda his comment, made in jest, to a March, 2017 national press club dinner, to the effect that America might follow the Chinese example and appoint a “president for life.”
Trump’s lack of political civility, indeed, his tendency to at least rhetorically go for an
opponent’s throat is undeniable. Yet, to see in Trump a threat to American democracy seems
not only a bit overblown but also indicates a lack of understanding of democracy in general and
American democracy in particular. Trump is a disruptive force, to be sure, but an occasional bit of disruption can be good for democracy.
In criticizing comrades who questioned his lack of courtesy and refinement, Mao Zedong once quipped that a revolution is not a dinner party. Well, neither is democracy. What
distinguishes democracy from other forms of government is a dialectical character that early
observers correctly saw as a kind of institutionalization of revolutionary struggle. Like its
revolutionary antecedents, healthy democracy requires vigorous and sustained popular
mobilization, spirited ideological contestation, and lively battles among rival economic, social
and political interests. Healthy democracy also requires representative bodies that exercise
substantial political power, and the subordination of appointed to popularly elected officials.
As is also true of its revolutionary cognates, though, over time democratic politics tends to lose its vitality. Mobilization diminishes, ideological fervor and contestation wane and interest groups are able to use their organizational advantages to capture pieces of government, collecting rents and transfers, while ordinary folks are left to participate in increasingly empty electoral rituals. Jonathan Rauch labeled this process “demosclerosis, ” a political hardening of the arteries.
In recent decades, unfortunately, American political processes have trodden this path and
have become a rather pale imitation of democracy, with a Congress that has been pushed to one side by the executive, an electorate that is only partially mobilized and powerful rent-seeking coalitions of bureaucrats and “stakeholders” dominating major sectors of the economy. American politics is also characterized by efforts from various quarters to substitute restricted speech for robust debate in the political arena.
To make matters worse, this set of pathological conditions is defended by various forces on both the political Left and Right that benefit from them. Thus, for example, Republicans have supported restrictive voting rules that they believe reduce Democratic strength at the polls. Democrats, for their part, favor expanding the electorate, but nevertheless have supported the construction of institutions like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that are insulated from the vicissitudes of electoral change and allow important Democratic interest groups privileged access to decision making.
American democracy was born in the blood and fire and mass mobilization of the
Revolution, and was reborn in the same cauldron during the Civil War. In the subsequent decades, the civil rights and other broad-based movements have effected meaningful societal changes. Without occasional disruption, democracy devolves into a politics of elites and interest groups in which the citizenry is marginalized.
Trump certainly stimulates anger, resentment and political struggle as he attacks and unsettles established institutions, processes, political discourse and ways of doing business. But, in response to Trump’s provocations, the president’s opponents have been compelled to raise their own voices, mobilize their own followers and, thereby reenergize democratic processes. Whatever one might think of Trump, he seems less a threat and more a stimulus to democratic politics.
Of course, as one episode in American political history demonstrates, political struggle can become too intense. But, for the most part, the institutional checks built by the framers have had no difficulty withstanding vigorous clashes. When democracy becomes turbulent, checks and balances, staggered terms, federalism and so forth generally function as designed. And, if intemperate rhetoric, alone, could destroy the Constitution, American democracy would never have gotten off the drawing boards. The barbs exchanged by the supporters of Jefferson and Hamilton might have made even Trump blush.
Let us consider four ways in which Trumping democracy has had positive consequences for American politics: First, Trump’s rhetoric and actions, far from endangering democracy, have sparked vigorous voter mobilization and electoral contestation by both major political parties. Surely, this is the essence of democracy. Second, think about Trump’s attacks upon various bureaucratic agencies, including the FBI. Many of these agencies ignore elected officials, collude with interest groups, and resist efforts by Congress and the president to influence their actions. Indeed, one of Trump’s targets, the CFPB, was especially designed to thwart democratic accountability. By attacking these agencies, Trump furthers, rather than undermines democratic values. Third, Trump’s relationship with Congress and the federal judiciary hardly shows evidence of a would-be dictator. Unlike his immediate predecessors who ignored Congress and preferred governing through executive orders, Trump has worked closely with congressional leaders and has encouraged Congress to exercise long-dormant powers such as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) which allows the legislative branch to strike down bureaucratic regulations it disfavors.
Finally, consider the ways in which Trump has affected the free expression of ideas in the U.S. Some pundits have declared that Trump is an enemy of free speech. Yet, in contemporary America, the main proponents of limiting speech seem to be progressive forces on college campuses and in the national media. Trump cheerfully offends the political sensibilities of his opponents and, by so doing, has broadened, opened or reopened discussions of issues such as diversity, immigration, free trade, climate change and so forth. Since, generally speaking, the proponents of these ideas are the ones who wish to foreclose discussion, it is not clear why it is Trump who should be seen as the enemy of free expression.
I do agree with his critics that Trump is often boorish, ill-tempered and uncivil. But, so what? We wonder whether some of the criticisms of Trump’s intemperate rhetoric might not represent a not-so-subtle defense of the political status quo. As the redoubtable Chairman Mao understood, in the political arena civility and gentility are, more often than not, the enemies of change.