I recently read a Persuasion interview with two noted political scientists, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, whose most recent book is The Tyranny of the Minority. In two of their initial observations, they summed up the roots of America’s political dysfunctions.
Those observations began with America’s constitutional structure:
Our Constitution has always favored rural areas, which represent a minority of the population. For most of our history, that really wasn’t a big problem, because both parties had urban and rural wings; but now, demographic changes have really led us to a position in the 21st century where the Republican Party is primarily the party for rural areas, while Democrats are primarily the party of urban areas. And so this means that our constitutional structure over-represents rural areas, and so it’s no longer necessary at the national level for the Republican Party to win majorities in order to gain power. That has unleashed a set of distorting impacts on our politics that are very dangerous.
Adding to that urban/rural divide is the country’s longtime struggle with racism and the religious roots of White Supremacy.
Our central argument regarding why the Republican Party has sort of gone off the rails in the last 15 years or so is that, in the latter third of the 20th century, the United States changed dramatically and the Republican Party did not. It became an overwhelmingly white Christian party in a much more diverse country at around roughly the turn of the 21st century and that brought two problems. One is that it had a hard time competing for a national majority (and lost the national popular vote in seven of the last eight elections) because it was relying so heavily on white and particularly white Christian votes. And, secondly, a segment of its base grew increasingly threatened; the Republican Party actually did an excellent job of appealing to racially conservative whites over the course of the last third of the 20th century, those who were unhappy with government efforts to enforce civil rights in the last part of the 20th century; and recruited these folks into its party, becoming a more racially conservative party. A primary-winning plurality of the Republican base grew pretty resentful over the visible rise of multiracial democracy in the 21st century. And so the party radicalized.
And so here we are. The entire discussion is worth reading (or listening to–I’m working from the transcription of a podcast, which you can also connect to from the link–but the two preceding paragraphs really focus on the roots of America’s current dysfunctions.
The authors concede that America’s constitutional democracy limits majority rule. Our system constrains majorities from invading the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. But as they also note, without majority rule, there is no democracy. And among important things that ought to be within the reach of majorities is the right to form governments and the right to govern with those majorities.
Levitsky and Ziblatt are quick to point out that–while their book offers suggestions for constitutional amendment–those suggestions are hardly radical. They would align our system somewhat more closely to the systems in Denmark, New Zealand and Finland. And they remind us that
Both Hamilton and Madison strongly opposed the current structure of the Senate in which each state gets equal representation. That was designed because small states insisted on it and threatened even to break up the union if they didn’t get it. That was not part of some sort of far-sighted design of our founders. Madison opposed the Electoral College; it was the second-best solution after other alternatives had been voted down in the convention. And both Hamilton and Madison opposed supermajority rules for regular legislation.
Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote–Trump by some three million. Levitsky and Ziblatt say it would be “a great day for America if the Republican Party could win power with majorities fair and square.” That would mean we would have two parties committed to the democratic rules of the game. But as Levitsky notes (rather delicately), “the rural bias of our institutions weakens the incentive of the Republican Party to broaden its appeal.”
Their book–which I intend to purchase– wrestles with the question that frequently animates conversations on this blog: Why, after 150 years, has the mainstream center-right party gone off the rails?
You need a theory for that. Our theory focuses on the perception of existential threat faced by some members of a once-dominant ethnic majority that is losing its dominant status. But secondly and more pertinent here is the electoral institutions that dull the incentive of the party to adapt.
Yep.
The authors have made a winning argument that the Republican Party has no reason to adapt, so now what? To weaken the constitutional gift to rural areas short of convention (which takes eons) we Democrats will, it is plain to see, have to devote time and resource to solution of rural issues, as we once did with farm price controls etc.
If the GOP in Indiana was functional, wouldn’t they have had enough time in power to solve the problems that are so pervasive in rural Indiana? Poverty, education, addiction, access to health care, etc?
When the people in power no longer need to concern themselves with the needs and wishes of their constituents they can do as they please.
I have recently re-discovered the organization called “Our Common Purpose”, a project of the American Academy of Arts and sciences, and I suggest that readers of this column look into it. They have a big vision for reimagining America that I find interesting.
Copied and pasted from encyclopedia.com; “In the United States and other countries, wage-price controls were enforced to varying degrees during the two world wars. The United States also imposed controls during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Voluntary wage-price programs were initiated during the Kennedy-Johnson and Carter administrations. After World War II, various European countries adopted “incomes policies” similar to the voluntary programs later installed in the United States. Controls during the two world wars and the Korean War were part of larger schemes aimed at diverting resources for military purposes. Beginning in the 1960s, attempts to influence or control wages and prices had a more general macroeconomic justification.”
Copied from Sheila’s post; “Our Constitution has always favored rural areas, which represent a minority of the population. For most of our history, that really wasn’t a big problem, because both parties had urban and rural wings; but now, demographic changes have really led us to a position in the 21st century where the Republican Party is primarily the party for rural areas, while Democrats are primarily the party of urban areas. And so this means that our constitutional structure over-represents rural areas, and so it’s no longer necessary at the national level for the Republican Party to win majorities in order to gain power. That has unleashed a set of distorting impacts on our politics that are very dangerous.”
Gerald’s reference to “…solution of rural issues, as we once did with farm price controls etc.” takes us to FOLLOW THE MONEY. Something must be done to end the rising prices and the stagnant income levels; should wage/price ceiling be enacted again in this political war? Rural in Indiana today no longer means “farms”; the white middle and upper class income families have been moving to those cookie cutter housing developments where farm crops once grew. Their money, racism and religion moved along with them guided primarily by their politics. We are also faced with the financial situation which fulfill the forewarnings in the 1960s which told us was coming of a cashless/checkless society control by the banks and we would be identified by numbers. We are moving to control of our lives to an electronic system; currently pushing us to “go paperless” and run our lives by our cell phones. “The Tyranny of the Minority” is most obvious by the waste of lawmakers’ time and our tax dollars in the House and one man in the Senate who is stalling hundreds of military positions being kept unfilled. The non-payment of the military with the coming government shutdown can push our own military to the third-world militant takeover of our government and stronger hold on our entire financial system. Today minority rules in the current cold war between political parties, the haves vs. the have nots and the MAGAs are gaining control daily.
The authors’ arguments, as described, are rather anodyne, ignoring what may the thorniest issue: the GOP/MAGAte calls for violence in pursuit of their aims. Online death threats follow anyone not aligned with them, sometimes accompanied by concrete plans. Harassment at homes and businesses, racial assaults, mob attacks, AR-15 lapel pins, bragging about how well-armed they are, even would-be leaders suggesting execution of a military leader… one could go on all day. Consider the infiltration of police departments, military ranks, state governments, state and federal bureaucracies, election officials and courts with right wing, vicious, hate-filled, vengeful people. We are far enough down that road to make the future for representative democracy look very dark. As Trump said, if we don’t fight, we won’t have a country.
I am unsure if Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt address the second issue: the motivations of the party apparatus (the owners) and voters are different. Think Charles Koch. Does he want to solve the issues troubling rural voters, or is he using rural voter’s fears to motivate them to vote Republican?
Also, the constitution favors urban areas in some ways, as does SCOTUS, which demands a redistricting along population — one demographic is expanding while the other is shrinking.
Lastly, Paulo Freire would point out that the owners of the R Party have ulterior motives than R voters. What takes place is oppression, but R voters are not that smart to grasp they are being manipulated. We could say the same for D voters. 😉
There are many consequences to the highly politically leveraged (now) urban/rural divide. That is an artifact from considering what propaganda aligns best with local culture (the essence of politics but an anathema to governance). “Brand marketing” now.
It now dictates which states are naturally “blue” and which are naturally “red,” which is a leftover from the Civil War, which spawned their local economic bases.
The Union was industrialized, and the Confederacy’s economy was based on agriculture.
Why? The soil in the north was rocky and hilly. The soil in the south and midwast was easier to clear because it was flat (of course both had disadvatges too like heat, humidity and hostile native Americans).
All of the colonies before the Revolution were poor. Average life spans were abysmal compared to today.
They both adapted to local reality by industrializing.
The North learned from Great Britain that they could be wealthier by employing falling water energy from the cascading swift, concentrated gravity-energized water flowing around wheels in factories and sometimes at home. They also quickly adopted slaves (which today we call children). They were too plentiful to feed at home in their useless years, so why not the family make money from them before they ‘graduated’ to becoming old age insurance by learning from their parents what marriage was all about? So the parents put them them to work in a factory like, typically, the fathers did, making money, so mom could attend to her “chores” around the house like milking the cow and feeding the chickens, and sweeping the dirt floor in the cabin (to reduce the rodent population baited by crumbs of food).
The South learned about different kinds of labor-saving, wealth-creating adaptations, like employing energy from livestock like robots (used now and increasingly in the future). Back in that day, those robots were called slaves.
Those traditions began what we consider so long ago but in the blink of an eye in cultural/economic adaption years.
Since the structure of the Senate and the Electoral College aren’t changing any century soon…how about we save our democracy with things that CAN be done?
As per Lester, let’s get out and vote the Dems in, especially in Indiana!
Mitch D., First we need to have good candidates on the Democratic ballots. In many precincts, there are no Democratic candidates on the ballot. It is a function of extreme gerrymander and lots and lots of money from both inside and outside of the state.
JD et al
Why no new “good candidates”? Let me count the ways…
– Politicians are considered “lowlifes” by the public
– The Party usually supports existing “career politicians”
– The “base” most often supports extremists who then lose
– You give up your chosen career and its growth
– You might endanger your family
– You get to spend most of your time raising money
– Etc.
Why run???