How many times have you heard phrase that so-and-so is “a threat to democracy as we know it? “ Probably too many times to count.
But have you taken time to understand what that phrase actually means? Does it mean that the policies or actions of an individual would, if successful, undermine the constitutional foundation upon which our country is governed?
Let’s say, for example, that a leading politician proposed that all sales of ammunition be recorded in a central database for future reference in the event of another mass shooting. Does that pose a threat to democracy? Many of 2nd Amendment supporters would say so.
What if a defeated candidate were to take extreme measures to block the certification of the election results? Sound familiar? The candidate in question still refuses to accept the outcome. Most of those who voted against him would assert that his actions were a threat to democracy.
Does either case represent “a threat to democracy as we know it? “ In both instances, the answer has to be, “No, democracy has not been threatened.”
Doubt that? Read the Constitution. It is the document that defines how our democracy is to function. It establishes three branches of government: the Executive , the Legislative, and the Judiciary. These three were designed to balance power so that no single branch would be able to dominate and impinge on the freedom of the people.
Democracy is a system. It is not a specific policy. You might not agree with a particular policy, and you might find the actions of some politicians unacceptable. But the system is designed to manage policy and personal disputes.
That is the theory, but often reality deviates from the ideal. Democracy is flawed. It is a messy process. That does not, however, allow us to proclaim the death of democracy every time events do not go our way.
Democracy is, without question, better than any other system of government out there.
It is significant that our Founding Fathers took twelve long years and one false start (the Articles of Confederation, adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777) to hammer out the document that we now call The Constitution.
In the process, the Founders avoided many of the more controversial topics of the day. Slavery was one such issue. Had they not avoided such matters, ratification would not have been possible. Without ratification, the 13 States would never have been united as a single country. Instead, the Founders wisely included Article V in the Constitution, providing for later amendments to address such matters.
Despite its flaws, democracy will only be truly threatened when those in positions of leadership attempt to circumvent the procedures of the Constitution to secure political advantage. In other words, when they are successful in gaming the system.
Such manipulation has been attempted in the past. In 1937 President Franklin D Roosevelt, infuriated by opposition to his “New Deal” initiatives, proposed altering the composition of the US Supreme Court (The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill). He failed.
In 1952 the Supreme Court prevented President Harry Truman from seizing the country’s steel mills (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer). One branch prevented overreach by another.
And yes, Donald Trump was rebuffed in his attempt to de-certify the 2020 election results.
In all three cases, the system (Democracy) thwarted unlawful actions by individuals.
Next time someone accuses an opponent of being “a threat to democracy as we know it,” smile and remind him that democracy is a system, not a policy position.
Okay, now the fun starts. It is time to check yourself on this. Go back and re-read the title of this essay. What was your immediate thought?
Many of you would have gleefully proclaimed, “Oh yeah. Trump’s actions at the end of his presidency clearly represented an attempt by a defeated megalomaniac to circumvent the will of the people. Democracy will morph into autocratic rule if he were allowed to succeed.”
He tried. He did not succeed.
Others of you would have bemoaned, “With a bumbling Biden in the White House, the progressive left has assumed the role of puppet master and is pushing their socialist agenda. Democracy cannot survive such a blatant power grab.”
They tried. They did not succeed (at least not to the extent they had intended).
No matter how passionately you wish for an outcome, opposition to your position does not represent “a threat to democracy as we know it.“
Democracy is alive and well.