What Happened to American conservatism?

[Mulberry Heel]

They'll usually say we're a 'Republic' not a democracy, as if that were some sort of knock down argument. Republics usually have a representative democracy, as the USA has always had, but apparently the new conservatives think that a Republic led by an meatheaded autocrat is preferable.

That's what I hear as well, but honestly, conservatives have been saying this for a long while, well before Trump. I remember hearing it in the 80s and 90s - "we're a republic, not a democracy" which is technically accurate, but they don't mean it that way. When they use the term "republic" what they really mean is some form of government in which people like themselves will nearly always be in charge of the government, and the government should be rigged as much as possible so that people like them stay in charge of the government. They're not even really in favor of a republic if it means that people like Obama or Kamala might be in charge of the government - they want it fixed so that only "likeminded" Real Americans like them are in charge of things. So when you hear them say "we're a republic, not a democracy" what they're really telling you is that they favor a form of government that will ensure that people like them will be running the government and setting policy, not people who are "different" from them.

 

[lawtig02]

That's what I hear as well, but honestly, conservatives have been saying this for a long while, well before Trump. I remember hearing it in the 80s and 90s - "we're a republic, not a democracy" which is technically accurate, but they don't mean it that way. When they use the term "republic" what they really mean is some form of government in which people like themselves will nearly always be in charge of the government, and the government should be rigged as much as possible so that people like them stay in charge of the government. They're not even really in favor of a republic if it means that people like Obama or Kamala might be in charge of the government - they want it fixed so that only "likeminded" Real Americans like them are in charge of things.

You’re probably right this has been happening for a long time. I think I’m just noticing the volume turning up significantly as they get closer and closer to a permanent autocracy.

 

[Paine]

They'll usually say we're a 'Republic' not a democracy, as if that were some sort of knock down argument. Republics usually have a representative democracy, as the USA has always had, but apparently the new conservatives think that a Republic led by an meatheaded autocrat is preferable.

That “we’re a republic, not a democracy” line has a long lineage, and it’s always been used to undermine democratic impulses, not clarify them. The John Birch Society helped popularize it in the mid-20th century as a way to delegitimize civil rights, labor movements, and any push for majoritarian politics. Of course, the sentiment itself goes back much further: Federalist fears of “mob rule,” planter-class disdain for universal suffrage, and elite opposition to the New Deal all carried that same thread: that ordinary people couldn’t be trusted with power.

What we’re seeing now is just the latest iteration, this time weaponized by a right that’s increasingly comfortable flirting with autocracy. They know they’re losing the numbers game, so they’re trying to rewrite the rules. Denigrating democracy is a feature, not a bug.

 

[donbosco]

The philosophy behind the “republic not a democracy” goes back to Edmund Burke IMO, so it is pre-American in foundation.

Burke believed that some were born to rule, er… govern and for both genealogical reasons he never went into to my knowledge, and more prominently argued ones associated with upbringing, class advantages, and access to education (born of those advantages - sweet, eh?) he thought there was a small number that truly ought to run things.

I think ultimately Burke was good with those who ruled the new USA as they pretty much fit his model. That is also why he so hated the French Revolution.

This is an underlying tenet of The Right and one of the few that remain in so-called “modern” conservatism from the “classical” times.

My .02

 

[Paine]

The philosophy behind the “republic not a democracy” goes back to Edmund Burke IMO, so it is pre-American in foundation.

Burke believed that some were born to rule, er… govern and for both genealogical reasons he never went into to my knowledge, and more prominently argued ones associated with upbringing, class advantages, and access to education (born of those advantages - sweet, eh?) he thought there was a small number that truly ought to run things.

I think ultimately Burke was good with those who ruled the new USA as they pretty much fit his model. That is also why he so hated the French Revolution.

This is an underlying tenet of The Right and one of the few that remain in so-called “modern” conservatism from the “classical” times.

My .02

Absolutely. The American right’s suspicion of democracy draws from both European aristocratic tradition and homegrown reactionary instincts. You can trace a straight line from Burke’s elitism to the Founders’ fear of the “rabble,” to the Birchers smearing civil rights as mob rule, and now to MAGA loyalists openly calling democracy a threat.

What’s consistent across all these moments is the belief that real democratic power, especially in the hands of the poor, the colonized, the non-white, or the uncredentialed, is dangerous.

 

[superrific]

All right. First, the Founding Fathers clearly believed they were forming a Republic, not a Democracy. But "democracy" had a specialized meaning back then -- what we would call direct democracy today. Imagine if every law were a referendum.

That's why, for instance, we have the electoral college and the Senate and the Senate wasn't even popularly elected. It was a republic and was specifically meant to be that.

Where the "we're a republic, not a democracy" idiocy goes astray is thinking that a republic and a democracy are inconsistent. A Republic and a Democracy are inconsistent, as those terms would have been defined in the 1780s. But small d democracy was a key feature of the republic, as we all know.

Anyway, very quickly the whole "Republic, not Democracy" bit faded. By the 1820s, pretty much all the states were selecting electors by popular vote, if I remember correctly. Abe Lincoln certainly understood the country to be a democracy. A democracy working within a republican framework.

The American right's suspicion of democracy is mostly an outgrowth of what it means to be on the American right.

 

[akillesheel]

Absolutely. The American right’s suspicion of democracy draws from both European aristocratic tradition and homegrown reactionary instincts. You can trace a straight line from Burke’s elitism to the Founders’ fear of the “rabble,” to the Birchers smearing civil rights as mob rule, and now to MAGA loyalists openly calling democracy a threat.

What’s consistent across all these moments is the belief that real democratic power, especially in the hands of the poor, the colonized, the non-white, or the uncredentialed, is dangerous.

it frustrates me because you could argue that "democracy" as it is currently imagined in the United States does have some real issues - namely, that loud pluralities or minorities can be completely ignored. rather than the productive dialectics imagined, in some form or other, by most of the great philosophers, one side can just steamroll the other. Texas gets imagined as a red state because of, mathematically speaking, a pretty slight majority, and the fact that there are more Dem voters there than any other state than California doesn't matter because of this vision of democracy.

There's a part of me that thinks we should be aiming for a politics of consensus rather than a politics of majority rule, but i suppose American politics is too broken for that, and even this version of democracy is eons better than any alternative that its critics on the Right might put forward.

 

[Paine]

it frustrates me because you could argue that "democracy" as it is currently imagined in the United States does have some real issues - namely, that loud pluralities or minorities can be completely ignored. rather than the productive dialectics imagined, in some form or other, by most of the great philosophers, one side can just steamroll the other. Texas gets imagined as a red state because of, mathematically speaking, a pretty slight majority, and the fact that there are more Dem voters there than any other state than California doesn't matter because of this vision of democracy.

There's a part of me that thinks we should be aiming for a politics of consensus rather than a politics of majority rule, but i suppose American politics is too broken for that, and even this version of democracy is eons better than any alternative that its critics on the Right might put forward.

Totally agree that Texas is a good example of democracy failing to live up to its promise. I think that failure isn’t because majority rule is inherently flawed but because the structures meant to translate public will into power have been deliberately rigged. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and closed primaries; Texas is a masterclass in minority rule by design.

A lot of people just don’t vote too. We know that’s usually not apathy in a vacuum though. It’s often rational disillusionment. People don’t participate when they know the game is fixed or when neither party speaks to their material needs. A more democratic politics has to start with rebuilding institutions that truly empower majorities and make the stakes of politics real again.

I also get the appeal of consensus, but in unequal societies, it usually just means the powerful set the terms. Majority rule isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the few ways ordinary people can force a reckoning.

At bottom, the system’s broken not because democracy goes too far but because it’s been gutted. And now the right wants to finish the job.

 

[superrific]

I think that failure isn’t because majority rule is inherently flawed

Majority rule is inherently flawed (and Kenneth Arrow proved it's not even truly possible!) but less flawed than other forms of government, and certainly less flawed than other types of government that have ever been implemented on a large country scale.

 

[Paine]

Majority rule is inherently flawed (and Kenneth Arrow proved it's not even truly possible!) but less flawed than other forms of government, and certainly less flawed than other types of government that have ever been implemented on a large country scale.

I largely agree with what you’re saying.
Majority rule isn’t perfect, no system is. I hesitate to frame it as “inherently flawed” because that can quickly become a license to distrust the people entirely. That’s a slippery slope that’s been used for centuries to justify elite vetoes over democratic action.

 

[superrific]

I largely agree with what you’re saying.
Majority rule isn’t perfect, no system is. I hesitate to frame it as “inherently flawed” because that can quickly become a license to distrust the people entirely. That’s a slippery slope that’s been used for centuries to justify elite vetoes over democratic action.

I was just using your phrase. I am certainly not attached to the idea of "inherently flawed."

However, American democracy is without question inherently flawed.

 

[lawtig02]

This is a good and interesting discussion. My concern is that when modern Republicans say America is not a democracy, what they mean is they’re about ready to start taking away the popular vote.

 

[Paine]

It’s definitely a serious concern, but I think it’s worth recognizing that the erosion of popular power isn’t something Republicans are about to do, it’s something they’ve been doing for decades, often under the cover of constitutionalism and procedure. They’ve just stripped most of the pretenses now.

The presidency is a prime example. We already don’t have majority rule there; two of the last four presidents took office after losing the popular vote. For a long time, that was treated as a quirk of the system rather than a democratic crisis. It’s only now, as the right drops the pretenses entirely, that some are starting to see the danger. But the structure was always built to constrain majorities; it’s just being wielded more bluntly now.

 

[superrific]

It’s definitely a serious concern, but I think it’s worth recognizing that the erosion of popular power isn’t something Republicans are about to do, it’s something they’ve been doing for decades, often under the cover of constitutionalism and procedure. They’ve just stripped most of the pretenses now.

The presidency is a prime example. We already don’t have majority rule there; two of the last four presidents took office after losing the popular vote. For a long time, that was treated as a quirk of the system rather than a democratic crisis. It’s only now, as the right drops the pretenses entirely, that some are starting to see the danger. But the structure was always built to constrain majorities; it’s just being wielded more bluntly now.

Two of five, unless we're only counting Trump once. But your point is well taken.

 

[Paine]

Two of five, unless we're only counting Trump once. But your point is well taken.

Sorry yeah, I was just counting Trump once.