2022 is a midterm election year, so the topic of voting rights is once again front and center. House Democrats are pushing a bill that would give the Federal government near-total control over elections. Under the Constitution, election law is prescribed to the State Legislatures. But I’m not here to talk about the constitutionality of the bill itself, I want to talk about democracy. Criticism of nearly any legislation today equates with “an attack on democracy!” The official slogan of the Washington Post is “democracy dies in darkness.” But what exactly is democracy?
Democracy is often spoken of in the abstract. To many, it means equal rights, western liberalism and freedom of expression. But that is not the definition of democracy, and that is not what democracy does in practice. Democracy means tyranny of the majority. A narrow majority means that one group gets to subjugate another. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.
Democracy, when used in the topical sense, also somehow conveys morality and justification to decisions solely based on the fact that this is what the majority wants. This is ludicrous. By that logic, gang rape is a democracy. Put two men with $20 in a room and one with $100, and the two will democratically vote to steal from the one. A majority consensus does not automatically make something just or moral. We talk about democracy in abstracts now, but human beings are not abstract concepts. Humans are fallible creatures, possessing base instincts and desires that operate within tangible reality. Envy and greed are real human emotions, and they unfortunately play a role in most democratic decisions, political or otherwise.
Defenders of democracy in the abstract also claim that said “threats to democracy” persecute minorities. To believe this would mean changing the meaning of the word entirely. Democracy by definition means that the majority rules over the minority. At one time, slavery was a democratically approved norm. There is no greater threat to minorities than democracy.
History has also not favored democracies; they tend to have a poor track record. Our founding fathers were classically educated in the ways of Greece and Rome and understood the flaws of a total democracy. Our system has some democratic elements, i.e., your Congress representative, recalls and municipal elections. But it was never designed to be completely democratic. This misunderstanding largely comes from the Reconstruction period, where the United States adopted more of a centralized top-down government and mimicked the model of the European nation-state. But it does not align with our founding principles.
The states as they existed in 1787 each had their own unique cultures and were not equal in population or size. Compare the size of Delaware to the size of New York. Massachusetts had a state religion, other states did not. Yet each state was awarded an equal number of Senators under the Constitution. This was by design. The larger states do not possess “democratic rule” over the culture and politics of the smaller states.
The Electoral College is also an anti-democratic measure. Again, not all states have population equality, and the Electoral College was designed to give a balance to those smaller states in presidential elections. Today’s critics of the Electoral College cite that it is “anti-democratic,” and they are correct. What they do not understand is that rural agrarian societies vs. industrial coastal hubs is not a new phenomenon. This dichotomy existed in the 18th century as well and the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority interest.
These same critics also claim that the Electoral College is outdated and has outlived its usefulness. This is also wrong because democracy is outdated. The idea of representative republics and an aversion to total tyranny of the majority was a unique idea in human history. Our founders were aware that history was littered with examples of failed democracies. I also find it interesting that some of the most brutal authoritarian regimes have praised democracy. Look at any nation that split during the Cold War and you will see that the communist half always took the “democracy” title. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) vs. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). The Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) vs. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam).
Words have meaning, and democracy is no different. It is not an abstract concept. When those who claim democracy is dying are given a platform, they should be confronted with the reality of the word.