A radical third of the country dictates the terms of democracy
By: John Stoehr (The Editorial Board.)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A radical third of the country dictates the terms of democracy
It is entitled to use political violence.
USA Today runs a daily poll on its frontpage. On Friday, the public survey results were on gun laws. "If it were harder to obtain guns legally, Americans think there would be ____ mass shootings."
Sixty-six percent said there would be far fewer or somewhat fewer mass shootings. Nearly 30 percent said no difference. (A smattering of cranks, 5 percent, said there would be more or somewhat more.)
I bring this to your attention not so much to bolster the prospect of tighter gun laws (though it does), but to point out a pretty common demographic pattern - that a radical third stands against the majority with respect to issues concerning us all. Whether gun control, abortion or "indoctrination" in public school, there's always about a third of the country representing the country's shame.
We should consider something else that's more theoretical than empirical - the idea that political violence is an exception to the rule. Precisely, that political violence is random, irrational, senseless: something that deviates from the norm. It's nothing of the sort.
This alone isn't noteworthy. After all, every country has its yokels and yahoos. But not every country has a political setup that gives yokels and yahoos more practical power than the majority. Very few countries, if any, give voters in sparsely populated farming areas an effective veto over densely populated areas with large urban centers.
That setup - or the political advantages of it - are apparent when the Republicans slander cities, and in the slandering, they protect those same advantages. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan said last week: "Do you feel safe in cities controlled by the Left? Cities that defunded the police? Cities that ignore police staffing issues. No. No. No."
The dynamic of political power between urban and rural is obviously asymmetrical. That's by design. It's to prevent liberal democracy from flourishing fully. The thinking at the time of the founding was that a fully flourishing liberal democracy would inflict tyranny on the minority. In the case of the founders, rich white men like them.
But the problem is and has been the opposite.
A radical minority dictates the terms of American democracy.
I suspect that even people with something better to do than pay attention to politics get this. The Electoral College stands against democracy. So does the US Senate. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, do, too. We liberals say "it's a republic, not a democracy" is wrong, but we don't consider whether rightwingers have a point. Saying they're wrong is more theoretical than empirical.
We should consider something else that's more theoretical than empirical - the idea that political violence is an exception to the rule. Precisely, that political violence is random, irrational, senseless: something that deviates from the norm. It's nothing of the sort.
Its origins have always been here.
It's that place, demographically speaking, where the minority believes, say, that tighter gun laws will make no different to shooting massacres, even amid mass death, even amid murder rates in Republican-controlled state outstripping those of all other states.
What respect is the truth (or anything) owed when a third controls contra majoritarian institutions built into the system by design?
What respect is the political majority owed by a political minority? Why would the politically strong give respect to the politically weak?
But sometimes those contramajoritarian institutions fail (or appear to). If and when they do, this radical third of America is entitled, on account of having political advantages, to resort to violence in order to maintain those same political advantages. While democracy is the point for the political majority, with violence the exception, violence is the point for the political minority, with democracy the exception.
So when a schoolkid is sent a letter like the one above (regarding the child's mother, a Loudoun County, Virginia, school board member), it should not be seen as extraordinary, because it's actually ordinary. After all, what's more common? People discussing hard topics like "critical race theory" in public school? Or people losing their minds over things they don't understand and don't want to understand?
The radical third has been living among us since the founding. They had kids. Their kids had kids had kids. This is how they think. This is what they do. The difference is of degree, not kind. As long as the contramajoritarian institutions hold, all's well. If they don't, well …
According toUSA Today, "bomb threats at [historically Black colleges and universities] had swelled to at least 57" since February, "leaving administrators and students on edge and rekindling a history of violence aimed at Black students seeking educational advancement."
The FBI said that it had focused on six subjects in 2021, but arrested no one, according to USA Today. In the meantime, however, "the menacing behavior continued into the next school year."
"If we allow people to feel like they can continue to do this without being held accountable, they will always be able to be disruptive," Walter Kimbrough told the newspaper. "We're the only group where there have been threats, and nobody has been caught" (my italics).
If it isn't apparent, the source of these threats is the radical third of America, where democracy is undeserving of respect and where the rule of law applies only if it maintains baked-in political advantages.
A radical third dictates the terms of American democracy.
It's empirical, not theoretical.
Tags
Who is online
510 visitors
We have had one party rule for almost 2 years and progressives control every institution and bureaucracy. It is ridiculous to think anyone else has had a say in anything.
That is simply not true, and I know you know this. Republicans control the Senate so long as the filibuster exists, and conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court for years.
If you can’t do what you want, you do have control, do you?
Oh good. Then you won’t mind if Joe Biden puts a few more liberals on it.
Your question was answered, but I’ll humor you and elaborate. The filibuster drastically limits what the majority can do. That means they don’t have full control. They can control some things - like the agenda - but they can’t just pass whatever they want.
Getting back to the Court, you said progressives control every institution and bureaucracy. Is the Court not an institution? Is it not controlled by conservatives?
Riiiiight. Because if progressives actually were the majority on the Court, conservatives wouldn’t squawk about it. Conservatives didn’t spend 50 years squawking about Roe v. Wade. They don’t try to elect a Republican president for the express purpose of nominating conservative justices. Republican candidates never run on that promise. And you probably never express an opinion against a liberal ruling from the Court.
And I think this is a damn good thing. The House is already a majority rule institution. The last thing this country needs IMO is to have both House and Senate set up for majority rule.
You came into a conversation where Vic said progressives control every institution and bureaucracy. You came into it by responding to my comment to him and taking his side. If you don’t want to be held accountable for that position, then don’t take part in the conversation.
By the way, that first comment from you was one of those BS “so you’re saying . . . “ straw men type things. Basically, just trolling.
You want to ignore the filibuster. You want to ignore the political nature of the Supreme Court. You want to ignore basic, known facts about our institutions, and for what? Nothing. You have literally brought nothing to the conversation.
This is an extreme level of denial. 50 years of whining, activism, violence, and politics finally resulted in the most conservative justices in history being named to the Court. It has never been this conservative, and this was the direct result of conservative politics. Trump ran for president on a promise that he would nominate justices that would overturn Roe v Wade. He did just as he promised and the Republican Senate approved his choices.
The result? For the first time in its history, the Court has invalidated a fundamental right it had previously acknowledged and affirmed repeatedly. To say that conservatives do not control the Court is to deny reality.
I did. You whining about it is sad, but unsurprising.
Nice of you to finally admit I was right all along. Unfortunately, everything else you wrote was hostile and irrational.
What a steaming pile of propaganda.
You’re about to find out what the majority thinks on November 8th. And it doesn’t even come close to tracking with this steaming pile of poo.
Many democrats will be joining Republicans and Independents.
Minorities will join majorities...
Sissys will join Marines..
The radical left Is a much greater threat to our democracy and values than anything else. The voters will once again give them a lesson in reality in 10 days.
I agree partially with this. I would say the radical extreme is the greater threat. And with the upcoming elections I fear that we will see more of the radical right in action soon.
IMO we need leadership to reign in the extreme ends of both sides and we need the two parties to work harder to bring in better people to start to upgrade our elected officials. We need new blood but we need them to be better people. I don't see that happening however so I expect the next 20 years will be darker than any of us would like.
Stop the snark, both sides need better people. There are too many idiots in politics that we would never willingly invite into our homes but they get elected? We deserve better people in government.
Well if you think there's an insult in that comment then you better flag it and let a moderator review it and ticket me.
But yes, your comment was simple snark. You continue to only blame one side for the problems. Your bias is overwhelming and obvious to see. As for me, I'm just done responding to you. You are just not worth my time as your bias is so strong you can only see what is in your very narrow view.
Some people cannot help it. It's in their nature.
Agree with you 100%.