Five days ago, the man who fancies himself a “presidential historian,” Michael Beschloss, looked into the MSNBC cameras and said, “We could be six days away from losing our rule of law.”
About the same time, Joe Biden spoke at Union Station in Washington, D.C. — the closest he could get to Capitol Hill and remind everyone of the January 6 riot — and made a speech.
“In our bones, we know democracy is at risk,” Biden said. “You can’t love your country only when you win.”
Equating questioning an election with a lack of love for the country is positively fascistic. Or, at least, rank partisanship. We’ll give Biden the benefit of the doubt because, unlike Biden, I know fascism when I see it.
What’s most interesting about this election were the clarion calls for action to “save democracy” from… something. We’re never quite told what we’re trying to save it from. Even more basic, no one ever bothers to explain what they mean when they say the word “democracy.”
One of the most consistent findings in academic research is the existence of something called the principle-implementation gap. People can agree that an idea is perfectly reasonable but will largely reject any meaningful action designed to achieve it. It happens with government spending. People want government to create public goods such as law enforcement, healthcare, and national defense, but oppose new (or additional) taxes. It happens with climate change. The public largely accepts the idea that human-caused climate change is occurring but is unwilling to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. And it happens with racial equality. People decry racism, but they reject policies that reduce inequality. It also happens, it turns out, with democracy. People claim to love democracy, but willingly sacrifice democratic norms in pursuit of partisan political ends.
Loosely speaking, Democrats are trying to “save democracy” from “election deniers” — but not all “election deniers.” if you reject the results of an election when a Democrat wins, you threaten democracy. But if you reject the results of an election when a Republican wins, you’re just asking legitimate questions that demand answers.
It’s not the same thing when Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and other Democrats question the outcome of an election a Republican wins as when Donald Trump and other Republicans questioned the 2020 presidential election. The Democrats have a little difficulty defining just how it’s different. But it’s different because they say so, and besides, the media agrees with them.
Why does it matter those different definitions of democracy are floating around in the public sphere? Because if the meaning of democracy is contested rather than shared, appeals to “save” democracy will inevitably fall flat when people interpret such warnings differently. Save “which” democracy and from “whom?”
To better understand how the public understands democracy in our research, we made use of a series of survey items asking individuals about democracy’s essential characteristics. We include items that generate widespread public support (support for free and fair elections, rights to political participation, and equality before the law) as well as more controversial propositions (protections of offensive speech, providing the poor with basic economic necessities, and addressing economic inequality).
It’s a fascinating survey that deserves full vetting, but the bottom line is that there is no shared definition of “democracy.” Democracy means something different to different people.
Joe Biden and the Democrats get to define “democracy” any way they please. In this case, they define the concept in a way that gives themselves maximum political benefit and the ability to portray Republican “election deniers” as “destroyers of democracy.” It’s an extraordinarily dangerous way to conduct politics in America.
Unfortunately, there is no one to call them out on it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member