The Washington Post finds that American democracy is failing. Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse write:
In a country where the search for common ground is increasingly elusive, many Americans can agree on this: They believe the political system is broken and that it fails to represent them.
They aren’t wrong.
In the next paragraph Balz and Morse present their evidence that our democracy is failing:
Faced with big and challenging problems — climate, immigration, inequality, guns, debt and deficits — government and politicians seem incapable of achieving consensus.
In other words, American democracy is failing because it’s not producing answers Balz and Morse like on the matters they deem important.
But it’s not the job of a democracy to satisfy liberal journalists or to reach consensus on particular issues. Indeed, a democracy ought not address problems in ways that lack true consensus. Nor should it obsess over matters as to which there is no consensus that a serious problem exists.
Consider “inequality.” Is reducing income and wealth inequality a proper litmus test for democracy? Perhaps it is if you’re a socialist. But history shows that the socialists who have been most focused on reducing income and wealth inequality have typically sought to achieve this goal through undemocratic means.
Our system reduces income and wealth inequality through various robust means, most notably a steeply progressive income tax, various wealth transfer programs, and free stuff. The left wants even more of this. But the absence of even more is not an indictment of democracy.
Having satisfied themselves, nonetheless, that American democracy is failing, Balz and Morse turn to finding the culprit. The search doesn’t last long. Primary fault lies with our Constitution. According to Balz and Morse, it undermines democracy in all three branches of our government.
It’s certainly true that all three branches are less than 100 percent democratic. But as constituted, they are the core of our democracy. And that democracy has served America very well. Coupled with a hard-working, self-reliant, well-educated and ambitious citizenry, it helped our country become economically and militarily pre-eminent, and at the same time remain mostly free.
If our democracy is working less well these days — and I agree that this is the case — I think much of the blame lies with a population that’s become less hard-working, self-reliant, well-educated, and ambitious.
As for the Post’s specific complaints about our constitutional system, they clearly stem from frustration over the left’s ability to impose its agenda through thin or non-existent majorities. They tell us more about the highly partisan bent of the Post than about genuine structural flaws in our system.
According to Balz and Morse, the system undermines democracy in the executive branch through the electoral college. The Post writers complain that “twice in the past two decades, the president was elected while losing the popular vote.” This, they note, “had happened only three times in the previous 200-plus years.”
That’s true, but misleading. In the second half of the 19th century, presidents were elected while losing the popular vote twice in 12 years (1876 and 1888). It stands to reason that these occurrences tend to cluster in periods when the two parties happen to be at about equal strength.
The victors in 1876 and 1888 were both Republicans. One can imagine Democrat partisans like Balz and Morse clamoring for abolition of the electoral college in the 1890s, as a result. Yet, it was more than 100 years until another president who lost the popular vote was elected.
In any case, the electoral college is part of our democracy. The Washington Post is free to attack it, but the more it attacks components of our democratic system, the less standing it has to complain about attacks on “our democracy.”
The Senate is another component of our democracy the Post doesn’t like. It moans that the Constitution gives each state equal standing in the Senate, without regard to population. Thus, “even when Republicans have recently held a majority in the Senate, they represent a minority of the population.” And “in 2024, two of the nation’s least populous states — West Virginia and Montana — could flip control of the Senate from Democrats to Republicans, if GOP challengers prevail over Democratic incumbents.”
The Post notes that this arrangement — equal representation for all states regardless of population — is the result of an ancient compromise reached at the convention that wrote the Constitution. The Post is right. But without that compromise, the Constitution would not have been agreed upon in Philadelphia, much less ratified thereafter. Moreover, it’s doubtful that a Constitution that changed this arrangement could be agreed upon or ratified today,
Thus, the Senate as constituted is part of the bargain that formed America and holds it together.
The Post also skips over the fact that, if anything, the U.S. House is more splintered, quarrelsome, and consensus free than the Senate. Yet, the House doesn’t suffer from what the Post deems the defect of the Senate. Representation in the House is based on population.
So we see, again, that it’s the closely divided electorate, more than any structural issue, that’s behind the lack of consensus in our politics.
The Post doesn’t spare the judicial branch, either. It finds that “four of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of the U.S. population.”
Apparently, the Post believes Supreme Court Justices should only be confirmed by Senators who represent a majority of the U. S. population. But by this logic, Supreme Court Justices should be elected by popular vote to ensure that, at the time of confirmation, they command majority popular support.
I don’t think anyone supports electing Supreme Court Justices. Why, then, worry about whether Justices are confirmed by Senators who represent a popular majority? The honest answer lies in the Post’s dissatisfaction with the Court’s recent decisions, not in a genuine concern about democracy.
I’ll also point out, in passing, that the phenomenon the Post decries — confirmation of some justices by senators who represent a minority of the U.S. population — is the result of two developments, both of which Democrats bear primary responsibility for.
The first is the rule change by which justices can be confirmed by a simple majority. It’s true that Republicans voted in that rule change. But they did so only after Democrats made the same change for federal district court and court of appeals nominees (and would have made it for the Supreme Court if there had been a vacancy to be filled at the time, before the Senate flipped to the GOP). Appeals courts make huge amounts of law. Yet, the Post didn’t object to allowing appellate judges to be confirmed by a simple majority.
The second development is the practice of one party voting en masse not to confirm Supreme Court nominees of presidents from the other party. The Democrats started this practice. (Republicans now mimic it, although with a little bit less solidarity. They would be crazy not to because any other approach would give Democrats an unfair advantage.)
The Constitution is the main villain of the Post’s piece, but it’s not the only one. Naturally, the Republican party must also shoulder some of the blame. Balz and Morse write:
The system’s weaknesses became more apparent as tribalism shapes much of political behavior and the Republican Party has departed from its historical moorings. Trump’s impact has distorted traditional Republican conservatism and has led many Republicans to accept as reality demonstrably untrue beliefs.
I agree that Trump’s impact has caused the GOP to depart in some ways important ways from its historical moorings. But the Post, to no one’s surprise, fails to note the radical transformation of the Democratic Party.
That party used to be “moored” in a belief in freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and colorblindness. In addition, it was the party of the white working class. And it was an unapologetically patriotic party, proud of America and its robust role in the world.
All of this has been abandoned in the interests of “wokeness,” “equity,” and a quest to radically transform America.
As for “accept[ing] as reality demonstrably untrue beliefs,” the Post’s bogus reporting caused many Democrats to hold the baseless view that Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the presidency in 2016. Organs like the Post contribute mightily to the “tribalism” that “shapes much of political behavior.”
Its nakedly partisan attack on our democracy is the latest example.
Exactly right. To left wing organs like the Post, "our Democracy" works when their preferred policies are implemented regardless of how.
Excellent post, eloquently written. I’m glad I discovered your substack.