Democracy may not be a spectrum, but institutions can be more or less democratic in character. Achieving universal and equal suffrage for everyone over the age of 17 would be an incredible victory - how could it not be? - even though, in my opinion, the franchise should include everyone over the age of 18. When my states secretary of state purges the voter rolls of eligible voters, is that not an assault on democracy? Does it not matter? Having concepts of what makes an institution more or less democratic is a good thing. It's hard for me to see what claiming no victories gets us.
Hi Mary Kate, thanks also for your comment. The feedback helps me learn and clarify my thoughts. I think there are two points. First, institutional democracy versus state democracy. For example, someone could say, "I need to make my union more democratic." That's fine, but it's not the same project as creating a democratic republic. It wouldn't be correct to say, as some do, that democratizing a union is the same democratic project as fighting for a democratic republic. We need to "democratize everything," as some say. To me, that's too defuse and ambiguos. And we need clarity. People in unions might pick up the demand for a democratic republic, but the two things aren't inherently connected.
Second, and maybe more to your point. I see the ability to vote as a necessary but insufficient condition for democracy (defined as a single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage) to exist. I wrote about that here: https://democraticconstitutionblog.substack.com/p/suffrage-a-necessary-but-insufficient?utm_source=publication-search If people rely on voting as the measure of democracy, I think it's easy to get tied in knots like Chemerinsky. Purging voter roles is an assault on a right that's necessary for democracy, but it's not an assault *on* democracy, in my opinion.
I don't think of this position as claiming no victories. I see it as having a clear goal (the democratic republic defined above) and not being content to call the US a democracy until that point is reached. If one says "I want to fight for democracy," I'd say, "Awesome! Let's fight for a democratic republic." We have a clear goal and clear demand to build around.
Hi Mary Kate, there is a spectrum of freedom vs absolute authoritarian power. There was more freedom under Jim Crow than slavery; the Civil and Voting Rights laws of the 1960s expanded freedom compared to Jim Crow. We are for the defense of whatever powers that have been won and are for their continued expansion until we have a true democracy. But there is a question of how we should characterize our situation and what strategy and language would be most effective in improving it. It certainly matters if your Secretary of State purges the voter rolls, but what is our strategy to stop actions like these? Why haven't the Democrats passed a national voting rights law to prevent states from engaging in this kind of action. It's been going on openly since Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Of course, we are opposed to roll backs of voting rights on the state level; but power is concentrated at the national level. We are trying to find the language that emphasizes the necessity of democratic power at the national level. To do that, I think we should say there is a spectrum of power between absolute authoritarianism and democracy, with civil and republican rights and powers occupying the middle ground between the two.
So, democracy is the successful socialist revolution, as you see it, fully realized. I can see the appeal of this somewhat pedantic argument, but it's not how the "demos" thinks of the term democracy now. So your project is largely to get people to redefine what democracy means in common parlance, so that we can then have a way to talk about actually achieving it. It's a big order. The popular concept of democracy is a political struggle for freedom within a limited democratic framework, for political agency. We always push for expanded democratic rights. So yes, sometimes we have more, sometimes less. It is not an end state, even in a worker's republic. You are kind of taking the "no true Scotsman" approach to arguing that we don't have democracy at all. Why don't you just say you want socialism? We also say that societies are more socialist, less socialist, a spectrum of socialistic features, which I know is irritating to some socialists who insist there is only socialism as a worker's republic, and Medicare For All does not mean we are "more socialist." It appears that you are continuing that argument, but substituting the word democracy for socialism.
I think democracy should be defined through what I call a democratic republican lens: unimpeded political power in a single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage. The fourth paragraph from the end in this article reflects my view. This is the definition used by social democrats, who mostly got their ideas from the French Revolution. There's is only one true democratic right, which is the right to an equal vote. I get that from Tom Paine. That right doesn't exist thanks to numerous features in the Constitution that violate that principle, as Aziz Rana and others have pointed out.
All of this might feel like a tall task. But what task isn't tall? I also think many people have reject the idea entirely that the US is a democracy. There's an opening to talk about these things. It might also feel a little pedantic. But these are all live issues. You and I disagree, for example, about there being an end state to democracy. I think we can say a democracy has been accomplished when a state is structured around a powerful single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage. The disagreement is fine, but I think it shows the need for these conversations.
I can understand the "democratic revolution is not a socialist revolution" argument. After all, workers, in a worker's republic, could decide to keep capitalism in some form. I agree with most of what you write about, actually, mostly not the "end state" point you make. But the popular usage of "democracy" roughly equates to a general sense of freedom within existing structures, not so much rule by worker councils, hence it can expand and contract. Listening to an interview on Bunga-Bunga with this author, who seems like he should be highly sympatico... https://www.alexgourevitch.org/books-alt
Hey John, thanks for sharing and bringing in Gourevitch's work. I haven't engaged with his ideas on the blog, but it might be worthwhile. I'd like to think he's someone who would support the idea of a democratic constitution, universal and equal rights, etc. We are very much unfree and dominate without democracy. It has been a year or so since I read anything by him or listened to interviews. Maybe he is incorporating that stuff. My criticism of him a year back or so was that he talks about freedom and such without saying anything about the existing political structure, including the Constitution. William Clare Roberts, somewhat popular on the left, is similar to Gourevitch in this regard. I have a hunch, and this is purely speculation since I haven't asked him, that Gourevitch thinks we are in the "age" of the socialist revolution and not a democratic revolution.
Another point touches on what Gil said above in response to Mary Kate. Part of this project is about "trying to find the language that emphasizes the necessity of democratic power at the national level." I think talking about the Constitution and universal and equal rights offers a more concrete (and thus more actionable) language than "freedom" and "domination."
In the interview, he talked a little about the constitution, if I remember correctly. He mostly talked about freedom, and how it's having a "moment" in the presidential race. The interview centered on his recent article in Polity, which I haven't read yet, but looks interesting: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708919
Hi John, I just read the Gourevitch/Robin article. It talks about freedom in the workplace. Nothing about the Constitution and the structure of the political system.
That's true. Does your concept of a Worker's Republic require freedom in the workplace for it to succeed? That is, what is the horse, and what is the cart?
Democracy may not be a spectrum, but institutions can be more or less democratic in character. Achieving universal and equal suffrage for everyone over the age of 17 would be an incredible victory - how could it not be? - even though, in my opinion, the franchise should include everyone over the age of 18. When my states secretary of state purges the voter rolls of eligible voters, is that not an assault on democracy? Does it not matter? Having concepts of what makes an institution more or less democratic is a good thing. It's hard for me to see what claiming no victories gets us.
Hi Mary Kate, thanks also for your comment. The feedback helps me learn and clarify my thoughts. I think there are two points. First, institutional democracy versus state democracy. For example, someone could say, "I need to make my union more democratic." That's fine, but it's not the same project as creating a democratic republic. It wouldn't be correct to say, as some do, that democratizing a union is the same democratic project as fighting for a democratic republic. We need to "democratize everything," as some say. To me, that's too defuse and ambiguos. And we need clarity. People in unions might pick up the demand for a democratic republic, but the two things aren't inherently connected.
Second, and maybe more to your point. I see the ability to vote as a necessary but insufficient condition for democracy (defined as a single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage) to exist. I wrote about that here: https://democraticconstitutionblog.substack.com/p/suffrage-a-necessary-but-insufficient?utm_source=publication-search If people rely on voting as the measure of democracy, I think it's easy to get tied in knots like Chemerinsky. Purging voter roles is an assault on a right that's necessary for democracy, but it's not an assault *on* democracy, in my opinion.
I don't think of this position as claiming no victories. I see it as having a clear goal (the democratic republic defined above) and not being content to call the US a democracy until that point is reached. If one says "I want to fight for democracy," I'd say, "Awesome! Let's fight for a democratic republic." We have a clear goal and clear demand to build around.
Hi Mary Kate, there is a spectrum of freedom vs absolute authoritarian power. There was more freedom under Jim Crow than slavery; the Civil and Voting Rights laws of the 1960s expanded freedom compared to Jim Crow. We are for the defense of whatever powers that have been won and are for their continued expansion until we have a true democracy. But there is a question of how we should characterize our situation and what strategy and language would be most effective in improving it. It certainly matters if your Secretary of State purges the voter rolls, but what is our strategy to stop actions like these? Why haven't the Democrats passed a national voting rights law to prevent states from engaging in this kind of action. It's been going on openly since Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Of course, we are opposed to roll backs of voting rights on the state level; but power is concentrated at the national level. We are trying to find the language that emphasizes the necessity of democratic power at the national level. To do that, I think we should say there is a spectrum of power between absolute authoritarianism and democracy, with civil and republican rights and powers occupying the middle ground between the two.
So, democracy is the successful socialist revolution, as you see it, fully realized. I can see the appeal of this somewhat pedantic argument, but it's not how the "demos" thinks of the term democracy now. So your project is largely to get people to redefine what democracy means in common parlance, so that we can then have a way to talk about actually achieving it. It's a big order. The popular concept of democracy is a political struggle for freedom within a limited democratic framework, for political agency. We always push for expanded democratic rights. So yes, sometimes we have more, sometimes less. It is not an end state, even in a worker's republic. You are kind of taking the "no true Scotsman" approach to arguing that we don't have democracy at all. Why don't you just say you want socialism? We also say that societies are more socialist, less socialist, a spectrum of socialistic features, which I know is irritating to some socialists who insist there is only socialism as a worker's republic, and Medicare For All does not mean we are "more socialist." It appears that you are continuing that argument, but substituting the word democracy for socialism.
Hey John, thanks for engaging with the post. I'm actually very critical of the idea that democracy is the successful socialist revolution. I think that's a common idea on the left that bypasses the need for a democratic revolution, which I support. Gil Schaeffer has a strong article on that point, I think: https://democraticconstitutionblog.substack.com/p/marxism-is-democratic-republicanism?utm_source=publication-search
I think democracy should be defined through what I call a democratic republican lens: unimpeded political power in a single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage. The fourth paragraph from the end in this article reflects my view. This is the definition used by social democrats, who mostly got their ideas from the French Revolution. There's is only one true democratic right, which is the right to an equal vote. I get that from Tom Paine. That right doesn't exist thanks to numerous features in the Constitution that violate that principle, as Aziz Rana and others have pointed out.
All of this might feel like a tall task. But what task isn't tall? I also think many people have reject the idea entirely that the US is a democracy. There's an opening to talk about these things. It might also feel a little pedantic. But these are all live issues. You and I disagree, for example, about there being an end state to democracy. I think we can say a democracy has been accomplished when a state is structured around a powerful single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage. The disagreement is fine, but I think it shows the need for these conversations.
I can understand the "democratic revolution is not a socialist revolution" argument. After all, workers, in a worker's republic, could decide to keep capitalism in some form. I agree with most of what you write about, actually, mostly not the "end state" point you make. But the popular usage of "democracy" roughly equates to a general sense of freedom within existing structures, not so much rule by worker councils, hence it can expand and contract. Listening to an interview on Bunga-Bunga with this author, who seems like he should be highly sympatico... https://www.alexgourevitch.org/books-alt
Hey John, thanks for sharing and bringing in Gourevitch's work. I haven't engaged with his ideas on the blog, but it might be worthwhile. I'd like to think he's someone who would support the idea of a democratic constitution, universal and equal rights, etc. We are very much unfree and dominate without democracy. It has been a year or so since I read anything by him or listened to interviews. Maybe he is incorporating that stuff. My criticism of him a year back or so was that he talks about freedom and such without saying anything about the existing political structure, including the Constitution. William Clare Roberts, somewhat popular on the left, is similar to Gourevitch in this regard. I have a hunch, and this is purely speculation since I haven't asked him, that Gourevitch thinks we are in the "age" of the socialist revolution and not a democratic revolution.
Another point touches on what Gil said above in response to Mary Kate. Part of this project is about "trying to find the language that emphasizes the necessity of democratic power at the national level." I think talking about the Constitution and universal and equal rights offers a more concrete (and thus more actionable) language than "freedom" and "domination."
In the interview, he talked a little about the constitution, if I remember correctly. He mostly talked about freedom, and how it's having a "moment" in the presidential race. The interview centered on his recent article in Polity, which I haven't read yet, but looks interesting: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708919
Hi John, I just read the Gourevitch/Robin article. It talks about freedom in the workplace. Nothing about the Constitution and the structure of the political system.
That's true. Does your concept of a Worker's Republic require freedom in the workplace for it to succeed? That is, what is the horse, and what is the cart?