We Need Clarity and Consistency, Not More Nuance
Describing the US is simple, argues Luke Pickrell
I recently submitted an edited version of my review of Erwin Chemerinsky’s No Democracy Lasts Forever to Jacobin (the article was subsequently published). Toward the middle of the article, I argue:
Like [Robert] Dahl, [Steven] Levitsky, [Daniel] Ziblatt, and most other liberal critics of the Constitution, Chemerinsky insists on calling the United States a democracy despite its admitted flaws. The framers abhorred democracy, he says. The Senate has always been undemocratic, he argues. Apartheid existed in the South until the 1960s, he claims. Yet, somehow, the US has always been a democracy.
An editor commented:
I think we need to add a bit of nuance here - some sort of language to the effect of "To be sure, there's a difference between the US's deeply flawed representative institutions and full-blown fascism or autocracy..." but also we shouldn't try to cover up the US's undemocratic defects.
Often, calling the US undemocratic elicits a reflex-like response. People feel a need to qualify the statement by saying things like, “The US might not be perfect, but it’s not like Chile under Pinochet,” “At least it’s better than Russia,” “People fought hard during the Civil Rights Movement,” “The Reconstruction Amendments were very important,” or “The Warren Court was progressive.”
The editor’s suggestion, though undoubtedly well-meaning, sounded like a dodge: “The US might have deeply flawed representative institutions, but it’s not full-blown fascism or autocracy…”
The reflex to qualify or add “nuance” betrays a discomfort with calling the US undemocratic. A “Yes, but…” is usually waiting around the corner. My response to these statements follows this template: “Sure, but why does that matter? The US is still not a democracy.”
“The US is not like Chile under Pinochet, but why does it matter? It’s still not a democracy.” “People fought hard during the Civil Rights Movement, sure, but the US is still not a democracy.” “The US is not and has never been a fascist or autocratic state, yes. But why does it matter? We still don’t have democracy.”
Instead of wavering, we should lean into the argument that the US isn’t a democracy when measured by the standards of universal and equal suffrage inherited from the French Revolution and the 1793 Constitution. Democracy is unimpeded political power in a single legislative assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage. Until this point is reached, the US is best described as a federal or constitutional republic, not a democratic republic.
Word swapping is another way to avoid a full-throated declaration that the US isn’t a democracy. Take “undemocratic defects” and “deeply flawed representative institutions.” Cambridge Dictionary defines “defect” as “a fault or problem in something or someone that spoils that thing or person or causes it, him, or her not to work correctly.” But the Constitution is working correctly. Saying the Constitution has undemocratic defects implies that it was designed to be democratic, which it wasn’t.
“Deeply flawed representative institutions” raises similar questions. At what point is a “representative system with deep flaws” not a representative system? If the breaks on my car are “deeply flawed,” I’d argue they are no longer breaks. If a building’s foundation is “deeply flawed,” the foundation no longer exists. Words matter.
About sixty percent of Americans have wanted to eliminate the Electoral College for at least a quarter-century. But no amendment can get through Congress. Most Americans want universal healthcare, stricter gun laws, and a higher minimum wage. Yet, nothing. Five of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by two presidents who lost the popular votes within sixteen years, and four of those five were confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, representing less than half of the US population. What kind of representative system is that?
Furthermore, a system of representation says nothing about the presence of universal and equal suffrage. The US is a republic with a Senate that “represents” the entire US (except Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) but in a way that gives small (usually white, usually conservative) states disproportionate power (I’m not going to repeat the California-Wyoming statistic). The House is also “representative,” but it’s so gerrymandered that the term is meaningless. Why not just say “undemocratic”?
We need more clarity and consistency, not more nuance.