RealClearPolicy Newsletters: Original Articles
Democracy's Dilemma
Dear Reader —
We typically think of democracy as inherently inclusive — the type of government that, being grounded on universal rights, invites everyone in and accommodates diversity. According to the philosopher Charles Taylor, however, democracy has an ineradicable tendency towards exclusion — a tendency that each generation must guard against if democracy is to endure. He calls it the “standing dilemma” of democracy.
How is democracy exclusionary? Taylor argues democracies demand an unusually high degree of social cohesion. This seems counterintuitive: Aren’t liberal democracies premised on the idea that I have the right to do as I please so long as I do not harm others? But that’s not the whole story.
Consider an example. Say that I, as a member of some community — perhaps a religious minority — want the right to do X. The majority, however, believes that X should not be allowed. A law is passed enacting the will of the majority. Why, Taylor asks, should I accept this result — and not, for instance, join a revolutionary insurgency that would overthrow the government and install a new one that would allow me to do X? Why, moreover, think that a form of government in which such a result is possible — in fact, quite commonplace — is “free” or “liberal”? Note that by accepting the result, I’m accepting a limitation on my freedom: I am not free to do X.
The reason, Taylor says, is that I do not identify only with my particular (e.g., religious) community. I also identify with my country — a larger political community in which the people, and not some ruler or group of rulers, is sovereign. That is to say, I identity as a citizen of a democracy. This second-order identification binds me to my fellow citizens, despite our disagreements and differences. If it did not, I would not accept the legitimacy of the majority’s decision, much less understand my own situation as free in any meaningful sense. I wouldn’t seek recourse through the ballot box but through violence.
In other words, democracies depend on the idea of a sovereign citizenry. In a premodern form of government, says Taylor, what binds me to my fellow countrymen, in the political realm at least, is only that we are subject to the same ruler. By contrast, in a democracy, we share a political identity: the “people.” But this raises the question of that people’s identity. It is no surprise, Taylor thinks, that, historically, the rise of democracies coincided with the rise of nationalisms —linguistic, religious, ethnic, or other — because these are attempts to grapple with the problem of political identity.
Whence the danger — or dilemma — of democracy: the identity of “the people” has the potential to exclude. In the extreme, minority groups no longer recognize the legitimacy of majority rule, resulting in schism or civil war.
There are a few ways to respond to this. One is to downplay the importance of national cohesion in an effort to minimize exclusion. But the danger here is undermining the solidarity needed for democracy. Another is to emphasize national cohesion, though only through the norms and procedures of democracy. The danger here is that we see ourselves as an aggregate of individuals bound together only by an abstract formalism. Right and Left in the United States have, at various times, appealed to these strategies. But both are inadequate and invite a third response, which is to seek national cohesion in the form of some particular identity, be it ideological, ethnic, territorial or linguistic. The danger here is tyranny.
Yet, there is a fourth option — the one envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. And that is to recognize that we are, as a people, a plurality of communities committed to a shared political project — one in which the interests of the minority are protected against those of the majority through a representative scheme that disperses powers between various branches and levels of government. This is what Madison called the “republican principle.” It does not resolve the tension between local and national identities so much as offer a way to conduct the business of politics given this political reality.
If Taylor is right, questions of political identity will recur in any democracy, precisely because the dilemma he pinpoints is “built into democracy itself.” If so, the Madisonian solution will have to be continually articulated and defended.
These are some of the many issues lately taken up in our pages. Below you will find just a few highlights.
— M. Anthony Mills, Managing Editor | RealClear Media Group
***
Conservatism in the Age of Millennials. In the third installment of RealClearPolicy’s “American Project” series, Michael Hendrix urges conservatives to stick to their principles rather than “jettisoning beliefs” to win over young voters.
Can the Center Hold? It Must Solve Immigration First. Alexander Stern reports on the immigration plank of New Democracy, a center-left initiative.
Party Unity Is an Illusion. Philip A. Wallach & James Wallner warn that when party leaders suppress disagreement among their members, it is to everyone’s detriment.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Are Not Socialists. Roy Cordato argues that “social democracy” is best understood as a system in which industry is privately held but governmentally directed to advance the interests and goals of the state.
Jeff Sessions’ Asylum Policy Flouts Legal Precedent. Sarah Gilbert, Jared Levine, and Sehar Sabir make their case in our pages.
“The Great Revolt” by Salena Zito & Brad Todd. In the first installment in a new series dubbed RealClear Book of the Week, Carl M. Cannon spotlights this important new work about the populist revolution that brought Trump to power.
Reagan, the USSR, and “The Brink” of Nuclear War. In the latest installment of RealClear Authors, Kathryn Cora Hinderake interviews Marc Ambinder about his new book, “The Brink: President Reagan and the Nuclear Scare of 1983.”
The Power and Purpose of Small Community Churches. In RealClearReligion, James Abro praises these congregations for ministering to the poor rather than “preaching prosperity.”
Americans Want to Share Their Medical Data. So Why Can’t They? In RealClearHealth, Eleni Manis makes a case for establishing a national medical data donor registry.
Politics Fueling Washington State Coal Export Embargo. In RealClearEnergy, Demetrios Karoutsos suggests that the state’s move to block coal exports from Montana and Wyoming to Asia may be unconstitutional.
