After reading James Traub's article/review in Foreign Policy of several* of the more pessimistic run of books on the global Trump Era ("Democracy is Dying by Natural Causes," March 1, 2018 posted at 12:15pm), I was forced to contemplate the end of democracy, when it started, and where it is going, I posted the following comment (as" zendo4"):
Back in what is now the ancient history of 1970s legal philosophy and the dialogue between Ronald Dworkin and his critics, one distinction he made that always seemed clear to me (though fuzzy to many, so my view may itself be overly simplistic) is that between policies (expressed in majoritarian legislation) and principles (individual or minority rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, primarily, and defended in litigation). In both categories, the Constitution serves as the repository of basic norms (in the sense put forward by Hans Kelsen). Policies/legislation is tested but only after a hurdle of presumed deference is overcome. Principles such as non-discriminatory treatment of citizens and others within our borders should provide a check on populism when it becomes illiberal, that is, when a majority sees its welfare threatened by a minority and the latter is threatened in turn by the majority's intolerance.
That is why the most troubling norm violations, whether by FDR or by the Republicans with or without Trump, are threats to "pack" or deeply politicize the SCOTUS beyond the limits of what any realist would say has been present in the very process of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In other countries, too, a fatal weakness or brutal assault seems to focus on the independent judiciary. It seems a linchpin on which the continued rule of law in democracies depends.
We do not need a mercantile plutocracy or an aristocratic oligarchy or even the late Victorian versions of these to maintain control by technocratic elites. It may be true that such elites may serve a nation better than the incompetent elites of the Trump Era, with Trump himself the foremost of these as authoritarian leader of know-nothings.
What we DO need is some sort of movement that could project a serious moral authority within a democracy, something like a new civil rights movement, or Ghandi meets the Quakers, something like that, which is not religious- we have too much of that supporting our current intolerant re-tribalized world, in a deeply hypocritical way- but still able to connect to people who want both money and meaning in their lives. Don't we all, one might say. But can this movement perhaps be promoted by an effective body of people living the truths cited here of tolerance and forbearance?
This movement might start with education and the fervor of students like those currently against the NRA. Just being optimistic.
* How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt; How Democracy Ends, by David Runciman; The People vs. Democracy, by Yascha Mounk; and On Tyranny, by Timothy Snyder.
Back in what is now the ancient history of 1970s legal philosophy and the dialogue between Ronald Dworkin and his critics, one distinction he made that always seemed clear to me (though fuzzy to many, so my view may itself be overly simplistic) is that between policies (expressed in majoritarian legislation) and principles (individual or minority rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, primarily, and defended in litigation). In both categories, the Constitution serves as the repository of basic norms (in the sense put forward by Hans Kelsen). Policies/legislation is tested but only after a hurdle of presumed deference is overcome. Principles such as non-discriminatory treatment of citizens and others within our borders should provide a check on populism when it becomes illiberal, that is, when a majority sees its welfare threatened by a minority and the latter is threatened in turn by the majority's intolerance.
That is why the most troubling norm violations, whether by FDR or by the Republicans with or without Trump, are threats to "pack" or deeply politicize the SCOTUS beyond the limits of what any realist would say has been present in the very process of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In other countries, too, a fatal weakness or brutal assault seems to focus on the independent judiciary. It seems a linchpin on which the continued rule of law in democracies depends.
We do not need a mercantile plutocracy or an aristocratic oligarchy or even the late Victorian versions of these to maintain control by technocratic elites. It may be true that such elites may serve a nation better than the incompetent elites of the Trump Era, with Trump himself the foremost of these as authoritarian leader of know-nothings.
What we DO need is some sort of movement that could project a serious moral authority within a democracy, something like a new civil rights movement, or Ghandi meets the Quakers, something like that, which is not religious- we have too much of that supporting our current intolerant re-tribalized world, in a deeply hypocritical way- but still able to connect to people who want both money and meaning in their lives. Don't we all, one might say. But can this movement perhaps be promoted by an effective body of people living the truths cited here of tolerance and forbearance?
This movement might start with education and the fervor of students like those currently against the NRA. Just being optimistic.
* How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt; How Democracy Ends, by David Runciman; The People vs. Democracy, by Yascha Mounk; and On Tyranny, by Timothy Snyder.
