Partisans Are Trying to Have It Both Ways on Populism. That’s a Problem.

Let's look at how Democrats want to tear down our institutions, for example.

By
15

“Elections have consequences,” President Donald Trump said in the opening minutes of the debate on Tuesday night in defense of the rushed nomination and impending confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is a hint of irony that this cynical turn of phrase, originally coined by President Barack Obama to justify his own power politics, has now become emblematic of U.S. conservatives, commenting both on domestic and international matters.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for example, has rewritten the rules of the political game in Hungary but “this is, of course, the nature of democracy in a parliamentary system when a party or coalition of parties has a strong majority,” according to the Hudson Institute’s John Fonte. In Michael Brendan Dougherty’s view, Orbán’s reforms, such as the new electoral system and the defanging of the constitutional court simply “strengthened the majoritarian features of Hungary’s constitution.” If you’re criticizing them, you’re effectively “criticizing Hungary for being democratic.”

In a way, Orbán’s defenders have a point. In the 2010 election, his party, Fidesz, indeed received more than 52 percent of the popular vote. If anyone can reasonably claim to be the authentic voice of “the people,” as populists invariably do, it is him. The defense is also consistent with the distinction made by John O’Sullivan between a “majoritarian view of democracy” and “post-democracy”—in which courts, international treaties, and bureaucratic agencies supposedly make decisions once under the control of Congress and parliaments.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
15
By
Comments (15)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    The President says he won't abide by the election results and someone point out to me one thing Republican lawmakers have done about that? Give me one profile in courage?

    If the Democrats do take the Executive and Congress and actually do follow through on these initiatives Republicans need to take a long hard look in the mirror if they're looking for someone to blame.

    Collapse
  2. Midge

    Rohac's observation, "And even if he wins again in November, it will be thanks to the peculiarities of the Electoral College—not because he would have an unequivocal majority of Americans behind him... [I]t does make him an odd tribune of America’s supposedly voiceless majority." misses something. If it were restated,

    "Trump would have an unequivocal majority of *white* Americans behind him, making him the tribune of America's supposedly voiceless *white* majority thanks to the Electoral College," it would make sense, though.

    As Ekins's "Five Types of Trump Voters" shows, for Trump's core supporters, "American Preservationists", whiteness (and nominal Christianity) forms a core part of American identity. They may mean nothing hateful by it, but it means their populism is a form of ethno-populism. Even right-leaners outside this core can default to thinking of white Americans as more typically American, unwittingly diminishing nonwhites' membership in "Real America". Again, very rarely is there malice behind it, but it's understandable that whites might then mistake Trump's white populism for populism, period.

    https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jason

    Between the partisans and the institutionalists. It's the second front.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    A few things to try to correct writers who can't seem to remember what is and isn't in the US Constitution:

    1. The Senate filibuster is not in the Constitution.

    2. Congress increasing the size of the Supreme Court *is* in the Constitution.

    3. The Electoral College is based on House districts, which means it is *not* an example of where the Founders wanted a non-majoritarian system for President. (As in, the EC is *not* like the Senate).

    With that, this article is... confused...

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    This is a pretty sad article sir.

    First, it is completely Constitutional to, with Congress passing a bill signed by the President to Increase, or decrease the number of Supreme Court Justices. You might read that history.

    Secondly, the inane Filibuster is merely self-protection of a minority rule.

    Third, electing a President by Popular Vote instead of the Electoral College is clearly becoming an urgent necessity.

    You are not alone, in one domain. You belong to the Sunsetting White Male Hegemony. Long long overdue, Conservatives and Republicans are having their last gasps to hold onto Power.

    It will end. The Tyranny of Minoritarian rule must and will fade.

    Remember these Words cast in America's Mission Statement: "In Order (meaning to allow and prepare for) TO FORM (meaning a FUTURE process, ongoing, continuous learning and adjusting to the times) A MORE PERFECT UNION" .. all mean that the Constitution was the beginning. Otherwise the Founders would have simply said.."Hereby We Form the Perfect Union". With slavery unresolved, it was known Progressive change was to be vital.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jason

      You're calling for a revolution. Be open about it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        You can not say I said that and I did not. Read better Jason.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jason

          I don't think it's my reading Doug. I think it's a lack of recognition about where we are.

          What you are arguing for - not in numbers one and two - but in your third point and your explicitly ethno-sectarian appeals is to remove the checks and balances that are the explicit price of political union to be removed. What you deem minoritarian rule were the explicit terms of union. You want to end the political union as it was agreed upon.

          I actually understand why many want to. They see themselves as being held back - they have the urban elite, the media, the experts, etc. - on their side and were promised the future was theirs. It may be unsustainable to reject the raw majoritarian movement but all that I ask is that you be explicit in understanding what you're calling for. It's an end to the existing union of states and the beginning of another one IF we can avoid disintegration in the process.

          As Washington told us in his farewell address to the nation, we

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            That you cling to the EC as if it's some kind of key pillar of our Republic shows that you can't think past a few months ahead of time and can't get past tactical partisan politics.

            The EC is not the Senate. It is based on the House, which means it's fundamentally a *majoritarian* facility. That it has recently failed at this in the last few elections shows only that politicians have learned to exploit it's weaknesses, not that it's doing its job.

            And the EC will be meaningless again when Texas goes blue, which will happen in this cycle or the next if you follow the demographics.

            Collapse