By Paul Lenchner
In the sweep of human history, democratic government is a relatively new development. If one scans its successes and failures, the conclusion is inescapable that its persistence is not inevitable. American democracy, while not flawless, is rightly touted for its longevity and serves as a beacon for countries aspiring to establish rule by the people. Many observers have noted, often with alarm, that democracy in the United States may be imperiled. This essay takes a look at two contemporary perceived threats: challenges to freedom of expression and skepticism about free, fair elections.
Freedom of expression encompasses four rights enumerated in the First Amendment: speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petitioning government (individually or through interest groups). Contrary to what some Second Amendment enthusiasts assert, it is the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Through free expression, we can make our wishes known to those in office, we can criticize and organize opposition to those in power, and we can alert and mobilize our fellow citizens if we believe any of our rights are in jeopardy.
Acknowledging that no right is absolute and that it is challenging to draw the line in restricting core liberties, with the perspective of history, it easy to see that we have not always lived up to the ideals of the First Amendment. From the Sedition Act of 1798, which limited speech critical of the government, to the Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalized several kinds of speech deemed harmful the pursuit of victory in World War I, to the blacklisting of members of the entertainment industry in the 1950s for their political views, to contemporary concerns about threats to free expression, it is understandable that alarms have been raised about the status of free expression.
When a sitting president tweets about the press that “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE” (Donald Trump, 2019), that is disturbing, if not downright frightening. The rash of cases of speakers being disrupted on college campuses has been widely reported and properly decried.
Nevertheless, Americans are legally freer than ever to express themselves. We can say, write, or post, with narrowly defined exceptions, almost anything we want. We can criticize our leaders in ways that are unimaginable in most of the world. We can burn the American flag. We can demonstrate to promote broadly offensive messages as Nazis and KKK members periodically do.
Why, then, is there widespread concern about state of free expression? Three explanations present themselves. First, there are the actual cases where legal expression was imperiled. A recent close-to-home example occurred at the University of Texas at Arlington where a professor speaking on the Israel-Hamas war was shouted down after echoing the Biden administration in calling Hamas a terrorist organization and denouncing the October 7 attacks as “pure evil.” The Dallas Morning News chastised the university’s administration for its tepid defense of free speech. Second, there is the role of the media in priming public opinion on these matters. Conservative outlets heighten public awareness on matters like the UTA case while liberal ones play up instances like the former president’s attack on the press. Third, self-censorship can chill the free exchange of ideas. For example, a 2022 New York Times/Sienna College poll found that 55% of respondents had refrained from expressing themselves in the past year because they “were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism.” While self-censorship is distinct from censorship by law, one can see how people engaging in or observing self-censorship might conclude that free expression is under duress.
Free, fair elections are essential to democracy, and skepticism about them poses a serious threat to the political system. All governments must address the problem of political succession—how leaders will be replaced when nature or circumstances make them unfit to continue in office. Historically, several methods have been regularly employed in this regard: heredity, revolution or coup, selection by an elite group (think of communist countries or the Vatican), and free, competitive elections. Elections are the only option that is peaceful and permits mass participation in the outcome. Indeed, the transfer of power from the Federalists to the Jeffersonian Republicans following the election of 1800 is rightly regarded as a landmark in the evolution of democratic governance.
The problem is the lingering, widespread doubt about the legitimacy of the results of the 2020 elections and the implications of this distrust for 2024 and beyond. Fueled by Donald Trump (“pure evil” in another context) and his unwillingness to be called a loser, a May 2023 Monmouth poll found that 30% of respondents believed that Joe Biden won the election through fraud while 59% say he won “fair and square.” Among Republicans the figures are 68% through fraud and 21% fair and square. Notably, these figures have changed very little from surveys taken shortly after the election.
Skepticism is not confined to the Great Unwashed. After the January insurrection, over 60% of House Republicans voted not to certify the election results. Election denialism has become almost an article of faith among ambitious Republicans. According to retiring Senator Mitt Romney, his colleagues Ted Cruz (Princeton, Harvard Law) and Josh Hawley (Stanford, Yale Law) “knew better” but voted not to certify despite being two of the smartest people in the Senate. In Romney’s view, their ambition got the better of their knowledge. (A punster would say ambition trumped knowledge.)
In the chaotic race to succeed Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, Tom Emmer, a solid conservative with significant leadership experience as Republican whip, withdrew from the contest after opposition from Trump and the hard-right of his party. Among his sins was having the temerity to vote to certify the 2020 results. Besides being a pleasant fellow, the principal claim to fame of Mike Johnson, the eventual choice as speaker, was his role in trying to overturn the last presidential election. According to the New York Times, “He made unfounded arguments questioning the constitutionality of state voting rules; he agreed with Mr. Trump that the election was ‘rigged,’ cast doubt on voting machines and supported a host of other baseless and unconstitutional theories that ultimately led to a violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.” No wonder he had Trump’s enthusiastic support.
Republican presidential hopefuls have been reluctant to criticize Trump directly, undoubtedly for fear of alienating his strong base in the party. Commenting on the second Republican presidential debate, the New York Times’ Frank Bruni noted that while some of the contenders were more assertive than others in saying negative things about the absent former president, none of them made the critical point that “Trump has zero respect for democracy and aspirations for autocracy. It is the habit of autocrats to disregard election results when convenient.
Political scientist Frank Sorauf was the leading scholar of American political parties in the late twentieth century. He wrote that parties have three components: the party organization (mostly volunteers at various levels of government), the party in government (elected and appointed officials serving under the party label), and the party in the electorate (voters who generally don’t have a formal attachment to the party but usually support it at the polls). We’ve documented election skepticism in the party in government and the party in the electorate. People active in the party organization tend to be true believers who embrace relatively extreme issue positions, including, among Republicans, doubts about the 2020 election. At its 2022 state convention, Texas Republicans overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating, “We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States” (my emphasis). This is scary stuff. When all three components of one of our major parties reject election results because they don’t like the outcome, our democracy is under attack. Its survival is not guaranteed.
コメント