Paper Revision

Omar Champion

Professor Nienass

POLS300_01

November 5, 2018

Introduction

From the time that the American Constitution was developed, there has been series of

debates on what constitutes democracy. On the one hand, democracy is often viewed as a social

arrangement, and on the other hand, a political system. Further, democracy is often regarded as a

social leveling or the collapse of the legally maintained class hierarchies. In other situations, the

term democracy is often taken to mean self-governance or the institutions that guarantee that

leaders remain responsible to the electoral majorities (Norris, 2011). In light of these

controversies, scholars have attempted to determine to what extent freedom and democracy

should be exercised if the United States is to be regarded as a democratically mature country.

This problem was resurrected In 2016 when Donald Trump was declared the presumptive

Republican nominee for the president of the United States. Consequently, Andrew Sullivan and

Michael Lind have engaged in arguments and counterarguments over the democratic principles

that resulted in the rise of Trump to political prominence.

Sullivan’s and Lind’s Arguments

The rise of Trump has generated urgency to the long-standing worries about the state of

the American democracy. Consequently, two opposing views regarding why he succeeded in

gaining support leading to his Republican nominations, have emerged (Mann, 2016). On the one

hand, Sullivan attributes this concern to democratic excesses. On the other hand, Lind faults

democratic deficit as the main factor that has catapulted Trump to national prominence. These

conflicting views attempt to define a major disagreement among people who seek to diagnose

and remedy the current governance problems that the United States is trying to confront.

In light of the above, Sullivan’s excess democracy argument is premised on the idea that

democratic societies begin to cripple when they become excessively democratic. In order to

safeguard the American democracy from the autocratic majority and the passions of the mob,

Sullivan asserts that the Founding Fathers developed major barriers between the popular will and

the exercise of power (Mann, 2016). Sullivan observes that the Founding Fathers developed an

extended commercial republic that required majorities to be established from coalitions of

minorities through the utilization of a process of accommodation and compromise. This refers to

a representative, and not direct democracy that has popular sovereignty obtained mainly via

indirect mechanisms, leaving the sole responsibility for elections and governance with the

political elites.

Sullivan asserts that most of the restrictions that are placed on the dominant groups are

likely to reduce over time. This is especially the case during presidential elections. As Mann

(2016) puts it, “This is likely to render the United States with a media that is fueled by feelings,

emotions, as well as narcissism” (p. 1). According to Sullivan, Trump lobbied his followers from

individuals who are ignited by frustrations that boil with fury. Consequently, he could not be

barred by political establishments from clenching.

Michael Lind proposes an opposite argument. According to Lind, the challenge that

affects the American governance system is not an excess of democracy, but a democratic deficit.

To Lind, this deficit is to blame for the emergence of a demagogic backlash (Lind, 2016). For

instance, Lind states that the donor has a throttle hold on the political system by filtering out

candidates with divergent views unless they are movement icons, self-financed billionaires, or

celebrities. The waning voter participation by low-income citizens and less educated Americans

provides the actual electorates with a disproportionate affluent cast. Thus, Lind (2016) argues

that the decision-making process on key issues of significance to voters has shifted influence

from the ballot box from Congress to the corridors of justice, the executive branch, and less

elected institutions such as transnational committees that negotiate trade agreements.

Lind notes that city and county governments have too little freedom from federal and

state governments, thereby limiting the influence that they can have on ordinary citizens.

According to Lind, most Trump voters hold the view that people who like him do not have a lot

of stay. However, these people, together with other voters who feel powerless have much

influence and have the potential to transform the country. Lind supports the view that Trump

rose to fame because the Republican Party was institutionally too strong for a long period of

time, thereby making it easier for political elites to determine who among themselves can lead, a

situation which overlooks the importance of voters (Lind, 2016) For instance, a significant

fraction of the policies that Republicans persuaded, such as lowering taxes on the wealthy,

increasing trade deals, and more immigration and reduced public spending, did not gain much

support from Republican Party voters. This is particularly true for the working-class white

voters, whose socioeconomic statuses failed to improve as pledged by the party. Therefore,

Trump tapped into the opportunity and seized it, not having to show concern regarding the

reactions of the Republican establishment since he had no need for their support.

These conflicting views on democracy are not new. This is because they have always

formed a significant component of the political reform movements from the time of

independence. For instance, they have often manifested themselves during debates between

federalists and anti-federalists and in the early eras of the republic (Lind, 2016). Therefore, the

democratic forces and influences unleashed by the American Revolution overpowered the

republican concerns of most of the farmers in the early decades that followed the ratification of

the Constitution. People consider it difficult to acknowledge the democratic facts that their

present fate rests upon the views and votes of small-souled and largely unreflective ordinary

individuals.

The Analysis that I Find More Convincing

In my view, Lind’s arguments are more convincing that Sullivan’s. Although the United

States is a mature democracy, citizens rarely have a say on political decision-making process.

They only time that they get to exercise their democratic rights is during the electioneering

periods. The fact that a few people wield immense power over the masses makes it almost

impossible for citizens’ voices to be heard. Moreover, a significant fraction of the American

population never takes part in the voting process. These citizens may have the potential to make

the right political decisions but are never allowed to register for voting. Thus, the ultimate

political decisions that affect people’s lives are often made in increasingly distant and

unapproachable ways.

Although majorities have their way in the voting process, a popular opinion may not be

right. Thus, the majorities should be constrained when it comes to decision-making relating to

fundamental rights and freedoms of other groups of people. Therefore, removing too many

decisions from local and remote governments and from lawmakers who should be accountable to

voters is counterproductive to the democratic ideals that the ‘United States’ founding fathers

advocated for. This environment results in the creation of a democratic deficit that provokes

conflicts and dissents against the system. In view of the above, there is need to remove the

feeling of powerlessness among the electorates that catapults demagogy, hate, and radical groups

(Norris, 2011). This problem can best be confronted by expanding the democratic space in the

United States. For instance, it is important to implement the recommendations made by Lind on

allowing more and more citizens to participate actively in governance and decision-making

processes that directly affect them. This can best be done by expanding democratic institutions.

References

Lind, M. (2016). Is There Too Much Democracy in America or Too Little? ​New York Times.

Norris, P. (2011). ​Democratic Deficits: Rising aspirations, negative news, or failing

performance​. New York: Cambridge University Press

Mann, T.E. (2016). Too much or too little democracy? Some reflections on Democracy for

Realists. ​Center for Effective Public Management.