Haven’t the democrats moved to the center? We have had two years of a Biden-Manchin presidency, and the main things they are promising with more senate seats are restoring the voting rights act and roe v wade. But they are ‘too far left’ for these centrists.
That "republic, not a democracy" line has an ancient pedigree dating all the way back to the New Deal.
It was part of the standard country club locker room bitching about FDR.
A.J. Liebling called it 80 years ago when he wrote that a conservatives' idea of a "republic" involved voting rights about as broad as shareholding in General Motors.
IOW, forget about universal suffrage or anything close to it.
It's almost too obvious a point to make, but all the other countries Barro mentions have parliamentary systems! Voters actually do have multiple choices on election day, even if some of those choices might be bad strategic options given the specifics of the country's voting system. But in the US the Democrats are the only viable opposition to the Republicans at the federal level, so Barro gets to throw a hissy fit because protecting democracy necessarily entails that you punish the anti-democratic semi-fascists (sorry, Shadi) at the ballot box.
Hi John, good article. You touched on it here, but I would be really interested to read your thoughts on the election in Israel – I think the country’s long-term ideological trajectory will be important to understand.
Barro is just pounding the table, re: Murc’s Law: in our political system only Democrats have agency, therefore, they are to blame for any and all ills.
I'm with you, John and just as alarmed, if not more so. Sometimes, when it comes to peace of mind, it doesn't pay to be a historian. As for Barro, if he gets his way someday he'll write:
First they came for the Democratic politicians, but I was not a politician, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Bernie supporters, but I hated Bernie, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for anyone with dark skin, but I was white as a cue ball, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
I agree that pundits talking about what is good or bad messaging is like third-rate theater criticism instead of actual political analysis. But two things can be true at the same time: "democracy in peril" can be bad political messaging AND democracy may, in fact, be in peril. The baseline problem is that the voters who aren't already pre-committed to a political party (either the Democrats or the "Crank Yankers" fan club masquerading as the Republicans) have a status quo bias that can't be shaken. Both parties actually face the exact same problem -- if you win power, and actually do anything in terms of policy, you get a backlash. The unwashed "swing" voter wants something like the summer of 2019 forever and ever. They don't want to pay more in taxes or more at the gas pump, they like their health insurance, they like their schools in white-flight suburbs, they liked the Roe equilibrium . . . NOTE that democracy as a value isn't part of that status quo. Most people don't live in particularly "democratic" places, at the local level. Like many people, I live in an effectively one-party jurisdiction. I vote, but I really exercise little "choice." My vote literally doesn't matter to what happens where I live; at best it validates the current political machine or political dynasty (political "brand"). To a low-information voter -- the kind who knows within a nickel what the per gallon price of a gallon of gas is, but doesn't know (or care to know) who her state representative is -- appeals to "democracy in peril" are weirdly hollow. (Do they actually *live* in a democracy?)
Seen in this light, the abandonment of popular sovereignty as a concept looks more like a response to policy deadlock as opposed to partisan deadlock. Take the Republicans' interest in "sunsetting" Social Security and Medicare. Good luck with that, if you have to stand for election again in two years. But Democrats are in a similar boat with regard to, say, climate policy. I.e., if you could regulate carbon emissions through the non-democratic administrative state (EPA), you might be able to do it? But you're not getting cap-and-trade, let alone more ambitious goals, through even a Democratic Congress. There is an argument that neither party can really be committed to "popular sovereignty" and its policy agenda (if the latter is understood in maximalist terms). (Yes, I bothsidesed it and sort of "defended" the centrists. But I'm a liberal and incapable of taking my own side in an argument.)
“This amounts to telling voters that they have already lost their democracy.” Ross, Ross, Ross, you have to love the guy. The better question: What am I going to do when these guys get elected and come for the keys? Precious little from you and your cohorts so far. Already IS right now.
Ugh, thanks for saying what needs to be said about this pablum. Barro has long cultivated a centrist/savvy position among the punditocracy and written and said many obtuse things as a result. This is among his Crown Jewels of foolish takes.
Popular sovereignty has almost never meant universal suffrage. Some Republicans are Caesarists or plutocrats or monarchists and disdain a principal/agent view of governance, but a greater share of "voter suppression" types just want a winnowed electorate. Which would be perfectly Athenian.
Republicans: if you elect us, we will use armed militias to shut the majority out of power, at gunpoint.
Democrats: if you consider what's at stake and the arguments pro and con, you will feel rationally compelled to vote against the Republicans.
Josh Barro: You see? Gunpoint and rational compulsion both leave you with no choice. Both sides!!!
Why did the stupidest kids in my freshman composition class become journalists?
Haven’t the democrats moved to the center? We have had two years of a Biden-Manchin presidency, and the main things they are promising with more senate seats are restoring the voting rights act and roe v wade. But they are ‘too far left’ for these centrists.
That "republic, not a democracy" line has an ancient pedigree dating all the way back to the New Deal.
It was part of the standard country club locker room bitching about FDR.
A.J. Liebling called it 80 years ago when he wrote that a conservatives' idea of a "republic" involved voting rights about as broad as shareholding in General Motors.
IOW, forget about universal suffrage or anything close to it.
It's almost too obvious a point to make, but all the other countries Barro mentions have parliamentary systems! Voters actually do have multiple choices on election day, even if some of those choices might be bad strategic options given the specifics of the country's voting system. But in the US the Democrats are the only viable opposition to the Republicans at the federal level, so Barro gets to throw a hissy fit because protecting democracy necessarily entails that you punish the anti-democratic semi-fascists (sorry, Shadi) at the ballot box.
If I could use an emoji for a reaction to this, it would be that "100" thing
Hi John, good article. You touched on it here, but I would be really interested to read your thoughts on the election in Israel – I think the country’s long-term ideological trajectory will be important to understand.
Barro is just pounding the table, re: Murc’s Law: in our political system only Democrats have agency, therefore, they are to blame for any and all ills.
I'm with you, John and just as alarmed, if not more so. Sometimes, when it comes to peace of mind, it doesn't pay to be a historian. As for Barro, if he gets his way someday he'll write:
First they came for the Democratic politicians, but I was not a politician, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Bernie supporters, but I hated Bernie, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for anyone with dark skin, but I was white as a cue ball, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
I agree that pundits talking about what is good or bad messaging is like third-rate theater criticism instead of actual political analysis. But two things can be true at the same time: "democracy in peril" can be bad political messaging AND democracy may, in fact, be in peril. The baseline problem is that the voters who aren't already pre-committed to a political party (either the Democrats or the "Crank Yankers" fan club masquerading as the Republicans) have a status quo bias that can't be shaken. Both parties actually face the exact same problem -- if you win power, and actually do anything in terms of policy, you get a backlash. The unwashed "swing" voter wants something like the summer of 2019 forever and ever. They don't want to pay more in taxes or more at the gas pump, they like their health insurance, they like their schools in white-flight suburbs, they liked the Roe equilibrium . . . NOTE that democracy as a value isn't part of that status quo. Most people don't live in particularly "democratic" places, at the local level. Like many people, I live in an effectively one-party jurisdiction. I vote, but I really exercise little "choice." My vote literally doesn't matter to what happens where I live; at best it validates the current political machine or political dynasty (political "brand"). To a low-information voter -- the kind who knows within a nickel what the per gallon price of a gallon of gas is, but doesn't know (or care to know) who her state representative is -- appeals to "democracy in peril" are weirdly hollow. (Do they actually *live* in a democracy?)
Seen in this light, the abandonment of popular sovereignty as a concept looks more like a response to policy deadlock as opposed to partisan deadlock. Take the Republicans' interest in "sunsetting" Social Security and Medicare. Good luck with that, if you have to stand for election again in two years. But Democrats are in a similar boat with regard to, say, climate policy. I.e., if you could regulate carbon emissions through the non-democratic administrative state (EPA), you might be able to do it? But you're not getting cap-and-trade, let alone more ambitious goals, through even a Democratic Congress. There is an argument that neither party can really be committed to "popular sovereignty" and its policy agenda (if the latter is understood in maximalist terms). (Yes, I bothsidesed it and sort of "defended" the centrists. But I'm a liberal and incapable of taking my own side in an argument.)
Excellent!!!
You got me with the Herbal Essence commercial reference.
Also, the reference to popular sovereignty purists quibble about whether this applies in our kind of system.
But I mostly I still around for the good old American common sense.
“This amounts to telling voters that they have already lost their democracy.” Ross, Ross, Ross, you have to love the guy. The better question: What am I going to do when these guys get elected and come for the keys? Precious little from you and your cohorts so far. Already IS right now.
Ugh, thanks for saying what needs to be said about this pablum. Barro has long cultivated a centrist/savvy position among the punditocracy and written and said many obtuse things as a result. This is among his Crown Jewels of foolish takes.
Popular sovereignty has almost never meant universal suffrage. Some Republicans are Caesarists or plutocrats or monarchists and disdain a principal/agent view of governance, but a greater share of "voter suppression" types just want a winnowed electorate. Which would be perfectly Athenian.