In the long run, my own gut reaction is that “democracy” will survive. In the short-term, I think the answer is much more ambiguous. To be clear, in the context of the U.S. I refer to democracy as “democracy,” because full democracy (rule by the majority) has never been implemented in the U.S. until (tentatively) now. If this were the case, the U.S. would have suffered much the same fate as almost every other presidential democracy in the world. As the Fareed Zakaria and Tocqueville suggest, societal institutions and different checks and balances between the government and the people have moderated democracy. While this has prevented “tyranny be the majority” in the past, the rise of populism and partisanship are threatening to overthrow this ideal in the present and the future. Both sides of the political spectrum have contributed to this (Trump for often representing only his constituents in his policies, and the left for attempting to block most of Trump/ Republicans’ proposals, including those similar to previous Republican presidents’). Under the idealized view of the U.S., political parties do not vote along party lines, as their constituents may have wanted, but instead turn to the middle and focus on the long run good of the nation. However, as the stakes of elections have increased (if we don’t win the world is going to end!!!), and the public has become more polarized (as the 6 charts article by Vox showed) the system of moderated democracy in the U.S. is being pushed to its limits. “Democracy” in the U.S. was never meant to and cannot appease two equally vocal, polarized, and fairly large segments of the population. Therefore, if democracy—defined as rule by the majority within moderation—is to survive in the U.S., a shift to the middle must occur, by both politicians and the public. In the long run, I have faith that a moderate, strong leader will be elected to restore the status quo in the U.S., but how long we must wait, I do not know.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Hi Andrew,
I was a little confused by your post. You mention democracy possibly being successful in the long-run but maybe not in the short-term. How do you think the short-term status in U.S. politics will lead to long-term success? I agree with your point on the U.S. needing to shift to the middle in order to ensure democracy survives. Do you think that a leader will emerge to achieve this or do you think that we must first change culturally in terms of our political polarization?
To answer your first question, what I meant to say was that I see a split between the short-term and the long-term. In the long-term, I anticipate that moderated democracy will return, however, I think this is all reliant on what happens in the near term. The centrist viewpoint in the U.S. remains a majority one, however, amongst the voting population it isn’t (those on the ideological poles tend to vote much more). As long as this trend continues, or increases, I think our politics and therefore our democracy will remain broken. This brings up your second question, which I see as a “chicken or the egg” question. The question is whether leaders influence culture or culture influences leaders. In the short term, I believe that leaders can influence culture, but only by drawing upon currents that had not been tapped before (as Trump did with disgruntled white males). However, I do not think that such strategies have a long-term impact on culture. Instead, I believe it is the overall culture that creates the general trajectory leaders follow. Only a great cultural shift would be able to overthrow the U.S.’s moderate democracy, which I see as unlikely (although possible).