The Specter of Democratism

Commentary

“If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism,” Ronald Reagan prophesied. More precisely, it’s coming in the name of democracy. That revered word that justifies every political action and policy, “democracy” is now a Trojan horse for its opposite.

The Washington Post recently published an article titled, incredibly, “Democrats’ failure to make 2022 about the threat to democracy.” Can it be argued that any politician has failed to make 2022 about the threat to democracy, least of all the Democrats? The weaponized use of the phrase “a threat to our democracy” is plausible only because Western elites have redefined the meaning of democracy. Under the new dispensation, “democracy” has two meanings: its real and original meaning, rule by the people, and its new meaning, rule by the elites.

Over two centuries ago Jean-Jacques Rousseau blessed this novel understanding of democracy, which has all but replaced the Athenian version. Rousseau’s idea of a hypothetical ideal of the popular will, the “General Will,” needing to find expression through an all-knowing and all-powerful Legislator has found a ready audience in the halls of the U.S. Capitol, the spires of the ivory towers, and newsrooms of the legacy media. Those who breathe the rarified air in these places fancy themselves to be just such figures.

Through Rousseau or through other channels, the idea that democracy is in the eye of the (elite) beholder, has profoundly influenced modern Western thinking. “Indivisible Project,” the name of the activist organization for which Hillary Clinton just made a promotional video—warning, predictably, against the threat to democracy posed by the Republicans—could be a direct translation of the phrase “General Will.” It claims to be working to defeat populism, paradoxically, in the name of democracy.

The ominous remarks of Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, toward the Italians for electing their own prime minister stem from von der Leyen’s commitment to the democratic ideal as she conceives of it rather than the actual desires of the people. Von der Leyen says that the EU has “tools” to deal with Italy if its people follow the path of Hungary and Poland, two other countries that have challenged the elite consensus on the meaning of democracy: Is democracy the actual will of the people? Or is “democracy” a very particular set of policies—on the economy, the family, gender, religion—favored by a transnational elite? Von der Leyen and others suggest that it’s the latter.

Many sense the hypocrisy of elites who claim to speak on behalf of the general will against those who threaten “democracy,” but this phenomenon goes beyond contemporary partisan politics. We are in the midst of an entrenched ideological way of thinking about life and politics that I have called democratism. Although it has become much more virulent in recent years, democratism’s belief system stretches back centuries, and its ideas have now spread the globe. Therefore, it’s unlikely to wane any time soon.

Democratism is subtler than the ideologies of the 20th century, but it remains to be seen whether it will stay in its present form of “soft despotism,” to borrow from Alexis de Tocqueville, or, if emboldened by its late successes and near-monopoly on the political, academic, and journalistic establishments, it will transform into real despotism.

Either way, it’s important to defang this modern ideology. The first step toward restoring not democracy, since the United States isn’t a direct democracy, but constitutional republicanism is diagnosing the current anti-democratic (and unconstitutional) trends as symptoms of a comprehensive and dangerous ideology, not simply a passing fad.

When a politician or intellectual labels the opposition a “threat to democracy,” we should pause and ask what is meant by “democracy.” Is the actual will of the people in danger of subversion? Or does the will of the people represent a threat to the power and agenda of those claiming to be the defenders of democracy?

Another indicator of democratism is the perceived need to bypass the electorate in order to usher in “real” democracy—which must always be centralized at the national or, it’s hoped, global level. If those who claimed to be advancing “real democracy—of, by, and for the people,” as Indivisible claims to be doing, were in fact interested in having the people’s voices heard, they would celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade, for example, as a victory for pluralistic democracy. Now the peoples of the various states may choose for themselves how to regulate abortion laws. But the folks who clamor for more democracy are often the same ones who see abortion as needing to be forced on every state, even against the will of the people.

Enshrining what is taken to be a universal right over the actual desires of the electorate is the new “democracy.” To get there, however, work must be done on the electorate, which, to the disappointment of the cheerleaders of democracy, still holds some power.

Take the transgenderism movement. This new political frontier is being conquered against the wishes of many Americans, with a majority believing that it has gone too far, according to recent polls. Drag queen story hour and Netflix shows depicting transgender children play a significant role in normalizing, from a young age, what is supposed to be “the values of our democracy.” There’s a prominent ingredient of vanguardism.

It’s important to remember that democracy isn’t in danger. Rather, the viewpoints and ways of life of those who oppose “democracy” are in danger.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.