Once upon a time, the question with which I title this post would have seemed academic. Of course, there has always been a risk that US democracy might fail, but the idea that it might actually do so (even within its own self-defined limits) seemed faintly absurd.
Until now, that is.
Last night, Steve Scalise, the Republican House majority leader, withdrew his nomination to be Speaker of the US Congress because although he had majority support from his party, it had become very clear that he had far too little support from it to win a vote to be Speaker without Democrat support, which was very unlikely to be forthcoming.
As a result, the Republicans, having sacked one of their own as Speaker cannot now find a replacement that they can agree upon and as such US democracy is at an impasse, because without a Speaker Congress cannot sit and so the entire US legislative system grinds to a halt.
Of course, this problem might be solved. US democracy might have a little life put back into it again, in the short term. But the emphasis there is on the words 'short term'. The breakdown in relations between those in the Republican Party is now so severe that a repetition of this fiasco, or the occurrence of another with similar significance, is likely soon.
What is apparent is that the Trump supporters in the party want to bring democracy down and are intent on achieving that goal. As we watch fascists are trying to end democracy in the country that prided itself above all else on being a democracy above all else.
The risk of democratic failure in the US is now very real.
And where the US goes others follow.
The demise of choice - the ultimate goal of the neoliberal philosophy - is happening.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The “rule of law” is a core part of any democratic system. Ths link below shows that a relatively small group of far-right nuts & religious freaks have been systematically undermining the application/interpretation of US law. Of particular interest is the way these freaks apply a literal interpretation of the US constitution – a document written in the late 18th century & with relatively few modifications. Naturally the founding fathers knew all about, for example, the rise of artifical intelligence etc etc.
The article is well worth a read since it offers a better understanding of the very bad path that the USA is taking with respect to the application & interpretation of law a key aspect of the democratic system – & one hijacked by a few masively over-funded fanatics. Leonard in question wanting to extend his prejdices to all US citizens.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/10/11/2198756/-We-don-t-talk-about-Leonard-The-man-behind-the-right-s-Supreme-Court-supermajority
Democracy fails into oligarchy which promotes civil unrest leading to social collapse precipitating a dark age. And off we go…
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/martial-law-times-civil-disorder
You cannot reason with unreason.
You cannot reason with extremists (in politics, for both to be clear).
But what makes it hard in America (and in the UK I think even right now in our politics) is that the democrats have accommodated Neo-liberalism for far too long. They can only resolve this in two ways and none of them are easy:
1. Begin to repudiate the ideas of von Hayek, Rand, Freidman etc. Appeal to the natural Left in America – it’s there having been ignored for ages.
2. Do exactly what the Neo-libs do and execute what Karl Schmitt advocated and remember that ‘Sovereign is he who decides on the exception’. Take control of the senate or HoR – just do it, as the republicans would. And they would!
Yes – Schmitt was a Nazi philosopher – does anyone feel uncomfortable? Yes? Good. But deciding on the exception is what extremists do. Take this other quote from Schmitt and tell me how you think about this:
‘The essence of liberalism is negotiation, a cautious half measure, in the hope that the definitive dispute, the decisive bloody battle, can be transformed into a parliamentary debate and permit the decision to be suspended forever in an everlasting discussion.’
My opinion? We’ve been too liberal about Neo-liberalism and too sovereign about socialism. We’ve clamped down on the wrong thing in the West for sure under the false illusion of political agonism and rating communism more deadly than fascism.
The Democrats in America must fight fire with fire and play the same game as the republicans. But the message to Liberals everywhere is to acknowledge the weaknesses inherent in their beliefs and be prepared to be illiberal in the protection of universal liberty and even upholding the humanist ideas of Jesus or whatever your prophet is.
This is not impossible – it takes skill and awareness and balls and it will make us feel uncomfortable. It will about using the dark arts in particular circumstances. And it also takes the realisation that the phoney antagonism we have in our politics is stymieing progress and the resolution of many of our problems.
It’s time I think for decent people to stop being so nice and accommodating. That to me anyway in my anger is how I see it.
Thank you.
Interesting
“ be prepared to be illiberal in the protection of universal liberty”
Being illiberal is an addictive prescription. The power exercised by Wealth runs through networks sculpted over generations. Wealth’s opposition will be intense and will overlap with valid criticism.
Will the illiberal addict be able to distinguish good and bad faith opposition? I don’t think so.
short video on the paradox of tolerance. Karl Popper.
https://www.google.com/search?q=toleration+of+intolernce&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB714GB714&oq=toleration+of+intolernce&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQIRgK0gEJMTQ4ODhqMWo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8df90b6b,vid:d_R9UjFTcWk,st:0
PSR, as uncomfortable as it makes me feel, I find myself agreeing to a significant degree with the position you have set out. In a sense, it is a kind of pitchfork argument. Display but refrain from deploying? One must do one’s best to not go too far.
I was saying only the other day, the good people in society, the kind and the generous, have sat back for too long thinking that these things couldn’t happen any more. That everyone thinks as they do. Waking up too late to the extremists’ viewpoint and having no idea what to do about them. That’s where we are now.
Thank you Heather and Larry
I think that we need to realise that when you are dealing with phenomenon like Neo-liberalism two things need to be borne in mind.
The first is that the history of the idea is firmly embedded in wealth – from the funding of the Mont Pelerin Society right up to the think tanks that support it – it is wealth that has propelled it to the fore as a credo (a belief system really), therefore it represents a specific minority (but very powerful) point of view that seems to be dominant in Western society.
The second is that there have been a number of denouement’s over the years – the final(?) one in 2008. My view is that since that episode, Neo-liberalism and its supporters have decided to go ‘all in’. The 2008 ‘credit crunch’ I think scared even those who believe in markets and what we have now is some sort of nihilism at work, a desperate last grab of anything to transfer wealth up to the top of society OR the lack of response from and perceived weaknesses of politicians and policy makers around the world has just made the extreme financiers even bolder (they saw that because of weak politics, they essentially got away with it), or BOTH. Both attitudes I’m describing thrive on chaos.
Those who think of themselves as Liberal cannot afford to let their beliefs – decent as they are – blackmail them in not taking effective action or counter measures. Even if an incoming British government taking on some of Richard’s Taxing Wealth ideas, that would be a start.
Basically Liberals should go on the attack and lose their squeamishness over the impact on the ‘individual’ rights of billionaires and owners and corporations that are seen as ‘persons’ and restore the balance between individual and collective welfares.
Wealth has it all sewn up. It’s time someone pulled thread and unravelled it – even better if they were more Alexandrian and severed it. It’s time to unmake the world of the wealthy. It really is.
Incidentally I appreciate the thread is about the US; but if the she fits (and both the precedents and the implicit, dangerous undercurrents seem to me obvious – I do not believe in British exceptionalism here).
If the “shoe” fits. I should give up (I can hear the cheers from here).
Anger is a poor leader. Nobody ever thinks through the consequences. Solutions are required, “served cold”. Replacing contempt for liberalism with illiberalism is not a solution but a statement lost in desperation.
Sorry, but I merely find this depressing. I have watched this mess unfolding for so long. It was not for parochial reasons that I wish Scotland to reassert its independence – from the folly into which Britain has descended.
John Warren
Basically I agree with you believe it or not. It is sad and depressing to consider a Nazi philosopher having some answers for those too long in opposition but not in power as the world burns or as the poor get poorer. It is, it really is.
‘Desperation’? Yes – why not? Give me in an excuse. Fine. ‘Anger’ a bad leader? No, not always. It depends on who is angry – are they rich or are they poor? From where do they get their power – do they have any?
But what else? Civil war? Shall we kill each other instead, spill blood? Or just keep watching ‘Strictly….’?
To bend the rules and court illiberalism whilst sticking to your principles is an act of courage maybe? Up to now rule bending has been cornered by people like Johnson, Rees Mogg , the BREXITEERS, mates of mates during Covid and of course our royalty.
We must never forget that we are dealing with the cunning of unreason. Those that have made this world favour their opinions about their version of it.
Using the weapons of illiberalism requires tremendous skill and timing. And by the way whose liberty do you think we need to be more illiberal about? The answer is obvious. It’s those who prop up our bad politics now, who pollute our life giving air and water and are unaccountable and who pay less taxes.
A dose of illiberalism would put them in their place alongside the politicians who want their money.
No, it wouldn’t. When the rules are bent and chaos finds a way to enter the fray; it is the crooks, gangsters and psychopaths, ever ready to seize an opportunity while everyone else is browsing the holiday brochures; who are likely to thrive best. The title of perhaps Schmitt’s key work is ‘Political Theology’, an apt title for something that challenges the belief in the application of reason. He describes how power works in the margins of uncertainty, what happens at the asymptote of a system of rules and law that is under existential threat; the point that it may approach, but never reach, and that under these conditions, in the tiny margin of uncertainty between, ‘the rules’ may fail outright; suspended or discarded. The problem is solved not by the rules, but by the exercise of power in the void that defines the state of exception; by whomsoever is able to exercise it. That, at least is my reading.
Germany in the post-WWI crisis is not the only case. The state of exception is, I believe what Schmitt is arguing is a universal function of the inherent nature of power itself (latent or active), and whether, in a crisis, it is the defenders or offenders of the rules who are able to seize and exercise it. This does not mean most people necessarily know the rules ceased to be observed. Notice it is an “exception”; it suggests a return to some norm (whether old or new). That is decided by those who emerge from the moment to select the history that is written and brazenly proclaim it; or quietly bury it, as if it never happened.
Or perhaps these musings require the more acute, serious scholars of Schmitt, like Agamben, Laughlin (on politonomy), or Scheuerman (a forensic critic of both Schmitt and much Schmitt scholarship) than anything my modest reflections can offer.
In any case, my best thought? Don’t go there.
1st rate posts PSR. Agree.
I am puzzled that “liberal” people are so nice. it is almost as if they are fighting to lose.
I have always believed that the only way, is to defend the middle line – with total fanatacism, gloves off, anything goes.
Of course one needs to define “the middle line” – but that ain’t so hard – John Rawls pointed us in the right direction with his thought experiment.
Perhaps it will force a little bit of bipartisan thinking, which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
The inability of one party to reach a unifying position in the national interest shines a huge spotlight on the inability of the other party to think about what is in the national good either. Surely any sensible and reasonable Democrat should see this as an opportunity to support the most moderate Republican they can find, hopefully somebody that could pick up the support of others in the Republican party.
As it is both parties are really as bad as each other.
@Michael – I too have been wondering why the Democrats can’t facilitate a solution to the Speaker problem by either actively supporting a moderate Republican as you suggest, or just passively abstaining.
If they keep on voting against any Republican nominee it can only end up with someone acceptable to the small core of hardest-right Republicans – do they really want that?
My view is that Biden should call this an national emergency, put the emphasis on the need of the American people of all creeds to have a functioning government and select a speaker and appoint him. Then set a time for those disrupting business to sort themselves out.
If the republicans don’t turn up to vote – they don’t turn up. End of. Bills pass.
That is what I would do. Or try to.
I would deploy every fascist trope I could against those who disrupting the rule of government and the law to paint them as enemies of society and democracy – I would play dirty on that aspect.
Why? Because that is exactly what the neo-lib scum in the republican party would do too. And I’d have no truck with any lily-livered Democrats at all pontificating on rules and tradition and even the U.S. constitution which has been abused by just about every party in the U.S since it was written hasn’t it?
That is how sovereignty makes the exception. That old saying ‘Never get into a fight with a pig – the pig likes it and you’ll only get dirty’?
Well tough. Get dirty and get used to getting dirty. If you believe in democracy and understand that you are dealing with extremist disrupters, you’ll live.
Never forget that Neo-liberals are the arch practitioners of the teapot calling the kettle black – they’ll always accuse the other side of THEIR crimes first.
According to the University of Wurtzburg 2020 Complete Ranking Total Value Index which ranks democracies:
Denmark comes first with a score of 0.958 and is rated as a working democracy.
U S A comes 36th with a score of 0.811 and is rated as a deficient democracy.