‘Our democracy’ in a politicized era
Since March of 2021, President Biden has used the word “democracy” more times than any other president in modern history. Biden has made it the theme of his campaign: to save “our democracy” from its enemies foreign and domestic, chief amongst them being Donald Trump. Standing in front of sites sacred to the American experience like Valley Forge or Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Biden hopes to connect himself with the long arc of American history and position himself as the only leader capable of thwarting such existential threats to our democratic institutions.
Simply put, the recurring phrase “our democracy” from Biden and members of his administration is a rhetorical trope. A “trope” is a common, recurring phrase in a speech or a work of literature that, if used enough, takes a life of its own in the mind of its hearers, like Winston Churchill invoking “our empire” in speeches before Parliament. The repetitive use of “our democracy” would instill confidence in Biden’s abilities to protect “our democracy” from its enemies and, more importantly, encourage Democratic voter turnout in the upcoming 2024 election.
But is there something amiss with Biden and the progressive vow to save “our democracy?” For instance, on September 22, 2022, in a speech titled “Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation,” Biden repeated the phrase upwards of seven times standing in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The site in which the Founding Fathers debated and wrote the Constitution was cast in an eerie, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”-like translucent red, with Biden flanked by U.S. Marines. Ironically, with such a backdrop, Biden himself looked like a threat to the American experiment in self-government.
Biden describes the struggle to save “our democracy” as a “Defense of the Sacred Cause of American Democracy” and a “Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation,” all of which easily falls into the longstanding tradition of conflating social goals with wartime victories. Whenever a political party needs to either stay in power or enlarge the size of government to achieve social goals, the president likens that struggle to the demands of war. Simply put, Biden’s use of the phrase “our democracy” has become analogous to speeches calling for wars on drugs or poverty that presidents declare when necessary to achieve their policy aims.
Such rhetoric entered the American political mainstream in the years following World War I. Progressive intellectuals in the United States and Britain recognized the common people endured great sacrifices and limitations on their economic freedom to help the war effort. They followed price controls and planted victory gardens, all for the benefit of the troops fighting abroad in Europe.
Once the war ended, though, American businessmen and families returned to normal. They ignored the efforts of central planners to set price controls, quotas, and other limitations on their economic freedom. But for progressives, a plethora of social goals remained, so some sort of war had to continue. If the American people believed some sort of war continued, they would be more inclined to embrace such limitations on their freedom for causes that are, in fact, not wars.
Thus, presidents began using such wartime rhetoric in their calls for growing the federal bureaucracy. Examples include the “War on Poverty” from Lyndon Johnson, the “War on Drugs” from Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and the “War on Terror” under George W. Bush following September 11. To succeed, these presidents expanded the size of government to achieve social goods, and they likened the struggle to war to encourage people to endure real hardships such as higher taxes and increased regulation as they would for more conventional military conflicts.
Likewise, by identifying Trump as an existential threat to “our democracy,” Biden invokes the same kind of wartime imagery for his presidency.
Accordingly, Biden promises to save “our democracy” to motivate his base to reelect him. Moreover, they hope voters may overlook, even accept, a host of unprecedented indictments against Trump for his behavior in and out of office and during the Capitol riots on January 6. Such indictments may be politically motivated, benefitting the narrow self-interest of politicians to get elected, rather than for the common good that would see bureaucratic agencies remain separated from the circus of American politics. Should various government agencies enter a bitter American political atmosphere, it would only hasten the demise of those democratic institutions. Indeed, perhaps, to politicize such agencies might mean the institutions are already gone. Granted, Trump’s behavior as president was erratic even in the best of times, and his actions on January 6 give credence to accusations made by Democrats of Trump’s dangerous, anti-democratic tendencies. But given no president has ever been indicted for a crime after he left office, and that some charges like the mishandling of classified documents were dismissed for Biden and not for Trump, the charges seem, at least to many, trumped up. So how real is the threat to “our democracy” if the social good may be little different than just returning Biden to the White House?
Rather than using American landmarks as props for rallies, we should pay attention to what was written inside them. Alexander Hamilton addresses this very dilemma in Federalist #1, contrasting zeal for “the people” versus that of the “efficiency of government.” He warns “that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” That is, such individuals promise to take care of the common people to hide their desire to advance in politics. As Hamilton warns, such leaders begin as demagogues and end as tyrants, intent upon doing whatever is necessary to advance their interests they’ve convinced themselves are those of the people.
To save “our democracy,” Hamilton and the founders would ask ordinary Americans to become more active in civic affairs. This simple insight is the all-important means of keeping our republic and saving our democracy since a democracy is, by definition, government by the people. The first democracy of ancient Athens gave more responsibilities and privileges to common Athenians than other Greek city-states. Indeed, certain (but not all) offices would be filled at random by Athenians rather than have people campaign and vote for them. The Athenians expected that every Athenian, even if uneducated and unlettered, could fill such an office and thus had the obligation to serve the common good in their role. While we must elect candidates of integrity who value constitutional liberty, and who would do more to “govern themselves” once in office, a democracy survives not by winning elections at whatever cost but by ordinary people contributing to the common good in the spheres in which they live and move and influence.
In the United States, the deepest and most resounding exposition of “our democracy” comes in the Gettysburg Address of Abraham Lincoln. Delivered on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of what is now the Gettysburg National Cemetery in Pennsylvania, Lincoln’s eulogy praised these “honored dead” who gave their “last full measure of devotion” on behalf not of the war itself but of the free institutions of the United States such soldiers had lived under. As Lincoln articulated so well at Gettysburg, the way we can honor the sacrifice of those who had there given their lives was by sacrificing our time, treasure, and talents towards preserving “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In this way, we can help such free institutions “shall not perish from the earth” — or at least survive beyond this election cycle.
In contrast, Biden’s promise to save “our democracy” is predicated on citizens being passive and detached from politics aside from voting. They should trust the administration to handle any threats, especially those coming from the opponents Biden cites in his speeches. But we are not going to “keep” our republic or “save” our democracy by voting for a particular candidate who promises to save the country from its foes and alleviate all our hardships. Alexander Hamilton warns us of such a scenario because the politicians making such promises rarely, if ever, have good intentions.
Indeed, a better way to save “our democracy” is by being more active in local politics and civic affairs. In this way, we can contribute far more to the common good. Most individuals aren’t able to run for Congress, but local offices, civic groups, charitable organizations abound where ordinary individuals may have an extraordinary impact on the people in their community. The Founding Fathers viewed such an educated, energetic, and charitable citizenry as crucial to the long-term health and well-being of the nation because in the end, the only people who can save “our democracy” is us.
Winston Brady is the director of curriculum and of Thales Press in Raleigh, North Carolina. Check out Winston Brady’s first novel, “The Inferno,” which examines the problem of evil, the rise of big government statism in America, and man’s need for a savior.
