Move to Strike the Last Word*
The impeachment proceedings of Donald Trump have certainly been perplexing. How can two groups of adults —Democrats and Republicans — disagree so completely about the behavior of the President? The same set of facts; conclusions solar systems apart.
On one side we have Democrats arguing that the President committed a crime bordering on treason, and on the other Republicans who insist that he did absolutely nothing wrong. It is like watching two people stand on a street corner and argue whether the sky is clear blue with sunshine, or completely black with torrential rain pouring down.
Such a difference can only occur when there is a radical difference in underlying philosophies. In this case, we have a conflict between liberal democratic thought on the Democratic side, and conservative authoritarianism on the Republican side.
The Democratic Party remains more or less the party it has been since the nineteen sixties. It believes in liberal democracy — that is, the view that the best way to govern is through open pubic debate, eventual compromise, and implementation of the compromise solution. Free voting and open debate is central. If the solution does not work as expected, liberal democrats propose further discussion and debate, further voting, adjustment of the solution, and a new start.
Republicans, at least the ones in power today, are authoritarians. This authoritarianism rests on democratic elections, so it is unfair to call them anti-democratic. But it is authoritarianism, nonetheless. They believe in absolute leadership, once the results of the election are in. The President, once duly elected, has the right to do anything he wants to as long as it can be said to be for the good of the nation. Laws apply, but only in a limited way, and laws should be dispensed with in cases of national emergency. The Republican authoritarians believe that their leaders, who have been given large responsibilities, should also be give wide leeway in their actions. The appeal of authority is twofold: It maintains the appearance of strength, and it avoids the frustrating complexity of deliberation.
Somehow I doubt Republicans enjoy being called authoritarians, but it is hard to see them any other way. Their chief complaint about the impeachment process is that it will overturn the results of the 2016 election. That is to say, impeachment undermines presidential authority. This interest in authority explains many other peculiarities of the political moment as well. For example, the spread of voter ID laws, which stresses the importances of the legitimacy of votes and therefore the validity (authority) or elections. Illegal immigration is another challenge to authority, the authority of border security.
For the authoritarian, nothing is more important than who is and is not accorded the rights of citizenship. Control over who becomes a member is almost the same as control of the members themselves. Thus, it is crucial that only the right people are allowed to apply for citizenship. The rest must go home, regardless of their reason for coming.
The President’s intense desire to disrupt NATO is also authoritarianism at work. International organizations are not subject to national laws, and the only way to work with them is through diplomacy. Diplomacy is anathema to authoritarians, since it necessarily involves compromise rather than direct control.
The Republican Party was not always thus. In the past, Republicans have favored pro-business legislation, low taxes and limited regulations, and promotion of private institutions such as the family and religious organizations. They have traditionally agreed to public debate and compromise with Democrats, understanding that a certain amount of expansion of government is inevitable and acceptable as long as private institutions and values are well-supported. This is not what we have now. What we have now is a party that is devoted to maintaining power (authority) at the expense of public debate, political negotiation, and compromise.
Despite what Republicans think, compromise is not a dirty word. It is essential to good business. And marriage, that sacred institution the Republican party swears to protect, is not an authoritarian arrangement. It is a partnership, and equal partnerships fall squarely in the domain of liberal democracy (open discussion and compromise).
This isn’t to say that authoritarian thought has no place in civic life. The military is authoritarian, as is the police force. In fact, anyone who has ever held down a job is acquainted with authoritarianism. Workers answer to their bosses, and for the most part, do what their employers ask without resistance. Children (at least in theory) are also subject to the authority of their parents.
Authoritarianism is an important part of any society, including a constitutional democracy like ours. Authority ensures efficiency and safety. As anyone knows, when public safety is at risk everyone is safer when there is a single organizing force and a clear chain of command. Military history from ancient times has shown this to be true.
The problem is that not everyone is in the military, and most public problems are just that — problems. Not threats to national security. In peaceful society it would be expected that most people are not in the military, and that for most people, a chain of command is not the best way to live.
Authoritarianism tends to surface in uncertain times, when traditional institutions are eroding. The extended family, the traditional nuclear family, churches, community organizations, and social groups seem to be disappearing rapidly. More and more people choose lifestyles that reject traditional faith and lifestyles. When such things happen, people feel threatened and tend to look to authority as an antidote to change.
Unfortunately the type of person who seizes authority in uncertain times is usually not an innovator. Strong leaders tend to be narcissistic and uncreative, and prefer to eliminate competition rather than outperform it. Innovators relish the open market of ideas and rely on the strength of their ideas rather than belief in their moral superiority. Authoritarian regimes tend to be oppressive and dull, preferring to paper over problems rather than openly debate them. Like Napoleon and Putin, they look to military success because they value glory and adulation over free speech and tolerance, and generally lack the brains to solve social problems.
The comfort of authority comes at great cost, however. Authoritarian governements rarely work in practice because they lack the open exchange of ideas and competitiveness of open societies. But the advantages of open societies tend to take time to emerge. In the short run, disciplined control is quicker and more efficient.
So what we have right now in the impeachment process is one group of people who, alarmed at the social direction American is taking, are looking for a quick fix through discipline and authority. The liberal democratic side (which admittedly has failed us lately with its weakness for technocracy and its hyper-sensitivity to the needs of every social interest group), is nonetheless more committed to diversity of thought and of values. The difference between the two parties' interest in diversity is stark: 90% of Republican Congressmen are white men, while 38% of Democrats are. The Democrats cannot tolerate an authoritarian leader like Trump, who plays solely to the narrow concerns of social group that elected him and makes fun of the complaints of minorities who question his authority.
The battle will not stop with impeachment. It will only stop when a critical majority of Americans is willing to bind together under the values of free exchange of ideas, compromise, and respectful debate. The issue that brings this about could be climate change, universal health care, crime, education, debt, or another issue. My intuition is that it will be climate. This is the issue that will keep pressing and pressing until denial is impossible. My greatest fear is that it will take so long for this time to come that by the time we have reached the point of public agreement, it will be too late to salvage a prosperous society.
At that point there will be global chaos, and the authoritarians will win, because managing chaos is their strong suit.
* Move to strike the last word — According to Congressional rules, anyone who wants to amend a document automatically gets five minutes to speak. So if a member wants to speak for five minutes during a session when amendments are being considered, the member can request a nonsense edit, such as “Move to strike the last word,” which technically means “I request that the last word of the amendment be removed, and want to speak about this for five minutes,” but really means “I want to talk for five minutes, and when I am done you can ignore the stuff about wanting to make a change to the proposed amendment.”
