Liberalism, Democracy, and Polarization

Is polarization a threat to democracy and what is the liberal position on this?

As I pointed out in Degrees of Freedom, most liberals have a preference for democracy. Modern-day democracy – with universal suffrage, a representative parliament, and elected officials – has been developed over the course of the twentieth century. The idea has its roots in antiquity, the Italian city states of the Renaissance, and several forms for shared political decision-making in Scandinavia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England. Democracy is not a liberal “invention,” but the term ‘liberal democracy’ has taken firm root. This is true because modern democracy is based on liberal ideas, such as the principle of “one man, one vote,” protection of the classical rights of man, peaceful change of political leadership, and other rules that characterize the constitutional state.

Remarkably, the majority of liberals embraced the idea of democracy only late in the nineteenth century. They also saw dangers of majority decision making to individual liberty, as Alexis de Tocqueville famously pointed out in Democracy in America. Still, to liberals democracy is better than alternatives, such as autocracy or absolute monarchy. This is not unlike Sir Winston Churchill’s quip “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” Yet there is a bit more to it for liberals. It is has proven to be a method that provides a decent, if imperfect, guarantee for the protection of individual freedom and the peaceful change of government.

Of course there is ample room for discussion inside and beyond academia about numerous different issues, such as the proper rules of democracy, different forms of democracy, the role of constitutions in democracy, whether referenda are a threat or a useful addition to representative democratic government, the roles of parties, party systems, and political leaders, et cetera. These are not the topic here.

In the context of the election of President Trump, but also before that, both inside and outside the US, there is a wide debate on the alleged polarization in society. By this is meant the hardening of standpoints of (often) two large opposing groups in society, who do not want to cooperate to solve the issues of the day, but instead do everything they can to oppose the other side. Consensus seeking is a swear word for those polarized groups, and a sign of weakness.

There appears less consensus on a number of issues now than in the past. Yet this is a questionable assumption. In the US it has been going on for a long time now, certainly in the ethical and immaterial area, think about abortion, the role of the church in society, or freedom of speech of radical groups. Yet most (Western) societies have been polarized in the past along other lines, like the socialist-liberal divide, the liberalization of societies in the 1960s and 1970s, or more recent debates about Islam and integration. Current commentators claim something radically different is going on today. But I doubt it, it seems just a lack of historical awareness on their side. I can’t wait for some decent academic research into this, including historical comparisons.

As a side note: a different but far more problematic example of polarization is gerrymandering (changing the borders of legislative districts to favour a certain party). This has been going on for decades and can be seen as using legal procedures to rob people not of their actual voting rights, but of their meaningful voting rights. Curiously, this does not figure prominently in the current debates…

The (classical) liberal position on polarization is simple. Fighting for, or opposing a certain viewpoint, is just a matter of individual right to free speech. This also includes using law and legislation, existing procedures, et cetera. The most important thing is that in the act of polarizing there cannot be a threat to another person’s individual liberty, including the classical rights to life, free speech, and free association, among others. Of course, not all is black and white, but on the whole, if these rules are respected I fail to see how polarization is threat to democracy, or why polarization cannot be aligned with liberalism.

3 thoughts on “Liberalism, Democracy, and Polarization

  1. As far as I know universal suffrage has been the subject of criticism throughout all of history, and the evidence of the 20th century that it provides little but the slow road to authoritarian redistributionism. The only reason that it’s been possible in the 20th century is the luxury of the returns on the debt possible under fiat money capitalism, at the cost of continuous dygenia (reduction of and now the reversal of, intergenerational human capital).

    There is a vast difference between those of us who understand both micro, macro, political, and human capital economics, and grasp that political systems are simply those we can afford in the moment, and nothing more. And that the only way to preserve the liberty created by western civilization is to continue the eugenic program of the ancient and medieval manorialists: meritocratic tripartism (slave-serf-freman-citizen-nobleman meritocracy) or the british invention of adding houses for each of the classes as they contribute to responsibility for management of the economy: Monarch, Landed Nobility (Regions), Commons (small business owners), and Church (proxy for the working classes). The mistake they made was not adding a new house for the working classes, and another for women upon their enfranchisement. This would let us continue the historical market for commons between the classes, rather than under liberalism(classical liberalism in the english speaking world).

    The result instead was underclass rule, and the use of propaganda and media to (lie to) use ideological hyperbole to obtain power by non-market means.

    Majoritarian democracy is and can only be, a monopoly. We had the nearly perfect government. Rule of law resulting in markets for commons, as well as markets for goods, services and information. However, the middle class seizure of power from the landed aristocracy, and the inclusion of the underclass as a means of opposing the rise of marxism-communism, merely kicked the political can down the road.

    And we are all standing around looking at that can wondering where to kick it next.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  2. Yeah, Jerrymandering leads to polarization, extremism and incumbency. Its effects are poisonous to modern society.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s