A democracy without guardrails

American voters are no longer sending legislators to Washington to represent them, they are sending them to Washington with marching orders. And they are following every key vote on blogs and cable television.

MIKE BLAKE/REUTERS/FILE
A SIGN POINTS TOWARD A POLLING PLACE IN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, NOV. 6, 2018.

When the American founders established the republic, did they equip it with training wheels or guardrails?

It is safe to say that when the United States became independent there was the very real chance that it might fail. Beyond the lingering threat of the British and the divisions between states’ rights and federalism, there was an altogether more immediate peril.

The people themselves.

Yes, America was perhaps the world’s grandest experiment in individual liberty and self-government. But the Founders were deeply worried that the people could ruin everything, too.

So they hedged their bets. They hemmed in the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives with the Senate, which was elected by state legislators. They gave a class of elite electors the ability to overrule the voters through the Electoral College. That was a key theme in the development of American democracy: People ultimately had the power, but in many cases, they didn’t wield it directly. There were buffers to temper the voice of the people and make decisions on their behalf.

This became the case in other parts of American politics, too. Take presidential primaries or the basic act of legislating. The classic “smoke-filled rooms” were how politicians chose presidential nominees or made compromises – very intentionally away from public eyes.

Those buffers of American democracy are now almost completely gone. Were they training wheels that helped us get going? Or were they guardrails that protected us from ourselves?

At every turn, American democracy is becoming more direct. The popular election of the Senate is only the most obvious example. More deeply, American voters are no longer sending legislators to Washington to represent them, they are sending them to Washington with marching orders. And they are following every key vote on blogs and cable television. Voters are taking control.

This is true across the political spectrum. In his cover story this week, staff writer Peter Grier shows dramatically how the power of one of those traditional buffers – political parties – has decayed. Parties used to be able to set policy, discipline members, and maintain rigid control. In the last presidential election, how well did the parties control Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

This is a natural development. Democracies tend to become more direct over time. After all, voters want to have more power, not less. But with this realization comes another. The Washington of today is more directly our creation. We hold the power. After the 2012 election, for example, Republican Party leadership backed immigration reform. But Republican voters would have none of it. The voters set the agenda and voted in the president they wanted. The same trend is now happening among Democrats, reshaping policy around economics, race, and justice.

This is not inherently good or bad. It just means that, more than ever, the finger of responsibility is now pointing back at us.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.