A Democratic Majority Will Create a Stable Democracy

We are in a struggle to protect our democracy. This is a global struggle, not just in Arizona or the United States. It’s worldwide, and we cannot fail to recognize that and respond accordingly.

Here’s a brief history lesson. Republics have been around since the days of the ancient Greek city-states, or Rome, just before what we now call the “Common Era” began. Since then, Republican forms of government in places like the Italian city-states and Iceland have come and gone.

Nation-states based on the broad participation of their citizens—or representative democracy—is an innovation in government that appeared first in the American colonies of Great Britain in the 1770s and 1780s and in the subsequent establishment of the United States of America.

Our democracy is a republic that has continued to evolve ever since our Constitution was adopted in 1788. It has taken hard work, conversation and debate, and continued leadership. Benjamin Franklin wasn’t joking when he told someone that the constitutional convention had delivered “a republic—if you can keep it.” We have continued to work to make our union “more perfect” over its 244 years of existence.

Making the union more perfect

We have expanded our idea of who could fully participate as citizens. Since the Constitution was adopted, we included people who didn’t own real property, people who had been slaves, whose ancestors were brought here against their will, people from all over the world—who came here for a better life, and yes, even people who were women! We have also made it possible for people to elect all their representatives to the US Congress directly.

As we have struggled to make our union more perfect, we have served as an example to nations worldwide—starting with Great Britain, our mother country, its neighbors in Europe, and their colonies and trading partners around the world.

Our model of a democratic republic has not fit all situations and conditions, but it is one of moving toward equality and fairness to all. It has proven to be an adaptable model around the world. Our economic success and our growth in our population have demonstrated the power of representative democracy.

Now, in the third decade of the 21^st Century, we struggle to maintain our democracy at home and defend the value of democratic government in other parts of the world simultaneously.

The United States has endured conflict—political and actual armed conflict—to defend our democracy and those countries whose democracies were being taken from them.

In 1861, the long contention between those of us who advocated the continuation of the slave republic and those of us who proposed the abolition of slavery came to a head when the slave states tried to secede from our Union. President Abraham Lincoln took the difficult path of armed conflict to settle the issue of the continuation of chattel slavery, which was so contrary to the ideals upon which this country was founded. Our obvious hypocrisy jeopardized our standing among other nations.

Since 1865, we have experienced political conflict over the status of women, the rights of immigrants, and the rights of African American people. Issues have not been resolved quickly or entirely. We have moved when a widespread consensus has been achieved, and generally, we move in the direction of justice, as Martin Luther King and others have reminded us.

On the world stage, the United States has tried — sometimes not with success we would hope for—to promote and protect democracy in countries around the world. Twice we joined the armed conflict in Europe to safeguard democracies there. It became clear that it was in our best interests to prevent non-democratic powers from dominating Europe. We have tried—with less definitive success — to halt the march of anti-democratic movements in Asia and the Middle East countries. We have worked tirelessly, again with mixed results in our own hemisphere.

Totalitarian Russia

Our conflict with totalitarian Russia is not new. At the close of World War I, the United States joined its European allies in an unsuccessful effort to stabilize a democratic government in Russia upon the collapse of the Czarist government. Tensions persisted with the USSR as assertive measures to grow world communism in the 1930s until the USSR itself was invaded by National Socialist Germany. After Germany’s (and Japan’s) defeat, the old tensions resumed until the USSR collapsed in 1989 into a reduced Russia. At that time, several nation-states formerly “united” with Russia in the Soviet Union (including Ukraine) became independent states in the Soviet Union.

Without getting into the patently biased and false historical assertions made by Russia to support Putin’s continuing military harassment of Ukraine, Ukraine has been an independent nation-state for 31 years. It has functioned well and has developed a healthy agricultural and manufacturing economy. Since 2014, Ukraine has actively resisted the Donbas region’s Russian invasion, poorly disguised as a “popular uprising.”

The independence and legitimacy of Ukraine cannot be questioned. What’s more, it deserves to be protected by the community of European nations and democracies worldwide. The United States must be prepared to do all we can to support Ukraine’s fight to preserve its independence.

We cannot know how this will go over with the principal perpetrator of this situation — Russia’s President Putin. The United States and our allies surely do not wish to precipitate an escalation of this conflict to broader dimensions. Still, protecting a new democracy from an illegitimate existential threat is surely in our and our allies’ best interests.

Once more, democracies must stand together with an understanding that an attack on one is an attack on all. Perhaps this united front was not anticipated by Putin and his enablers. This situation may be perceived as severe enough to threaten the future of Russia and severe enough to effect a change in national leadership to back down from an existential crisis for Russia. That would preserve the Russian state and afford an offramp from a terrible situation. However, failing to stand up and make the Russians understand that they cannot escape accountability for their behavior would only embolden them and jeopardize more new democracies in Russia’s “near abroad.” Taking this kind of unwavering stance may nudge those around Putin with more to lose than he does to “encourage” him, as only Russians can, to “retire” and enjoy the days he has left. And then, in his absence, he ordered the military to stand down and leave Ukraine.

What is required of the United States if we are to continue to play a leadership role in nurturing democracy around the World? In short: A stable democracy at home!

Our democracy has proven itself resilient in the face of incredible stress during the years before the 2020 election. In 2018, we, the people, took the first steps in the right direction by winning enough seats to gain the leadership of the US House of Representatives.

Radical Republicans

Two years later, we took the following steps: turning out the Republican president and gaining a narrow majority in the US Senate. However, antiquated procedural rules allow an increasingly reactionary Republican minority to stymie any legislation they perceive as against their little interest in staying in political power.

In an incredible number of states – including large states like Texas, Florida, Virginia, and our State– radical Republicans have gained primary electoral victories in state legislative and executive races. If these people go on to win in the general election this fall, they will threaten the validity and honesty of our election systems and practices in these states.

At this point, we Democrats have not made our message about the dangers of these trends to our democracy. The election of government executives and legislators at both state and federal levels who support and echo the rants of an autocratic national party leader is likely to lead to further erosion of our democracy and bring to a halt the progress we have made in promoting participatory democracy at home and around the World.

There is more at stake in this fall’s election than local and national issues around the economy and the role of government in people’s lives. Overarching everything else is the future of our democracy in our Nation and around the World.

Suppose the Democrats can achieve a truly ruling majority (where the foot-dragging and silly games played by the likes of the senior senators from our state and West Virginia are neutralized). In that case, the good work to strengthen democracy at home and abroad can continue. This should be our goal.