How much democracy, and for whom?
In many ways, the conflict over this question – between those who wanted to restrict and confine democracy, make sure it would never undermine what they saw as the natural and/or divinely ordained white Christian patriarchal order, and those who envisioned a truly egalitarian multiracial pluralistic democracy – has always defined the American experiment.
That’s the focus of this newsletter: The ongoing conflict over how much democracy, and for whom, there should be in America, in all spheres of American life: politics, society, and culture – in Congress and state legislatures around the country but also in the workplace, the family, the public square.
The conflict over democracy has always been a struggle over national identity – over what defines America. For some, the nation was supposed to be defined by an idea: “all men are created equal” – and as “men” became “people,” a place where the individual’s status would not be determined by race, religion, gender, gender orientation, or sexual orientation. But there has never been a consensus around such egalitarian ideas. At its heart, the country has always been divided between those who envision America as a beacon of democratic equality and those who see it as a land of and for white Christians.
How much democracy, and for whom? Democracy being contested is not a new development. What is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon is democracy becoming a partisan issue, in the sense that the fault lines in the struggle over democracy, over whether or not the democratic experiment should continue, map onto the conflict between the two major parties. That’s the fundamental reality of American politics today, and it means that the struggle over democracy really defines the political confrontation in basically all areas. We often pretend to be having just policy discussions over taxes, or social welfare, or regulations. But as they are almost always infused with this overriding democracy question, we are really having a discussion over who gets to participate as equals in the political process, who gets to define what does and does not count as America or American, who gets to be at the top.
In this newsletter I would like to approach and interpret the political, social, and cultural conflicts of our era through the lens of this ongoing struggle over democracy. As a historian, I will also try to situate them in the longer-term context of U.S. history and reflect on what, if anything, can be learned from the past (and what that even means, “learning” from history.) And I will reflect on the transnational dimension of this struggle over democracy in general and the reactionary counter-mobilization in particular. This is a conflict of world-historic significance: Is it possible to establish a stable egalitarian democracy under conditions of multiracial pluralism? Such a democracy has basically never existed anywhere. And as of right now, it is, at best, an open question whether or not this vision of true democracy can overcome the radicalizing forces of reaction.
It’s a vision that reactionaries abhor – to them, it would be the end of “real America” or “Western civilization.” And they are determined to prevent it by whatever means necessary. Can the remaining (small-d) democratic forces muster the same determination to fight back?
Democracy won’t prevail because of a newsletter or tweet thread. But at least I can try to assess, interpret, and reflect on the conflict that is shaping the world around us as honestly and accurately as I can. That’s the mission for Democracy Americana.
To be honest, I do not yet know how often I will send out a newsletter, or what form, exactly, my posts will take. Over the past few years, Twitter has been my favorite place to reflect on democracy and its discontents, and I am eternally grateful to have been able to share and discuss these reflections with so many people on there. But the end may be near for Twitter – at least for a Twitter that can function as a type of democratizing virtual public square. It felt empowering to be able to speak directly to prominent people, enlightening to learn from so many scholars, observers, and activists, and inspiring to be in conversation with those who wish to see democracy prevail and finally realize the promise of egalitarian multiracial pluralism. I am hoping to continue - and continue to contribute to - that conversation here.
There is a thread, or a continuity to the issue of who gets to be an enfranchised American. Majoritarian cultures of slave-owners and agrarian free-traders seem to be core to the development of two strains of enfranchisement. Both share an identity which is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Fisher in Albion’s Seed has provided a decent over view of the cultural traits of these groups. They also share the belief that to become an American is to adopt their cultures. That has been mostly successful, excepting the fact that race blocks a huge number of people from being allowed to participate.
Taking this theme through time yields insights to our history. Ignatiev in How the Irish became White provides an excellent example of how Americanism is used with ethnic groups. After WWI Americanism was viewed as a means to inculcate WASP values into the millions who viewed themselves as workers, as people with a distinct and valuable national origin, and as new Americans. The development of “Americanization” schools directed towards immigrants was common. This took place after immigration was severely restricted.
Most of us are familiar in what took place in the next 90 years. We opened ourselves again to immigration and again enriched our culture, our diets, and our workforce. It seemed that the WASP white bread era was coming to a close. Hardly. Political counter revolutions falsely masking themselves with WASP virtues have arisen.