Welcome to Democracy Americana!

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.