This is a very good post that I think fairly exposes the three-card monte game that is being played by the (seemingly declining) ideological conservatives. Let them argue for the policies they support, about Roe or guns or voting rights, on the merits.
The meta-arguments are a cover for an ideology based on religion and electoral convenience founded ultimately, literally, on the preferences of the least educated members of society. If your ideology regarding responsible shepherding of the state against the huddled masses results in Donald Trump (initially or via reelection) and his judicial preferences, then that right there is your reductio ad absurdum. Any ideology benighted enough to produce a Trump has failed the test of empirical adequacy.
I feel the need to preface this by saying it isn't intended as a "gotcha!" but as an earnest question because I feel like I'm just missing something and I'm hoping you can help me find it. What's the principle that assumes everything you're saying here but also leaves enough procedural room for courts to protect, e.g., abortion rights in Alabama or integrated schools in Alabama, or . . . whatever in Alabama?
You aren't missing anything, your questions is the question, and Will's answer isn't common because it is uncomfortable. Courts have enough procedural room to protect or deny abortion rights and desegregation in Alabama. "Suppose you believe that majorities should generally get their way on policy" Will writes approvingly. That includes abortion and integration in Alabama. Them's the breaks. There is no shortcut.
You may ask, 'So if you just believe majority rules where's the stability? Why not just have a plebiscite for everything? What's the Constitution for anyway?'
1. Direct vs. representative democracy are both democracy. There are a lot of reasons to prefer representative democracy within a majoritarian constitutional order, see 2.
2. A constitution imperfectly puts forth rights and principles the polity has agreed upon. This gives some solidity and steadiness to government by structuring the debate judicial review. If a law is passed a court may find it violates the constitution. What then happens varies a lot by country (google "notwithstanding clause" for a Canadian example), by international standards the US has strong judicial review. These processes, and the power of custom, temper government. A good constitution gives the dead a voice in the room without trying to bind the living. It prevents rash decisions not by blocking them outright, but through process and review. Provided the living can sustain a majority, they prevail.
The US constitution is only sporadically democratic. Notoriously Senate apportionment is exempt from Article V amendment. Various amendments have made it more democratic, but really, it isn't much. Centrally there is no positive right to vote, only protections against specific abridgments.
"But, again, the peaceful management of pluralistic disagreement is perhaps the most basic problem we need our political institutions to solve..." this is where Will argues that losing sucks, and losing to a minority sucks worse. This is crucial, were I writing the post (way beyond my talents by the way) I would have explicitly connected this to political stability. Losing sucks, losing to a minority sucks worse, offending the living majority's sense of fairness is dangerous. It is one thing when the mob picks up pitchforks and torches, another entirely when the decent and reasonable get desperate.
The consent of the governed is more than a slogan. Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all others is more than a paraphrase of a Churchill quote. They are how we best peacefully manage pluralistic disagreement. One of our two parties is turning against democracy, Will's post takes on some the the cleverest arguments.
I simply don't understand the hubris of any group, particularly a minority, imposing its conception of rights on all proceeding people in a nation. Each generation must have its own understanding of the importance of rights, whether those rights change or not. Government is for the living, not the dead; and the living will always be capable of self-government. Even supposing the imposition of a static charter of rights, those rights will mean nothing unless the society values them enough to enforce them justly and equally. A society will eschew rights whether or not they are permanently enshrined if it does not properly value them.
Fair enough, and I tend to agree! But I still don't see how does the thick majoritarianism described in this post actually guarantee, e.g., that a living woman in Alabama can get an abortion and not be punished for it.
There are no guarantees, I think that's the point. If a sustained majority believes women in Alabama should be punished for getting abortions it will happen. It would be tragic, it would be wrong, but thick majoritarianism is better than minority rule. Tragic and wrong things will happen either way, more so under minority rule than thick majoritarianism (I like your term).
As it happens punishing women who get abortions is a minority view, less likely if we were more democratic. Still, majorities can be egregiously wrong, White supremacy has commanded national majorities for centuries. Within all that wrongness the worst of white supremacy (Jim Crow, lynching) relied on undemocratic manipulation. Regarding race a more democratic America would still have been bad, but less bad.
"Thick majoritarianism is better than minority rule." I suppose, but are those really the only two options? Is it possible we just aren't being creative enough here?
I dunno. I’m a little confused. Here are a few propositions that seems incongruous with the argument.
“All durable liberal societies have evolved complex democratic institutions because it’s impossible to manage foundational disagreement in a liberal way — with peaceful toleration and mutual forbearance — without them.”
In a meta sense, why can there not be democratic disagreement about what constitutes a “liberal” approach to dispute resolution. Why does that get to stand outside of majoritarianism? Need I be tolerant?
“We all favor limited government in the sense that we all believe that there are rights the state mustn’t infringe.”
Why should this be true? There are plenty of tankies who do not actually believe this (or perhaps just a verrrrry limited version of it). At best you have to fall back on saying that in any democracy there must at least be an inviolable right for the majority to decide. But that isn’t an individual liberty.
Being this back down to Earth - if you put our system to a vote, what would you get to change? A majority would probably end gerrymandering. Maybe kill the electoral college. Those would be HUGE wins for democracy. But they won’t overturn the bill of rights or judicial review. There is every indication that “we” are happy with these handcuffs and believe they are compatible with liberalism. Personally, I think we should be a parliamentary system. As a society, we don’t want that. If we just put it to a formal vote, does that make it liberal then?
“Rights don’t come to us on tablets etched by the divine.”
Never mind that the majority of Americans actually do believe this and adopt it readily.
"On all cases that apply universally to a nation, with respect to system of government, a jury of twelve men is not competent to decide. Where there are no witnesses to be examined, no facts to be proved, and where the whole matter is before the whole public, and merits or demerits of it resting on their opinion; and where there is noting to be known in a court, but what every body knows out of it, every twelve men is equally as good a jury as the other, and most would probably reverse each other's verdict; or from the variety of their opinions, not be able to form one. It is one case, whether a nation approve a work, or a plan; but it is quite another cases, whether it will commit to any such jury the power of determining whether that nation have a right to, or shall reform its government or not."
"Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness.
"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?"
I started reading Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" a couple of months ago because it was supposed to be a high point of conservative thought. It was among the most incoherent things I have ever read, so I stopped about 50 pages in. I then picked up "Rights of Man", which I did not know was explicitly directed as (among other things) a refutation of Burke. The level of dunking that Payne does on Burke is unprecedented. Payne is seen as an important historical figure, but I now place him in the "definitely underrated" category, particularly as a political philsopher.
Fareed Zakaria thought that “liberal autocracy” was a better path to democracy than “illiberal democracy.” It would be interesting to see Wilkinson address this.
I have learned a ton from you reading your stuff over the years and you are almost certainly a better writer than me, but your writing would be way better if it was more concise.
The fact that the United States does not do national referendums makes it easy for people to overestimate how liberal Americans are on policies.Just take a look at California.Californians vote for the Democratic Party by landslide margins,so does that mean Californians routinely vote for liberal ballot propositions? As this past November showed us, that is not the case at all.
I actually think it would be in the interest of Conservatives for this country to have national referendums. Conservatives would lose several referendums, but they would also win a lot of referendums. For example, if national referendums ever become a reality in the United States, affirmative action will be banned and merit-based immigration system will replace the current immigration system that has existed since the 1960s. So my question for to you,Mr Wilkinson, do you support national referendums, since you seem to believe very much in majoritarianism ?
I think it is a false choice. A constitutional representative democracy will slow change and require the majority to be sustained over time. A direct democracy immediately implements majority will. One involves sustaining a majority over time as a process is followed and institutions weigh in. A majoritarian can disfavor referendums, especially a majoritarian who favors representative democracy. "I think representative democracy is a good idea." - Will Wilkinson.
Aesthetic majoritarian is not the same thing as policy majoritarian. My point is that if Wilkinson really believes in both majoritarianism and that the policies of the Democratic party have majority support, he should have nothing to fear from national referendums.
It seems to me the arguments in favor of representative democracy tend to prefer limiting the use of referendums, and this not about majoritarian/not majoritarian. A representative democracy that doesn't have referendums is a majoritarian system.
Alluded to this on Twitter, but the small-c constitution of judicial, but even much more so administrative, practice are ALREADY counter-majoritarian to an enormous degree. The ability of democratically elected representatives to directly influence these things is much more limited than any of us would like to believe. The focus on the paper Constitution is such a sideshow compared to that. The Supreme Court doesn't even have any power at all except in that so many other institutional actors respect their decisions due to norms embedded in the small-c constitution.
Do you support national referendums? For example, should there be a national referendum on whether affirmative action should be banned? If you guys really believe in majoritarianism as you claim, then you should be in favor of national referendums.
If one goes by how Californians vote in state referendums, the California Republican Party should be doing better. However, many people are more motivated by aesthetic than they are motivated by policies when they vote for a political party or politician,and this is why direct democracy is much more representative of people's views than representative democracy. The premise of Wilkinson's supposed majoritarianism is the the policies of the Democratic Party had the support of the people. Well, if one is truly committed to majoritarianism, the one should put that to the test by having national referendums.
It is neither more representative nor better in terms of governance. As any survey designer can tell you, the way you phrase a question can get contradictory answers from the same people. Most people simply do not have an opinion on most policy areas. And turnout is driven more by up ballot elections than the content of ballot intiatives, so in practice a minority of people end up deciding many ballot initiatives.
It is better to have professionals with election rules designed to create a tight incentive to represent the interests of their constituents.
The premise of Wilkinson's supposed majoritarianism is the the policies of the Democratic Party has the support of the people. Well, if one is truly committed to majoritarianism, then one should put that to the test by having national referendums. At least David Cameron was willing to put his money where his mouth is when he decided to have the referendum on Brexit.
This is a very good post that I think fairly exposes the three-card monte game that is being played by the (seemingly declining) ideological conservatives. Let them argue for the policies they support, about Roe or guns or voting rights, on the merits.
The meta-arguments are a cover for an ideology based on religion and electoral convenience founded ultimately, literally, on the preferences of the least educated members of society. If your ideology regarding responsible shepherding of the state against the huddled masses results in Donald Trump (initially or via reelection) and his judicial preferences, then that right there is your reductio ad absurdum. Any ideology benighted enough to produce a Trump has failed the test of empirical adequacy.
I feel the need to preface this by saying it isn't intended as a "gotcha!" but as an earnest question because I feel like I'm just missing something and I'm hoping you can help me find it. What's the principle that assumes everything you're saying here but also leaves enough procedural room for courts to protect, e.g., abortion rights in Alabama or integrated schools in Alabama, or . . . whatever in Alabama?
You aren't missing anything, your questions is the question, and Will's answer isn't common because it is uncomfortable. Courts have enough procedural room to protect or deny abortion rights and desegregation in Alabama. "Suppose you believe that majorities should generally get their way on policy" Will writes approvingly. That includes abortion and integration in Alabama. Them's the breaks. There is no shortcut.
You may ask, 'So if you just believe majority rules where's the stability? Why not just have a plebiscite for everything? What's the Constitution for anyway?'
1. Direct vs. representative democracy are both democracy. There are a lot of reasons to prefer representative democracy within a majoritarian constitutional order, see 2.
2. A constitution imperfectly puts forth rights and principles the polity has agreed upon. This gives some solidity and steadiness to government by structuring the debate judicial review. If a law is passed a court may find it violates the constitution. What then happens varies a lot by country (google "notwithstanding clause" for a Canadian example), by international standards the US has strong judicial review. These processes, and the power of custom, temper government. A good constitution gives the dead a voice in the room without trying to bind the living. It prevents rash decisions not by blocking them outright, but through process and review. Provided the living can sustain a majority, they prevail.
The US constitution is only sporadically democratic. Notoriously Senate apportionment is exempt from Article V amendment. Various amendments have made it more democratic, but really, it isn't much. Centrally there is no positive right to vote, only protections against specific abridgments.
"But, again, the peaceful management of pluralistic disagreement is perhaps the most basic problem we need our political institutions to solve..." this is where Will argues that losing sucks, and losing to a minority sucks worse. This is crucial, were I writing the post (way beyond my talents by the way) I would have explicitly connected this to political stability. Losing sucks, losing to a minority sucks worse, offending the living majority's sense of fairness is dangerous. It is one thing when the mob picks up pitchforks and torches, another entirely when the decent and reasonable get desperate.
The consent of the governed is more than a slogan. Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all others is more than a paraphrase of a Churchill quote. They are how we best peacefully manage pluralistic disagreement. One of our two parties is turning against democracy, Will's post takes on some the the cleverest arguments.
Majoritarianism doesn't mean eschewing rights.
I'm totally ready to buy that. But why doesn't it mean that?
I simply don't understand the hubris of any group, particularly a minority, imposing its conception of rights on all proceeding people in a nation. Each generation must have its own understanding of the importance of rights, whether those rights change or not. Government is for the living, not the dead; and the living will always be capable of self-government. Even supposing the imposition of a static charter of rights, those rights will mean nothing unless the society values them enough to enforce them justly and equally. A society will eschew rights whether or not they are permanently enshrined if it does not properly value them.
Fair enough, and I tend to agree! But I still don't see how does the thick majoritarianism described in this post actually guarantee, e.g., that a living woman in Alabama can get an abortion and not be punished for it.
There are no guarantees, I think that's the point. If a sustained majority believes women in Alabama should be punished for getting abortions it will happen. It would be tragic, it would be wrong, but thick majoritarianism is better than minority rule. Tragic and wrong things will happen either way, more so under minority rule than thick majoritarianism (I like your term).
As it happens punishing women who get abortions is a minority view, less likely if we were more democratic. Still, majorities can be egregiously wrong, White supremacy has commanded national majorities for centuries. Within all that wrongness the worst of white supremacy (Jim Crow, lynching) relied on undemocratic manipulation. Regarding race a more democratic America would still have been bad, but less bad.
"Thick majoritarianism is better than minority rule." I suppose, but are those really the only two options? Is it possible we just aren't being creative enough here?
I dunno. I’m a little confused. Here are a few propositions that seems incongruous with the argument.
“All durable liberal societies have evolved complex democratic institutions because it’s impossible to manage foundational disagreement in a liberal way — with peaceful toleration and mutual forbearance — without them.”
In a meta sense, why can there not be democratic disagreement about what constitutes a “liberal” approach to dispute resolution. Why does that get to stand outside of majoritarianism? Need I be tolerant?
“We all favor limited government in the sense that we all believe that there are rights the state mustn’t infringe.”
Why should this be true? There are plenty of tankies who do not actually believe this (or perhaps just a verrrrry limited version of it). At best you have to fall back on saying that in any democracy there must at least be an inviolable right for the majority to decide. But that isn’t an individual liberty.
Being this back down to Earth - if you put our system to a vote, what would you get to change? A majority would probably end gerrymandering. Maybe kill the electoral college. Those would be HUGE wins for democracy. But they won’t overturn the bill of rights or judicial review. There is every indication that “we” are happy with these handcuffs and believe they are compatible with liberalism. Personally, I think we should be a parliamentary system. As a society, we don’t want that. If we just put it to a formal vote, does that make it liberal then?
“Rights don’t come to us on tablets etched by the divine.”
Never mind that the majority of Americans actually do believe this and adopt it readily.
Other changes that might win a popular vote
Constitutional amendments:
Senate apportionment
Positive right to vote
Constitutional amendment not needed:
Ranked choice voting
Proportional representation
I like your last comment.
pwnd
Some quotes from Thomas Paine in Rights of Man:
"On all cases that apply universally to a nation, with respect to system of government, a jury of twelve men is not competent to decide. Where there are no witnesses to be examined, no facts to be proved, and where the whole matter is before the whole public, and merits or demerits of it resting on their opinion; and where there is noting to be known in a court, but what every body knows out of it, every twelve men is equally as good a jury as the other, and most would probably reverse each other's verdict; or from the variety of their opinions, not be able to form one. It is one case, whether a nation approve a work, or a plan; but it is quite another cases, whether it will commit to any such jury the power of determining whether that nation have a right to, or shall reform its government or not."
"Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness.
"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?"
I started reading Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" a couple of months ago because it was supposed to be a high point of conservative thought. It was among the most incoherent things I have ever read, so I stopped about 50 pages in. I then picked up "Rights of Man", which I did not know was explicitly directed as (among other things) a refutation of Burke. The level of dunking that Payne does on Burke is unprecedented. Payne is seen as an important historical figure, but I now place him in the "definitely underrated" category, particularly as a political philsopher.
Paine*
Fareed Zakaria thought that “liberal autocracy” was a better path to democracy than “illiberal democracy.” It would be interesting to see Wilkinson address this.
I have learned a ton from you reading your stuff over the years and you are almost certainly a better writer than me, but your writing would be way better if it was more concise.
The fact that the United States does not do national referendums makes it easy for people to overestimate how liberal Americans are on policies.Just take a look at California.Californians vote for the Democratic Party by landslide margins,so does that mean Californians routinely vote for liberal ballot propositions? As this past November showed us, that is not the case at all.
I actually think it would be in the interest of Conservatives for this country to have national referendums. Conservatives would lose several referendums, but they would also win a lot of referendums. For example, if national referendums ever become a reality in the United States, affirmative action will be banned and merit-based immigration system will replace the current immigration system that has existed since the 1960s. So my question for to you,Mr Wilkinson, do you support national referendums, since you seem to believe very much in majoritarianism ?
I think it is a false choice. A constitutional representative democracy will slow change and require the majority to be sustained over time. A direct democracy immediately implements majority will. One involves sustaining a majority over time as a process is followed and institutions weigh in. A majoritarian can disfavor referendums, especially a majoritarian who favors representative democracy. "I think representative democracy is a good idea." - Will Wilkinson.
Aesthetic majoritarian is not the same thing as policy majoritarian. My point is that if Wilkinson really believes in both majoritarianism and that the policies of the Democratic party have majority support, he should have nothing to fear from national referendums.
It seems to me the arguments in favor of representative democracy tend to prefer limiting the use of referendums, and this not about majoritarian/not majoritarian. A representative democracy that doesn't have referendums is a majoritarian system.
Aesthetic majoritarian is not the same thing as policy majoritarian.
Alluded to this on Twitter, but the small-c constitution of judicial, but even much more so administrative, practice are ALREADY counter-majoritarian to an enormous degree. The ability of democratically elected representatives to directly influence these things is much more limited than any of us would like to believe. The focus on the paper Constitution is such a sideshow compared to that. The Supreme Court doesn't even have any power at all except in that so many other institutional actors respect their decisions due to norms embedded in the small-c constitution.
Do you support national referendums? For example, should there be a national referendum on whether affirmative action should be banned? If you guys really believe in majoritarianism as you claim, then you should be in favor of national referendums.
No, and I believe that elections are tools for accountability, not for governance. So no I “shouldn’t” but thanks for playing.
If one goes by how Californians vote in state referendums, the California Republican Party should be doing better. However, many people are more motivated by aesthetic than they are motivated by policies when they vote for a political party or politician,and this is why direct democracy is much more representative of people's views than representative democracy. The premise of Wilkinson's supposed majoritarianism is the the policies of the Democratic Party had the support of the people. Well, if one is truly committed to majoritarianism, the one should put that to the test by having national referendums.
"The premise of Wilkinson's supposed majoritarianism is the the policies of the Democratic Party had the support of the people."
I really don't think that is his premise.
It is neither more representative nor better in terms of governance. As any survey designer can tell you, the way you phrase a question can get contradictory answers from the same people. Most people simply do not have an opinion on most policy areas. And turnout is driven more by up ballot elections than the content of ballot intiatives, so in practice a minority of people end up deciding many ballot initiatives.
It is better to have professionals with election rules designed to create a tight incentive to represent the interests of their constituents.
The premise of Wilkinson's supposed majoritarianism is the the policies of the Democratic Party has the support of the people. Well, if one is truly committed to majoritarianism, then one should put that to the test by having national referendums. At least David Cameron was willing to put his money where his mouth is when he decided to have the referendum on Brexit.
I think representative democracy is a good idea.