by Steve Iskeep in Substack
My mailbox this week included a note with the subject line, “Democracy Without America.” The writer was sharing a link to an article with a slightly less stark headline, given its punctuation: “Democracy without America?” It was an attempt to survey the global state of democracy in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.
I don’t mean to single out that article. We could choose many articles, social media posts or cable TV riffs that express similar thoughts. And it’s reasonable to ask what the U.S. election means for the state of democracy worldwide—the article talks of a “democratic recession” in recent years with the rise of various authoritarians and would-be strongmen.
What I would reject, as a citizen and as a journalist, is any notion that Tuesday’s election signals the end of democracy in America. As a journalist, I can report that what happened on Tuesday is that a majority of voters chose a candidate. That’s part of the democratic process.
Granted, it might have been otherwise. The comedian Bill Maher says he had scheduled extra episodes of his show for after the election, anticipating that if Trump had lost there would have been a “shitshow” and “the reason why we’re sitting here so peacefully now is because the one party that still believes in conceding elections lost.”
We’ll never find out what would have happened if Kamala Harris won. My NPR colleague Miles Parks reported that election officials entered the contest with confidence that the system had been reinforced since the efforts in 2020 to tear it down. Few experts expected a rerun of January 6. Kari Lake, the Trump supporter who refused to concede her 2022 loss in Arizona’s governor’s race, admitted this time that the process was fair. (She trails in her Senate race against Ruben Gallego, with a bit of counting still to do.)
Many fear that the majority chose a presidential candidate who is determined to knock down the foundations of democracy. He did try to overturn the election he lost in 2020. He has made a lot of statements in 2024. But whatever any official’s intent may be, as a citizen I decline to abandon the Constitution. It’s my country. I’m not going anywhere. I have rights and freedoms. I have no interest in surrendering my rights and freedoms, nor those of my fellow citizens. Some official who wins a mere majority in a single election has no legitimate power to take those rights.Subscribe
The people whose side lost the election in 2024 have exactly the same recourse as the people whose side lost the free and fair election in 2020. The rights of free speech and assembly. The freedom of the press. The power of the Senate minority to block legislation through the filibuster. The power of states to assert their rights in court and elsewhere. The power of independent judges. And the next election.
An election winner may try to knock down these protections—or degrade them when it seems convenient. The protections are certainly porous. Several judges Trump appointed ruled in favor of his interests in the past several years (though not always); and a president’s party in Congress tends to act at the president’s direction rather than upholding the power of their institution. The president-elect has associated for years with people who openly admire Viktor Orban of Hungary, whose program included undermining the free press.
Beyond that, an extraordinary concentration of money and power is on display. Elon Musk, who oriented Twitter toward Trump’s election and then became one of his top campaign contributors, joined the president-elect on a phone call with Ukraine’s president. The world’s richest man was already deeply entwined with the United States government on space travel, satellites and the war in Ukraine. Trump has talked of a federal position of some kind for him.
These facts and trends will bear watching and discussing and reporting on. I will use my rights and freedoms to ask questions, learn what happens, and talk about it fairly and dispassionately. My fellow citizens will be able to do the same.
It will not surprise you that a quote from Lincoln comes to mind. I think of it often; I shared it with people after Biden won, and I also share it with you now. It shows the proper relationship between a president, the people, and the law.
Lincoln said this at Lawrenceburg, Indiana in February 1861, while he was on the way to his inauguration, after an election that Southern slave states rejected, leading to civil war. He pointed out that this response to a single election was not only wrong, but needless.
My fellow-countrymen. You call upon me for a speech; I have none to give to you, and have not sufficient time to devote to it if I had. I suppose you are all Union men here, (cheers and cries of “Right”) and I suppose that you are in favor of doing full justice to all… (Loud cheering and cries of “We are.”) If the politicians and leaders of parties were as true as the people, there would be little fear that the peace of the country would be disturbed. I have been selected to fill an important office for a brief period, and am now, in your eyes, invested with an influence which will soon pass away; but should my administration prove to be a very wicked one, or what is more probable, a very foolish one, if you, the people, are but true to yourselves and to the Constitution, there is but little harm I can do, thank God!
That is the right view for us to have as citizens. And it is up to us to insist that our presidents adhere to this view, no matter how hard they may try to do otherwise.
Thanks for reading Differ We Must; it’s good to have you along. I have a little news: Differ We Must, my book on how Lincoln built political coalitions in a divided nation, is now due out in paperback February 11. The Penguin Press is planning some really exciting events around this release and I look forward to sharing details with you. We go on.