There’s much talk these days about democracy being under threat at home and around the world. Most of this discussion tends to be focused on efforts by autocrats and their supporters to erode the rule of law and the right to vote; their adoption of policies that discriminate against minorities and women; and their use of disinformation to mislead their supporters and discredit opponents. All of these concerns, and others focused on rights, justice, and inclusion, are of great importance in ensuring a peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society. But those attacking democracy pose an even graver threat. They’re undermining the competition among ideas needed to find solutions to the world’s most critical challenges.
The tactics being used to undermine democracy depend heavily upon controlling the information available to the public. The lies and disinformation campaigns of autocrats and their supporters, their attacks on the press, their efforts to suppress the free flow of ideas through the use of lawfare; and their refusal to fund research into matters in the public interest, all presume they know what to do without the need to consult with others. Some, like Trump, even admit as much, claiming only they can fix our problems. Common sense tells us this cannot be true — that only ideas subjected to rigorous debate and deliberation have a chance of providing the solutions we need in these perilous times. To counter autocratic control of information needed to solve our challenges, we must reimagine democracy as a system centered on the competition of ideas, not solely focused on rights, justice, and inclusion.
The Founding Fathers understood this truth. Thus, Thomas Jefferson observed, “we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors”. The role of ideas in preserving the Republic is one reason the Constitution was amended, including most importantly by adding the First Amendment. Its role in fostering competition among ideas was made express by the Supreme Court. In Abrams v. United States Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed “we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions.” The actual phrase “market place of ideas” first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William Douglas in United States v. Rumely. But it was the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that made the market place of ideas the policy framework within which the Court would interpret the First Amendment. This led eventually to Citizens United v. FEC, which curtailed the government’s ability to regulate corporate speech. All of these decisions were based on the notion democracy depends upon the competition among ideas.
But despite the clear need for the world to access the best ideas to manage its many challenges, leaders are increasingly relying on disinformation, outright lies, the exploitation of cultural bias, and even violence to compromise the robust discourse contemplated by democracy. Perhaps most concerningly, people are becoming increasingly tolerant of these and other autocratic tactics. Many are standing by as politicians have moved to suppress science and ideas that have emerged from research and debate, choosing instead to promote ideas based upon ideology, religion, economic self-interest, and whatever is seen most likely to maintain power. Leaders the world over are reading from the same script. The consequence will be the use of ideas untested by the marketplace the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court understood was necessary to preserve the Republic.
Why is this happening? One answer that sometimes is given is that social, economic, technological and environmental change is accelerating, requiring decisions to be made more quickly than democracies are able to make them if multiple options are subjected to careful deliberation through a multi-stage process that includes legislatures and courts. This has led to some people, especially those who are struggling or are fearful, to accept political approaches that are inherently undemocratic. Their response is understandable, especially given their desire for change. They want change, and want it fast, from whoever can give it to them. This is one reason why millions of Americans who voted for the “change” represented by Obama in 2008 and 2012, also voted for the “change” represented by Trump in 2016 and 2024.
In the case of Trump and other aspiring autocrats, the resulting change is the pursuit of “instantaneous democracy,” a promise to deliver rapid results insulated from debate and criticism. But instantaneous democracy comes at a price. The public’s desire for speed tolerates autocrats marginalizing and even eliminating the deliberative, research and fact-based processes that are the province of legislatures and courts. They see legislatures and courts as slowing down the action they want. Here at home, Republicans are even speaking openly about ignoring court orders. Indeed, they have done so. Some are going so far as to argue that Federal Courts that are “stymying Trump’s agenda” should be defunded or stripped of their jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution.
The autocratic efforts to marginalize the multi-stage, power sharing processes that are the hallmark of deliberative, fact-based decisions, is finding support among many members of the public. For example, the favorability ratings of the U.S. Congress are adversely affected when it does its job because the discourse that has been its hallmark is seen as partisan bickering. Similarly, the favorability of courts is at an all-time low, both here and around the world. This has led some legislatures and courts to abandon their historic functions and yield to autocratic leaders and their agendas.
Autocrats are using the public’s impatience with deliberative, informed decision making, coupled with their historic biases and grievances, to substitute their own opinions for those of scientists, doctors, healthcare officials, diplomats, security experts, economists, lawyers, legislators, and others, who have dedicated their lives to understanding the challenges we are facing. They characterize those who oppose them as traitors who are betraying the national interest. In doing so, they are using corrosive language evocative of some of the most violent chapters in recent world history. Examples include the use of “human scum”, “vermin,” and “poisoners of our blood”, which all were terms used by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Josef Stalin to describe their adversaries.
Unfortunately, support for the approach being taken by autocrats is growing. A recent poll reflects over half of the British people aged 13-27, and forty percent of those aged 45-65, think the UK would be better with a strong leader, unfettered by Parliament and elections. Similarly, seventy-four percent of US Republicans recently said they approved of Trump being a “dictator for a day” — seemingly without concern about what would happen on day two.
This is populism, pure and simple. As Professor Ming-Sung Kuo of the University of Warwick School of Law has observed, Populism is a child of “a pathology of instantaneous democracy”. It takes root when people want fast action disconnected from the deliberations demanded by democracy. The effect is to disable the discourse we need to solve the problems we have.
If any of this is sounding familiar, it isn’t just because of what currently is happening here and around the world. It’s because populism has trumped truth and informed decision making many times before. Hitler wrote the script on ruling by personal fiat and utilizing lies and propaganda to both obscure and gain support for his actions. Stalin did the same. Among his most destructive actions was his imprisonment of Nikolai Vavilov, one of the world’s leading agricultural geneticists, because his views on hybridization were thought to support the idea of social Darwinism, upon which capitalism — not communism — was arguably based. As a result, an estimated 5 million Russian people starved to death. More recently, and closer to home, Republicans are endangering public health by baselessly attacking science and nominating and confirming cabinet secretaries whose unsubstantiated personal opinions are anti-science. They also are compromising democracy more overtly, by denying millions of Americans the right to vote. And they are ignoring court orders that endeavor to limit their actions.
It is, or should be, common sense that hard problems will not be solved by relying upon the un-researched, uninformed personal opinions of autocrats. We all know what happens when leaders act without knowing the facts, for the simple reason that we know what happens when we do. We’re about to be reminded of it once again, with tragic consequences for millions of Americans and others around the world. So how can we get to a place where proposed solutions to our shared problems are the result of informed debate and the multi-layered decision-making democracy provides? Here are five ideas.
First, we can refocus the narrative concerning the threat to democracy on the damage that will be done if ideas are not allowed to compete. The risks of failure are obvious if we fail to utilize the best information we have and can obtain to respond to complex challenges such as climate change; human migration; pandemic avoidance, preparedness and response; and the transition to a society in which artificial intelligence threatens the employment of tens of millions.
Second, we need a publicly funded, non-governmental, public interest entity designed to analyze proposed legislation in real time. Providing the public with an understanding about what leaders and legislators are proposing, and what consequences their proposed legislation would have, is necessary to allow constituents a basis to pressure their representatives into resisting the calls of their party and take more informed, thoughtful, bi-partisan action. Congressional Research Service is charged with providing such an analysis, but as we descend into autocracy, a demonstrably independent entity likely will be needed.
Third, we need to identify the conflicts of interest autocrats and their supporters have in pursuing the actions they pursue. A well-known, well-resourced organization composed of investigators and investigative journalists whose work is published in a journal they control, is needed to research the actions of autocrats and their supporters, and to receive information from members of the public who otherwise might not know where to go with the information they have. Information “tip lines” would provide the public with an anonymous means of participating in observing and exposing the corruption and self-interest of autocratic rulers and their enablers.
Fourth, we need well-resourced public interest law firms to research and file actions that protect the public interest. We are fortunate to have examples of such organizations, including State Democracy Defenders Action, but many more are necessary, including those that would act at the state level. Recruiting seasoned lawyers who have retired and who want to help should be considered. The objectives would be threefold: to delay the onset of autocratic action until political change can eliminate the threat it presents; to establish the action is illegal; and to inform the public, and the investigative bodies serving the public interest, about what is being attempted. Judicial rulings that go against the autocratic agenda could be published in the investigative journal referenced above.
Fifth, we need to invest in “third places” where people of different beliefs and political inclinations can gather to hear what each has to say. Among other things, they could expose the problematic effects of income inequality on our democracy. Income inequality, as Aristotle observed over two thousand years ago in Politics, is dangerous to democracy. So too, is the ability to profit from government service and the abandonment of the rule of law.
Opposition from autocrats would be fierce to such measures. They recognize control of the Republic is at stake. But if we’re to successfully address the serious challenges ahead, we’ll need to understand our democracy is not just about rights and the rule of law, but also about the competition among ideas. Without the best ideas, we won’t find the solutions we need. And without solutions, it won’t matter who’s in charge.
Ambassador David Carden is a lawyer, diplomat, mediator and author who served as the first resident US Ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with the rank of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Prior to and after his ambassadorship, he was a partner in the Chicago, New York, and Singapore offices of Jones Day, where he co-chaired the Securities Litigation & SEC Enforcement Practice and was partner-in-charge of the firm’s offices in Asia.
