Americans have been called upon throughout history to safeguard our democracy — the very foundation of our government — and to move forward from the objectionable spasms that existentially threatened it. Heather Cox Richardson, a history professor at Boston College, weaves a thread through such moments of “democracy awakening” in her aptly titled 2023 book, Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America.
The promise of America, and indeed, the ways in which America has fallen short of that promise, equally find its power within the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. America was founded on that world historically unique promise of ideas (all men are created equal, the consent of the governed, we the people, protections against government encroachment, and the ability to amend the founding document itself) rather than blood and soil, and our entire history is marked (and marred) by the toil of those left behind and crushed by the broken promise — but those sacrifices also inched us closer to fulfilling the promise. That foundation was challenged most notably during the American Civil War (1861-1865), when the Confederate States attempted a slave empire diametrically opposed to the foundational ideas, and again during the turbulent Civil Rights Era (1954 to 1968), when the vestiges of Jim Crow and abject bigotry made its final stand. Now, once again, we find ourselves at such a foundation-challenging moment in our history. On January 6, 2021, an American president, Donald Trump, instigated a riot at the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in a disruption of the peaceful transfer of power for the first time, an attack on democracy. He turned against his own vice president, Mike Pence, and the known record indicates he wouldn’t have been bothered if the rioters intent on hanging Pence succeeded in their ambition that day. Furthermore, that same man is a coin flip away from being afforded the power of the presidency again. For that unrepentant assault (indeed, Trump calls that day a “day of love” and promises to pardon the “J6 prisoners”) on our democracy, among other reasons, like cozying up to authoritarians, threatening the post-WWII liberal order, Trump and his movement represent a moment for choosing. We can either further backslide on the promise of American democracy or shore it up once again and incrementally move forward to living up to its tenets.
When abolitionists challenged the institution of slavery, and nearly 100 years later, when members of the Civil Rights movement challenged Jim Crow, and certainly now, when bipartisan political leaders, activists, business leaders, military leaders, and pundits challenge Donald Trump, the throughline is the same: They call upon us to remember our founding documents and the promise they hold, and as mentioned, to live up to the promise. Richardson further argues that, as a result, democracy expanded post “awakening” and in the defense of democracy. The liberal order grew to mean something new, such as what has essentially been referred to as a “second founding” with the Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13 through 15), and of course, the fruits of the Civil Rights movement, guaranteeing the right to vote for Black people, and inspiring (as abolition also did) other movements for equality, including women’s rights and the gay rights movement.
In other words, it can happen here that America can both sleepwalk into democratic backsliding (the majority of people) and move clear-eyed and willingly into it (the minority who propel such authoritarian movements forward). Indeed, it has happened before and we had to awaken to the reality and fight for our democracy, sometimes literally, as with the Civil War. Perhaps in 2024, it feels alarmist to think we could be sleepwalking into democratic backsliding once again and granting an authoritarian the awesome power of the presidency. But far from overstating Jan. 6, it’s difficult to convey just how destructive and dangerous of a moment that was for America, and especially alarming is the retconning thereafter. The guardrails held, as they say, but that doesn’t mean we ought to keep pressure testing them with a would-be authoritarian. If anything that moment, as well as others throughout history, awaken us to how fragile such guardrails actually are when tested. Much of our system of government and way of life rests on norms and the good faith machinations of people. Once those are eroded, the actual institutions begin to lose much of their anchoring and teeth to be effective.
Richardson’s book didn’t present much new information for me. As a political junkie and ardent history lover, I knew most of what was covered and she didn’t do much convincing with me. I’m the choir being preached to on the overall thesis of her book that we — yes, we the people — are being called upon again to safeguard our democracy and we better answer the call. If anything, I would argue her book could have used a narrower focus. In my humble opinion, she widened her net of what constitutes the “liberal order” and democracy as to lose the bite on the particular danger of this moment and how it compares to the aforementioned two moments in our history. That is to say, Richardson’s view of American history and this moment is rendered through a left lens. I have a number of critiques and points of contention with that rendering of history and/or missing context, which I think is unfortunate as it derails from the overall vital thesis. (For what it’s worth for the curious, my litany of what I would take issue with includes: Richardson’s explanation for the cause of the Great Depression; overlooking FDR’s own executive overreach (while acknowledging the importance of America not slipping into authoritarianism like other nations); the Fairness Doctrine and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (Richardson is for the former and against the Supreme Court decision, but I would say, in brief, eliminating one and deciding the other were both boons to free speech and particularly, political speech); you cannot cover the Progressive Era in the early 1900s without talking about eugenics; and I would also be careful about romanticizing the 1950s from a leftist viewpoint, just as the right romanticizes it from their viewpoint, both for different reasons. The shorter way for me to encompass all of that is that I would caution those on the left, and Richardson, with conflating arguments against government power and efficacy with attempts to crush political enemies with said power. I know those two can get conflated by those who seem to be its proponents, no doubt, but there is important breathing room.) Maybe to put a finer point what I’m getting at is that there is a reason Vice President Kamala Harris’ tent of support is so broad as to include former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. It’s not because Cheney would agree, either, with a lot of what Richardson said in her book as it regards that left lens, or certainly, Harris herself. Rather, it’s that Harris, Cheney, and Richardson all agree on the most fundamental aspect of safeguarding our democracy. Everything else we can debate about later once we shore that up.
Overall, if you’re decidedly not a political junkie like me, I think you’ll find much that is useful about Richardson’s book and how she expertly weaves a thread throughout American history to demonstrate upheavals in the status quo that threatened the liberal order and American democracy and the “awakening” therein to such moments that re-established and expanded American democracy to be more equitable and encompassing of everyone.
Milam's Musings 