Understanding Democracy

 

With the increased public and scholarly interest in the meaning and endurance of democracy, this tome by Jason Brennan (Georgetown) provides a lucid and accessible introduction to the concept.  The older, negative assessments (for example, Plato) of democracy to the modern defenders of the centrality of democracy as the “best form of government” are chronicled with care, and in a manner that will appeal to a wide readership (p. 1).  The author offers a “sixth grade model of democracy” to provide a “basic model of how democracy works” (p. 6).  Five core democratic values are explicated to provide for a greater understanding of the concept, including stability, virtue, wisdom, liberty, and equality.  Two chapters are devoted to each democratic value, with a chapter affirming each core value, followed by a closely related chapter that is “skeptical and critical” of the value.  At the end of each chapter a clear and lucid summary is provide.  The treatment of virtue (chaps. 3 and 4) and liberty (chaps. 8 and 9) as democratic values, and as part of democratic theory, also make a significant contribution to the understanding of democracy in practice.                                               

New History of the Democratic Party

 

Hilton, Adam. True Blues: The Contentious Transformation of the Democratic Party. Pennsylvania, 2021. 280p bibl index ISBN 9780812252996, $55.00; ISBN 9780812297966.

In this imaginative, lively book on the history of the Democratic Party, Hilton (Mount Holyoke College) offers a challenge to existing scholarship on the evolution of the Democratic Party since the end of the New Deal. Instead of affirming the role of party leaders and officeholders as the main force in shaping the party’s direction, this book argues that "conflict between extra-party groups" (p. 2) controlled political changes. Over time, a different type of political party was created—an advocacy party—that diminished older sources of political authority. The advocacy party is the result of several developments: the rise of political entrepreneurs, reform movements that sought to overcome the limitations of the old party structure, and persistent conflict among factions to define the party’s focus and electoral strategies. The second half of the book provides exemplary case studies of group activity related to the overall theme of the volume. This study allows for a greater understanding of the change that has taken and continues to take place in the Democratic Party.

--H. L. Cheek Jr., East Georgia State College

(Forthcoming, Choice, November 2022, Vol. 60 No. 3)

Government's "Worst Enemy'? George Washington Himself Pointed to Partisanship

 

By H. Lee Cheek and Sean Busick

(This commentary is co-authored by H. Lee Cheek Jr., a political science professor at East Georgia State College in Swainsboro, and Sean Busick, a professor of history at Athens State University in Alabama. Cheek is a Tybee Island resident.)

America’s Founders did not agree on much. They were not a monolithic group of men. Further, some of the things they did agree on make us uncomfortable today. Those who are in the habit of citing what “The Founders” thought as gospel would do well to keep this in mind.

Here is one thing most of the Founders did agree on: political partisanship is unhealthy and a danger to the country. They believed that republics were fragile and that civic virtue was necessary to prevent them from collapsing into anarchy or despotism.

Partisanship thrived where civic virtue was lacking. Whereas partisanship divides us and threatens effective governance, civic virtue unites us as citizens with a common interest

According to a famous anecdote, upon encountering Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1787, a woman asked him what the delegates in the Constitutional Convention had been busy creating. “Have we got a republic or a monarchy?” she asked. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

A threat from the nation's beginning

The Constitution was designed to establish a republic which, like all republics, depended upon civic virtue in order to survive. Citizens and elected officials alike would have to behave responsibly; if we cared about our republic we would have to place the good of the country above selfish aggrandizement, above partisanship.

The degree to which we are disconnected from the Founders can easily be measured in our political partisanship. They, being human, often failed to live up to their own ideals.

Yes, they decried political parties, but they also split into Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians and founded our first political parties. However, they at least tried to temper their partisanship with civic-mindedness and were capable of feeling shame about their shortcomings.

Early American politicians seldom campaigned for themselves, leaving that bit of dirty work to their subordinates. For example, presidential aspirants confidentially sought out supporters to endorse their candidacy and write political biographies of themselves for public consumption.

Our politicians do not know how to stop campaigning and just might feel shame if it appeared they took a break from self-promotion and political warfare. Among the Founders it was an insult to be accused of partisanship or factionalism. We proudly announce our partisanship on our clothes, bumper stickers, and Facebook profiles.

In fact, some of our fellow citizens become so attached to a new, more dangerous partisanship that they are willing to attempt to disrupt our democratic way in pursuit of keeping their party in office.

Disagreement makes for good decisions

In terms of the “real world” of American politics, the Founders believed civic virtue in a republic also required deliberation and compromise.

These qualities allow leaders and citizens to listen to each others’ ideas. The Founders believed disagreement was not only good, but the interplay of ideas actually provided the basis for making the decisions that were in the best interest of the country.

Our Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions that followed are the world’s best example of working through complicated issues, and compromising, in the pursuit of a higher purpose than self-interest.

George Washington warned us against partisanship in his Farewell Address, which is read to the Senate every year on his birthday. “Let me now . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally,” he wrote.

Partisanship is the “worst enemy” of popular government. “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” Washington cautioned. “It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.” If we want to keep our republic we need to guard against our partisan impulses.

Successful governance is serious work and often requires deliberation and compromise for the common good. It is not a sport, there should not be teams. Our fellow citizens are not our enemies, nor should they be. When politics becomes a game of winners and losers we all are the losers.

This article originally appeared on Savannah Morning News and on Yahoo News.

Dr. Cheek Contributes to Major Study of Political Leadership

In times of crisis, countries naturally yearn for leaders who can defend the public good within the sphere of politics and governance, and in less turbulent periods, the sound political management of a country is also valued.  The term typically used to describe these abilities among national leaders is statesmanship.  In November the University of Notre Dame Press will publish a long-awaited volume on political leadership entitled American Statesmanship, edited by Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology.  The volume will include a chapter on John C. Calhoun by East Georgia State College professor, Dr. Lee Cheek.  He is Professor of Political Science and the former Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the College. Dr. Cheek also directs the College's Correll Scholars Program.  

According to Fornieri, “Our project was greatly enhanced by Dr. Cheek’s contribution.  As a leading scholar of American political thought, especially the political thought of the American South, his work balances our understanding of statesmanship and political leadership.”

The book, including Cheek’s scholarship, suggests the principles of statesmanship should view leaders’ commitment to the common good versus private interest; a sacrificial view of public service; and, the ability to distinguish between the proper use of persuasion and coercion.

Cheek’s previous books include Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal (Transaction/Rutgers, 2001; reprinted, Routledge, 2018 [with Kathy B. Cheek]); Calhoun and Popular Rule, published by the University of Missouri Press (2001; paper edition, 2004); Calhoun: Selected Speeches and Writings (Regnery, 2003); Order and Legitimacy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2004; reprinted, Routledge, 2017); an edition of Calhoun's A Disquisition on Government (St. Augustine's, 2007; reprinted, 2016); a critical edition of W. H. Mallock's The Limits of Pure Democracy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2007; reprinted, Routledge, 2017); Confronting Modernity: Towards a Theology of Ministry in the Wesleyan Tradition (Wesley Studies Society, 2010); an edition of the classic study, A Theory of Public Opinion (Transaction/Rutgers, 2013; reprinted, Routledge, 2017); Patrick-Henry Onslow Debate: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought (Lexington, 2013); and, The Founding of the American Republic (Notre Dame University Press, 2023 [forthcoming]).

Warnock: The Pastor as Senator

 

With the certification of the results of the U. S. Senate election run-off, Georgia has elected Raphael Warnock to the world’s most elite club, American’s upper legislative chamber, the Senate.  Senator-elect Warnock will join Senator James Lankford as the only two ordained clergy in the Senate.  Warnock and Lankford are out-numbered by the majority of Senators who were lawyers and business people before being elected to the Senate, but in many important ways, having the calling, training, and mission of a pastor prepares Warnock more thoroughly for the work ahead.

Warnock’s ability to adjust to his new work environment is key to his potential re-election in 2022.  Unlike most senators who have six years to learn the arcane rules of Senate and begin to influence legislation, Warnock has no time to waste.  By the time he learns his way around the Senate, he will be on the campaign trail again.

Warnock’s background as a pastor provides him with gifts and graces that the average newly-elected senator does not possess.  In theological terms, Warnock has already accepted the “yoke of obedience” to follow the divine calling, or mission, in his life.  The attachment to mission that has guided his life as pastor now expands to a mission to support the citizenry of Georgia in a federal system with many claims on power and resources. 

Our new pastor-senator possesses the intellectual and pastoral gifts to assume these duties.  Contrary to the wildly exaggerated ads against Reverend Warnock during the election process—and while a man of the Left--he is certainly within the mainstream of American Christianity and politics.  He earned a Ph.D. at Union Theological Seminary, studying under the late James Cone, who was the leading black liberationist theologian in America.  Warnock extended Cone’s work to include feminist theology, especially Warnock’s major academic work, The Divided Mind of the Black Church, published by New York University Press in 2013. 

His intellectual gifts will need to be tempered by his pastoral gifts over time, allowing Warnock to witness to and work with the diverse constituencies that make up the Georgia electorate.  In other words, as the pastor of one of America’s most famous churches, who already possesses the talent to relate to a congregation of differing views, Warnock as pastor-senator must now support and advance the needs of all Georgians as well.  No one is better prepared politically or socially to accomplish such a complex task as is Pastor-Senator Warnock.

Can Senator Warnock accomplish his mission?  Yes, if he attends to the needs of Georgians, just as a pastor concentrates on his or her congregation.  In the language of the Congress, the pastor-senator must concentrate on constituency services, responding to basic needs of the individuals, communities and businesses he represents.  Instead of attempting to become a cause célèbre for ideological groups, Warnock should rely on his natural spiritual and political gifts to promote the most critical and faith-based needs as a servant leader.  He should avoid notoriety and concentrate on the hard work needed to promote public policy initiatives he supports, most often within the committee structure of the U.S. Senate, where most of the actual legislative work takes place.  Finally, Warnock must seek resolution of issues close to his calling as a pastor, including alleviating poverty, support for education, and the like, by asking Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) for major committee assignments related to his and Georgia’s legislative priorities.  If Pastor-Senator Warnock continues to follow his calling, his career in the U.S. Senate may be a long one indeed.

H. Lee Cheek, Jr., is a United Methodist minister, and Professor of Political Science at East Georgia State College, and a former congressional aide.  Dr. Cheek lives on Tybee Island.

Populism, Properly Understood

 

Few terms in contemporary politics are as bewildering to the average citizen and the scholar as populism.  Now comes Professor Benjamin Moffitt to the rescue.  His recent tome,  _Populism_ (Polity, 2020) is a helpful resource. In this engaging and lucid study, Moffitt (Australian Catholic Univ.) offers a helpful guide to the "veritable explosion" in the use and abuse of the concept of populism in the existing literature, reviewing particular cases in six clearly defined chapters. While incorporating the insights of earlier studies, Moffitt presents novel insights from emerging fields of scholarly inquiry as well. Viewing the term "populism" as representing a construct closely aligned with political theory (alongside its use in political practice), Moffitt introduces the major debates in chapter one. His second chapter surveys how particular scholars have approached the topic, typically concentrating on the separation of the "people" from the "elite." Chapters 3 and 4 explore the differences between populism, nationalism, and nativism, and points to the relationship between populism and socialism. Chapter 5 correctly demonstrates how populists on both the Right and the Left share an attachment to "illiberalism" when "institutions and procedures" are considered. Moffitt's final chapter questions whether populism is a "good or a bad thing for democracy," without offering any final judgment. The book makes a solid contribution to understanding populism, while also tending to affirm the concept’s conflation with common notions of popular rule.

 

Trump and the Republican Future: A Georgia Professor's Lament and Rejoicing

Now, five weeks after our presidential election, there remains much tension and some confusion about our political situation and the destiny of our political order.  No prospect is more unclear than the future of the Republican Party, and the impact of the Trump Presidency and persona weighs heavily into any related calculation.  The myriad campaign lawsuits to influence the election outcome, the Paxton/Trump comic Supreme Court juggernaut, and the choir of  sycophantic Republican voices--including the Gang of 106 who back the Paxton and the Trumpian assault on democratic processes--suggest the rot is much deeper than most people could have imagined.  While the possibility of Democrats winning both of Georgia’s U. S. Senate seats on January 5, currently held by two leading Trumpian fawners, is unlikely, there has been long term damage to the Republican Party in Georgia and in the nation. The culprit is President Donald Trump and his band of enablers.

As a political science professor for three decades and a Republican, the slow decline of the Republican Party, not to mention the diminishing role of political parties in our politics more generally, have been a great concern to me.   The Founders were of two minds in regards to political parties, considering parties as little more than “factions” and sources of political corruption on one hand, but on the other hand, as James Madison noted, parties are also “natural to most political societies.” 

When my students visit Europe or other parts of the world on study abroad trips, they often return to regale me with stories of how vital political parties are in the countries they visit, and how they purchased political memorabilia at every stop, and were constantly engaged in political discussions during their travels.   Political parties remain vital in Europe, for example, because the only way a person can run for office is to typically be nominated by a political party, and voters are more likely to use a party label to select the representatives in any given election as well.

While our political parties are in decline, our parties are the oldest in the world.  As the result of changes in our political culture and the laws and regulations that dictate the work of parties, they are no longer as powerful as our parties were in the past.  The rise of celebrity politics also allows previously marginal or disaffected figures to seek political office outside of the normal process of recruitment and selection that was central to the life of our political parties.  The slight nostalgia some may experience in persistence of and the eventual election of Joe Biden does not mean the Democratic Party is immune from these challenges as well. 

In the Age of Trump, however, no one should be surprised that the Republican Party must now chart a path to recovering their vitality, and the answers are not simple.  The sources of renewal can be found some place between the “Never Trump” advocates, who opposed Trump even before he was the Republican candidate in 2016, and the deniers of democracy, including our two senators, who continue to invent evidence of election fraud and urge we Georgia citizens not to vote in the upcoming Senate runoff elections. 

For starters, Republicans have to admit that the Trump experiment, to put it delicately, was a failure, and that Trump lost the 2020 election.  The Biden Administration has already announced plans to reverse many of Trump’s initiatives, and Trump’s actual successes in domestic and foreign policy were either accidental or of fleeting significance.  To make matters worse, Trump, out of his own ignorance and abject narcissism, continued the anti-democratic practice of recent presidents by simply issuing executive orders to exert his political influence.  Unfortunately for Trump, a President Biden, or the incoming Congress, or the Federal courts can strike down his executive orders, especially in cases where he exceeded his constitutional powers.  Trump, the anti-democrat, will see his policy initiatives undermined very quickly.

With the 2020 election, we can trust Chris Krebs, the technological boy wonder of Bush Administration and Microsoft fame, and Trump’s own Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).  Krebs was on the mark when he stated that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history."  Krebs’s comments were soon echoed by Attorney General William Barr, Senator Romney and others, with Senate Majority Leader McConnell promising an “orderly transfer” of power.  While Krebs truth-telling led to his own Twitter dismissal by Trump, the reality cannot be denied by any honest observer.  Sad gatherings led by once-prominent lawyers in our state in the last week, abusing the populist tenor of the contemporary Republican Party’s electorate, and urging Republicans not to vote in the January runoff election, only undermine our faith in elections and democratic practices, and damage Republican electoral prospects now and in the future.

Amidst the confusion, Republicans can recover from the loss of the White House, but the process will be painful and require serious engagement with our democratic principles that Trump has actively undermined.  We must affirm the value of frequent and free elections, and not attempt to undermine voting.  The central value of a free press, even in our media age that offers a smorgasbord of ideologies for our choosing, remains a central democratic value.  Republicans must aggressively cultivate the authentic media and seek the truth at all levels instead of sponsoring and abetting sources of disinformation.  In returning to the traditional Republican “politics of prudence,” as my mentor Russell Kirk described it, we must serve as the loyal opposition to the incoming Biden Administration, strengthening local and state party organizations along the way.  The time-honored Republican notions of a strong national defense, budgetary restraint, the free exchange of economic goods, and the principled diffusion of political power, demand reinvigoration in the coming years.  We also cannot neglect the recruitment of statesmen instead of celebrities at all levels.  If vigilant, the Republican Party can be renewed, and America needs a vibrant two-party system.

 

H. Lee Cheek, Jr. is Professor of Political Science and the former dean at East Georgia State College, and a Senior Fellow of the Alexander Hamilton Institute.  Cheek’s books and other publications can be viewed at www.drleecheek.net.