I was discussing the other day the difference between those who support authoritarianism to guard against the tyranny of democracy and those who support democracy to guard against the tyranny of authoritarianism. Fun issue. Maybe we can discuss that this week?
Why do I tag the issue as relating to economics? Because the context in which these issues most commonly arise are laws relating to economic power resting on ethics relating to the definition, distribution, use of economic power, all exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. The issue is clearly a normative one that hinges on what one supposes makes government legitimate, although it can involve some confusion and conflict if one equivocates on the term “tyranny” without explaining what one means by it, a common enough rhetorical ploy. As with other such terms, goodness, morality, freedom, liberty, etc., it’s always easy and tempting to avoid substantive discussion by simply assuming the conclusions, assuming a definition, then proposing those with other views are against the general concept. That leads to unproductive straw man arguments. No one opposes goodness, morality, freedom, liberty, etc. The issue is what one means by those terms, and in that context what one supposes good another may suppose bad, what one perceives as freedom another as a lack of freedom.
With respect to those who see democracy as tyranny, the legitimacy of non-tyrannical government is clearly based on something other than democracy, that is, the consent of (the majority of) the governed, typically involving their own ethical or religious thinking about “rights.” According to those people, if democracy doesn’t respect what they view as their “rights” that supersede democracy, then democracy is tyrannical, unethical. These “rights,” as one might guess, most often involve the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power.
With respect to those who see authoritarian government as the tyranny of a power elite, the legitimacy of non-tyrannical government is based on democracy, that is, the consent of (the majority of) the governed, in which voters express their various ethical views and vote on law. According to those people, if power elites establish laws meant to supersede or be immune to democracy, then those elites are being tyrannical, unethical. These laws, as one might guess, most often involve the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power.
These fundamentally contradictory views of government are artfully combined in the US Constitution, which proposes constitutional rights to protect against the tyranny of majority rule in democracy, to a degree, but also a mechanism to revise, amend those rights using democracy. Under the US Constitution, democracy, the consent of the governed, is the ultimate consideration meant to make government legitimate. This issue is at the crux of right wing, conservative ambiguity with respect to supporting or terminating the US Constitution. They talk at length about “constitutional republics,” but the republics they typically have in mind don’t seem to correspond to the one we have in the USA. Specifically, they involve fantasy constitutions immune to revision, amendment via democracy, often religious in nature.
Why do conservatives, Republican not perceive the tyranny of their fantasy constitutional republics? Presumably because they have in mind constitutions that comport with, and express, their own personal ethical views. Apparently, it isn’t tyranny if it’s their tyranny. If they could use their imaginations to consider an unchangeable constitutional republic inconsistent with their own ethical views, let’s say one that establishes communism, they might see the difficulty. But it seems a step too far for many egoists. One sees the same peculiar one-sidedness, the same “selective perception” as it’s often called, in many artifacts of conservative, right wing thought. When they speak of liberty they generally mean their own liberty, freedom their own freedom, ethics their own ethics, etc. It’s by this sleight of hand conservatives see authoritarian government expressing conservative views on economic power, commonly called fascism, as a force for freedom or liberty against the tyranny of democracy, and democracy itself as tyrannical “fascism.” Because conservatives actually support the anti-democracy element of communism, they see the problematic bit of that creed in terms of the ethics of economic power, so they see voters using democracy to express what they see as “leftist” views on economic power as “communists.” Hence, to a conservative or right winger, a voter expressing what they consider “leftist” ethical views on economic power in the context of voting in a democracy is both a “communist” and a “fascist,” leading to their famous confusion between those two very different creeds.
Conservatives supporting fascism, authoritarian government expressing conservative views on economic power against the ethical views of voters, democracy, while pretending to support the US Constitution, patriotism, freedom, liberty, are a major threat to democracy in the USA. This threat is closely linked to anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, based on the ethical half-theory of neoclassical welfare economics, which suppresses understanding of the role of democratic government in addressing ethical issues in market systems.
