I’m in the process of wrapping my head around a word that up till about six months ago was not part of my lexicon. I’m not sure why, given what I read and teach, this word has eluded me as long as it has. When I first read this word, I had trouble saying the word aloud let alone understanding what the word really means. Given how rare it is for me to hear this word in conversation, I’m inclined to think that most people have never heard this word and, if they have, do not fully understand the meaning of the word and how to correctly use it. To the best of my recollection, no one I personally know has ever used this word in conversation with me. I’m still not sure I fully understand the word and how and when to properly use it. I hope writing about this word will help me more fully grasp its meaning, clarify my own thinking, and enhance my ability to employ this word confidently, precisely, and accurately in my analysis and defense of American democracy. I hope others will join me in using this word. The word is illiberal.
I understand my initial struggle with grasping the word illiberal, and it’s really not surprising even if it is somewhat embarrassing to admit. The prefix “il,” of course, means “not.” In common contemporary usage, liberal is primarily utilized as a noun, to refer to someone who holds political beliefs associated with the political left. As a result, when my brain hears the word “illiberal” it more quickly and readily tries to associate the term with someone who does NOT hold political beliefs associated with the political left. In everyday language we readily speak of liberals and conservatives, not liberals and illiberals. Given the common usage of the word liberal as a noun to refer to people on the political left, my brain was having a very difficult time switching to the use of liberal as an adjective, as in “liberal democracy.” Given what I teach, you may have assumed this would not have been such a struggle for me, especially given my regularly occurring defenses of liberal arts education. Perhaps some of my difficulties were further complicated by my regular use of the term “neo-liberalism” to refer to the politically conservative philosophy in favor of liberating the free market from governmental regulations and labor unions. Regardless of the reasons for my confusion, I was confused. In the process of dealing with my confusion and ignorance, I’ve realized more than ever that the primary threat to American democracy in the contemporary era is illiberalism.
American democracy is a liberal democracy, referring to a commitment to the protection of individual liberties. The health and maintenance of liberal democracy depends on citizens who understand and protect the rights to due process and legal equality, freedom of speech and religion, an independent judiciary, and the maintenance of a free and independent system of journalism. The preservation of a liberal democracy requires an adherence and a commitment to process, regardless of outcome, and especially when the outcome is unfavorable for those who hold power. Until recently, this commitment to liberal democracy is how the United States navigated the peaceful transition of power between political parties. We need elected leaders who closely adhere, respect, and accept the constraints of a liberal democracy on their own power. There are historical examples of both Republican and Democratic administrations who failed, at various times, to adhere and follow the constraints of liberal democracy. In these moments, these leaders were acting illiberally and placing American democracy at risk.
The common idea that American democracy is simply a system of majority rule fails to formally acknowledge that the majority are expected to protect and abide by minority protections afforded by a liberal democracy. If a person wins the office of the President within a system of majority rule (leaving aside the issue of the Electoral College) and then proceeds to act illiberally in an effort to dismantle rights to due process and legal equality, curb freedom of speech and religion, dictate educational curriculum, defund public education and ban books, undo an independent judiciary, intimidate journalists, and refuse to accept the outcomes of fair and free elections while implementing policies of voter suppression, they have placed their Party’s interests and/or personal interests ahead of what’s best for the nation. These illiberal actions thus place the long-term stability of American democracy at risk.
Any person seeking political office who advocates, supports, and pledges to act illiberally if they are elected, poses an inherent threat to American democracy. I do not fear a Republican/conservative president as long as this person demonstrates a commitment to the tenets of liberal democracy. Similarly, I would never support a Democratic presidential nominee who espoused ideas and policy positions that are illiberal. In both cases, these candidates would be elevating their own Party’s interests above the well-being of the nation, using majority rule and the democratic process to dismantle liberal democracy itself. Majoritarianism is sometimes used to rationalize and justify illiberal, anti-democratic actions. Within recent years, Brazil, Hungary, Turkey, and other countries have all had majority elected leaders who were/are acting illiberally, behaving in ways we might refer to as “creeping authoritarianism.”
Today, illiberal voices are making lots of noise, which may suggest illiberalism may be gaining support within the United States. Largely propelled by wannabe political “strong men” who vehemently proclaim their love of this country, these people either do not care, do not understand, or do not respect the basic tenets of liberal democracy. Against the background of demographic shifts, these individuals masterfully wield fear and prejudice in an effort to garner enough votes to place themselves in positions of power to ultimately dismantle liberal democracy. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump and his ilk strenuously deny their own illiberalism and then project it onto their opponents. Ultimately, Trump is a symptom of wider historical forces. Others are eagerly lining up behind Trump, poised to continue his assault on liberal democracy.
Nothing I’ve just written is necessarily different from what I’ve written previously. Only now, I’m employing the linguistic tool of “illiberal” to more precisely identify the most dangerous threat to American democracy. If “illiberal” were to become a commonly used and widely understood concept, we may be able to more effectively inform and educate and prevent this nation from becoming Brazil, Hungary, or Turkey. In a two-party representative democracy, we need two functioning political parties that are fully committed to the preservation of liberal democracy. Any candidate for any elected office who will not pledge to uphold and adhere to the basic tenets of liberal democracy should be soundly rejected by a well-informed and educated populous who understand the inherent danger of illiberalism.
An illiberal democracy is NOT a democracy.
The Sociological Post 