Comparing 1776 to 2024: Has America Gotten Less Democratic?

[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin filling in for Brian today. Good morning again, everybody. Since tomorrow is the 4th of July, a time when we celebrate the birth of our country, I want to start this segment off by sharing a few lines from the Declaration of Independence, the document that started it all, read by my colleagues, WNYC's Amanda Rozon, Amina Srna, and Juliana Fonda.

Amanda Rozon: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Amina Srna: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--"

Juliana Fonda: "That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness."

Brigid Bergin: We've all heard this text. It's nothing new, but in this particular moment of our country's history, these words feel particularly relevant. Over the course of the last few years, we've repeatedly heard warnings that democracy is at stake in the upcoming 2024 elections. As the election grows nearer, that threat feels more real. Let's just recap some of the events of this past week alone.

On Monday, The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump and all other former presidents are immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising their core constitutional powers and entitled to the presumption of immunity for their official acts. That's for presidents, not former presidents. In her biting dissent, Justice Sotomayor rather straightforwardly states, "In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law."

Then we had the presidential debate last week, which for all the talk about Biden's missteps and Trump's mistruths, also rather incredibly included moments like this.

Joe Biden: Look, I'd be happy to have a driving contest with him. For you, I got my handicap, which when I was vice president, down to a six. By the way, I told you before, I'm happy to play golf if you carry your own bag. Think you can do it?

Donald Trump: That's the biggest lie that he's a six handicap of all.

Joe Biden: I was an eight handicap-- [crosstalk]

Donald Trump: I've seen you swing; I know your swing.

[crosstalk]

Dana Bash: President Trump, we're going to [unintelligible 00:02:55]

Donald Trump: Let's not act like children.

Brigid Bergin: Okay, I'm rubbing my forehead as I'm listening to this. We already know the kind of character Trump is very well, but President Biden's current condition, I think, really did shock everyone, especially Democrats hoping to win this year's election. Let's take a listen to this montage of clips featured on Meet the Press.

Speaker 1: I think it was a [bleep] disaster. I think it was maybe the worst debate I've ever seen in my entire life.

Speaker 2: I do think people feel like that we are confronting a crisis.

Speaker 3: There were going to be discussion, but whether he should continue--

Speaker 4: At first it was shocking, and it was scary, and it was sad, and by the end, it was absurd. Is the riskiest path sticking with Joe Biden, or is the riskiest path saying we want someone else? Anybody who says that that is not a tough call right now is full of [bleep].

Brigid Bergin: According to a poll conducted by Pew Research, Donald Trump and Joe Biden were already the least-liked pair of candidates in the last three decades before the debate even took place, as one-quarter of Americans identify as double haters. As we prepare to celebrate the birth of our democracy and worry about its future, let's take a look at the ideas of our founding fathers still alive in the documents that govern us today and how they match up with the spirit of our time.

Our guest for this segment specializes in democratic theory. Let's ask him the big think questions we might not normally get to in the daily news. Joining me now is Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti. You'll correct my pronunciation, I hope, executive director of the Moynihan Center, professor of political science at the City College of New York, and author of the book, Years of Rage: How Resentment Took the Place of Politics.

Professor, welcome to WNYC, and please, will you say your name for me so that I don't say it incorrectly as I'm sure I just did again?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Thank you, Brigid. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti.

Brigid Bergin: Thank you so much. Let's start off with the Declaration of Independence since we're celebrating its signing tomorrow. What were the ideas that inspired those lines that were just read from that document? How would you describe the spirit of the Founding Fathers while preparing to revolt and subsequently build a new nation?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries. At the time in which they were drafting the Declaration of Independence, they were involved in a war to replace an existing form of government, the British colonial rule, with a different form of government founded on the principles that you mentioned, from the Declaration of Independence, which are universal equality, government by consent, which means effectively democracy, and also, even the right to revolution.

You say that these may sound platitudes today, and even in the document itself, it says that these truths may sound self-evident. I want to emphasize that at the time in which they were written, these were revolutionary principles. The United States was the first form of government to be founded on these principles, and other governments all over the world were funded on very different principles like the divine right of kings.

I think it's also important to mention that there are some important limitations in the Declaration and the principles of the revolution. The language that you mentioned, all men are created equal, is not an oversight. Of course, at the time, women were not considered full citizens. As is well known, Thomas Jefferson, one of the drafters of the documents, was an owner of slaves. I also think it's important to mention that this document has remained throughout American history an important source of inspiration for the self-correction of these limitations.

Even during the time of slavery, an important speech by Frederick Douglass, What is the Fourth of July to the American Slave? refers to this document as a source of inspiration that reveals the injustices that slaves were experiencing at the time. Then, of course, during the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln refers to this document five scores, and seven years ago, refers to 7076, the date of the signing of the Declaration.

Throughout the history of the United States, and then even into the civil rights movement, and even today for immigrants like me into this country, the promise of the pursuit of happiness remains the foundation of a self-correction and an improvement of the United States that remains alive today.

Brigid Bergin: Professor Invernizzi-Accetti, we refer to the United States as a democracy, but it's actually a republic, so why do we use those words interchangeably here, and what's the tangible difference?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, it's actually a mistake, I think, to use the words democracy and republic interchangeably. I think this gets to an important point of American history, which is the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was written several years later, and in a very different political moment, when the point was not to remove an oppressive form of government but to found a new one. The Founding Fathers there wanted to found a republic, not a democracy.

The difference is that a democracy is a pure form of government. As the word itself says, "It's government by the people," whereas a republic is a form of mixed government. It derives from the Roman tradition of mixing various different forms of government, in particular, the democratic, the aristocratic, and the monarchic forms of government so that they can check and control each other. These three forms of government are, of course, reflected in the division of powers in the United States between the presidency, which is supposed to be the monarchic principle, the Senate, the aristocratic one, and the House, the democratic one.

The idea of self-limitation is supposed to be protective of our rights, but here already, we can see a transformation in the idea of freedom that is at stake between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We move from an idea of freedom and self-government in Jefferson to an idea of freedom as limited government in the Constitution intended to protect fundamentally one right at the time that the Founding Fathers were concerned with.

In light of experiences of other governments that had followed in the American path like the French one, in light of the experience of the French Revolution in 1789, the Founding Fathers are concerned to protect, fundamentally, the right of private property. That's a lot of what the Constitution was about. In that sense, it's a much more conservative document than the Declaration of Independence.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, we want to bring you into this conversation. How are you reflecting on the state of our democracy as we celebrate the birthday of our country? Can you think of a specific moment in your lifetime when you felt enraged, unseen, or unheard by your leaders or fellow citizens? Is there anything that gives you hope that our constitution can withstand the test that it's facing.

We'll also take your questions for our guests. Professor Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti, executive director of the Moynihan Center, professor of political science at The City College of New York, and author of the book, 20 Years of Rage: How Resentment Took the Place of Politics. You can call us now, at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text at that number.

Professor, as you're talking about this, it's clear that part of what is in the fabric of our constitution is a certain sense of push and pull, checks and balances. No one branch of government or individual or any particular interest group really should be able to dominate over the rest. Are those safeguards contradictory to the democratic ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, I don't think that the idea of limiting power is contradictory to the idea of democracy, of the power of the people, but it is a way of limiting it. That's what the constitution tries to do; tries to balance and limit the powers of the various different branches of government. Of course, this is a conservative project, but not all forms of conservation are necessarily bad.

I think to preserve freedom is a good thing, and I think we're seeing that today, when that balance of powers, the division of powers is being, as you mentioned, undermined by the Supreme Court, or severely challenged, as Justice Sotomayor has suggested, with the rise of a new king. It's very important to preserve that kind of limitation of powers, especially if it's not in the direction of more democracy, but more monarchy.

Brigid Bergin: Since you mentioned that recent SCOTUS decision that so many people are thinking about and processing this week-- I know this is a bit outside of the area that you study is a constitutional scholar, but we have also listeners who are texting and asking what the professor thinks of the immunity decision. How do you assess what the Supreme Court decided in that particular case through this lens that you have, a political theory?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, I think it is a very unfortunate and dangerous decision, precisely because it upsets the constitutional balance in a very profound way. It's important to note that it is not a license to kill for whatever president. It establishes a distinction between the actions done as president and the actions done in a personal capacity. It also says that all the decisions done in our presidential capacity are subject to review on a case-by-case basis on whether they're subject to this immunity.

There is some kind of constitutional oversight. It is not an absolute immunity, but it is still in a significant limitation of the balance that existed before, between the executive and the legislative branches and in this sense, a monarchic extension of the presidential powers.

Brigid Bergin: Well, let's bring this conversation into current times, and through the context of your book, 20 Years of Rage: How Resentment Took the Place of Politics. I know it's still in process of being translated into English from Italian, but can you give us a preview of your main argument? Put simply, you describe a state of rage that the vast majority of Americans on both sides are constantly experiencing, right?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Right. This book is an attempt to make sense or give a name to the turbulent years that we have been living since, more or less, the turn of the millennium, since the start of the new century. I imagine most of our listeners today will have lived through this period, so they have a sense of what has happened, but it's useful to take stock at some point, and look back to all the things that had happened over these 20 years, because I think there's a thread. There's a pattern. We start with the anti-globalization protests of the early 2000s.

Then in 2001, there is of course, the September 11th attacks, which sparked the war on terror that lasts maybe up to the present or in any case, marks the early 2000s. Then after the financial crisis of 2008, Occupy Wall Street movement, and many other movements abroad, like the Indignados Movement in Spain. Then again, you have votes for Brexit, the election of Donald Trump in 2016. You have, Me Too, Occupy Wall Street, the speeches of Greta Thunberg, up to the attack on the Capitol Hill in 2021, and the most recent protests against international support to the actions of the Israeli government in the Gaza Strip.

All of these events have a particular history and their own specificities, but the attempt of the book is to see if there's anything like what Hegel would have called the zeitgeist, the spirit of the time, some common threads uniting all of these events. The argument they make is that the actors have been different, the goals have been different, but there is a common underlying mood to our time, a spirit of our times, which is rage against the institutions, rage against the political establishment. This is what we're seeing in France, of course, at the present, in the United States, and across the world.

Brigid Bergin: Professor, how is this rage different from the rage the founding fathers experienced while writing the Declaration of Independence?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, I wouldn't describe what the founding fathers were experiencing as rage. I think what they were driven by were two rather different things, which were on one hand, a certain idealism we have spoken about, the values that they stood for, this principle of equality, and also interests. The slogan of the American Revolution was, "No taxation without representation," and so, it was driven by a sense of protecting the interests of American at the time, colonial subjects, and then citizens, rather than dealing with these more unruly passions that our present institutions are clearly having a much harder time addressing.

Brigid Bergin: I want to bring some of our listeners into the conversation. Let's go to Arty in Cambria Heights. Arty, thanks for calling WNYC.

Arty: Good morning, and thank you for taking my call. My question was, as I mentioned to the screener, I grew up like a lot of people, I guess, figuring, "Oh, what happened then, that would never happen again with the Nazis or with McCarthyism." I'm starting to wonder if the old adage is true, and it's actually happening, that people who fail to study history, pay attention to history, will relive it because of what I'm seeing, not only here, but over in France.

I'll leave it at that, because I'm pretty sure that majority of people when I would hear Trump at one of his rallies, and he used to bring up Roy Cohen, I'm pretty sure a majority of them have no idea who the hell Roy Cohen was [chuckles]. That's basically what I wanted to pass, and I'll leave you guys to it.

Brigid Bergin: Arty, thank you so much for that. Professor, I think the core to what he's saying there is, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. As someone who has studied the historical roots of our democracy, what's your response to Arty in that sense?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, I certainly agree with that, and I think it applies in the long term, but also, in the short term. What I've called these 20 years of rage, have been a succession of repeated crises, that precisely as Arty mentioned, have been failed to be addressed by the political establishment. The rage has not been listened to, but in most cases repressed, and therefore it continues to mount. By not addressing it, we are feeding it. It is exactly the point that Arty was making. If you don't study history and learn from it, then you are condemned to repeat it.

At the same time, I would like to add that there are also new things under the sun. I think this particular moment we are living, is in some regards distinctive. This rage that is manifested with respect to the political institutions from both the left and the right, is different from other periods of history.

For instance, a point of comparison, if we imagine the period of the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, that is sometimes referred to as a period of end of history in the United States, that was a period of optimism and idealism, and hope for the future. That was maybe in some ways naive, but in any case, the mood of the time was instinctively different from the way it is now. If we don't study history, we’re condemned to repeat it, but we also have to be ready to face the new, because that is a distinctive fact of human history.

Brigid Bergin: Part of the new, as I mentioned in the introduction, is that we're facing an election where 25% of American voters consider themselves double haters, or have been identified as double haters, meaning they don't like either of their choices. Why do you believe a quarter of Americans find these candidates to be unsatisfactory choices?

Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti: Well, I think as I mentioned that politics, the

political systems, the institutions, have been unable to adequately address the widespread sense of rage. The reason is that the dominant political formulae that have been employed to try to address this rage over the course of the past 20 years actually misunderstands its roots. To explain this, I'm going to get into a little bit why I think people have been so angry over the past 20 years. I think there are of course many explanations and some of them have focused on the rise of inequalities, economic stagnation.

If we look at the slogans of the majority of the protest movements that have occurred over the past 20 years, think for instance, on the right of something like Make America Great Again, or on the left of things like Black Lives Matter or Me Too, these do not really point to economic issues. They point, on the other hand, to a sense of lack of recognition, of prestige, Make America Great Again, Black Lives Matter, a sense of lack of recognition that the dignity or value of certain sectors of the population have not been adequately recognized.

The government has focused, on the other hand, on trying to make economic reforms. If you think of Biden, for example, and his whole emphasis on Bidenomics, which has also in some respects been relatively successful, it doesn't really address this deep sense of invisibility, of lack of dignity that are felt by many sectors of the population. If you think on the right, the people living in non-urban areas, in rural areas, and on the left members of ethnic minorities or women, more generally, these are the issues that matter to electors today and that Bidenomics has not been able to address.

Brigid Bergin: Professor, do you see a type of politics that might reinvigorate our democracy? Is there a way out of the hyper-partisan yet hyper-atomized state that we're living in now?

Carlo Invernizzi Accetti: The two principle forms of politics that have been adopted, to connect to what I was just saying, have been populism, on one hand, the far right that attempts to mobilize nationalist feelings to respond to this sense of lack of dignity, and then a form of technocracy on the left, Biden that attempts to resolve the problem of anger by good government or economic reforms. What these two forms of politics have in common is that they actually both presuppose an exclusion of the people from government.

It might seem a paradox in the case of populism that it is based on a passive electorate, but that is the case because populism concentrates all power, all representation in the figure of this charismatic leader, Donald Trump, that actually supposes a rather passive electorate that validates the choices of the leader at the moment of elections. Technocracy, even more so, supposes a passive society that is supposed to be recipients of the benefits that are given by government.

If populism and technocracy don't work and are actually two sides of the same coin, it appears that what we have to look at for to think about a new form of politics is at what they both exclude, which is precisely this kind of bottom-up democratic participation by the communities, by the grassroots. That is precisely what can help to give a sense of dignity and recognition to the people that participate in that way.

Hagel used to say that recognition is obtained through a struggle, the struggle for recognition, and I think that is what is lacking today. The sense of political struggle, which is very different from the idea of rage. Tweeting angry tweets behind the protection of your screen is not getting engaged in political struggle, whereas organizing, participating, getting involved in politics, which as an enormous sociology has proven, is in sharp decline over the past 20 years, that is what is needed more, is needed today to get out of this vicious cycle of populism, technocracy, and rage.

Brigid Bergin: I want to take one last caller before we wrap up this segment. We're going to go to Chris in Southold Long Island. Chris, we have about 15 seconds for you. Thanks for your patience.

Chris: I guess my question has to do with how do you deal with the fact when you have a Supreme Court that has effectively given away its role in the government by saying to the leader, the president, regardless of whether it's Trump or Biden, you can do what you want because we can say anything, everything we like to try and stop you, but your response is just to thumb your nose? How do we deal with that as the court, when the president can just say, "What are you going to do?" I can just thumb my nose, "Oh, seal Team Six works on you as well as everybody else."

Brigid Bergin: Chris, thanks so much for that question. I know it's an issue that everyone is trying to process since that recent decision. Professor, some final thoughts. I know you've addressed the decision, but I think a lot of people are looking for the way forward.

Carlo Invernizzi Accetti: Right. I think that if we're looking for a way forward, I'm going to restate the point I said before, which is it's a mistake to hope that others will save us, that the Supreme Court or even the judicial system will be what will stop Trump. I come from a country, Italy, where we've had experience with right-wing populism, Berlusconi. For years the left fantasized about the judicial system finally arresting the rascal.

What we're seeing even in the United States today is that that doesn't work. Even amongst the population, it doesn't contribute in undermining the legitimacy of this candidate. What you have to do is get involved, is participate, Trump, if he's going to be defeated, he's going to be defeated at the polls, not in court.

Therefore, we don't have to hope that it'll be the Supreme Court to save us. We have to do it ourselves. We have to get engaged in the political struggle and vote, but that's not enough. It's just a necessary condition. Vote. Get others to vote and be ourselves, like in the message from the Declaration of Independence, the bearers of our own freedom.

Brigid Bergin: Thank you. We are going to leave it there for now. My guest was Carlo Invernizzi Accetti, Executive Director of the Moynihan Center, and a professor of political science at the City College of New York, author of the book, 20 Years of Rage: How Resentment Took the Place of Politics. Professor, thank you so much for joining me today.

Carlo Invernizzi Accetti: Thank you. It was a pleasure.

 

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.