On Consent of the Governed
Can we regain our core-democratic value of accepting the results of elections?
In the United States, we have for too long taken for granted the concept of "consent" as it relates to governance. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson writes "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It has a Norman Rockwell-esque sheen and grade-school obviousness to it. But it has become a bugaboo in this last election cycle.
Notice, that Jefferson did not write "the consent of those who voted for the winner." How can it be, though, that the supporters of the losing candidate consent to being governed by someone they did not vote for? How will supporters of President Trump ever consent to Joe Biden as president? How often did we hear "not my president" with respect to Trump from Democrats?
The answers are within what used to be the common understanding that we all consent to the system of government under the Constitution. We agree that no matter who our champion is or whether he or she prevails at the polls, the higher loyalty is to the Union itself. Country before party. Grace in defeat. Unity to work toward the greater good between elections.
This has been systematically eroded of late. When Mitch McConnell said openly that his singular goal was that Barack Obama should be a one-term president, when he vowed that none of Obama's legislative proposals would get a hearing much less a vote, when he refused to allow a justly elected president to exercise his constitutionally mandated prerogative to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he did violence to the notion of working for the greater good. Many have seen and followed this example. But I cannot lay all the blame at the foot of Senator McConnell. He is one of many who decided that winning was more important than governing.
Where Trump and his supporters went over the line was when they decided that they would rather have him as a dictator than accept the results of the election under the Constitution. They chose party and even dogged loyalty to one corrupt person over country. Some believed the Big Lie that the election was stolen, though only because they wanted to. They were willing to believe the lies despite more than 60 judges and dozens of officials of both parties calling the election for Biden. They were inflamed by constant damaging rhetoric calling other Americans "scum," "enemies of the people," "losers," "traitors," and worse and "saying "they hate America," and "they are coming for you to kill you and end your way of life." They were inflamed so much that they stopped consenting to government under the Constitution, choosing instead to be governed by a self-proclaimed savior that would keep them safe from their enemies, who were just their fellow citizens.
I have heard false equivalency being spouted where some, including Mitch McConnell, have said that all of this post-election behavior by Trump and his supporters was fine because Democrats refused to accept the results of the last election. Horse shit.
Clinton conceded on election night gracefully. Don't get me wrong. It was fine that Trump supporters wanted verification and investigation. Democrats wanted investigation of the 2016 election, and they got it. And the FBI found that there was, in fact, a significant attack on our democracy from Russia. (Side note: a few days ago, the official documents showing Kremlin policy of supporting Donald Trump through covert social media campaigns and even coordination with Trump’s campaign in 2016 came to light, and we have the Director of National Intelligence’s report that they did it again in 2020 here. Of course, because it served his interest, Trump attacked the FBI and our intelligence and law enforcement institutions, so nearly half of Americans don't know or don't believe these facts found after thorough investigations by our own law enforcement. Trump supporters wanted investigation and verification, too. Again, that is fine. They got that and more than 60 court hearings, all of which showed there was nothing behind the allegations other than rhetoric and the Big Lie being spoken louder and louder. At the end of the day, they refused to consent to the result under the Constitution. That is where they crossed the line. And they have refused to come back over.
Joe Biden has his work cut out for him. Consent of the governed used to be a given, now he must get it back. We have to get back to a place where we contest our policy differences at the polls, not at the end of a gun. Consent of the governed means education of those who don't understand our system of government to bring them into the fold. Our Union depends on having substantially all of the people in the country accepting that these are the rules and that we need to play by them.
None of this is to say that we should forgive those who have broken the law and are willing to tear down the Constitution for power or profit. No, such acts must be such anathema, met with such social opprobrium, and such severe consequences that they are no longer contemplated by reasonable people. This is a call for unity, but not some vague hippy-dippy kumbaya moment. Prosecution to the full extent of the law is the only appropriate remedy for Trump and his enablers, to the extent they have committed crimes, so that no president or his supporters again undermine confidence in the election for the purpose of holding onto power. We should have trials with full and fair due process for his enablers and followers to the extent laws were broken. To argue against this is to say that we need leniency for Timothy McVeigh, Guy Fawkes, or Benedict Arnold because they each saw themselves as misunderstood patriots.
One question I have been asking myself recently is “why now?” What has caused the graceful losers in a political contest to go from “Ah shucks, we’ll campaign harder next time!” to “Hang Mike Pence and kill Nancy Pelosi?” In the words of one of my favorite characters, “What I want to know is, how did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?”
I think the answer is that political rhetoric has shifted from “This is important” to “This is life or death.” We used to have contests over tax, tariff, and monetary policy, benefit programs, and, perhaps, an occasional row about environmentalism or regulations. There was broad agreement about multilateral engagement in foreign policy with the United States at the head of a coalition of liberal democratic partners. Now, we have only “do or die” issues like abortion, institutional racism, immigration. Each of these issues is framed as “millions are being murdered,” “our country is being overrun,” or, in the case of our former president, “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." That sort of rhetoric doesn’t lend itself to gracefully conceding; rather, there is a pretty straight line from that to insurrection, bloodshed, and a willingness to discard the Constitution in favor of winning at all costs.
The conundrum is that issues framed as '“life or death” issues tend to drive people to the polls and to donate much better than “vote for me and we’ll have better tax policy.” So if you want to win, you have to be extreme. I am not sure Joe Biden is a great counterexample. If he and the hodge-podge of moderate Democrats he has put together are long-lived and able to govern, then I will have been proven wrong. That will only happen if the voters reelect him and strengthen the Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress because people want peace, quiet, and stability from Washington. I have my doubts. More likely, the louder, more urgent voices will motivate their base to get to the polls, and we will have problems agreeing to the peaceful transfer of power next time as well. I have no solution for this, but I am open to suggestions.
God bless America. May we all work toward that more perfect Union and toward regaining our friendship and the consent of our friends.