There is a rule in political debate which is helpful if the object is to win the debate and thus secure public support for ones’ position, and that rule is this: If you find yourself debating within a conceptual framework that favours your opponents, don’t continue to struggle within that framework—change the framework!
In today’s political world—for reasons which no longer make sense—the majority of political debate still occurs within a framework originally defined by the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly following the 1789 Revolution. In that assembly, supporters of the old regime sat to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution sat to his left.
And thus we have the origins of the left-centre-right framework still very much in vogue today. It is a framework which places conservatives on the so-called right—identifying them with tradition, privilege, and resistance to change—and places liberals and socialists on the so-called left or centre-left—identifying them with all that is “progressive.” In this framework, conservatives are given only a third of the political space, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
What is an alternative framework within which to debate the great issues of the day—one that more accurately describes the current political landscape, that is more conducive to producing support for real solutions to public problems, and in which so called conservatives have a better and fairer chance of advancing those solutions?
Here then, with due credit to de Tocqueville, is an alternative framework for conceptualizing and debating the great issues of our day—one more accurately descriptive of the current political landscape than the old left-centre-right conceptualization. On the one hand are those individuals and groups who are animated by the aristocratic passion—intellectual, economic, political, and media elites who would limit the political authority of the common people. And on the other hand are those animated by the democratic passion—individuals and groups who would defend and extend the political authority of the common people.
Those of the aristocratic party who would restrict the political role and authority of rank and file people have various reasons for doing so. They fear the tyranny of the majority, for example, even though today it is the tyranny of minorities that is more to be feared. But their principal reason is the belief—fervently held but rarely expressed in public for obvious reasons—that the general public are not to be trusted with self-government. That the rank and file of the electorate are too indifferent, too ignorant, too misinformed, too susceptible to conspiracy theories, too misguided, too prejudiced, and too easily led astray by would-be demagogues to be trusted with the government of themselves.
If these aristocratic elites were to be asked where should the ultimate political authority of a society be vested constitutionally, the last place they would suggest is in the people themselves. But it is worth noting that when Thomas Jefferson—who knew something about constitution drafting—was asked that very question in 1820 toward the end of his life, this is how he replied:
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.”
And anticipating the objection of the aristocratic party (of which he himself would qualify as a member), and aware that a Trump-like figure, Andrew Jackson, was already on the political scene in 1820 and appealing to the masses, this is what Jefferson added to his declaration of faith in the common people.
“And if we think them (the people) not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it (self-government) from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”
Here then is a task for those of us who believe in defending and extending, not restricting, the political authority and influence of the people of our countries: To inform their discretion, that is, to provide them with the historical insights, information, reasoning powers, cautions, leadership, incentives, and opportunities to participate in the democratic political process and to exercise self-government with that wholesome discretion Jefferson referred to.
May 2024 be characterized politically by a widespread and responsible revival and outworking of the democratic passion.
