X Party is a Threat
In just about every case of democratic breakdown, authoritarians — from Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini to Marcos, Castro, Pinochet and most recently, Trump, Putin, and Erdoğan — justified their consolidation of power by labeling their opponents as an existential threat.
We used to presume the goodwill of our opponents even if they disagreed with us. But American politics has turned into something in which we treat our opponents as immoral and evil. It’s easy to assert that those we disagree with are not just wrong but tyrannical, fascist and evil.
The popular conservative columnist Ann Coulter — who after September 11 encouraged Western countries to “invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” — wrote a series of bestselling books attacking liberals and Democrats in a McCarthyite voice: Slander (2002), Treason (2003), Godless (2006), Guilty (2009), Demonic (2011), Adios, America! (2015). Some more notable quotes from her.
We can see this with data: 36% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats say that the other political party mere existence poses “a threat to the nation’s well being.”
*Both political parties assume the other side is stupid.
*Opposition is not treason.
*A 2016 Pew survey showed that 45% of Republicans view Democratic policies as a threat to the nation’s well-being, and 41% of Democrats say the same about GOP policies.
*70% of Democrats in that Pew survey said that Republicans are more close-minded than other Americans; meanwhile, 47% of Republicans said Democrats are more immoral than other Americans, and 46% said they are lazier.
Even if we believe our opponents’ ideas are foolish or wrong, we shouldn’t view them as an existential threat. Our opponents are our rivals, not our sworn enemies.
What Should Democrats Do?
The idea that Democrats should “fight like Republicans” I think is misguided. This escalation wouldn’t end well. If we fight dirty, it provides the government with justification for cracking down on us. When we employ any means necessary to defeat them while not caring whether the democratic game continues it allows justification for further strict authoritarian measures. Evidence from other countries suggests that this strategy often plays directly into more authoritarian rule.
When Democrats and Republicans don’t work to restore norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, the next Democratic president will likely confront a Republican opposition willing to use any means necessary to defeat the Democratic president (as is happening right now).
Even if Democrats succeeded in weakening or defeating Trump in the 2024 election with hardball tactics, our victory would be pyrrhic. We’d inherit a democracy stripped of its democratic and protective guardrails.
Instead, I believe we Democrats should adhere to Gandhi’s — and MLK’s and Mandela’s — doctrine of non-violence. In an important study of the effects of black protest in the 1960s, political scientist Omar Wasow found that black-led nonviolent protest fortified and broadened public support for the civil rights agenda. By contrast, violent protests led to a decline in white support and may even have tipped the 1968 election from Humphrey to Nixon.
Should We Criticize?
When we criticize (and correct) someone, this person will most likely justify themselves right away and criticize us back in return! In this way, criticism is a defense reaction that people use to protect themselves against change. Criticism doesn’t work. It doesn’t solve the problem and it doesn’t lead to lasting change.
Here’s what works: empathy, understanding and appreciating positive ideas. Understand that people are genuinely doing their best to understand this complex and ever-changing world and that they genuinely want the best for everyone. Appreciate and praise our challenger for the positive ideas and beliefs they already hold, don’t just continuously criticize them for their negatives ideas.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Don’t criticize them; they are just what we would be under similar circumstance.” And as Benjamin Franklin said, “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do, but it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.” And one of my all-time favorite quotes (a quote I hold dear):
There’s research to sustain this perspective I’m advocating. B. F. Skinner showed that animals rewarded for good behavior will learn more rapidly and retain more effectively than animals punished for bad behavior. Numerous leadership studies also show this. Franklin again, “I will speak ill of no man and speak of all the good I know of everybody.” And Lincoln again, “…malice toward none…charity for all.”
When we criticize someone, their newfound resentment towards us can stay with them for decades — even until death. So, let’s not condemn, complain, criticize, nor even debate or go against people. Let’s first listen emphatically and again understand why they believe what they believe — they probably had an awful experience, an awful day, so now they’re passing this negativity on to us. Then, let’s find common ground (things we agree on). And then much later (maybe weeks, maybe even months later) and very slowly let’s hint to our perspective — hint, not preach or debate.
I believe we should work together — democrats and republicans. I think liberals have the right ideas and conservatives are good tactically and with the details. Liberals don’t let conservatives turn America into Mad Max and conservatives don’t let liberal overspend for castle-in-the-sky utopias. We balance and check each other. We form a productive symbiosis.
Government by Gentlemen
Lincoln withdrew from his first Senate race to help Lyman Trumbull win the seat because they both shared a commitment to abolishing slavery. Lincoln acted for the greater good even though he personally lost. He put the good of the nation above his own ego. He was a giver. He went out of his way to help others. Lincoln is seen as one of the least self-centered, least egotistical and least boastful presidents ever.
A taker might have preferred to protect his ego and power by inviting “yes men” to join his administration. A matcher might have offered appointments to allies who had supported him. However, Lincoln invited his bitter competitors instead.
When he won the presidency in 1860, he invited the three candidates whom he defeated for the Republican nomination to become his secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, and attorney general. In fact, every member of Lincoln’s administration was better known, better educated, and more experienced in public life than Lincoln. Lincoln told an incredulous reporter, “I had no right to deprive the country of their services.” Leadership. Symbiosis.
Churchill held the same perspective when he put his political competitors in the same war bunker as him when London was being bombed by the Nazis.
George Washington warned of the “continual mischiefs of the spirit of party,” which are given to creating strife through “ill-founded jealousies and false alarms,” and the perils that factionalism (East versus West, North versus South, state versus federal) posed to the unity of the country. Citizens, he said, must indignantly frown “upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”
Our administration was filled with many of the people who we had run against. Larry Summers would be Obama’s top economic advisor. Bob Gates, the secretary of defense through Bush’s surge, was asked to stay on at the Pentagon. Hillary Clinton was named secretary of state.
*Each fighter, to become great, he said, needs to have someone better that they can learn from, someone lesser who they can teach, and someone equal that they can challenge themselves against.
*“An enemy is someone whose story you have not yet heard.” -Paul Verhoeven’s dystopia Total Recall
In conclusion
The other party isn’t a threat to a nation. They’re our rivals but not our sworn enemies. We form a symbiosis. And equally important, debating, criticizing, attacking them, won’t change them. Empathy, understanding, appreciating their good side, that’s what will change them. That’s leadership. It’s a much longer path but it’s a surer path.
To your success,
Nikhil Mahadea
