In 2009, billionaire Peter Thiel asserted, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Writing in Cato Unbound, Thiel decided that working out differences using the tools of a representative democracy (or democratic republic) no longer served thinkers like him. Get ahead of government, he proposed, a solution that may seem feasible with the right amount of cash on hand. But for most people, democracy provides a place to work out differences, as long as one stays, negotiates, and accepts that other citizens have claims on a country that belongs to them, too.
In place of escape or incompatibility, constitutional scholar Yuval Levin argued at a recent conference hosted by Purdue University (and in his book “The Great Debate”), tension is a reality that a free society must learn to sustain. Tension isn’t pleasant, but escaping it means abdicating the responsibilities of a people’s self-governance. A people’s, a group’s, a whole nation’s — not an individual’s.
In a fireside conversation with Christopher Yeomans, dean of Purdue’s College of Liberal Arts, Levin described the Constitution not as a machine for eliminating disagreement, but as a framework for making disagreement productive. It doesn’t promise permanent consensus nor the final victory of one right side. Instead, the nation’s founders established the Constitution (and multiple branches of government) as a system of checks and balances that both restrain any one passion, while sustaining the possibility of common action among people who remain profoundly different.
“Unity means acting together,” Levin said. It does not mean thinking alike. That distinction challenges our habit of treating every election as an opportunity to make the other half of America politically disappear. Our opponents are not going away. The constitutional question is how we govern together anyway.
As a constitutional scholar, Levin identifies three civic principles at the heart of the American experiment. Democracy means majority rule: The people must authorize government. Liberalism means individual rights: Neither government nor a majority may simply erase the claims of individuals and minorities. Republicanism means the common good: Citizens share obligations to a political community whose welfare exceeds their separate interests. These are civic traditions, not labels for today’s parties.
Each principle checks the limits of the others. Majority rule will fail minority groups. Individual rights alone isolate us and break down the fabric of connection and community. Like it or not, we live with a responsibility to our neighbors. Appeals to collective welfare, unchecked by rights and democratic accountability, can become excuses for imposing someone else’s definition of the good.
When we’re out of balance, favoring one principle over the others, what makes us a nation — our commonality, our unity, breaks down. Levin’s definition of “republicanism” — the common good — supplies one of the essential elements to balance majority power and individual liberty.
He posits that considering the common good against the question “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” But, he noted, the common good makes demands on us. It requires obligations, not merely benefits. Nor does it arrive as a settled definition handed down from above. Deciding what constitutes our shared good is itself part of democratic political work.
Levin said that friction serves a purpose, which helps explain Levin’s affection for institutions that currently frustrate many voters. Congress, for one. He argued that Congress should bring competing interests into negotiation. Constitutional restraints should make leaders deal with people they cannot command. He reminded us that compromise is not necessarily a betrayal of principle; it can be the practice through which a diverse people takes responsibility for its future.
Levin wears no rose-colored glasses. He acknowledges Congress is paralyzed. He knows that people are disenchanted with free markets and capitalism. Levin acknowledges tension between a market economy and a democratic republic, while admiring both. Their coexistence requires learning to exercise freedom with responsibility toward others.
In this week after national elections, that is the work before us. Victory ought not be confused with ownership. Everyone still has a stake in this democratic republic. All of us should ask more of our representatives than partisan performance — and more of ourselves than outrage.
The common good invites healthy, heated, but respectful debate. We can argue responsibly, albeit we should probably not do this on social media. We can negotiate with integrity and consideration. We should build something we can share. Freedom and democracy need not be enemies. But sustaining both requires citizens willing to remain engaged with one another, and willing to acknowledge that there are many perspectives, all in need of working out.
The League of Women Voters, a non-partisan, multi-issue organization encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase public understanding of major policy issues and influences public policy through education and advocacy. All men and women are invited to join the LWV where hands-on work to safeguard democracy leads to civic improvement. For information, visit the website www.lwvmontcoin.org or the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, IN Facebook page.
