Weekend reading: In the wake of the Colorado decision, I reflect on the concept of “militant democracy” from 1930s Germany through America today - and on the demands and limits of democratic self-defense in the face of extremism.
It is true that putting Trump behind bars or barring him from holding office ever again will not make the radicalizing anti-democratic forces that have fueled his rise go away.
But that doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t be involved in the defense against the Trumpian assault. 2/
“Fascism must be defeated at the ballot box” - I see little value in presenting such platitudes as some kind of deep political or historical wisdom. If the threat is real and imminent, must we not mobilize all the resources our democratic system of government has at its disposal? 3/
It is not the January 6 Committee or the Department of Justice or judges in Colorado that put the Republic in dangerous, uncharted territory. Trump did that, and Republicans did that when they refused to hold him accountable even after the violent attack on the Capitol. 4/
If January 6 doesn’t have any legal, constitutional consequences for Donald Trump, it would prove that a politician is beyond reproach if he has enough of a radical following that is willing to threaten violence; that someone like that doesn’t have to accept election results. 5/
The courts vs democracy? Frankly, I find all this “let the people decide” talk remarkably backwards. The people decided, Trump lost, and attempted an auto-coup. January 6 was the anti-democratic part. In Colorado, the system didn’t conduct a pre-emptive strike – it responded. 6/
How can democracy defend itself against extremists without becoming that which it seeks to defeat in the process? Since the near-demise of democracy in Europe in the interwar period, this discussion has crystallized around the concept of “militant democracy.” 7/
The term “militant democracy” was coined and popularized by German constitutional lawyer and political scientist Karl Loewenstein (1891-1973) in the late 1930s; after the war, it proved extremely influential in West Germany especially, where it shaped the constitution. 8/
According to Loewenstein, the central lesson from the rise of totalitarianism was that anti-democratic groups “must be denied the right of organization and participation in the government … their members must be ineligible for election or appointment to office.” 9/
In many ways, the United States constitution already provides the kinds of weapons for self-defense that the Weimar Republic did not have at its disposal. That is what the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment is. Is it the right weapon to use, right at this moment? 10/
Trump could not be clearer about his authoritarian desires. If he can just return to power four years after January 6, without ever facing any real consequences and while explicitly declaring his intent to establish a vindictive autocracy, democracy will not persist. 11/
These are the stakes that must inform the current discussion. And that is where decades of debate over the concept of “militant democracy” should be useful: A reminder that democracy must exercise restraint in self-defense – but it must be equipped and willing to fight. 12/
What if a decision like the one in Colorado were to lead to a terrible “backlash” – to a violent response by Trump loyalists and MAGA fanatics? That is a distinct possibility. But that doesn’t make the decision “undemocratic.” It only underlines how far down the road we already are. 13/
The best argument for why the system needs to mobilize against Trump is precisely that there are, to paraphrase the German Constitutional Court, concrete indications that it is very much possible he will achieve his anti-constitutional aims.
@tzimmer_history We shouldn’t forget that the insurrection has been well under way for some time - or what should we call voter suppression laws or gerrymandering? The idea that fascists get to choose who gets to vote makes the entire argument of defeating fascism at the ballot box oh so much more cynical.
@tzimmer_history that covers history I was unaware of. Thank you.
I think we are headed for violence regardless of how this decision is handled. If it does not come now, it will come during the election, or after the election. It would be best to engage the possibility now, rather than let it come on us without preparation.
@tzimmer_history
"Let the people decide" is a fine concept, but if crimes have been commited, that needs to be taken up by the courts. Someone breaks the law, they (have to) get prosecuted according to the law, regardless of who they are, otherwise having the law is pointless. And even if legal action interferes with election campaigns or actual elections, crimes need to be prosecuted.
@tzimmer_history Amazing thread! Thanks! Teaching a course on the history of the idea of democracy currently it is amazing to realize that at least since the middle of the 1850s, people realized that democracy must be protected against itself. That it is more than majoritarianism.
@tzimmer_history Is “militant democracy” the usual translation of “wehrhafte Demokratie”? To me it has a different ring, probably because it is obviously closer to “military”.
@rstub Yes, it is - actually, “wehrhafte Demokratie” is how the term/concept of “militant democracy” was adapted into German, as it was first developed and popularized by Karl Loewenstein in English, in the late 30s, after he had emigrated to America.
Add comment