Media & Culture

Book Review: Democracy Awakening explores how elites have subverted American ideals

How, author and his­to­ri­an Heather Cox Richard­son asks, did we get where we are now, with mil­lions of Amer­i­cans fear­ing democ­ra­cy and social­ism as fun­da­men­tal threats to the world’s biggest repub­lic, and an equal if not larg­er num­ber con­vinced the dan­ger lies in the appeal of authoritarianism?

The answer, Richard­son writes in Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing: Notes on the State of Amer­i­ca, is to be found in what Amer­i­cans have been taught about this nation’s his­to­ry. Accord­ing to Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing, there are two prin­ci­pal under­stand­ings of our nation’s ori­gins and sub­se­quent devel­op­ment: the “author­i­tar­i­an” and the “demo­c­ra­t­ic.” Which of these we accept as true large­ly deter­mines our reac­tions to cur­rent events today.

Richard­son approach­es her sub­ject from a pro­gres­sive per­spec­tive. The key to the rise of author­i­tar­i­an­ism in the Unit­ed States, she writes, lies in the “use of lan­guage and false his­to­ry”; a “strong­man warps his­to­ry to gal­va­nize his base.” “This is a book,” Richard­son con­tin­ues, “about how a small group of peo­ple have tried to make us believe our fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples aren’t true.”

She states that the fall of democ­ra­cy and the rise of author­i­tar­i­an­ism in the Unit­ed States today rests on a mis­tak­en his­to­ry of the Unit­ed States. Accord­ing to Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing, his­tor­i­cal ideas play a major causative role in explain­ing the rise of Don­ald Trump and all his move­ment represents.

These two com­pet­ing ori­gin his­to­ries of the Unit­ed States, accord­ing to Richard­son, derive their fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples from dif­fer­ent found­ing documents.

The “demo­c­ra­t­ic” view of Amer­i­can his­to­ry rests on the prin­ci­ples stat­ed in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. This nation was cre­at­ed, the Dec­la­ra­tion pro­claims, to “dis­solve polit­i­cal bands” with the King of England’s tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment, a gov­ern­ment that taxed the colonists with­out allow­ing them representation.

Richard­son empha­sizes, as well, the Declaration’s inclu­sive lan­guage: the “self-evi­dent truths” that “…all men are cre­at­ed equal, they are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Lib­er­ty and the pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness ….” This, accord­ing to the “demo­c­ra­t­ic” ori­gin his­to­ry, has always been the fun­da­men­tal nature and pur­pose of the Unit­ed States, no mat­ter how imper­fect­ly car­ried out over the centuries.

Accord­ing to the “demo­c­ra­t­ic” ori­gin his­to­ry, then, the prin­ci­pal rea­sons for the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary War and the cre­ation of the Unit­ed States as a nation were, first, to secure the rights of indi­vid­u­als, and sec­ond, to pro­tect them from tyran­ny. The government’s author­i­ty is derived from the con­sent of the governed.

In con­trast, the “author­i­tar­i­an” expla­na­tion for why the Unit­ed States was cre­at­ed rests not the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, but the Unit­ed States Constitution.
This argu­ment begins with an expla­na­tion of why the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Con­ven­tion of 1787 was called. The first nation­al gov­ern­ment for the new Unit­ed States was the Arti­cles of Con­fed­er­a­tion (1781). React­ing to the “tyran­ny” of the British gov­ern­ment, the nation­al gov­ern­ment under the Arti­cles was pur­pose­ly grant­ed lim­it­ed pow­ers. It proved too weak, how­ev­er, to be effective.

Shays’ Rebel­lion (1786), an armed, vio­lent upris­ing of out­raged farm­ers in Mass­a­chu­setts, raised con­cerns among pow­er­ful and wealthy patri­ot lead­ers through­out the new­ly inde­pen­dent Unit­ed States.

They feared anar­chy and the break-down of pub­lic order; the weak cen­tral gov­ern­ment under the Arti­cles was unable to cope with this danger.

Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing: Notes on the State of Amer­i­ca, by Heather Cox Richard­son (Hard­cov­er, Viking)

Cit­ing this his­to­ry, Richard­son sees the Unit­ed States Con­sti­tu­tion as an “author­i­tar­i­an” doc­u­ment. It was cre­at­ed out of fear of riots, rebel­lion, mobs, and mass­es by those in posi­tions of pow­er. This “ori­gin sto­ry” under­stands the orig­i­nal pur­pose of gov­ern­ment in the Unit­ed States to be pro­tec­tion from the mass will – from the “mass” of peo­ple in general.

Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing dis­cuss­es in some detail pro­vi­sions of the orig­i­nal Con­sti­tu­tion designed to ensure pow­er remained with elites, rather than the major­i­ty of the people.

For exam­ple, the Framers gave the Elec­toral Col­lege the respon­si­bil­i­ty of choos­ing the Pres­i­dent, instead of hav­ing the posi­tion cho­sen by pop­u­lar vote.

For the upper cham­ber of Con­gress (the Sen­ate), each state, what­ev­er its pop­u­la­tion of phys­i­cal size, was grant­ed two Senators.

For the low­er House, dis­tricts for each House mem­ber were to be of rough­ly equal size. This lim­it­ed the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cities, with their larg­er, more con­cen­trat­ed pop­u­la­tions. Richard­son also empha­sizes that the Con­sti­tu­tion rec­og­nized and cod­i­fied slav­ery, and the “infe­ri­or­i­ty” of Blacks (espe­cial­ly after the infa­mous Dred Scott Supreme Court deci­sion of 1857).

The “author­i­tar­i­an” view of the ori­gins of the Unit­ed Sates (accord­ing to Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing) is that the Unit­ed States always has been author­i­tar­i­an, elit­ist, clas­sist, and racist. Short­ly after inde­pen­dence, a gov­ern­ment strong enough to main­tain sta­bil­i­ty and order was instituted.

Most of the text of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing is devot­ed to a broad his­to­ry of the Unit­ed States from the Rev­o­lu­tion through the rise of Don­ald Trump and the attack on the Capi­tol in Jan­u­ary 2021. It is a read­able his­to­ry, con­sis­tent­ly ori­ent­ed to elab­o­rat­ing events, move­ments, and ideas that for­ward­ed either the “author­i­tar­i­an” or the “demo­c­ra­t­ic” sto­ry of the nation’s true pur­pose and origins.

For those famil­iar with Heather Cox Richardson’s oth­er writ­ings, or, more gen­er­al­ly, with the over­all tra­di­tion­al text­book accounts of the Unit­ed States, there is lit­tle in Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing that is new.

On the oth­er hand, if Pro­fes­sor Richardson’s per­spec­tives are nov­el to you, read­ing Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing could be reveal­ing. Her well-devel­oped his­tor­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions offer strik­ing per­spec­tives on the his­to­ry of the Unit­ed States.

His­tor­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions may open our eyes to new ways of view­ing our past. This, in turn, may clar­i­fy what is hap­pen­ing in our own lives.

That is the pri­ma­ry inten­tion of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing.

In the final analy­sis, how­ev­er, the val­ue of his­tor­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions must rest on the extent to which they are accu­rate historically.

All large-scale gen­er­al­iza­tions have excep­tions; the world is too com­plex (as are each of us) to expect oth­er­wise. The ques­tion is: Are the excep­tions suf­fi­cient to inval­i­date the use­ful­ness of the generalizations?

The excep­tions to the over­all the­sis of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing are numerous.

For exam­ple, the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence does declare “all men” are cre­at­ed equal and there­fore enjoy cer­tain inalien­able rights. In the late eigh­teenth cen­tu­ry, how­ev­er, those words car­ried a dif­fer­ent mean­ing than they do today.

The authors of the Dec­la­ra­tion assumed as obvi­ous that most of the pop­u­la­tion was not includ­ed under the rubric “all men.”

The most promi­nent author of the Dec­la­ra­tion, Thomas Jef­fer­son, was a slave­hold­er who believed firm­ly that Blacks were inher­ent­ly inferior.

In addi­tion, women — all women, poor and wealthy, white or Black — Native Amer­i­cans, trades­peo­ple, and cer­tain reli­gious groups were all exclud­ed in the authors’ minds. (Richard­son is cer­tain­ly aware of this real­i­ty; in lat­er chap­ters of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing, she dis­cuss­es it in some detail.)

In the 20th cen­tu­ry, Ted­dy Roo­sevelt, and the Pro­gres­sive Move­ment, and Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt, and the New Deal, are described as prime exam­ples of the expan­sion of the nation­al government’s demo­c­ra­t­ic respon­si­bil­i­ties. Antitrust leg­is­la­tion under Ted­dy, Social Secu­ri­ty, and sup­port for Labor in the New Deal. are includ­ed as examples.

How­ev­er, it’s also impor­tant to note — and his­tor­i­cal­ly accu­rate — that both Pres­i­dents Ted­dy Roo­sevelt and Franklin D. Roo­sevelt held racist view. The New Deal often exclud­ed Blacks from its pro­grams; FDR’s admin­is­tra­tion also refused entry to the Unit­ed States to Jew­ish refugees dur­ing World War II. (The Unit­ed States armed forces were not deseg­re­gat­ed until after World War II.)

Anoth­er note­wor­thy exam­ple of our nation’s nuanced his­to­ry is the right wing Repub­li­can Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon. Nixon and his staff were pio­neers in devel­op­ing a racist “south­ern strat­e­gy” to per­suade Demo­c­ra­t­ic, white vot­ers to vote Repub­li­can. His cam­paign uti­lized racist tropes extensively.

How­ev­er, Nixon, this exem­plar of the “author­i­tar­i­an,” elit­ist, racist view of our country’s iden­ti­ty, went fur­ther than any oth­er pres­i­dent, before or since, in his advo­ca­cy for a gov­ern­ment run nation­al med­ical ser­vice – a hat­ed sys­tem often described as “social­ism” by its con­ser­v­a­tive oppo­nents today.

Heather Cox Richard­son is cer­tain­ly aware of these (and many oth­er) com­plex­i­ties and con­tra­dic­tions in our nation’s his­to­ry. How­ev­er, Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing does not deem them suf­fi­cient to inval­i­date its his­tor­i­cal generalizations.

Broad gen­er­al­iza­tions may open our eyes to new ways of view­ing the nation’s past. This, in turn, may clar­i­fy what is hap­pen­ing in our own lives. That is the pri­ma­ry inten­tion of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing. In the final analy­sis, how­ev­er, as not­ed above, the use­ful­ness of his­tor­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions must rest on the extent to which they are accu­rate his­tor­i­cal­ly. I encour­age read­ers of Democ­ra­cy Awak­en­ing to note its sub­ti­tle, Notes on the State of Amer­i­ca.

David Kobrin

David is a Literary Advocate for the Northwest Progressive Institute, reviewing books and drawing on his background as a historian to offer informed commentary about making sense of history. David has a Ph.D. and M.A. in history from the University of Pennsylvania and B.A. from Brown University. After dedicating several decades to working with youth as a teacher and professor on the East Coast, he retired to the Pacific Northwest and now resides in Redmond, Washington with his spouse.

Recent Posts

Jim Mayhew and Heather Koellen hope to bring Democratic representation to Washington’s redrawn 12th Legislative District

The duo are hoping to break a decades-long Republican winning streak in legislative races in…

2 hours ago

Poll Watch: Elway delivers more bad news for Brian Heywood and Jim Walsh’s slate of destructive initiatives

Elway's survey is the first independent public poll that we know that has looked at…

5 days ago

Democratic Party still at risk of general election lockout in 2024 Commissioner of Public Lands race, NPI poll finds

58% of the 615 likely voters interviewed by Public Policy Polling for NPI last week…

5 days ago

Nonprofit-led coalition files lawsuit to overturn Brian Heywood and Jim Walsh’s I‑2081

Ten plaintiffs have stepped forward in an effort to thwart a right wing measure that…

6 days ago

The end of Tory rule in the United Kingdom could be weeks away: Snap general election called for July 4th, 2024

Public opinion polling suggests that the rival Labour Party has a big lead and is…

6 days ago

A plurality of Washington voters are not sure who they want to vote for in the contest for Attorney General, NPI poll finds

45% of 615 likely November 2024 voters interviewed in mid-May by Public Policy Polling for…

6 days ago