The Tyranny of the Minority

Is the Supreme Court’s Decision to Invalidate Roe v Wade About Abortion or Democracy?

Welcome to the Civic Way journal, our quick take on the relevance of breaking news to America’s future governance. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving public agencies.

---

I wrote about the tyranny of the majority, today I'd combine that with the tyranny of the minorities. These days, you have to be careful of both. – Ray Bradbury

Abortion is a daunting issue, one with which Americans have grappled for decades. The original Roe v Wade decision did not end this struggle and the recent US Supreme Court decision overruling Roe will not either. In fact, ending the constitutional right to an abortion could very well deepen the divide.

As a standalone event, the recent US Supreme Court decision to overrule Roe v Wade probably doesn’t pose an existential threat to American democracy. The US has survived many landmark decisions during its short history, some trampling stare decisis, some merely unworthy of the Court’s lofty status, some downright shameful.

What if the Court’s reversal of Roe is about more than life and choice? What if it is about democracy itself? What if it is but one part of a broader scheme to cement minority rule in America? One more paver on the path to authoritarianism?

Since America’s founding, the champions of democracy have feared the masses. In Federalist 10, James Madison worried that "the superior force of an … overbearing majority" could destabilize our government. In Democracy in America (Part 2), Alexis de Tocqueville singled out a repressive majority as one of democracy’s most glaring potential weaknesses.

By establishing a representative democracy, the Constitution was supposed (in theory at least) to foster majority rule while protecting minorities against mob rule. The separation of powers, checks and balances, the First Amendment, the Electoral College, and the allocation of two senators to every state (regardless of population). Such guardrails have often failed some groups—most notably, women and racial minorities—while benefitting other entities like, say, Wyoming.

Throughout our history, we have heard the warnings about the “tyranny of the majority.” When we expanded rights for racial minorities and women. When we decided to subject US Senators to a vote of the people. When we questioned quirks like the Electoral College and filibuster.   

While the phrase has been misused and abused by defenders of the status quo, it represents a valid fear. However, it is no longer the only tyranny to fear. In fact, given the monumental changes we have experienced in America, the most serious threat to democracy is no longer the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of a minority.

The reality is that we Americans are living in a highly factionalized country. A nation in which forming a lasting majority around one issue, let alone a political party, seems beyond our capabilities. One in which the most strident (and well-funded) extremists drown out the voices of the quiet majority—you know, the ones who play by the rules, raise families and build communities.

The media seem intent on portraying our country as having a single divide—red versus blue, left and right, liberal and conservative. Simplifying our conflicts eases the packaging of news. Appealing to emotions builds audience. Eliminating nuances can help hold audience. But none of this reflects reality. It misleads more than it informs. More importantly, it fosters minority rule.

How are small factions amassing power? The splintering of large traditional media into thousands of small media outlets have nearly eviscerated journalistic standards. The firehose of falsehoods has blurred the distinction between fact and fantasy. The proliferation of free social media platforms like Twitter has amplified the voices of the wrathful. Our election laws, especially since the 2010 Citizens United decision, have enabled wealthy donors to hijack our elections.

And the factionalism and political polarization will likely worsen. Increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence will accelerate the spread of disinformation, anger and retribution. The shrinkage of credible media sources will emasculate our ability to hold demagogues accountable. The abundance of digital distractions will make it easier to ignore the problems around us.

As consensus proves more elusive, the fevered factions flood the gates. Fueled by their self-perceived victimhood, they victimize others. Fragile students harassing professors for using the wrong words (without trigger warnings). Hypersensitive audiences cancelling comedians for telling tasteless jokes. Unforgiving women vilifying remorseful (and evolving) men for long-forgotten statements or behavior.

White nationalists charging the Capitol and threatening to hang public officials. Private citizens suing schools and other citizens. Disappointed voters refusing to accept the results of clean elections. Religious zealots clamoring for public funds to proselytize the skeptical secular. Gun lobbyists fighting feeble gun controls as the deaths mount. Billionaires manipulating public officials with dark money.

Who will prevail in this epic scrum among the factions?

It won’t be the Democrats or Republicans. The two political parties—long valued by political scientists for their ability to assimilate minority views and calm political conflict—no longer have the means or will to stabilize anything. Each has become an inflatable fabric “tube man” dancing to the periodic gusts of ideological fans, beholden to the interest groups that form its temporary base.

And it won’t be the ever-vanishing majority. More and more, what used to be called the “silent majority,” the ticket-splitters, independents and unaffiliated, are shrugging their shoulders, rolling their eyes and opting out of politics. Without them, the extremists will dominate. Without them, the thoughtful, temperate political center will yield to the shrill political edges.

So, if only the factions remain engaged, which faction (or factions) will prevail? The answer becomes more evident when we peek behind the curtain of current events.

Start with the US Supreme Court for initial clues. Under the leadership of Justices Thomas and Alito, the Court’s strident right-wing block is poised to entrench minority rule by interpreting the Constitution to advance the interests of favored minorities. Protect large political donors. Suppress certain voting rights. Empower state legislatures to overturn federal elections. Eliminate abortion rights. Expand gun rights. Create a church state. Gut public safety regulations.

All rulings lacking the legitimacy that comes with majority support.

The extremist elements finding refuge in the Republican Party offer more hints. The GOP, which has lost its way since Ronald Reagan left the scene, can no longer unify factions under a compelling, internally consistent conservative brand. Instead, it has become little more than an unholy alliance of factions—libertarians, the “Don’t Tread on Me” rabble, evangelicals, rural voters, gun advocates, election deniers, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists—unified only by an insatiable appetite for power.

Those with traditional conservative values have lost their voice.

Since 2000, many GOP leaders have learned a vital lesson, that they can win (and hold) power without majority support. Electing GOP Presidents without winning the popular vote (only one GOP nominee for President has won the popular vote this century). Winning 50 or more US Senate races with less than 45 percent of the national vote (today, Democratic Senators represent 41 more million people than GOP Senators). Controlling US House and state legislative contests through sophisticated gerrymandering. Cobbling together (and funding) enough factions to keep the majority silent.

GOP leaders have embraced minority rule as a political strategy. And their luminaries are laboring to give it a rhetorical veneer. Republican leaders like Senator Mike Lee of Utah have begun preaching that the US is a republic not a democracy. While this rhetoric is disingenuous at best (the US is a representative democracy that derives its legitimacy from the people), it provides a ripe rationale for minority rule and soft authoritarianism.

Was the reversal of Roe v Wade an anti-abortion decision or another element of a broader anti-democracy campaign? Time will tell, but probably both. In any event, if you think that only women’s rights were put at risk, you would be ignoring the despotic implications of minority rule.