Feb 25, 2017 5 min read

While each day brings a new shock to the American political system, President Trump is basically implementing policies he called for during last year’s campaign.

The fact that he is doing so with little tact or political skill should come as no surprise. It is simply Trump being Trump. At some point, his misguided experiment will either implode or become more conventional. For now, approximately half the electorate unequivocally believes Trump is on their side and taking appropriate measures to protect their interests.

The country will survive Trump. A more fundamental issue deserves our consideration – does the recent election make a case against democracy?

Was Plato correct that political power should be entrusted only to carefully trained, educated guardians? Should we adopt a form of government that is less democratic but makes good decisions more often because it is run by what has been termed an “epistocracy”? Is it justifiable to remove or limit the power to vote from those who are arguably irrational, ignorant or incompetent?

The political illiteracy of the voting public is well known and often the subject of late-night television comedy sketches. A millennial is interviewed and cannot name the vice president or their senator and congressman. Everyone laughs and forgets this person is a voter.

Comedy aside, how bad is America’s political illiteracy? A 2007 National Constitution Center poll provides some answers. Two-thirds of Americans could not name all three branches of government, nor a single Supreme Court Justice. More than a third could not name any First Amendment rights. Forty-two percent believed that English was the first language of the Constitution, and 25 percent believed Christianity has been established as the official religion of the United States. Only 40 percent knew the Senate had 100 senators.

Henry Giroux, author of “Zombie Politics,” has written, “It (emotionalism and political illiteracy) is perfectly suited for emptying the language of public life of all substantive content, reducing it in the end to a playground for hawking commodities, promoting celebrity culture and enacting the spectacle of right-wing fantasies fueled by the fear that the public sphere is an exclusive club for white, male Christians in danger of collapsing.”

“Americans for Prosperity” has a nice ring to it if a disinterested voter does not realize it is the slogan of the Koch brothers. “Make America Great Again” propelled Trump to the White House with few of his supporters bothering to research that the slogan originated in the propaganda of white supremacists calling for exclusion, intolerance and vitriol.

A recent book, “Against Democracy,” by Jason Brennan, a political philosopher from Georgetown University, is instructive in this debate. He divides the electorate into three groups. First are the hobbits that do not bother to learn about politics. Then there are the hooligans who follow political news with the partisan zealotry of sports fans. Hooligans support their candidates or party under any and all circumstances. Finally, there is the cream of the voter crop, Vulcans, who investigate politics with rational objectivity, respect all views and adjust opinions as the facts warrant.

The problem is that there is no strong evidence that Vulcans exist in great numbers or that they would actually do a better job in choosing elected officials.

Clearly, we need to look in other areas to improve the national political IQ. A 2010 Pew Research Center survey of public affairs knowledge found that political literacy since the 1950s has been in steady decline. The civic and social studies classes that baby boomers remember from their school days are a distant memory. These classes need to be revived, and quickly.

Making hobbits politically literate is important. Turning hobbits into Vulcans and not into liberal or conservative hooligans may be a more difficult task. For too long, many of us who value our political literacy have turned our stances into a zero-sum game. The idea that it is better to be right than to understand someone else’s views has turned us into warring camps with a great deal of bluster and little discourse.

For my part, as a lifelong Democrat and progressive, I have found it necessary to reevaluate my views on the direction of the country and dig deeply into the mindset of the new American populism that has brought Trump to power. I have learned that the populist distrust toward existing political elites embedded in both established parties is not irrational. Trump supporters seem to care deeply about political power and are insisting that it protect them rather than oppress them. While their views on gun control and immigration are not my own, I can now see how liberal positions on these issues foster suspicions of elite control and forced diversity. The Democratic Party must be receptive to this movement if it is to remain relevant.

Many of my progressive friends find solace in protesting every move made by the new administration and vowing to be as uncooperative as their political opposites during the Obama years. Certainly, immoral policy calls for stout resistance. In the long-run, however, building coalitions and fostering political literacy is the way to achieve liberal goals.

I will end with the thoughts of James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 63, on the power of the executive: “There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”

This is one of those moments. Democracy will survive and be the stronger for it.

In the breach, find a Trump voter and make a friend. When their support for Trump turns to condemnation, capture a vote.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.