\n<\/p>\n
American democracy is eating its own tail. We have elected a president whose administration is determined to thwart the Constitution, undermine the courts, and trammel basic rights. Though Americans are deeply proud of our system of government, we have scant experience protecting it from existential threat. Experts from the United States have for decades worked to birth and invigorate democracies around the world, but when it comes to healing ourselves, the medicine cabinet is spare. The available remedies are legal challenges, vague prospects for mass protests, and laying groundwork for elections that are still far off.<\/p>\n
In the 1930s, as he watched fascism engulf Europe, German political theorist Karl Loewenstein, by then exiled in the United States at Amherst College, sounded a clarion call for what he dubbed \u201cmilitant democracy.\u201d He was not advocating violence, or even extremism. Rather, he argued<\/a> that a fascist affront to democracy demanded more determined, nimble, and fearless approaches, unencumbered by rigid fealty to liberal constructs. Deploring \u201clegalistic self-complacency and suicidal lethargy,\u201d Loewenstein argued that a democracy fighting for its life against a fascist upsurge needed to assume a war footing, using everything in its power\u2014including illiberal means, if necessary\u2014to save itself.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n American democracy is eating its own tail. We have elected a president whose administration is determined to thwart the Constitution, undermine the courts, and trammel basic rights. Though Americans are deeply proud of our system of government, we have scant experience protecting it from existential threat. Experts from the United States have for decades worked to birth and invigorate democracies around the world, but when it comes to healing ourselves, the medicine cabinet is spare. The available remedies are legal challenges, vague prospects for mass protests, and laying groundwork for elections that are still far off.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In the 1930s, as he watched fascism engulf Europe, German political theorist Karl Loewenstein, by then exiled in the United States at Amherst College, sounded a clarion call for what he dubbed \u201cmilitant democracy.\u201d He was not advocating violence, or even extremism. Rather, he argued<\/a> that a fascist affront to democracy demanded more determined, nimble, and fearless approaches, unencumbered by rigid fealty to liberal constructs. Deploring \u201clegalistic self-complacency and suicidal lethargy,\u201d Loewenstein argued that a democracy fighting for its life against a fascist upsurge needed to assume a war footing, using everything in its power\u2014including illiberal means, if necessary\u2014to save itself.<\/p>\n For civic-minded Americans, the prospect of departing from liberal principles to combat illiberalism does not sit well. It is not just that we are set in our ways, but that most of us still believe that the American way\u2014our institutions, precedents, and principles\u2014are preferable to any alternative. But as legal judgements are skirted, judges are attacked, and accountability mechanisms dismantled, we feel growing unease.<\/p>\n Lurking beneath the speculation about the boundaries of the judicial branch\u2019s powers\u2014its civil or criminal contempt powers, or the role of U.S. marshals in enforcing flouted edicts\u2014is collective awareness that our institutions were not built for this. It is as if, having played baseball all our lives, we suddenly find ourselves tackled on the field by a newly arrived team. We need to ask ourselves not whether the next pitch is a ball or strike, but rather how to play the game that has been forced upon us. Loewenstein\u2019s thinking offers a guide.<\/p>\n
\n