Russia and CRT: Is Liberal Democracy On The Ropes?
Is liberal democracy on the ropes? Probably not, but maybe so. Let’s look at two examples that may reveal the lack of liberal democracy’s universal appeal and the primacy of power over everything else in human affairs.
First, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In a recent interview, political scientist Aaron Friedberg IV urged us all to recognize that the post-Cold War era is over. That is, the decline of authoritarian rule and the triumph of liberal democracy have been greatly exaggerated. In the aftermath of the Iron Curtain’s fall, voices across the political spectrum announced the end of history. Communism was dead, and liberal capitalism was alive. The victor was clear, and it was only a matter of time before the whole world recognized it. All nations would eventually become democracies and embrace the Kantian and Wilsonian dream of the liberal international order.
Unfortunately, as Friedberg and others have observed, a new Eurasian authoritarian bloc (China and Russia, primarily) has no interest in applauding the West’s version of what every nation should look like. These governments are anti-ideological. Not necessarily opposed to particular features of liberal democracy (like China’s embrace of state capitalism), they are not persuaded by some kind of universal political form. More importantly, they resist being told by Western powers how they should behave. They pursue expansionist foriegn policies and dictatorial rule. For China, it’s Taiwan and Hong Kong. For Russia, it’s Crimea and Ukraine. For both, it’s one-man rule with no legitimate party competition or free and fair elections and general suppression of basic political freedoms. If liberal democracy is the flavor of the month, China and Russia did not get the memo.
Second, the recent emergence of Critical Race Theory. Who knew that a small group in the American academy from the 80’s and 90’s would receive such popular acclaim (and disdain)? I bring it up because CRT also questions the practice of liberal democracy even if it embraces some of its fundamental tenets. To take just one piece, some proponents of CRT (not necessarily all) believe that Blacks will always be at a disadvantage in the United States because they’re in the political minority. According to Derrick Bell (a prominent representative), the only reason Blacks have advanced in American history is that the white majority has found it in their interests to do so. If you look at the 20th century, for example, you’ll find all social and economic programs that have advanced the cause of Blacks to be also advantageous to white people. This means, though, that Blacks should expect to always remain in a subordinate position as long as they belong in the political minority and that any success they experience will happen because white majorities go along with it.
Why does this matter for the current discussion? It matters because CRT questions two fundamental features of liberal democracy. First, it questions the ideal of majority rule. If democracy means anything, it means rule by the majority of the people. According to CRT, this is problematic if the majority of the people keep the minority in a subordinate place. In some ways, this is a repetition of the “tyranny of the majority” critique that’s been leveled at democracies for a couple of centuries. Second, and following from the first, it questions the value of minority protections. A natural response to the problem of majority tyranny is to build in constitutional guarantees, like equal protection of the law, that would protect minority groups from majority oppression. CRT implicitly (and perhaps explicitly) downplays these guarantees, since the actual protection of those minority rights always belongs in the hands of courts, legislatures, and executives, who — you guessed it — are dominated by people from the (white) majority.
OK, great, but what’s the payoff? Well, not only do the two examples above illustrate the failures of liberal democracy both at home and abroad, but they also reveal the centrality of power as the driving force in human affairs. In the first example, what has been the response of NATO and the United States to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? NATO has suddenly come to life, and the United States has assisted Ukraine through aid and punished Russia through sanctions. They are doing so for traditional power politics reasons, seeing Russia as a threat to both Europe and America, as a power worth fighting and challenging. Indeed, Dr. Friedberg believes the United States ought to increase its annual defense spending 4–5% to become even more powerful in light of the emerging expansionist authoritarianism in both Russia and China. What we don’t have is a realistic strategy to further liberalize China and Russia and integrate them further in the “liberal international order.”
What about Critical Race Theory? Again, power is paramount. According to Bell and others, the future of race relations in the United States will not rise or fall based on a widespread awareness of the rightness of racial equality. More generally, Black success won’t happen because white majorities somehow become convinced of the moral imperative to extend the blessings of liberal democracy to all races. Instead, the only way forward is for the white majority power to find it in their interests to use their power to advance the cause of Blacks. It comes down to power. Ironically, this may take care of itself in the long run, as demographics change, and white people give up their majority rule for permanent minority status. Still, Black success that comes from such a change only proves the point that majority power is the only thing that counts, even in a democracy that claims to protect minority rights.
What can be said in response to all of this? First, I tend to agree that in this life, politics and power trump concerns of law and morality. It’s possible to appeal to the Constitution or the virtues of liberal democracy, but they must always be done so in the context of recognizing the constellation of political interests that actually drive human affairs. Second, as January 6 and the above examples illustrate, there is nothing inevitable about the success of the liberal democratic form. It is something that must always be justified and fought for, even in the face of existential challenges from within and without. It is, after all, a constitution and way of life that’s been around only for a brief moment in world history. Liberal democracy may not be on the ropes, but it’s worth remembering it’s only been in the ring for a couple of rounds.
