Tuesday’s US election and why social justice ideology might not be so bad for liberal democracy
With a few days until the US presidential election, much debate focuses on implications for liberal democracy. Given Trump’s rhetoric and involvement in the 6 January coup attempt, most commentary addresses the dangers of a second Trump administration. Whilst risks can be overstated – during the first Trump administration, the respected V-Dem index of liberal democracy made limited changes to its rating of the US – I sympathize with this broad analysis and agreed with this week’s Economist editorial which argued that, though it may pass with limited event, the dangers of a Trump presidency are too real.
Beyond these primary risks, we might ask questions about liberal democracy and a topic which is a regular concern of this Substack: social justice ideology. In contrast to liberalism, this ideology emphasizes identity, direct action and extends concepts of harm (though some call this ‘wokeness’, I find this pejorative). Social justice ideology has considerable influence within the Democratic Party, yet some question its compatibility with liberal democracy.
Certainly, there are tensions. Aside from the writings of key theorists – Herbert Marcuse argued that the suspension of civil liberties and revolutionary violence could sometimes be justified – social justice ideology has a poor record on freedom of speech. Arguably, this reflects public majorities for certain progressive (here used as a collective term for liberalism and social justice ideology) positions. This changes progressive incentives; as with other (political and religious) ideologies, majority status encourages attempts to commandeer the public sphere and entails less tolerance of opposing perspectives. On freedom of speech, the recent record of the Democratic Party might be better.
But beyond liberal aspects of liberal democracy (to use V-Dem terminology), what does social justice ideology mean for other parts of liberal democracy? In a recent survey of US voters which uses the Progressive Values Scale (PVS) and features in our forthcoming book, we asked respondents about the separation of powers, a classic liberal-democratic principle (‘How important is it that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government keep one another from having too much power?’).
Our survey used a sample of progressives – the PVS measures differences between liberalism and social justice ideology and excludes conservatives – and I had expected that liberals would have more positive views of the separation of powers, relative to supporters of social justice ideology. Results surprised me. Even when including controls, social justice values are associated with support for the separation of powers. Moreover, the effect size exceeds other variables in the model (see figure 1).
Figure 1 - The relationship between support for liberal democracy and social justice ideology in the US (April 2024 survey, sample of 638 progressives)
Results from certain sources are more ambiguous. With less robust (and non-comparative) measures of social justice ideology and liberalism, the 2020 American National Election Study (ANES) shows that, relative to conservatism, both ideologies are associated with support for liberal democracy, with liberalism having the larger effect size.
But our UK survey (which also used the PVS) shows similar trends to our survey of the US. Here, we asked respondents an established question about authoritarianism (‘The best way to run the country would be to have a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections’). In a model with controls, social justice ideology (relative to liberalism) was negatively associated with agreement with this statement.
Caveats are necessary. To an extent which liberals do not, certain supporters of social justice ideology adopt positions which conflict with liberal democracy, some defending socialist dictatorships such as the Maduro regime in Venezuela. However, such people tend to be very politically engaged and/or ideologically conscious. We do not have data, but it seems unlikely that most supporters of social justice ideology take such positions.
Overall, critics of social justice ideology may overestimate its threat to liberal democracy. Whilst I agree that dangers exist, other elements of the ideology potentially complement liberal democracy. Social justice ideology builds on liberal conceptions of autonomy, asserting the rights of the marginalized and reminding liberalism of its broken promises to such groups. In the work of writers such as the prominent scholar-activist Angela Y. Davis, these themes are prominent.
Arguably, radical right populism brings such parts of social justice ideology to the fore. The former stigmatizes demographics such as immigrants and LGBTQ+, creating the need for defence of these groups. In a muscular way that liberalism does not, social justice ideology provides this. Social justice ideology came of age during the first Trump administration; this does not seem coincidental.
Whatever Tuesday’s result, these tendencies will be relevant. In the event of a Harris victory, friends of liberal democracy might be relieved that, despite those elements of social justice ideology which conflict with liberal democracy, there are parts which defend electoral and egalitarian parts of liberal democracy (to use V-Dem terminology again). Despite a recent decline in popularity, social justice ideology remains a key influence on the Democratic Party, many Democrats combining liberalism and social justice ideology.
But such trends may be more relevant in the event of a Trump victory. If this happens, there is a good chance that liberal democracy will be attacked with considerable vigour. Should this occur, those aspects of social justice ideology which emphasize autonomy and liberation will probably become prominent again.
Such processes may have certain negative side effects – they did from 2017-21(!) – yet will be crucial to the defence of the Republic.
If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊
Social justice is to justice as fast food is to food. It might taste or feel good but is harmful ultimately. Especially when is a governance priority. Thomas Sowell, an eminent and accomplished economist and author (Angela Y. Davis is certainly an accomplished activist, by one may question her scholarship credentials) has written about the concept. One of his observations is apropos here "What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." Sowell, Social Justice Fallacies (2023). Mr. Sowell also cited Friedrich Hayek's observation that "... a world with everyone having equal chances of success in all endeavors— was not only unattainable, but that its fervent but futile pursuit can lead to the opposite of what its advocates are seeking. It was not that social justice advocates would create dictatorships, but that their passionate attacks on existing democracies could weaken those democracies to the point where others could seize dictatorial powers.” The number of veto points in our system of government (federalism, electoral college, the Senate (particularly the filibuster), Presidential veto, judicial review, and terms limits for the President) has been and is an effective bar to authoritarianism. The "social justice left" wants to eliminate those veto points. That is what is scary. Trump might not have been my first choice, but is is not a "threat to democracy." His main threat is to oligarchy; that is, the administrative state created by our lazy Congressmen (and women) who are more interested in being re-elected to their cushy positions., than careful legislation.