Democracy is its own destruction. This warning has echoed throughout history, from Plato to America’s Founding Fathers. Unchecked democracy breeds chaos, and chaos breeds tyranny. Its greatest weakness lies in its own nature: its tendency toward faction, demagoguery, and the erosion of restraint that can destroy the very freedoms it promises.
Current events prove that warning is appropriate. Factionalism, demagoguery and chaos are now so prevalent that criticizing the government threatens freedom itself. But democracy is not the real culprit. A deeper tension lies in the pluralism that makes democracies liberal, in the classic sense of respecting individual freedom, tolerating difference, and limiting power.
Postliberal conservatives are right for the wrong reasons. Pluralism, one of the core values of liberalism, is the bane of traditional ideals such as God and moral order. The common good struggles to survive in the face of a diversity of views and values, and unity is possible only through agreement that we have a right to disagree.
Yet liberal pluralism arose as a defense against the tyranny of conformity, privilege, and the imposition of beliefs. Conservatives, old and new, now claim that liberal pluralism has become tyrannical. If you assert your beliefs too strongly, you risk being branded intolerant, censored, or excluded from public life.
Perhaps the real problem is not liberalism, its conservative opponents, or democracy itself; politeness. Civility isn’t about being polite, it’s about coexistence, being tolerant enough to engage with others without violence or silence, even if you think they’re completely wrong.
Oxford political theorist Teresa Beejan calls it this.mere “Civility”—an intentionally low bar. Because setting the bar too high (requiring civility, agreement, or sensitivity, even if not good table manners) becomes a weapon against dissent. please say that clearly;That’s not rude. What would be disrespectful would be to completely deny the opportunity to speak in public.
Simple civility calls for continuing conversations, no matter how unpleasant, by continuing a war of words rather than resorting to force.
By this measure, Trump’s worst crime was not insulting, but using his wealth and power to bully his critics, sue them, and threaten them with deportation. Many of his supporters, who feel forced into silence, may object to these tactics and vehemently defend the free speech rights of their opponents, without getting in the way of their lawyers.
Political sociologist John Murray Cuddihy once said: ordeal Of civility. ” The conversation around “diversity, equity, and inclusion” continues to have its challenges. Everyone is welcome, except those who object. Cuddihy argued that the acceptable price in predominantly Protestant America was conformity, or the suppression of one’s differences.
Pity the immigrant with unfamiliar customs, the working-class kid with the wrong accent, the Orthodox Jew who keeps kosher, the Catholic who makes the sign of the cross in public. Demands for obedience often come under the guise of “politeness” and punish cultural, political, religious, or linguistic differences as deviant or, more safely, “inappropriate.”
As Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza said, the movement’s success is wrong People start to appear who say and think terrible things but still want to participate. More important than agreement is recognition. Not all voices are equal, and those most likely to be excluded are the ones who need to be heard the most.
Bejan’s answer is not to be polite, but to be persistent. The democratic arena has become extremely competitive, and the will to engage in dialogue has completely collapsed. For now, Democrats are waiting to attack President Trump’s peace deal with Hamas and Israel, and Washington has been unable to agree on whether the two countries are discussing a government shutdown. Mr. Trump and his team deserve credit for bringing the negotiations to reality. Behind the headlines, the public is concerned about issues closer to home.
Politeness is not always pleasant, but it is wise. The point is not to deceive, but to enable coexistence. We don’t need to see eye to eye to walk arm in arm. More as an ally than a friend. The words “Let’s make a deal” hit a nerve and now sound like boasting. But in many cases, it just makes sense. Even if we seek truer understanding, the war will not end.
Democracy is its own destruction without it. mere Politeness. A warm heart will break if it doesn’t have a thick skin. We are all complicit in what we are grieving. Pluralism requires both the courage to argue and the grace to disagree.
For those of us with strong beliefs and high standards, democracy remains a test.
Is there no freedom without order? Conservatives are right.
No order without freedom? Liberals are right.
Do you live together? Democracy says it must.
Politeness is a price and a bargain.
notes and reading
The end of civility: The “ideology of intimacy”—a categorical confusion that transforms political issues into psychological concerns, mistakes symptoms of oppression for disorders of the self, and confuses empathy with fairness.
—From Richard Sennett corruption of public figures (1977). The nature of public culture under capitalism. Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“Oppressive resistance: What is proclaimed and practiced today as tolerance, in many of its most effective manifestations, is the cause of oppression. ”
―Robert Paul Wolfe, Barrington Moore Jr., Herbert Marcus, Criticism of pure tolerance (1969), a leading figure in postwar left critical theory. For celebrities conservative Criticism of the privileged debates of “citizens”sanitized arguments“Disagree, but don’t disagree”—see Alan Bloom American heartbreak (1987).
-
Democracy according to Plato and the American Founders. Plato, republicVolume VIII, 562a-564a. john adams Warning: “Democracy never lasts long. It quickly wears out, exhausts itself, and kills itself.” Adams was defending representative republicanism against the dangers of direct democratic rule in a letter to John Taylor.
-
John H. Cuddihy test of politeness (1976), No Offense: Folk Religion and Protestant Hobbies (1978). Cuddihy was an American sociologist who analyzed the tension between ethnic and religious particularism and social demands. conventional Politeness.
-
Teresa M. Beejan Mere Politeness: Dissent and the Limits of Tolerance (2017). Bejan is a political theorist and professor at Oxford University who questions the foundations of liberal democracy.
-
Joyce Vance Giving up is not an option: A manual for defending democracy (October 2025). Vance is a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and currently a legal analyst and commentator. She teaches at the University of Alabama School of Law and writes for the chart-topping Substack Civil Discourse.
truth of matter
green light
Approximately 2+2=5
Source: 2 + 2 = 5 – williamgreen.substack.com
