Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The tyranny of the minority

A minority controlling the majority
leremy/Getty Images

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the fourth entry in a 10-part series on the American schism.

Last week I wrote about the misguided approach of the “woke” movement. This week, I want to focus on another major component of the American schism in 2024: the tyranny of the minority.

One of the most important aspects of our constitutional framework bequeathed by our founders was the concept of minority protections. As they gathered at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were very cognizant of the abysmal track record of various social contracts over the course of recorded history with respect to protecting the rights of minority groups, be they religious, ethnic or other.


In France alone, persecutions of Cathars in medieval times, and then Huguenots and Jews in more recent centuries were quite commonplace. Additionally, many of the earliest colonial settlers in the United States were Puritans seeking a safe haven outside of Britain for what were often minority beliefs and practices. Thus, ensuring the basic inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was a foundational part of the American creed and its constitutional blueprint.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Of course, the idea of protecting minority rights as envisioned by the founders was far from complete. On one hand, they were sagacious in understanding that when majority opinion rules the day, a just social contract needs to protect the rights of not some but all of its citizens. On the other hand, that these same founders did not extend this concept to slaves brought to the continent from Africa or Native Americans remains one of the greatest enigmatic paradoxes of the modern era.

So how exactly did the founders delineate these minority rights in our Constitution? In a holistic sense, the federalist structure of the union itself ensured that no central power nor individual state or group of states could have majority control of each sovereign state territory. But even more specifically, the Bill of Rights is perhaps the clearest embodiment of minority protections, directly intended to shield the minority from oppression by the majority. While the Bill of Rights guaranteeing free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of petition applies to all U.S. citizens, its protections have been applied to minority groups sometimes grudgingly over the course of the centuries.

However, we must not confuse the concept of protecting minority rights and viewpoints with an entirely different set of consequences from the use of these structural safeguards. Specifically, if the minority avails itself of these vehicles to routinely block legal measures or advancements put forth by the majority, one could characterize such as a misuse of said protections.

According to Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, in their book "Tyranny of the Minority,” this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world and has infrequently been amended (compared to our democratic peers). The authors explain how reactionary forces in the Republican Party today use outdated political institutions to systematically obstruct or even overrule majorities. Further, the authors call for constitutional reform to protect American democracy from further erosion.

As Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter discuss in "The Politics Industry,” these developments also stifle innovation in the political realm and solidify veto power for a minority to impede the majority will. These minority protections take different forms. Some are based on structural constitutional elements like the Electoral College and the Senate itself; others are maintained by arcane rules like the filibuster In the Senate, and common practices like gerrymandering districts at both the federal and state levels.

A peculiar and perplexing consequence of this mishmash of structures and practices has protected the Republican Party and allowed it to move ever further to the right – even though, with one exception, it has failed to win a majority of the popular vote in any of the last eight presidential elections.

To preserve democracy, political reforms are urgently needed to reconcile the need for majority rule with the need to defend minorities rights, as well as a citizens' movement to put enough pressure on politicians to act. Today, an expansive group of nonprofit organizations are working diligently to target and correct the misuse of many of these rules and practices. Much of this work, such as the drives for open primaries and nonpartisan redistricting occur at the state and local level.

However, some of these barriers are constitutional and will require more systemic change. While it certainly appears that today’s hyper-polarized environment is not conducive to constitutional amendments, it is vital to remember that the drafters of the Constitution did not believe that any framework could be set in stone. On the contrary, they made the malleable and expected revisions to occur in every generation.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less