If you've gotten me started at any point, you've probably heard me say that democracy is the institutionalization of conflict, words I learned from the professor of democracy studies at OSU a few years ago. Schmancy talk to some, so what does it actually mean?

So first, let us accept that conflict exists. This seems pretty straightforward, but let's just define it to be safe: "a competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)" per Merriam-Webster.

So let's also talk just a little about why conflict exists. One of the main causes is scarcity, generally thought of as a deficiency in quantity compared to demand. Another is philosophical incompatibility, which is a bit more complicated, but essentially boils down to I believe in A and you believe in B and they both can't be true to both of us.

Now I'm making this sound all high brow but these sorts of realities are constant in everyone's experience. If there are three people but only two cookies, someone is not getting a cookie. If someone likes Avatar: the Last Airbender and someone else likes Avatar: the Legend of Korra, they're seeing two different realities. We have probably seen quite a few arguments arise from both of those kinds of scenarios, no matter how inane they might feel.

Politics, as I hope you know, is the process by which it is determined who gets what, when, and how. And so when three people are arguing between themselves about how they should divide up two cookies, they are engaged in politics. When one insists that the Last Airbender is superior to Korra, that is not necessarily politics, but it becomes so if the Last Airbender fan would like for the Korra fan to acknowledge at least some parts of its superiority.

You can start arguing here about whether or not material circumstances have to be involved in politics, or if immaterial goals can reflect onto the material world, or even if something that seems immaterial is actually material, but that is far beyond the scope of what I want to talk about.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but recently we've had a few political upheavals in the United States. Some of the most controversial events have revolved around the material circumstance of individual's rights, as well as the rights of groups.

Yesterday, the executive branch of the federal government put out some orders mandating a military presence in domestic law enforcement. You can hear the basic philosophical arguments for and against such things in basically any media involving the civilian-military-government complex, and my feelings on the matter can be generally summed up by Commander Adama's words in the Battlestar Galactica (2003) episode Water (s01e02). It's a good quote, you should look it up.

It's no big surprise any of the moves the administration is engaging in, all of which to serve a fairly obvious mission statement that has been publicly available for the past few years. While it all ties together, one of the ultimate goals of authoritarianism is the abolishment of democracy.

Why would they want to abolish it if it has given them what they want? After all, the American people did vote them into power, and their goals and intentions were publicly available and known. The last election had a very high turnout for America, even if it wasn't as high as the previous presidential election. One can argue simply that the authoritarians have benefitted greatly from democracy.

Now, you may recall my previous essay on democracy listing a few arguments on how the institution of democracy has been eroded in the United States, and my main argument that democracy is not adequately practiced within the United States due to many factors but especially community disengagement and information illiteracy.

You may also recall in that essay that one of the main characteristics of democracy is that no issue is ever closed. Any decision can be undone in the future. And that's where you encounter the problem that authoritarians have with democracy, even when it gives them what they want, and indeed became their main problem in 2020.

Thus, as the majority of the American public begins to question and even disagree with the direction the federal government has chosen to go, the administration has chosen to begin the dismantling of democracy in order to solidify power. This is a cornerstone of authoritarian philosophy because authoritarianism by its nature cannot benefit the majority of people, power must be concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, and sooner or later the many will notice and as rational creatures (for some definitions of rationality) they will ultimately disagree with this course. As such, the matter must be considered closed.

However, the lack of an institution does not remove the issue the institution was built to manage in the first place. If only one individual decides how the cookies are divided, it does not remove the scarcity of the cookies, nor the desire of each individual for some of them. If the Last Airbender is indisputably a superior show to the Legend of Korra, it does not erase the cognitive observations of those who disagree, nor does it rewire their brains to believe so.

Politics is not an institution. Desire and need are not institutions. Removing the forum to disagree does not erase the disagreement.

The individuals arguing over the cookies may not be allowed to debate, but that doesn't change the fact that the cookies are delicious. Last Airbender being the best show ever doesn't change that some people prefer the antics of Bolin to Sokka.

So if change via disagreement is not possible, that does not erase the other options: giving up, or violence.

Don't even tell me people won't come to blows over cookies and Avatar.

Violence is compelling because it generally is the least desireable outcome for most individuals. When violence produces death, it creates a finality in that the individual can no longer participate politically or otherwise. There are conditions in which violence is an acceptable outcome for disagreements, especially in military threat models, but the short answer is that those in favor of violence are generally confident in their ability to win.

So with a little of this information, you can probably look at the current political climate and make some inductions about what is going on, and I apologize for the resulting terror. After all, well adjusted people do not desire violence, violence is the result of the lack of other options.

There is no situation in which any institution can be established that does not require constant participation and caretaking by its members. Democracy must be constantly engaged with, because the alternative is to sit down and accept what is handed to you, or violence. If you forego utilizing an institution, it will not simply disappear, it will be co-opted by those who show up.

If you have chosen to simply disengage and accept what is handed to you, you have made a political choice, perhaps the easiest political choice. If this is sufficient for your purposes, I can only imagine how nice that must be. If it is not, then you must act outside of the institution of democracy. If you thought that constantly having to research and vote is tiring, then perhaps you can imagine for a moment the energy toll that alternative solutions will bring.

The authoritarians already have.