The Dangers of Suppressing Dissent in Congress

Despite just having his first headling show, Retrograded feels he still has much learn before he takes major steps into the music industry. Credit: Retrograded

Hyperpartisanship is not a novel concept in modern American politics. The stark divide between both sides of the American political spectrum has always gone far beyond the boundaries of the primary political parties, although it can be reasonably argued that many major movements frequently align themselves along party lines. However, we are currently experiencing a much more severe and consequential division as hyperpartisan ideologues and their adherents demand unquestioned loyalty to the party, and the expulsion of anyone who dares to dissent.

Issues emerge when the system cracks under the pressure of incessant tribalism. If a party begins to abandon its principles in favor of roughly defined ideals, it will become more likely to centralize its power in the hands of a few. Party leaders set the unfalsifiable agenda and expect each representative to follow, even if it frequently shifts toward what is simply most politically expedient, instead of maintaining its foundational principles. Legislators begin to move in lockstep, with each promoting the strict agenda through uniform political messaging and voting. Any member who steps out of line is ostracized as a traitor worthy of expulsion. This is the path being followed by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and it threatens to undermine the very purpose of a democratic legislature.

Since the 2020 congressional elections, the Democrats have held power in the Senate, occupying 50 of the 100 available seats with Vice President Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote. If every Democratic senator were to vote together on each bill, the party’s agenda would easily pass through the Senate. In reality, voting unanimously along party lines is not always going to occur because legislators are elected as representatives of their constituents. Even if they vote for representatives of the same party, constituents are not always going to share the same uniform policy preferences. A well-functioning democratic republic requires diversity of opinion and the encouragement of dissent in order to create effective outcomes. 

This makes the ostracization and attempted expulsion of several representatives from both parties an extremely concerning trend. Joe Manchin (D-VA) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are centrist Democratic senators who have consistently voiced their concerns regarding several bills, particularly President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation. Both were accused of betraying the party due to their dissent, with student activists even going so far as to harass Senator Sinema in a bathroom simply for her opposition to a reconciliation bill. This behavior is entirely unacceptable in a civil society, and while some recognized the issue, others such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were more focused on her dissent than the harassment itself. The two senators were also criticized for being in favor of “minority rule,” despite the fact they joined Republican senators in voting against the legislation, creating a 52-48 majority.

This punishment of holding opinions counter to the mass also continues outside Washington. Senator Sinema was later censured by the Arizona Democratic Party merely because she opposed changing filibuster rules to pass a bill favored by Democrats. The filibuster is an important tool for representatives in the minority party used to slow down the process and voice their opposition. Each party uses it extensively while they are in the minority, until they gain the majority in a future election and attempt to destroy it to ram through their agenda. 

An absence of dissent results in a small handful of legislative leaders deciding the fate of the country, as legislators would face significant consequences if they exercised the basic democratic act of voicing opposition to authority. Without critique or introspection, all they are left with is an unstoppable ambition for winning the next election. The people who determine the agenda of the majority rule without accountability and act to reduce transparency in order to streamline the process of implementing their vision without democratic challenges.

The Republicans are guilty of the same consolidation of power. Liz Cheney (R-WY), a representative in the House and a prominent critic of former President Donald Trump, has faced unending ostracization from her party for not aligning herself with the Trump faction. Cheney and Adam Kizinger (R-IL) are both facing censure from the Republican National Committee for participating in a panel investigating the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. This dangerous rejection of civil disagreement in an institution whose purpose is to foster debate between diverging perspectives will only lead to a polarized political world and a lack of nuanced, effective solutions.

Whether one disagrees with the motives of dissent should be irrelevant to one’s stance against the dangers of casting out anyone who speaks out against an ironclad majority. The inherent ability to civilly challenge established authority without consequences is vital to maintaining a free society. Christopher Walker of the National Endowment for Democracy notes that there are dangerous consequences in suppressing dissent and allowing power to go unchecked. He says, “regimes that operate on the basis of coercion… rather than democratic accountability cannot be depended upon to serve as the lynchpins for long-term strategic objectives.” 

When political dissent is suppressed, leadership is given the opportunity to consolidate their power and take actions regardless of the public good. If representatives do not diverge from the majority and serve the people instead of themselves, all Americans will suffer the consequences of severe democratic backsliding.