One of the election themes from those who woke up Wednesday morning with a foreboding fear concerning election results was that our democracy is at risk. As I consider this risk, I am reminded of the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. 

In his “The Republic,” Plato doesn’t express high hopes for democracy as a form of government, writing: 

“How does despotism arise? That it comes out of democracy is fairly clear. . . the insatiable desire for this good [liberty] to the neglect of everything else may transform a democracy and lead to a demand for despotism. A democratic state may fall under the influence of unprincipled leaders, ready to minister to its thirst for liberty with too deep draughts of this heady wine; and then, if its rulers are not complaisant enough to give it unstinted freedom, they will be arraigned as accursed oligarchs [elites] and punished.” 

Almost 2,500 years ago, Plato, the prophet, may have predicted what happened early on Wednesday morning.

He believed that a demagogue launches their quest for despotism by first portraying themselves as the champion of common, everyday people against the oppression of the elite who, during his time, were the landed aristocracy. He distrusted government by the masses because he saw that injustices abound when everyone gets to do what they want.

Plato feared what he called “democratic anarchy” that divides society. Those who see themselves at the mercy of the elites turn to a demagogue to provide law and order and become their retribution. 

But soon, the demagogue – seeking to satisfy their appetites – shows themselves to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Eliminating opponents and rivals (enemies of the state), Plato predicts the despot is left surrounded by sycophants. 

Here is the irony that Plato notes: Democracy’s undoing is its emphasis on excessive liberty. Facing democratic anarchy, order is demanded, thus making the rise of a despot possible. Democracy, which champions liberty, becomes undone when, in the name of liberty, the demagogue enslaves everyone. 

It was said that when Benito Mussolini ruled Italy, the trains ran on time. It was also said that the streets were so safe in Nazi Germany you could walk them during the predawn hours. 

The desire for order trumps liberty. The desire for a better economy trumps justice. The desire to “own” the opposition trumps democracy.

Thinking about our early Wednesday morning anxieties, I must be truthful and ask, whose democracy is really at risk?

Our entire electoral system has never been based on the principle of democracy. Those who enslaved Africans created a process known as the Electoral College designed to protect their unearned power, privilege and profit. Today, this system continues to protect whiteness by providing more value to white voters in Wyoming than Latine voters in Los Angeles.

We have always had a democracy skewed toward whites. People of color, who were denied the vote thanks to Jim Crow until 1965, did not experience democracy. Thanks to gerrymandering, you can even argue they still don’t. 

We have always had a democracy skewed toward white men. Women who were denied the vote until 1920 did not experience democracy. One can even argue that in certain pockets of the “land of the free,” they still lack freedom over their reproduction organs.

And yet, when we begin to analyze who voted on November 5th and how, we will not be surprised to find that a larger number of those we label marginalized voted for order over and against liberty.    

Maybe the issue is not that democracy is at risk, but that what we call democracy was only for white men. And while the Civil Rights Movement opened the door for so many left outside of the tent, that door began to close again due to the whitelash of a Black man (in reality, a biracial man) being elected.

The reason we are now concerned about the risk to democracy is that white people, for the first time, are feeling what communities of color – specifically African Americans in the South and Latines in the Southwest – have always felt during Jim Crow. 

Voter suppression is no longer based on the color of one’s skin or ethnicity. Instead, it is based on possessing liberal or progressive political views. To “own the libs” is to relegate them to the disenfranchised electoral spaces once occupied — and still mainly occupied — by communities of color. 

The fear of our democracy, a fear nonwhite and nonmale populations have felt for most of this country’s history, is now being felt by a significant segment of people racialized as white.Therefore, it is now real. 

It is now something to fear.