I’ve always believed that the strength of American democracy lies in its ability to weather storms without abandoning its core principles. Yet in recent years, the conversation around preserving that democracy has taken a troubling turn. When respected figures begin openly advocating for “ruthless” measures, it feels like we’re crossing a dangerous threshold.
The idea that illiberal tactics might be necessary to save liberal democracy isn’t new, but hearing it from someone with deep conservative roots makes it particularly striking. It raises profound questions about where we draw the line between vigorous political competition and the erosion of institutional norms that have protected freedom for generations.
The Growing Temptation of Power Plays in Politics
Politics has always involved strategy and hard-fought battles. But something feels different today. The willingness to consider fundamentally altering core institutions to achieve short-term victories speaks to a deeper frustration with the system itself. Rather than working within established rules, there’s an increasing push to rewrite them when outcomes don’t align with desired results.
This shift didn’t happen overnight. Years of polarized elections, cultural conflicts, and mutual distrust have created an environment where both sides increasingly view the other not as worthy opponents but as existential threats. In such a climate, the call for ruthlessness starts to sound almost reasonable to those who feel backed into a corner.
Yet history shows us repeatedly that once you open the door to bending fundamental rules, it’s incredibly difficult to close it again. The precedents we set today will shape the political landscape for decades to come, potentially in ways we cannot fully anticipate.
Understanding the Court Packing Debate
One of the most contentious proposals involves expanding the Supreme Court. Proponents argue it would restore balance after what they see as partisan shifts in recent appointments. Critics counter that it would transform the judiciary from an independent check on power into just another political tool.
If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’
These words from a legendary justice highlight the long-term damage such a move could cause. The Court has historically derived much of its authority from the perception of impartiality, even when individual decisions prove controversial. Once that perception fades, public trust in the entire constitutional framework suffers.
I’ve spent considerable time studying constitutional history, and one consistent lesson emerges: the founders designed the judiciary to be insulated from momentary political passions precisely because majorities can be wrong. They understood the danger of “democratic despotism” where raw numbers override individual rights and established principles.
Gerrymandering Versus Institutional Integrity
Supporters of aggressive tactics often point to redistricting battles as justification. Political map-drawing has indeed become more sophisticated and partisan on both sides. However, equating this with fundamentally altering the Supreme Court misses a crucial distinction.
Districts are inherently political creations within the legislative branch. They reflect the messy reality of representative government. The judiciary, by contrast, exists to provide a stable framework that transcends election cycles. When we treat all institutions as equally malleable, we risk undermining the separation of powers that prevents any single branch from dominating.
- Legislative districts change with population and political winds
- Judicial independence requires consistent structural protection
- Altering court size for partisan gain sets dangerous precedent
- Public perception of fairness matters as much as actual fairness
This isn’t about defending the status quo blindly. Reforms to address genuine issues in how we select judges or manage court caseloads deserve serious discussion. But rushed, transparent power grabs carry costs that extend far beyond any immediate policy victories.
The Historical Context of Institutional Battles
Looking back through American history, periods of intense polarization have tested our system’s resilience before. From the early battles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists through the Civil War era and the New Deal period, institutions faced pressure. Yet the Supreme Court maintained its role as a counter-majoritarian force, sometimes unpopular in the moment but essential for long-term stability.
During the 1930s, even a president as popular and powerful as Franklin Roosevelt faced significant backlash when he attempted to pack the Court. The public ultimately rejected the idea, recognizing that weakening judicial independence threatened everyone’s liberties regardless of political affiliation.
Today’s calls for similar actions come amid different circumstances but echo the same fundamental tension: the desire for immediate results versus the patience required to maintain constitutional norms. In my view, this patience represents one of democracy’s hardest but most vital disciplines.
What “Ruthlessness” Really Means for Democracy
The language of ruthlessness carries particular weight. It suggests not just vigorous advocacy but a willingness to discard traditional constraints. When applied to democratic institutions, this mindset risks transforming politics from a contest of ideas into a zero-sum struggle for total control.
Liberal democracy depends on certain shared understandings: that elections have consequences but not unlimited ones, that minority rights deserve protection, and that institutions should outlast individual leaders or parties. Once we accept that “the ends justify the means” in reshaping those institutions, we’ve already conceded a major philosophical battle.
The system is designed to temper ruthless passions for reasoned debate.
This observation captures something essential. Our constitutional framework exists not to make governance easy but to make it responsible. The friction built into the system forces compromise, deliberation, and broader consensus-building. Removing that friction might feel liberating in the short term but creates vulnerabilities that future actors will inevitably exploit.
The Role of Public Trust and Institutional Legitimacy
Public confidence in key institutions has declined across the board in recent decades. Polls consistently show skepticism toward Congress, the media, and even the courts. This erosion matters because democracy functions best when citizens believe the rules are fair, even when they lose.
Expanding the Supreme Court through purely partisan means would likely accelerate this trend rather than reverse it. Those who support such a move today might find themselves deeply regretting it when political tides inevitably shift. The cycle of retaliation could leave institutions permanently weakened.
I’ve observed in conversations with people across the political spectrum that many still value the idea of an independent judiciary, even if they disagree with specific rulings. This residual respect represents a foundation worth preserving, not a luxury to be sacrificed in partisan warfare.
Alternative Paths Forward
Rather than embracing ruthlessness, what if we focused on rebuilding trust through transparency and accountability? Term limits for justices, clearer ethical guidelines, or structural reforms developed through bipartisan processes could address concerns without destroying institutional credibility.
Engaging in genuine dialogue about federalism—returning more decision-making power to states and localities—might also reduce the stakes of national elections. When so much power concentrates in Washington, every contest feels apocalyptic. Decentralizing authority could lower temperatures across the board.
- Promote civic education about constitutional principles
- Encourage cross-partisan dialogue on institutional reform
- Support measures that increase transparency in all branches
- Focus on policy victories within existing constitutional bounds
- Build broader coalitions rather than relying on narrow majorities
These approaches require more patience and compromise than dramatic power plays. But they also stand a better chance of creating lasting stability rather than temporary advantage.
The Human Element in Political Decisions
Beyond abstract principles, we should consider the human cost of escalating institutional warfare. When politics becomes purely transactional and ruthless, it attracts different kinds of leaders—those more comfortable with conflict than governance. The quality of public discourse suffers, and citizen engagement often declines as people tune out from what feels like endless power struggles.
I’ve spoken with many ordinary Americans who feel exhausted by the constant state of emergency and outrage. They want leaders focused on solving practical problems rather than winning at all costs. This sentiment crosses party lines and represents an opportunity for those willing to buck the trend toward ruthlessness.
Global Perspectives on Democratic Resilience
Looking internationally, countries that have experimented with weakening institutional checks often experience regret. Whether through court packing, emergency powers, or other shortcuts, the pattern tends toward further erosion rather than renewed strength. Liberal democracy’s greatest advantage has always been its self-correcting mechanisms, not its ability to override them.
Other nations watch America’s experiment closely. When we appear to abandon our own principles for partisan gain, it weakens our moral authority on the global stage. Authoritarian regimes particularly delight in pointing out perceived hypocrisy in Western democracies.
Why This Moment Matters
As we approach significant anniversaries in American history, the choices we make carry extra symbolic weight. The 250th anniversary of the Republic offers an opportunity to reaffirm commitment to founding ideals rather than treating them as obstacles to overcome.
The temptation to “just do it” when it comes to major institutional changes is understandable in a fast-paced media environment. But constitutional governance requires a longer view. Decisions made in the heat of political battle often look different with the benefit of hindsight.
In my experience analyzing these issues, the most sustainable path forward involves recommitting to the messy but essential work of persuasion, coalition-building, and respect for institutional boundaries. It may not feel as satisfying as decisive victories, but it preserves something more valuable than any single policy outcome.
The debate over ruthlessness in defense of democracy ultimately comes down to a simple question: what kind of system do we want to leave for future generations? One where power ebbs and flows according to established rules, or one where each side races to entrench advantages before the next election?
The answer matters not just for abstract principles but for the practical functioning of society. When institutions lose legitimacy, compliance becomes harder to secure. When citizens lose faith in fair play, participation declines. The spiral can be difficult to reverse once started.
Finding Common Ground Amid Division
Despite deep divisions, most Americans still share fundamental values: desire for security, opportunity, justice, and liberty. The challenge lies in channeling these shared aspirations through institutions that can accommodate disagreement without descending into tribal warfare.
Leaders across the spectrum have a responsibility to model restraint and principle even when—especially when—it costs them short-term advantage. This doesn’t mean abandoning strongly held beliefs but rather fighting for them within the framework that makes peaceful democratic contest possible.
Perhaps the greatest test of our generation will be whether we can resist the siren song of ruthlessness. The easy path of raw power might seem appealing when frustrated by opposition, but the harder path of principled engagement has sustained this experiment for over two centuries.
Looking Toward the Future
As political battles continue, citizens should demand better from all sides. Support leaders who prioritize institutional health over temporary dominance. Engage thoughtfully with opposing views rather than seeking total victory. Remember that democracy’s strength lies not in any single election but in the enduring capacity for self-government.
The call for ruthlessness reveals deep anxiety about the future of liberal democracy. Yet the true threat may lie less in external challenges than in our willingness to abandon the internal disciplines that make democracy work. By choosing principle over expediency, we honor those who built this system and preserve it for those who will inherit it.
Benjamin Franklin’s famous warning—that we have a Republic if we can keep it—remains as relevant today as ever. Keeping it requires vigilance, yes, but also wisdom and restraint. In an age that celebrates disruption, perhaps the most radical act is defending the institutions that protect our shared liberty.
The conversation about preserving democracy must continue, but it should focus on strengthening rather than subverting the constitutional order. Only then can we face future challenges with both confidence and integrity. The choice between ruthlessness and restraint will define not just this political moment but the character of American democracy for generations to come.
In reflecting on these issues, I’ve come to believe that the real test isn’t whether we can win every battle but whether we can maintain the framework that makes winning and losing both acceptable outcomes. That framework, imperfect as it is, remains our best hope for navigating an uncertain future together.
