Democracy of the 'Right Kind'
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem recently waved off accusations of anti-democratic sentiment after asserting the need for "the right people" to vote for "the right leaders." Her office clarified she simply meant "electing conservatives." This framing, however, meticulously sidesteps the historical baggage attached to such rhetoric. This is not a new concept; rather, it’s a familiar refrain from
corridors of power throughout history. In 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala, overthrowing democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán because he was deemed the “wrong leader” for his land reform policies, which threatened the United Fruit Company's profits. Similarly, the 2019 OAS-backed coup against Bolivia's Evo Morales, despite high approval ratings and a clear electoral
win, was justified by fabricated claims of fraud to remove a leader considered 'wrong' by external powers. The pattern is clear: "democracy" is often deemed acceptable only when it yields politically convenient results, a double standard rarely applied when it benefits those in power. The distinction between advocating for one's political ideology and implying certain voters or outcomes are
inherently 'wrong' is often deliberately blurred. When Hillary Clinton in 2016 referred to a significant portion of the electorate as a "basket of deplorables," she ignited similar outrage for seemingly delegitimizing a swathe of the voting public. Yet, these statements reveal a consistent thread: an underlying suspicion of the unguided popular will, unless it aligns with established interests.