AG Barr’s comments have obviously—and for good reason—gotten a lot of attention. Most of that attention has focused on the bits about Rousseau and godless leftists. But he said something even more significant that’s been widely overlooked. (1/7)
His main point was that the modern left has transgressed the parameters of traditional, reasonable American politics: “The left-wing has really withdrawn and pulled away from the umbrella of classical liberal values[.]” Here’s the full passage. (2/7) 
Barr goes on to identify two traditional ways of resolving political disputes: discussion and voting. So far so good. But notice the relationship he posits between the two: voting is what happens when agreement or resolution can’t be reached. (3/7)
On this account, elections happen if & when normal politics fails. Voting is the mechanism that reconstitutes a broken deliberative forum. Elections, on this understanding, are failsafes. But they’re triggered only if & when agreement can’t be reached. (4/7)
An alternative—one with much greater resonance in the American political tradition—is that elections are a central mode and medium of politics. Elections forge coalitions, articulate democratic mandates, offer leverage points to social movements, & much more. (5/7)
It’s a subtle distinction but, I think, an important one—particularly in a political context where the integrity, regularity, and conduct of elections have themselves become objects of political contestation. (6/7)
Put bluntly, Barr’s take can't be reconciled with the way elections are & have been run in the United States—in part because of what happened at our founding. In that context, one might have hoped for a more accurate account of American politics than the one Barr offered. (7/7)
