Why Complacency Threatens Democracy

Many liberals trust systems to self-correct. But history shows democracy fails when comfort is valued over justice and when urgency is dismissed as chaos.

The Limits of Comfortable Politics

Photo by Kevin Rajaram on Unsplash

For decades, many well-off, centre-left liberals in North America have viewed politics as a negotiation rather than a battle of values. Their approach is defined not by urgency but by stability, preserving the economic and social order that benefits them while engaging in selective philanthropy and measured reform. They do not see politics as a struggle and certainly not as a war.

In their view, political engagement is a matter of refinement, not transformation. They scoff at Republican extremism but also dismiss grassroots progressive activism as disruptive, naive, or impractical. Their highest priorities remain economic stability, social harmony, and maintaining the cultural spaces that define their identity: fundraisers, private schools, and elite social networks. They believe their wealth enables them to do good, but they do not see themselves as being in the same fight as those pushing for systemic change.

When faced with radical challenges, whether the rise of authoritarianism, climate inaction, or mass disenfranchisement, their instinct is not to resist with equal force but to negotiate and pacify. They assume that the institutions they trust, the courts, the media, and the electoral system, will always act as guardrails, correcting any political deviation in due time. They do not believe that fundamental democratic structures can fail. Even after Donald Trump’s election and the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, many in this demographic remained convinced that “the system” would inevitably restore order.

But as history has shown, systems do not self-correct when those in power choose complacency. The idea that democracy can withstand any assault without active defence is a dangerous illusion.

The Misunderstanding of Power

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this problem well. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, he lamented that the greatest obstacle to civil rights was not the overt segregationist, but the “white moderate” who prioritized order over justice. These were individuals who claimed to support civil rights in theory but recoiled at the methods necessary to achieve them. They advised patience, believing time itself would bring change, failing to grasp that justice is never given; it must be demanded.

This same mindset persists today among privileged liberals who express dismay at the state of politics but resist the idea that direct action, confrontation, and mass mobilization are necessary. They call for unity but not accountability. They reject authoritarianism in rhetoric yet shrink from the conflict required to defeat it. They wish to restore normalcy, not recognizing that the normal they long for is what enabled the current crisis in the first place.

Dr. King argued that tension, when used constructively, was essential for progress. Nonviolent direct action was never about chaos for its own sake, but about creating a crisis so undeniable that those in power would be forced to confront injustice. He rejected the idea that the oppressed should wait for a “more convenient season.” The same is true today: democratic rights are eroding not because of an overwhelming right-wing movement but because too many who claim to support democracy refuse to fight for it.

The Consequences of Political Passivity

When well-meaning liberals focus on stability over action, the result is paralysis. This is why elected Democrats who come from elite backgrounds often fail to deliver meaningful change. They do not lack courage; they simply do not share the same sense of urgency as those most affected by economic inequality, voter suppression, and social injustice. Their interests, financial security, market confidence, and a predictable political landscape are not under immediate threat.

This explains why their response to crises is often to compromise rather than confront. They assume, wrongly, that those dismantling democracy can be reasoned with. This is why corporate interests still dominate policymaking. This is why voting rights remain under attack. This is why climate action remains sluggish despite an overwhelming scientific consensus. Their fundamental miscalculation is in believing that negotiation alone can halt movements that see no value in negotiation.

What Must Change

Democracy is not self-sustaining. It survives only when people insist on defending it actively, persistently, and without deference to those who place comfort above justice. The lesson of history is that power concedes nothing without demand.

The path forward requires recognizing that those in power, even within the Democratic establishment, do not all share the same priorities as those demanding justice. Elected officials who seek only to restore an old order will not create a better one. Political engagement must be about more than elections; it must include direct action, sustained activism, and the willingness to disrupt the status quo.

Those who wish to preserve democracy must stop waiting for institutions to act on their behalf. They must demand more from their leaders, refuse to accept moderation in the face of extremism, and recognize that justice delayed is justice denied.

For those who believe in this fight, complacency is not an option. The stakes are too high, and history has already shown what happens when good people choose to wait.

If this piece resonated with you, consider supporting my work. Subscribe, share this article, or buy me a coffee because these conversations need to continue.