Sufficientia legis Christi
We live in an increasingly divided country where both sides perpetually attack each other as dictatorial while presenting themselves as defending democracy. While I freely agree that, for the last several years, the rise of the MAGA Republican has been the greater threat, the remainder of the problem lies in a question of definitions and priorities that dates back far beyond the beginning of the American republic.
Both sides use the terms "freedom" and "democracy" without carefully defining them, obscuring that they refer to concepts that are interdependent in practice but different in nature. Simultaneously they both evade discussing "sovereignty," and the Republicans avoid talking about "equality" unless cornered. The reason is simple: their priorities among the concept cluster differ greatly.
Of the two, the Republican order of priorities is older; it was mostly hashed out in conflicts between the Radical Reformation and its monarchist and priestly enemies, some of them dating back as far as the 14th century. Certain aspects, however, are the result of actual experience in the imperfect democracy of the 19th-century United States. The last major change was a turn away from pacifism at the American entry to World War II. Republicans frequently talk about American sovereignty, but generally consider dictatorships to be intrinsically illegitimate.
Economic Liberty
Democracy
Sovereignty
Equality
Bodily Autonomy (possibly much further down in a more inclusive list)
The Democratic set of priorities began to emerge during the late Reformation, though it has been much more frequently updated due to its continued emphasis on progress. It made early compromises with both monarchy and high-church Protestantism, and its modern form still tolerates or even encourages a powerful central government. It also associates certain generic personal liberties such as travel and recreation with bodily autonomy rather than economic liberty, where Republicans do the opposite.
Bodily Autonomy
Equality
Sovereignty
Democracy
Economic Liberty
Before modern democracy, before the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, or even Luther's Reformation, a man named John Wycliffe produced the first vernacular translation of the Bible. Wycliffe and the people who gathered around him became convinced that the hierarchial priesthood had fallen into serious error and wanted to divest the church of all its property. Naturally, the Pope did not care for this idea, nor for Wycliffe's subsequent denial of transsubstantiation.
The preachers Wycliffe sent out did not limit themselves to denouncing the wealth of the church; they also attacked the wealth of the aristocracy, helping to trigger the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Before long, various proto-Protestant groups such as the Lollards and Hussites began to spread through Europe, carrying the doctrine "sufficientia legis Christi": the Law of Christ is sufficient. This teaching was simultaneously anarchist and what we would today call fundamentalist. On the secular side, it rejected government almost entirely, though most groups eventually tried to institute some level of local council. On the religious side, it rejected the hierarchial priesthood and set forth the Bible as the only necessary rule of faith.
The town councils produced by the Radical Reformation were undoubtedly flawed, which should not be a surprise: they were prototypes. They lacked powers no modern government could survive without; at the same time they were loosely theocratic despite their rejection of the formal priesthood. Nonetheless they were the first democratic experiment in Christian Western Europe, preceded only by the Scandinavian Things.
Such a doctrine as "sufficientia legis Christi" could not go long without challenge. Sigismund of Bohemia received permission from Pope Martin to launch a crusade against the Hussites. Although the Hussites survived, the Hussite Wars marked the beginning of severe hostility to democracy in Europe, and the more radical factions were forced underground.
Because the more radical varieties of Hussite were anarcho-socialist, they are frequently claimed by Leftist factions today. While they are not wrong, they fail to recognize the indistinguishability of socialism from libertarianism when the rich receive their income from taxation.
One remaining point to be considered: for understandable reasons, many advocates of democracy today think of it as demanding increased public participation in government. These early practitioners, however, wanted something quite different: less interference from government. Occasional participation in government affairs was a necessary evil, but the goal was to be left alone.