The Mendacities of Democracy
A commenter to the previous entry here pointed to a rather sophisticated blog that (with a large dollop of irony) suggested that the Foley scandal was an act of God. The theory embedded in that facetious suggestion was that the American people are so busy working and watching The Simpsons they have no time to get themselves informed about political matters. Because God has made us addicted to work and trivia we need something like a soap opera to get our attention, hence God, recognizing the flaw he designed into us, has intervened on our behalf. By exposing Congressman Foley’s flirtations, God sent us a wake-up call.
Now I will confess that the previous blog was written more in anger than by thought, but now that I have asked myself the important question, “Who were you pissed-off at, Frankie?” I see that, even when driven by emotion, the Mouse gets closer to the truth than “sophisticated bloggers” do when they think. I was angry at the so-called religious right, flabbergasted that they needed a bit of salacious trivia to call their attention to the political debauchery of the current administration. I suppose Glenn Greenwald, the “sophisticated blogger,” was making the same point, but he never comes right out and says where the fault lies. He never admits that the fault lies in the existential fact – recognized by Plato and James Madison – that pure democracy has a deadly flaw built into it: the (presumed) stupidity of the masses. It was in recognition of that fact that the Founding Fathers labored to form a government sheltered from the direct control of the people. They founded a republic, not a democracy. Laws were not to be enacted by the people, but by respected men who were presumably of nobler character and, thus, less likely to be swayed by selfish concerns.
In theory, that idea works. Even Madison’s opponents in the Constitution Convention of 1787 agreed with him that direct rule by the people would be folly. No subject so completely commanded the attention of the convention as that one: how to assure that the best among us would be elected. The Fathers finally concluded that, while risks would still exist – not all noble men are as noble as they seem – they were far less than would be the case in a pure democracy.
One of the risks given short shrift in 1787 has become a major problem in the 21st century. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, the authors of The Federalist Papers, acknowledged that the people’s elected representatives in the Senate – particularly the representatives of the smaller states – might form alliances among themselves and thus create circumstances in which the minority would rule the majority. They saw this danger, likened it to the power then held by the British House of Lords, and decided. nevertheless, to accept the risk as the lesser of two evils. But none of the Founders could possibly have foreseen the emergence – crossing all the branches of government, even the judiciary – of the great alliances we know as political parties. Nor could they have foreseen the technological advances that would permit the parties to communicate their ideas almost directly into the minds of the people, nor the extent to which the means of communication would become, as it were, a tool in the hands of the parties, a tool they would use to shape the people’s thinking. The problem has become, not that a minority of the people might rule, but that the majority might be conditioned to accept bad rule as good.
A more optimistic Mouse might acknowledge these three facts – political parties, better communications, and the ignorance of the masses – and yet see in them the possibility that the first two could be the salvation of the last. But for that to happen the political parties must be presumed to have the education of the masses as their objective, and that is not the case. The parties seek to have the people adopt the parties’ objectives of their own. They do not wish to make the people think; they wish to make them believe.
From this observation much philosophical meander might follow, but perhaps one or two simpler illustrations might stand-in for a better and boring analysis. (It’s too early for a nap.) Take the words “Democrat” and “Republican.” If a candidate running as a Democrat can make the voters believe that all people deserve, by natural right, to have a college education, a good job, and the best health care money can buy (appealing ideas), and if these ideas can be instilled as the hard rock truth, then the word “democrat” may be made to seem a synonym for education, full employment, and good health. To achieve this desirable form of vocabulary, the Democratic politician would never speak of these halcyon benefits as things that must be paid for, but as things that are “yours by natural right, and anyone who would deny them to you is an enemy of the people.” The Republican, on the other hand, might speak of fiscal responsibility, or the right to life, or the death tax, and would do what he could to make his opponents seem spendthrifts, abortionists, and “tax-and-spenders.” Neither, if they were masters of the game, would ever make the mistake of presenting both sides of any of these issues. They would draw the world in two colors, black and white, and condemn as ninnies anyone who would see it differently. If I may be permitted one tiny excursion into philosophical thought, they would try to create a set of axioms from which the only logical conclusions make them seem like angels and their opponents like devils.
In a word, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a world in which major alliances of elected officials would adopt as a means to their ends, making the ignorant masses even more ignorant. They could not have imagined that whole industries would emerge whose only product would be the shaping of human minds. They could not have imagined the nation as it has become.
Oh, we hear it said everyday that “the country is going to hell in a hand basket,” but the phrase always comes in the context of “it’s them that are carrying the basket, so trust us!!” We never hear it said that the problem lies exactly where Plato and Madison always knew it was, in the people, the ignorant people who can be bamboozled into swallowing the murder of a hundred thousand, while choking on the mote of a single perverted Congressman. True, as Greenwald suggests, the mote has forced the people to wake up a bit to the frauds and deceits of the current administration, but I wonder if anything will ever convince the people to lay the blame for their blindness where it belongs, squarely on themselves.
Yeah, sure, let’s say it’s a fact that the people all have to work and have to entertain themselves. But let’s also say it’s a fact that, in saying that, we have identified the fundamental problem of our nation. The belief that we lack the time to know the truth may work very well as an excuse, but it cannot justify our ignorance. In fact, nothing can, not even Plato’s wisdom or Madison’s fears. We may have needed God’s intervention to wake us up, but we are not by our nature – those two worthies notwithstanding – essentially uneducable. We have simply misaligned our priorities. You see, there’s always time to do what we want to do. We just, so far, have not wanted to take responsibility for the condition of the world. We have chosen to be entertained rather than to be informed, and to be informed rather than to question what we are told. And I seriously doubt that God's wakeup call will change that. The writers of The Simpsons are just too good at doing what they do. (Shit. I bet they think of themselves as part of the solution.)
Now I will confess that the previous blog was written more in anger than by thought, but now that I have asked myself the important question, “Who were you pissed-off at, Frankie?” I see that, even when driven by emotion, the Mouse gets closer to the truth than “sophisticated bloggers” do when they think. I was angry at the so-called religious right, flabbergasted that they needed a bit of salacious trivia to call their attention to the political debauchery of the current administration. I suppose Glenn Greenwald, the “sophisticated blogger,” was making the same point, but he never comes right out and says where the fault lies. He never admits that the fault lies in the existential fact – recognized by Plato and James Madison – that pure democracy has a deadly flaw built into it: the (presumed) stupidity of the masses. It was in recognition of that fact that the Founding Fathers labored to form a government sheltered from the direct control of the people. They founded a republic, not a democracy. Laws were not to be enacted by the people, but by respected men who were presumably of nobler character and, thus, less likely to be swayed by selfish concerns.
In theory, that idea works. Even Madison’s opponents in the Constitution Convention of 1787 agreed with him that direct rule by the people would be folly. No subject so completely commanded the attention of the convention as that one: how to assure that the best among us would be elected. The Fathers finally concluded that, while risks would still exist – not all noble men are as noble as they seem – they were far less than would be the case in a pure democracy.
One of the risks given short shrift in 1787 has become a major problem in the 21st century. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, the authors of The Federalist Papers, acknowledged that the people’s elected representatives in the Senate – particularly the representatives of the smaller states – might form alliances among themselves and thus create circumstances in which the minority would rule the majority. They saw this danger, likened it to the power then held by the British House of Lords, and decided. nevertheless, to accept the risk as the lesser of two evils. But none of the Founders could possibly have foreseen the emergence – crossing all the branches of government, even the judiciary – of the great alliances we know as political parties. Nor could they have foreseen the technological advances that would permit the parties to communicate their ideas almost directly into the minds of the people, nor the extent to which the means of communication would become, as it were, a tool in the hands of the parties, a tool they would use to shape the people’s thinking. The problem has become, not that a minority of the people might rule, but that the majority might be conditioned to accept bad rule as good.
A more optimistic Mouse might acknowledge these three facts – political parties, better communications, and the ignorance of the masses – and yet see in them the possibility that the first two could be the salvation of the last. But for that to happen the political parties must be presumed to have the education of the masses as their objective, and that is not the case. The parties seek to have the people adopt the parties’ objectives of their own. They do not wish to make the people think; they wish to make them believe.
From this observation much philosophical meander might follow, but perhaps one or two simpler illustrations might stand-in for a better and boring analysis. (It’s too early for a nap.) Take the words “Democrat” and “Republican.” If a candidate running as a Democrat can make the voters believe that all people deserve, by natural right, to have a college education, a good job, and the best health care money can buy (appealing ideas), and if these ideas can be instilled as the hard rock truth, then the word “democrat” may be made to seem a synonym for education, full employment, and good health. To achieve this desirable form of vocabulary, the Democratic politician would never speak of these halcyon benefits as things that must be paid for, but as things that are “yours by natural right, and anyone who would deny them to you is an enemy of the people.” The Republican, on the other hand, might speak of fiscal responsibility, or the right to life, or the death tax, and would do what he could to make his opponents seem spendthrifts, abortionists, and “tax-and-spenders.” Neither, if they were masters of the game, would ever make the mistake of presenting both sides of any of these issues. They would draw the world in two colors, black and white, and condemn as ninnies anyone who would see it differently. If I may be permitted one tiny excursion into philosophical thought, they would try to create a set of axioms from which the only logical conclusions make them seem like angels and their opponents like devils.
In a word, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a world in which major alliances of elected officials would adopt as a means to their ends, making the ignorant masses even more ignorant. They could not have imagined that whole industries would emerge whose only product would be the shaping of human minds. They could not have imagined the nation as it has become.
Oh, we hear it said everyday that “the country is going to hell in a hand basket,” but the phrase always comes in the context of “it’s them that are carrying the basket, so trust us!!” We never hear it said that the problem lies exactly where Plato and Madison always knew it was, in the people, the ignorant people who can be bamboozled into swallowing the murder of a hundred thousand, while choking on the mote of a single perverted Congressman. True, as Greenwald suggests, the mote has forced the people to wake up a bit to the frauds and deceits of the current administration, but I wonder if anything will ever convince the people to lay the blame for their blindness where it belongs, squarely on themselves.
Yeah, sure, let’s say it’s a fact that the people all have to work and have to entertain themselves. But let’s also say it’s a fact that, in saying that, we have identified the fundamental problem of our nation. The belief that we lack the time to know the truth may work very well as an excuse, but it cannot justify our ignorance. In fact, nothing can, not even Plato’s wisdom or Madison’s fears. We may have needed God’s intervention to wake us up, but we are not by our nature – those two worthies notwithstanding – essentially uneducable. We have simply misaligned our priorities. You see, there’s always time to do what we want to do. We just, so far, have not wanted to take responsibility for the condition of the world. We have chosen to be entertained rather than to be informed, and to be informed rather than to question what we are told. And I seriously doubt that God's wakeup call will change that. The writers of The Simpsons are just too good at doing what they do. (Shit. I bet they think of themselves as part of the solution.)
posted by Benedict S. at 11:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home