Democracy -> people who cannot be led even from incipient ruin?

[foolsguinea]

Is the imminent danger of our age the evolution of a populist society in which citizens cannot be led, even from their own ruin?

I’m going to back up in a direction that may be counter-intuitive, so bear with me.

As someone who tilts way to the left on economic issues, I have a tendency to look at right-wing radio personalities as bad leaders–but as leaders. I see them as akin to preachers or something. And I think this is a common way to see the other side.

“Oh, that Eugene Debs has you bewitched!”
“Oh, Rush has you bamboozled!”
“You just like Ann Coulter because she’s a hot chick who’s ruder and more of a right wing jerk than you are!”
“You worship Obama!”
etc.

But calling on talk radio to be better leaders may be missing the point.

Rush Limbaugh commands no divisions, and gives no marching orders–in a strict sense. Maybe not at all. He’s a propagandist. He can encourage, he can cajole, he can extol the virtues of his type and the horrors of left-wing feminists, but he’s not Big Brother forcing his way into your ear. Whoever controls the dial can turn him off.

Limbaugh, Hannity, & O’Reilly–and yes, Maddow, the Young Turks, and whomever the alternatives are–are not in charge. They may have followers, who choose to be led by them, until they choose not to be–just as a musical act or a likable preacher may have a lot of followers–really fans–but still lack the machinery to hold onto fans following a change in direction.

I know righties who like Rush Limbaugh but make a point of saying they’ve heard “both” sides, or “all” sides. (How few sides do we assume there are?) They’re making a choice. The listeners are choosing whom to believe.

Propagandists can influence, they can fearmonger, they can reassure, but they are not calling the shots. They also have a limitation: that one day the fans will turn the dial and shut them out. If they are preachers, they may be a little more Jim Bakker than Jim Jones.

What if this is the real problem? Not that a bad leader is miseducating his followers, but that the “leaders” on the right are part of a pattern of both manipulating and playing to those who take orders from no one?

It is a truism that Movement Conservative legislators, since the Ross Perot movement and the “Contract with America” in the 1990’s, fear losing their jobs if they stray from the party line. So they are not free to be swayed by debate or consequentialist argument, not if their masters find out. And they are accountable to their voters.

Who’s the leader there? Not the legislators, they’re followers.
Is it Grover Norquist? Can he order people how to vote? But he’s a propagandist too. What difference does it make what one ideologue thinks?

No, the power is in the people’s hands, in the hands of constituencies. A legislator secure in his job and with a free hand can be persuaded to raise taxes or regulate factory farms. A legislator who fears popular authority is running from those votes, if those would lose him his job. Perot taught us that Congressmen were arrogant, and needed to be kept in line, to serve the popular will. So we created a political climate where they would. A culture of term limits, pledges, promises, and primary challenges if one steps out of line.

The legislator–someone presumably in a position to hear debate and change direction if convinced it is for the good–is chased with sticks. The populace is uneducated and proud. It’s the “community organization” theory of government. Give the people what (they think) they want or get sacked.

Some on the right wing actively mock the left for being followers. We’re mocked for following our college professors, or Science, or whatever. The proud non-follower is proud of his non-adherence to what sees as leadership (and educated liberals might see as science, facts, and good advice).

But it isn’t just on the right, nor merely a failure of GOP politics. We have become a society that scoffs at authority. We have internalized the idea of “power to the people.” But the people are ignorant.

I hope I’m wrong about this next bit, and just repeating libelous claims by Occupy’s enemies, but: Occupy Wall Street was famously dysfunctional in trying to establish direction, due to a sincere attempt to democratically find a direction of popular will. At the extremes, there were those who were so enamored of the idea of direct democracy that they sneered at those who tried to work within established power structures to improve things. This is certainly not what 99% of the 99% wanted, but it was a reported dysfunction of the Occupy culture and structure.

We need to be led, which does not mean that we need not to lead–quite the opposite. Yes, we must become the change we are looking for; that does not mean we are already. We have to have the humility to change our beliefs in the face of reality, and the courage and self-respect to change the direction of our society.

But democracy breeds populism, and populism breeds the idea that the popular will is to be followed, however ignorant, incoherent, or destructive–and finally breeds a culture that cannot even use democratic institutions except to throw up a question to a poll and see what people’s preconceptions make of it. Is that too extreme, too simplistic? I hope so.

cervid Just read the post, crybaby.

[2sense]

I don’t think it’s that people as a whole can’t learn. Look at the Iraq War. It was really popular at first even though wiser heads said it would become a quagmire. Then it became a quagmire and it wasn’t popular any more. I don’t think that this is a basic issue with democracy but rather with our peculiar form of it here in the US. With the 2 party system it’s only A or B. So when A is discredited people can only turn to B. Later when B does unpopular things there is nowhere to turn but back to A. If we had a more robust democracy then A could be permanently damaged by their disgraceful actions. Right now reckless demagoguery is common. It carries no risk of ending a politician’s career.

[smiling_bandit]

@foolsguinea

Is the imminent danger of our age the evolution of a populist society in which citizens cannot be led, even from their own ruin?

Americans could never be led. Not ever. You have to inspire them. There’s a difference; from the beginning, Americans were citizens first, even farmers, lawyers, soldiers, or Senators second. They could sometimes be harassed or cajoled, but they could never be led.

Some on the right wing actively mock the left for being followers. We’re mocked for following our college professors, or Science, or whatever. The proud non-follower is proud of his non-adherence to what sees as leadership (and educated liberals might see as science, facts, and good advice).

And before today I thought that was silly…

I hope I’m wrong about this next bit, and just repeating libelous claims by Occupy’s enemies, but: Occupy Wall Street was famously dysfunctional in trying to establish direction, due to a sincere attempt to democratically find a direction of popular will. At the extremes, there were those who were so enamored of the idea of direct democracy that they sneered at those who tried to work within established power structures to improve things. This is certainly not what 99% of the 99% wanted, but it was a reported dysfunction of the Occupy culture and structure.

Amazingly, there was no 99%, which is what they discovered. There is, at best or worst, a few thousand fractions which must be appealed to and persuaded. You had, and have, merely the illusion of a group. There was never a group without many individuals.

And the hideous irony is that I’m the Consverative Baby-Eating Fascist telling you this. Hell, I’m the guy who believes in absolute religious authority and that there is One True Faith, who has doubts about democracy and thinks that Senators should definitely be chosen by state legislatures. But I never deceive myself into thinking that there was ever even one time in which even the most slender majority had real commonality of interest or opinion.

We forge groups, even majorities, from elements so disparate and distinct that the sheer array and profusion of color blinds us. We go along out of respect, decency, and the greater ties of interest, not because we have any immediate agreement.

We need to be led, which does not mean that we need not to lead–quite the opposite. Yes, we must become the change we are looking for; that does not mean we are already. We have to have the humility to change our beliefs in the face of reality, and the courage and self-respect to change the direction of our society.

And then Rage will become your Master, right?

But democracy breeds populism, and populism breeds the idea that the popular will is to be followed, however ignorant, incoherent, or destructive–and finally breeds a culture that cannot even use democratic institutions except to throw up a question to a poll and see what people’s preconceptions make of it. Is that too extreme, too simplistic? I hope so.

Ah.

Let me guess - all we have to do is blindly follow your ideas, right? Because you’re so smart that you clearly demonstrate yur incredible brilliance. And let me take a wild, wild gess - you plan to toe the Progressive line and hate all conservatives, eh?

Y’know, at least Thomas Friedman is an entertaining fascist when he rants about how we should chuck the Constitution into the dustbin of history and follow the example fo the Chinese.

[John_Mace]

@smiling_bandit

Y’know, at least Thomas Friedman is an entertaining fascist when he rants about how we should chuck the Constitution into the dustbin of history and follow the example fo the Chinese.

I’d be very interested in seeing the quote from Friedman that you are referring to with that “paraphrase”, if that term can be used to characterize what you posted.

@OP

We need to be led, which does not mean that we need not to lead–quite the opposite. Yes, we must become the change we are looking for; that does not mean we are already. We have to have the humility to change our beliefs in the face of reality, and the courage and self-respect to change the direction of our society.

Huh? I understand the individual words, but when strung together like that… I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.

But democracy breeds populism, and populism breeds the idea that the popular will is to be followed, however ignorant, incoherent, or destructive–and finally breeds a culture that cannot even use democratic institutions except to throw up a question to a poll and see what people’s preconceptions make of it. Is that too extreme, too simplistic? I hope so.

Well, to certain extent democracy is populism. Which is one of the main reasons why we have a constitutional democracy. Perhaps you think we need more teeth in the constitution?

[smiling_bandit]

@John_Mace

I’d be very interested in seeing the quote from Friedman that you are referring to with that “paraphrase”, if that term can be used to characterize what you posted.

I was being facetious. Although he does have a bootlicking adoration for Chinese autocracy.

[Human_Action]

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. The only way around that is authoritarianism, which introduces new problems that are far worse than populism.

Unsatisfying as it may be, the only solution is for people to improve themselves, seek education, learn from the past, and try to make tomorrow better than today.

[foolsguinea]

I don’t really know what smiling bandit is going on about. Rage? What? Never mind.
_

As for the only solution being people improving themselves and learning from the past, well, yes. That’s the point. But what scares me is if we hand power to those who refuse to learn from both past and present.

I’m thinking of climate change here, and to a degree various politically popular ideas like supply-side economics that end up less helpful in practice. Some people persist in insisting not only that tax cuts will reliably grow the economy (not reliably true, though some argue that deficit spending does), but that only tax cuts will grow the economy (historically falsified), and that this is so important that it trumps all governmental functions other than war and law enforcement (or something) (and this is obvious nonsense).

If we say that other people need to educate themselves so they stop repeating the lessons of history, but we’ll let the present political order reward them with power even as they remain stubbornly deluded; then are we failing to learn the lessons of history? One of which is this: People are often stubborn fools, they are even more often ignorant enough to be unprepared to make good decisions, and we must be wary of any system that puts demagoguery above science, as the present political culture across the USA does.
_

On reflection, maybe my central thesis is wrong. To teach is to lead. So we’re back to, “Teachers are judged more harshly,” like the apostle said.

But I’m still worried about a world power answerable to a nation of opinionated individualists–who don’t think they’re being led, and will turn to opposition and defiance when you try to tell them they are mistaken about things.

[Bryan_Ekers]

O, won’t somebody save democracy from the people?!

[Human_Action]

@foolsguinea

As for the only solution being people improving themselves and learning from the past, well, yes. That’s the point. But what scares me is if we hand power to those who refuse to learn from both past and present.

In America, our past is littered with political ideas that were found wanting, and abandoned: eugenics; wage and price controls; isolationism; mercantilism; scientific racism; non-secret ballots; voting rights being conditional on property, gender, or race; and exclusion of Chinese immigrants, to name a few. Clearly, we do learn from the past, though not always at the speed one would like.

@foolsguinea

But I’m still worried about a world power answerable to a nation of opinionated individualists–who don’t think they’re being led, and will turn to opposition and defiance when you try to tell them they are mistaken about things.

I’m far more worried about a world power that is NOT answerable to its individuals, opinionated or otherwise.

[John_Mace]

Democracy would be great if it weren’t for all those damn people!

[smiling_bandit]

@foolsguinea

I don’t really know what smiling bandit is going on about. Rage? What? Never mind.

It’s a quote form the movie Mystery Men. Since you didn’t bother to think about what it might mean, I’ll lay it out for you.

You are substituting trite slogans for methodical thought, under the pretense that you’re saying something profound. In reality, you’re just arguing for a pitiful aristocracy of sneering, snobbish weaklings.

As for the only solution being people improving themselves and learning from the past, well, yes. That’s the point. But what scares me is if we hand power to those who refuse to learn from both past and present.

Yeah, it’s amazing how somehow your political enemies are always blinkered idiots who completely refuse to learn from the obvious, obvious lessons “the past” teaches. Amazing, I tell you.

I’m thinking of climate change here, and to a degree various politically popular ideas like supply-side economics that end up less helpful in practice. Some people persist in insisting not only that tax cuts will reliably grow the economy (not reliably true, though some argue that deficit spending does), but that only tax cuts will grow the economy (historically falsified), and that this is so important that it trumps all governmental functions other than war and law enforcement (or something) (and this is obvious nonsense).

Your facts are the topic which is in doubt. Sure, The TRUTH may be obvious to you. Annd an awful lot of very smart people think otherwise. I can point out several significant problems with each fo the above. And frankly, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that you have the slightest expertise in any of the above areas, so I wouldn’t act so judgemental.

If we say that other people need to educate themselves so they stop repeating the lessons of history, but we’ll let the present political order reward them with power even as they remain stubbornly deluded; then are we failing to learn the lessons of history? One of which is this: People are often stubborn fools, they are even more often ignorant enough to be unprepared to make good decisions, and we must be wary of any system that puts demagoguery above science, as the present political culture across the USA does.

Ah, so anyone who disagreees with your obvious, obvious conclusions are “stubborn fools” who must be prevented from holding political power. You may as well have just said so outright. It’s amazing how totally and completely wrong your enemies are, huh? Why, they can hardly be said to be human because it’s so obvious that everything they say and do is so utterly wrongheaded. Nobody could even possibly support them without being a complete imbicile!

But I’m still worried about a world power answerable to a nation of opinionated individualists–who don’t think they’re being led, and will turn to opposition and defiance when you try to tell them they are mistaken about things.

Given the incredible level of factual command, evidentiary support, and genius-level logic on display here, you have definitely convinced me there are definitely some people who must absolutely be kept from political power.

In short, you have:
(A) Made no coherent argument,
(B) Relied on knock-off politicized Koans, and
(C) Said that you don’t want your political opponents to have power.

Holy bejeezuz, stop the presses! We’ve got to get this message out NOW!

[Buck_Godot]

I think there are two sets of forces in play on the right (and to some extent on the left as well).

On the one hand you have the echo chamber. People like to have their beliefs validated, even if those beliefs are ignorant. Rush Limbaugh is just giving his ditto heads what they want. Raw emotion of anger at the world, blame of others for the problems, and smugness that they are one of the few who are on the right path, regardless of the true state of the world. These are the people who would prefer to go to a doctor who tells them their health is fine they can eat what they want and not bother to exercise, rather than one that tells them the need to cut down on fats and hit the tread mill every day.

However, there is also a propagandist aspect that needs to be taken into account. Those with wealth and power are willing to spend a great deal to maintain tat wealth and power. This is where you get the oil interests financing global warming deniers and protests against raising taxes on the sadly beleaguered billionaire “job creators”.

Our democracy is one where each dollar has an equal vote. The middle class as the drivers of consumerism have a great influence on the advertisers and so on the voices out there, but the wealthy have an relative outsize role.

[Shodan]

A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad gleam of enthusiasm had come back into O’Brien’s face. He knew in advance what O’Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. The terrible thing, thought Winston, the terrible thing was that when O’Brien said this he would believe it. You could see it in his face. O’Brien knew everything. A thousand times better than Winston he knew what the world was really like, in what degradation the mass of human beings lived and by what lies and barbarities the Party kept them there. He had understood it all, weighed it all, and it made no difference: all was justified by the ultimate purpose. What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?

‘You are ruling over us for our own good,’ he said feebly. ‘You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --’

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O’Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

‘That was stupid, Winston, stupid!’ he said. ‘You should know better than to say a thing like that.’

He pulled the lever back and continued:

'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

At least that’s a variation on your trademark “We have always been at war with Eastasia” posts.

[fumster]

I think the problem is that we are delaying natural consequences. As long as the blue states subsidize the red states, conservatives are not having to live with the results of their policies.

It happens on all fronts. The obvious one being that more money pours into conservative states than comes out, but there are also more subtle ones. The gay children of conservatives just move to the coast where they can live productive lives free from harassment while their parents in Dogpatchville go to church and talk about their son who “never found the right girl”. Conservatives can rant and rave about prohibiting abortion knowing that it is still safe and legal in case their little girl gets knocked up. States can underfund their education systems and then use tax breaks to attract companies that were started in areas of the country that had the foresight to place a value in top notch universities. Parents can lament the fact that “we removed God from the classroom” without the worry that their Mormon children will be proselytized by Baptist teachers who want to convert them to proper Christians. Tea Partiers can demand that the government keep their hands out of healthcare secure in the knowledge that Medicare provides them with affordable coverage. If we would let Florida pay for it’s own hurricane recovery, or Louisiana pay for it’s own levees, or Arizona live without the spending from all the retirees on Social Security maybe they would shut the fuck up for a moment.

[foolsguinea]

Shodan has hit it on the head. Democracy seeks power for its own sake, consequences be damned. No inner party necessary. People will jealously cling to whatever sense of autonomy they have, no matter how dysfunctional, miserable, and incompetent they are.

Libertarianism, populism, democracy–all are theories of authority, as irrelevant to a consequentialist theory of the good as their sister, the Divine Right of Kings. They are forms of authoritarianism, just as much as the forms they denounce, just more diffuse and ineducable.

Power is its own end. Freedom is its own end. Democracy its own highest good. All the way to Hell.

[foolsguinea]

smiling bandit, I don’t know where you live, but I’ve seen the effects of global warming with my own eyes. It is real, it is serious, and it will wipe out the North American breadbasket.

A peaceful, libertarian, pro-business conservatism can’t save us from that.

[septimus]

Even without false propaganda, etc., a fundamental problem is that Nash equilibria are often very inferior to an “altruistic” optimum. This is true with democratic decision making, and true of free-market decisioning.

I think benevolent dictatorships are underrated! Hongkong, Singapore, China, and (decades ago) South Korea are all examples of countries making good progress under dictatorships. (Yes, I realize benevolence isn’t guaranteed. :dubious: )

[Human_Action]

@foolsguinea

Shodan has hit it on the head. Democracy seeks power for its own sake, consequences be damned. No inner party necessary. People will jealously cling to whatever sense of autonomy they have, no matter how dysfunctional, miserable, and incompetent they are.

Libertarianism, populism, democracy–all are theories of authority, as irrelevant to a consequentialist theory of the good as their sister, the Divine Right of Kings. They are forms of authoritarianism, just as much as the forms they denounce, just more diffuse and ineducable.

Power is its own end. Freedom is its own end. Democracy its own highest good. All the way to Hell.

@foolsguinea

smiling bandit, I don’t know where you live, but I’ve seen the effects of global warming with my own eyes. It is real, it is serious, and it will wipe out the North American breadbasket.

A peaceful, libertarian, pro-business conservatism can’t save us from that.

So, your actual thesis is: All systems of government are authoritarian, and global warming is a threat, and thus a leftist dictatorship is justified.

Does that sum it up?

@septimus

Even without false propaganda, etc., a fundamental problem is that Nash equilibria are often very inferior to an “altruistic” optimum. This is true with democratic decision making, and true of free-market decisioning.

I think benevolent dictatorships are underrated! Hongkong, Singapore, China, and (decades ago) South Korea are all examples of countries making good progress under dictatorships. (Yes, I realize benevolence isn’t guaranteed. :dubious:)

Who gets to decide what’s optimum?

You are welcome to live under a dictatorship, you have plenty to choose from.

@fumster

  I think the problem is that we are delaying natural consequences. As long as the blue states subsidize the red states, conservatives are not having to live with the results of their policies.

It happens on all fronts. The obvious one being that more money pours into conservative states than comes out, but there are also more subtle ones. The gay children of conservatives just move to the coast where they can live productive lives free from harassment while their parents in Dogpatchville go to church and talk about their son who “never found the right girl”. Conservatives can rant and rave about prohibiting abortion knowing that it is still safe and legal in case their little girl gets knocked up. States can underfund their education systems and then use tax breaks to attract companies that were started in areas of the country that had the foresight to place a value in top notch universities. Parents can lament the fact that “we removed God from the classroom” without the worry that their Mormon children will be proselytized by Baptist teachers who want to convert them to proper Christians. Tea Partiers can demand that the government keep their hands out of healthcare secure in the knowledge that Medicare provides them with affordable coverage. If we would let Florida pay for it’s own hurricane recovery, or Louisiana pay for it’s own levees, or Arizona live without the spending from all the retirees on Social Security maybe they would shut the fuck up for a moment.

Shocking, the problem is other people’s contrary opinions. Bring on the dictatorship, that’ll get this country back on track!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@foolsguinea

smiling bandit, I don’t know where you live, but I’ve seen the effects of global warming with my own eyes. It is real, it is serious, and it will wipe out the North American breadbasket.

A peaceful, libertarian, pro-business conservatism can’t save us from that.

Of course it can; why else are you posting that, unless you believe that bringing stuff to someone’s attention can be convincing?

You mention things you’ve seen with your own eyes, and point out that something is real and serious and will wipe out the breadbasket; this makes perfect sense if you believe others can learn what you did and respond accordingly likewise, but why bother if you think information can’t win out and only force can carry the day?