Two Cheers For Democracy
I'm often amazed at the belief that many of my otherwise intelligent, rational university colleagues have in democracy. For reasons I've yet to grasp, these people -- who not only make up the educated elite of our society but who also, generally speaking, have had precious little contact with the masses and the realities of the day-to-day world of the worker -- hold tightly to a romanticized view of the "common person". Some have a genuine affection for collectivist / Marxist thought, but many are much less ideological, "mainstream" left-of-center folks who just automatically accept that labor and the poor are somehow both worthy of our attention and resources. They appear to view democracy as an equalizer and even an agent of justice, and they appear to view themselves as the keepers and protectors of the masses (at least as long as the masses support to their particular issues). When the masses oppose evolution, gay marriage, sex education, or the welfare state, then they're just ignorant, reactionary peckerwoods -- but as long as it's a good collectivist, green, pro-union, anti-capitalist cause the masses support, it's Vox populi, Vox dei.
Personally, I give democracy two cheers. It's a better way of doing things than authoritarian rule (be it secular or religious), but without something to contain it it's hardly all that it's cracked up to be. Many authoritarian rulers have been "democratically" elected (i.e. Adolf Hitler, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hosni Mubarek), but I can't think of any offhand who have been consistent respecters of the rule of law, property rights or individual rights (including everything that goes with "human" rights). Democracy can go as wrong as any other system. That's why the founders of this nation established a constitutional republic with an independent judiciary, ample protection for private property, a well-defined and limited role for government, and appropriate guarantees of the rights of individual citizens (especially Amendments IX and X).
The inherent flaw in democracy is basic: objective truth cannot be determined by opinion. To give a simple example, the earth is not flat and it is not the center of the universe. The fact that the Catholic Church believed otherwise for centuries did not make it true, despite the fact that they were willing to go to extremes to protect their belief. Correspondingly, the fact that a majority of people believe anything and are willing to empower politicians to enact their will does not necessarily make it a good idea.
This is not to say, however, that I don't understand why politicians and other power-craving types love democracy. If I control the public education system and the media, I can mold the masses to salivate virtually on command. Each time the masses are riled up enough to take to the voting booths and "solve" some problem (real or imagined), the real winners are those in power. Each additional power granted to government expands the domain of the politicians and bureaucrats. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but once a governmental agency is established, funded, and empowered -- it seldom if ever goes away.
Just for fun, consider this short list of democratically enacted pieces of brilliance that have failed (for any number of reasons) to live up to their hype:
In each case, the rush to "do something" outweighed and overshadowed everything from debate to reason to constructive criticism. But it felt SO good at the time ....
Bottom line: Democracy, without some serious checks and balances, is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. When politicians get hold of it, it quickly morphs into mob rule, and may the deity of your choice help you should you find yourself on the wrong side of the mob. The masses are far more dangerous than they are wise, and politicians and their ilk know how to manipulate the masses. This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of a strictly limited government that protects the rights of the individual against the will of the mob. We actually had one of these once -- until "the people" began democratically voting it out of existence.
Personally, I give democracy two cheers. It's a better way of doing things than authoritarian rule (be it secular or religious), but without something to contain it it's hardly all that it's cracked up to be. Many authoritarian rulers have been "democratically" elected (i.e. Adolf Hitler, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hosni Mubarek), but I can't think of any offhand who have been consistent respecters of the rule of law, property rights or individual rights (including everything that goes with "human" rights). Democracy can go as wrong as any other system. That's why the founders of this nation established a constitutional republic with an independent judiciary, ample protection for private property, a well-defined and limited role for government, and appropriate guarantees of the rights of individual citizens (especially Amendments IX and X).
The inherent flaw in democracy is basic: objective truth cannot be determined by opinion. To give a simple example, the earth is not flat and it is not the center of the universe. The fact that the Catholic Church believed otherwise for centuries did not make it true, despite the fact that they were willing to go to extremes to protect their belief. Correspondingly, the fact that a majority of people believe anything and are willing to empower politicians to enact their will does not necessarily make it a good idea.
This is not to say, however, that I don't understand why politicians and other power-craving types love democracy. If I control the public education system and the media, I can mold the masses to salivate virtually on command. Each time the masses are riled up enough to take to the voting booths and "solve" some problem (real or imagined), the real winners are those in power. Each additional power granted to government expands the domain of the politicians and bureaucrats. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but once a governmental agency is established, funded, and empowered -- it seldom if ever goes away.
Just for fun, consider this short list of democratically enacted pieces of brilliance that have failed (for any number of reasons) to live up to their hype:
- Poverty can be eliminated by spending lots of money on it
- The War on Drugs will solve our drug-related problems
- Bussing will promote racial equality in education
- Alcohol prohibition will usher in a new golden age
- Sending US dollars and troops abroad to intervene in foreign conflicts will promote world peace and stability
- Standardized testing will insure quality education
- Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman
In each case, the rush to "do something" outweighed and overshadowed everything from debate to reason to constructive criticism. But it felt SO good at the time ....
Bottom line: Democracy, without some serious checks and balances, is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. When politicians get hold of it, it quickly morphs into mob rule, and may the deity of your choice help you should you find yourself on the wrong side of the mob. The masses are far more dangerous than they are wise, and politicians and their ilk know how to manipulate the masses. This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of a strictly limited government that protects the rights of the individual against the will of the mob. We actually had one of these once -- until "the people" began democratically voting it out of existence.
posted by DrJDG @ 23:55
0 comments
