Do Americans Believe in the Wisdom of the Public?

I enjoyed reading this lively analysis.

The humanist writer and thinker Erich Fromm came to similar conclusions. Thus he began in his Credo (1965): "...the unity of man as opposed to other living things derives from the fact that man is the conscious life of himself. Man is conscious of himself, of his future, which is death, of his smallness, of his impotence; he is aware of others as others; man is in nature, subject to its laws even if he transcends it with his thought."

Others might care to explore more at http://www.erich-fromm.de/e/index.htm




 

Hi Glenn,

Whether to entrust decisions to the citizens is an issue as old as democracy. Aristotle analyzed this issue in his POLITICS. He concluded that a virtuous state must be ruled by "reason," that is: logic applied to facts in evidence. He proposed that a state could be virtuous under a reasonable despot, a reasonable aristocracy, a reasonable legislature, or a reasonable democracy. The key was not the form of government, but rather the quality of its reasoning, how soundly its policies were based on logical analysis of facts in evidence.

Given that basis, Aristotle concluded that democracy was both the most promising and the most dangerous form of government. Democracy was most promising because its processes - civic debate on the challenges they faced - made it more likely that all citizens would support the decisions reached, because they had participated in the decision-making process. Democracy answers "the deepest longing of the human soul: to be heard."

But Aristotle also warned that democracy was also the form most vulnerable to rule by "passion," rather than "reason." A demagogue could appeal to emotions - fear of a perceived enemy and/or hope for an idealistic utopia - and drown out the voices of reason. Democracy placed a heavy duty on individual citizens to set aside passions and instead rely on reason.

If the citizens met that duty, democracy was government most virtuous. If they did not, it was government most vile: poorly-reasoned policies, propelled by impassioned citizens, brushing aside structural resistance.

Both the USA PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War exemplify the danger of democracy. The USA PATRIOT ACT was driven by the passions of fear. The Iraq War was driven by the passions of hope: an idealistic vision of a "liberated" Middle East, "transformed by democracy," a vision seeded by images of Afghani women shedding their burkahs.

Bill Clinton famously said, in 2004, that if one candidate appeals to fear while another appeals to hope, you should choose the candidate of hope. Aristotle wrote that, for democracy to be virtuous, you must reject both and choose the candidate who appeals to reason.

In short, Glenn, whether to trust "the wisdom of the people" depends on whether the people are taught and encouraged to make wise decisions based in reason rather than passion.

Crissie

These are two of an uncounted number of thoughts I was left with after reading Glenn's article. It seems to me there is something inherent in the "free enterprise system" that consolidates wealth and power, and promotes an elitist form of democracy. It also seems that a populance which can analyze and comprehend the repressive and restrictive nature of such a system is less vulnerable to manipulation and control by elitist propagandists. In light of these thoughts, George Lakoff's writings and Rockridge Institute become extremely important.

Glenn, I just finished your article, and was deeply impressed with the clarity of your thoughts and the relevance of what you discussed not only to voters, but to all Americans. Every day I read the news, I am confronted by the power of the Neoconservative propaganda machinery. Your comments give hope for change, and a hint at what can be done.

In the beginning of your article, you suggest that elite control of public communication is beginning to diminish. I'd like to know how, as what I observe every day I view Cable TV seems to be a massive display of thought control. It seems to me Cable programming is subject to the preferences and values of highly Conservative thinkers. One of the most profound messages that emerges from much of the programming on channels like Discovery, Animal Planet, and National Geographic, is that "The world is a dangerous place, filled with threats beyond our control," and "The future is frought with threats which may end the world as we know it." The Natural World, as portrayed on Animal Planet, is pretty much a collection of deadly spiders, serpents, and carnivores whose principle purpose is to menace humankind. Cable programs unendingly serve up mega-disasters--the next tsunami, the meteor strike that will destroy the world, the monster volcano that lurks under Yellowstone. The "science" in these programs is not science at all, but highly speculative opinion with a definite slant: the world is dangerous, be afraid and insecure. Moreover, Cable offers a strange kind of Fundamentalist, Old Testament, "hell-fire and damnation" religiosity, and promotes a kind of Authoritian and punitive god/father figure which clearly resonates with much conservative thinking.

All this makes me think that some neoconservatives strategists are "having their way" with Cable programming. I certainly can't prove it, as so far I've been unable to find little relevant reading. Recently when I posed this issue to Rockridge, Eric suggested I read Ishmael--interesting book, but not what I was looking for.

Am I imagining all this? And if not, is Rockridge engaging Cable TV in any way to contest the use of this important public communication medium as a vehicle for conservative propaganda?

 

Dear Arcadian,

It's funny you mention TV. I have been thinking similarly about "last man standing" TV shows (a.k.a. "reality TV"). To me, they promote the idea that success derives only from competition, implicitly denigrating cooperation. Also reinforced is the idea that being humiliated by an authority figure (the "judges" in this case) is a good thing and a necessary part of education for success. These are all conservative ideas. Where are the progressive TV shows?

Regards,

Luis.

have a problem with all games shows and also all single competitor sports?

This seemskind of silly to me and does not seem to contribute in any way to the advancement of progressive ideals. For instance, no matter how progressive one is, there is no way that progressivism can change a wolf from a carnivore to an herbivore. Nature isn't "punishing" us, nor is she "rewarding" us for anything. Nature is what nature is, and mankind cannot, nor should we, in my opinion, try to control it. Yes, we should be living more in harmony with nature. To my mind, knowing things about nature, such as the fact that certain spiders are poisonous (actually, I'm pretty sure ALL spiders are poisonous) or knowing the hunting habits of predators helps in that regard. As far as "disaster" programs, a lot of them are showing ways in which people can be more prepared and resist natural disasters. As for the Mega disaster programs, well, to me they just serve as a reminder that there are some things WAY beyond our control, and that our time would be better spent doing what we CAN do, instead of worrying about them.

Btw, I always thought "speculation" was where science began.

Dear Glenn,

I also enjoyed reading your very well-written article. It contains many very powerful ideas. Especially thought-provoking to me was your use of the human body.

I couldn't help noticing the passing mention of Google as a company who vows to democratize information. The fact that that is their stated objective is a testimony to how the idea of democracy is so dear to America's heart.

We should all keep in mind, however, that Google is also a company that makes money from using people's private information. One of its revenue streams is by targeting advertising based on the content of your e-mail (if you correspond with anyone that has a Gmail account, or have one yourself, your email is analyzed). It also keeps your Google search history. I am not sure how it is used, but it is certainly not available to you - not very democratic, I think.

How come it is legal for a company to violate our privacy like this with impunity? Our tacit acceptance of this erodes our position when we criticize the present administration for its encroachments on privacy and other civil liberties. This is a conservative wedge issue.

After all, the USPS can't certainly read our mail, and the private mail companies can't either. Phone companies can't listen to our phone conversations. Why can an e-mail service provider read our private mail and use that information to sell advertising (if that is all that they are doing)?

The idea of a US E-mail Service, analogous to USPS, and with the same safeguards of privacy, could maybe be part of a solution.

Regards,

Luis.

 For the earlier parts of my life, I just wanted to be invisible. My horror of the prevailing insanity from World War II to today did not seem to jell with the distortion of Democracy that was occurring. However, with access to the internet, I have been given back my own heart and a connection to others who are searching for open discussion. So thank you for putting these questions in such a thoughtful perspective. There are two areas that came to mind while reading your article that make the elite view easier to achieve and maintain. One is our intense attachment to what we consider to be personal knowledge, what we believe to be true from repeated input This is of course the reason television, media and the endless slanting of information is effective and why our educational system purposely has become the training ground for continued authoritarian and corporate control. The question this brings up is how does one jump out of these boxes? This is also true of the elite's view of authority and why even those who start out in elected positions with good intent become blinded by their own rhetoric and those around them. The second area along these lines is the need to belong, to be part of the winning team. And again this is used endlessly in our controlled and manipulative media and school systems. We have been, for our entire lives, taught that to stand out in the crowd, to challenge authority, is wrong. If you do the results can be catastrophic. Consider Martin Luther King and a long history of others who have stood for the integrity of the individual. If my observation is true that beliefs and the need to belong has lead the human race down the slippery slope of authoritarian rule over and over again and that this has created an acceptance of an us and them philosophy, then how do we turn from this path and "take the one less traveled"?

Government BY the people is still in its infancy. Long before I figured out why, I sensed that while Republicans are committed to government the people--i.e. ruling the behavior of the masses to force them to be socialized--Democrats are committed to government FOR the people--i.e. doing things for those who can't do for themselves. (It's this latter attitude which prompted Bill Clinton to assert that caucus goers are people who don't need government). That is, neither political group was/is particularly interested in doing what the people want done. "Public servant" is a polite euphemism to them.
It was actually Justice Anthony Kennedy's parsing of the meaning of the rule of law which clarified the matter for me. It's his specification of the "agents of government" who derive their powers from the people, powers which are strictly defined and limited, which illuminated the relationship in my mind. Indeed, it led me further to perceive that there's a difference in how the agents of government and the ordinary individual relate to the law. Or, perhaps, how the law relates to them. Where the agents of government act in a "permissive" environment, meaning that they can only perform those acts which are permitted or mandated ("may" vs. "shall"), the ordinary individual is governed by prohibitions, acts he may or must NOT perform without penalty. (This distinction, btw, explains why a health insurance program for which individuals are mandated to pay a fee is not a possibility).
In any event, it wasn't possible for the people to even become informed how their agents of government performed until the advent of universal suffrage, the end of "sovereign immunity," government in the sunshine requirements and the Freedom of Information Act which only began to see the light of day after World War II and only culminated in the late '60s. Before that it was not only characteristic of public officials to conduct the business of the public in secret, but the majority of their endeavors were devoted to doling out various "rights."
grazing rights
mining rights
fishing rights
property rights
development rights, etc.
I imagine that the demands for voting rights, civil rights, equal rights actually came as a shock to a class that was used to merely supervising the transfer of public assets into private wealth. Never mind having to take environmental and animal rights into account!
Considered from this perspective, it seems fair to conclude that we are still in an era of push-back. The elite are still intent on restoring the environment of secrecy and special dealing they were used to. Indeed, the whole "privatization" program can be seen as an effort to move public functions back behind closed doors, into the corporate boardroom instead of the smoke-filled cloakroom. And, now that the public, in the person of shareholders, has discovered that corporations can be held to account in civil court, there's this clamour for "tort reform." Meanwhile, there's the tactic of creating "war-time" conditions to justify "secret" endeavors by the federal executive and a renewed interest in transfering functions to religious and other eleemosynary institutions, where public business can be conducted in private.

Finally, I think the reason we are not as aware of what the issue is is that egalitarians don't recognize that the elite consider them to be the enemy, because egalitarians don't really care whether some people consider themselves to be superior. But the elite require someone to be subordinate or inferior, in order to define themselves. This distinction between self-definition and being defined in comparison to another is also central to the difference between the so-called liberal and conservative. Liberals are self-defined and self-directed; conservatives are other-directed. That is, they are directed not "towards" the other, but "by" another. Being other-directed, btw, has a distinct advantage--it negates personal responsibility and, implicitly, the potential for mistakes.

Or, to put it another way, the reward for giving up free will is the guarantee of always being right. Thus the religious right are always right because they follow the tenets of a religion.

How are we to define the popular or the people?
The older notion of whole and part seem philosophically relevant here.
The idea of a thing as a whole in relation to its parts needs the definition of the whole in relation to its parts, and conversely, the parts in relation to the whole of which it is understood.
The idea of humanity as a universal whole, not a collection of the individuals who are said to be human, makes the point. We are all human,yet no one or group of us defines the idea of humanity. The metaphors of top down or bottom up do not clarify the issue. Elitists maybe at the bottom now, but at the top tomorrowl
The notion of the collective as a majority/minority division is also flawed.
What collective is the whole rather than a whole found in each and every part, i.e. persons. If the person is an integral whole, and not merely a part of the whole, then no collective reflects the integrity of its personal members.
The majority of the parts do not make up the whole and maybe representative only as a metaphor,i.e., numbers of more or less.
Ever since Plato's Republic the idea of a representative whole,i.e. a democracy is troublesome. The majority/minority representation is obviously an elitist notion,i.e. those with the power to define the accepted representation.
Homer defined the people, the greeks, as those formed into a host by military power. Hitler defined the Volk, the pure, as the people.
Bush defines the people as those who love freedom, surely a slogan.
I suggest that the notion of the people as those who critically inquire into the meaning of things is useful.
The educated person, one who questions the reasons for forming as such whole or part, seems a standard for the whole in each and every part, the moral universal.
A moral people, those who seek the moral universals of Wisdom, Justice and nonviolent action is a good beginning.