Equality by lot

The “classical” justification for democracy was that it is, or should be, rule by an informed public opinion acting, after deliberation, in the public interest.

Investigations, especially by post-war political science, discovered that the democracy we have actually got is not the classical model the Founders had in mind, but in fact mostly the rule of factions and partisans, which the Founders dreaded.

Factions include organized pressure groups and other “players.” They are only fitfully concerned—truly and wisely concerned—with the public interest.

Some political scientists have called this system “pluralism” or “polyarchy” (the rule of many); others have called it “interest group liberalism.” Both have concluded that elections are a mostly ceremonial affair and that it is unrealistic to expect (width-first) democracy to function in any very different way. They have also mostly concluded that polyarchy’s scramble isn’t so bad, especially compared to totalitarianism.

They hope that they may persuade you, that since it is impossible to do any good, you may as well have your share in the profits of doing ill. —Edmund Burke, The Philosophy of Edmund Burke, p. 148.

Another defense of DeMockery is the theory of consumer-choice democracy. It observes that political parties “market” their candidates like commercial products, and concludes that citizens exert substantial control over government by choosing which party’s pitch they buy. This is is better than nothing, and better than polyarchy, but it isn’t nearly good enough. A very partial list of objections is this:

The electorate has no ability to participate as decision-making insiders on immediate emerging threats such as looming wars and depressions. DeMockery has a poor record in anticipating these—some notable failures are listed in Chapter 14 [posted here already as “America Should Be Ripe for Sortition”].

Existing predominant parties are not flexible enough to adequately cater to changes in popular preferences. They typically are inhibited by the residual preferences of their “base” voters, who are the ones who dominate in the primaries, of their leaders, of their donors, and of their prior campaign promises.

And even if a party does unbend enough in its rhetoric to cater to consumer demand, there is no guarantee that what it offers it will deliver, at least in any substantial way. As H.L. Mencken put it:

Whatever the label on the parties, or the war cries issuing from the demagogues who lead them, the practical choice is between the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.

For instance, all parties have been, in effect, promising honest and competent government since Day One, but failing to do so.

A well-known example of the slipperiness of political marketing is the joke, “I was told that we’d be in a war in Asia if I voted for Goldwater—and I did, and they were right!”

The mass electorate has a defective institutional memory, so it doesn’t often penalize the officeholders who have misled it in the past—incentivizing additional empty promises. So the mass electorate’s sovereignty is like that of a half-blind bull in a china shop.

Complex causation makes it possible to correlate events plausibly in many different ways. —Reinhold Niebuhr, Reinhold Niebuhr on Politics, 1960, p. 44.

Thereby enabling parties to escape accountability.

The movement of mankind is not steadily forward … but circular, like that of a squirrel in a cage. —Irving Babbitt, Democracy and Leadership, 1924, p. 221.

Additionally, what is offered by a supplier-party to a mass electorate is necessarily a basket of policies, some of which most basket-buyers don’t want. (Only under Demiocracy can the electorate pick and choose specific topical policies individually, a la carte.)

My opinion is that despite those defenses (polyarchy and consumer-choice democracy) DeMockery is bad, very bad, because: it lacks the nobility of the classical ideal, which provides legitimacy, which provides sustainability; its “players” are unattractive; it is very blunder-prone; and it will eventually end in near-ruin.

Being uninspiring and only semi-legitimate, DeMockery intensifies its players’ no-holds-barred competitive scramble, which further degrades legitimacy, which makes non-democratic alternatives look not-so-bad in comparison; for instance:

I think most politicians are liars and thieves, because I think they don’t really care about the people they represent. I have more confidence in a benevolent aristocracy, believe me, than I do in the democratic system as it has developed in this country. We’re coming close to a point of real decline in our society, and we haven’t lasted as long as Greece did. There’s nothing to ensure the stability of this system …. —Dennis Smith, author of Report from Engine Company 82, interview, March 1977.

…which puts us on a slippery slope. Greece and Rome got onto that slope, and couldn’t get off it, leading to their decline and fall:

Lucretius felt the change of the world in his time, the great republic riding to the height
Whence every road leads downward; Plato in his time watched Athens
Dance the down path ….
—Robinson Jeffers, “Prescription of Painful Ends”.

Their down-paths became one-way streets. Where did they go wrong? Did any place get it right? Can we turn around?

And see them ev’rywhere …
Rivals in genius, or emulous in rank,
Pressing through days and nights with highest toil
For summits of power and mastery of the world.
O wretched minds of men! O blinded hearts!
—Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.

Filed under: Books, Deliberation, Elections, History |