Equality by lot

Glenn Greenwald was recently a guest on Piers Morgan’s show (appearing in a panel together with other guests). In a recap video Greenwald collects excerpts of his from the show. The collection forms a condemnation of the West’s rich record of aggression in the 21st century. Interestingly, Greenwald ties this record to the electoralist system.

Greenwald repeatedly makes the point that the consistent U.S. and Western aggression toward their enemies is the result of an aggressive consensus among Western elites, so that the public cannot vote to stop it, since all credible choices on the ballot support it. In fact, Greenwald points out, the public does wish to stop the diversion of resources into the war efforts, and since none of the mainstream parties offers this option, formerly fringe parties are gaining power at the expense of mainstream parties.

In addition, Greenwald offers an explanation for the difference between popular sentiment and elite consensus on the matter of war. While the large majority of the population is busy worrying about their affairs at home, he says, the extremely wealthy elites are insulated from any material worries and instead find their purpose in meddling abroad. While the specifics of this explanation can be disputed, the fact that the principle of distinction is at work – i.e., that the elected from a group with distinct characteristics from those of the population at large and that as a result the elected pursue objectives that do not serve the public – seems evident.

A final point, not made by Greenwald, is worth mentioning. An idea that is fairly popular among pundits and political scientists is that of the “democratic peace”. According to this idea, which supposedly goes back to Immanuel Kant, democratic countries do not go to war with each other. Especially in the face of the consistent aggression of the supposedly “democratic” Western states, it is worth noting how meaningless this claim is without an unambiguous definition of what democracy is. Without such a definition, the “democratic peace” theory is no more than a misnomer for the Pax Americana, where U.S.-allied countries are labeled “democratic” while countries attacked by the U.S. and its allies are labeled as “undemocratic”.

Filed under: Academia, Effects of electoralism, Elections, Press, video |