A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I once contemplated an offer to start an academic career. I was then, and am still now, fascinated by classical political thought—Plato and such. While I declined a generous offer to pay me to pursue a Ph.D., my fascination with the great classical thinkers remains. And that, then, brings me to the present day and Plato.
Plato thought democracy was one of the worst forms of government. I am beginning to agree with him.
Plato’s incisive critique of democracy is worth remembering today as we witness the madness that prevails in the halls of Congress, at the White House, in the Republican Party, and in the Democratic Party. In this regard, an increasingly large number of our fellow citizens on the left and right have gone completely off the deep end.
Plato tells us that the rabble cannot be allowed to govern.[i] Plato would not be surprised that rabidly self-interested citizens comprise a large segment, perhaps a majority, of the general public.
Plato believed that the most desirable form of government was one where political power and philosophy are preeminent and melded together. He thought the best must rule. But Plato also believed that even this desirable form would inevitably begin to degenerate into progressively lower states of government. It is here where Plato explains why democracy is something to be feared.
Plato thought democracy was “an agreeable form of anarchy” with an “equality of a peculiar kind for equals and unequals alike.” Yet he predicted that democracy was likely to fail. He thought that citizens (voters, in our conception) would forget that they are not merely individuals with rights and liberties but members of a collective with duties and obligations. In that same vein, insidious individualism, according to Plato, inevitably results in swaths of society refusing to be led, thus preventing honest and able leaders from governing. As a result, honest leaders are replaced by dishonest demagogues.[ii]
Is the great American experiment with democracy about to fall apart at the seams? It looks increasingly so to me. I shouldn’t be surprised. An old white guy warned me long ago.
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge (Nebraska)
[i]By the way, I don’t intend to debate whether the Supreme Court properly functions as “Platonic Guardians.” The justices all reject that idea publicly, even if they can’t help pontificating like philosopher kings. More importantly, none of them have the chops to fit Plato’s ideal. (See, especially, Justice Kennedy.)
[ii] I do not (necessarily) refer to Trump or Obama.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Our “party system” and our “parties” can scarcely be blamed on Plato. The “democracy” of his day was not really what our founders even attempted. We have more or less always had an oligarchy and “competing elites.”
“Democracy is great!”
“Yeah? Democracy is how they were able to murder Socrates.”
“Anyone who WANTS power should never be allowed near it”
Always the downfall of democracy, and those who want power will bribe the voters with promises of handouts using their own cash. I think Plato never envisioned the welfare state, the obvious (in hindsight) outcome of people voting for their leaders.
I find democracy a terible system. I’d appoint a Govt using a lottery, like a jury service, and put up with the cross-section of society we would get. What could be worse than our peers, compared to our honest and able leaders…?
So you’ve learned nothing from the last election.
I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.
But this lotto system might have merit after we send everything back into local hands.
I am reminded though of the Churchill quote ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time’ If this democracy is to fall apart, it is almost guaranteed the alternative would be worse.
As long as we are just daydreaming here: Democracy might not be quite as bad if there were some fair & objective way to restrict the franchise to people who had done something tangible to indicate that they possess a commitment to the long-term interests of the society (i.e., a “patriot dream that sees beyond the years”). rather than just a “what’s in it for me this year” attitude.
Speaking of dead white males, didn’t Pericles argue that childless people should not have the right to vote? And there was also Heinlein’s vision, where nobody could vote unless they had first volunteered for military combat duty.
Your Honor,
yesterday morning, starting around 6 AM, the German federal police conducted a series of raids on the homes of people suspected of posting things the government doesn’t like on the interwebz. Those targeted include a bunch of neo-Nazis, two commies and a person accused of saying something rude about gay people. In recent years, these raids have become so commonplace that even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, our NYT-esque paper of record (with all that entails,) only bothered to do a 150-word featurette on what went down.
The most notable part of the FAZ’s story was this quote from Interior Minister Heiko Maas, who engineered the raids:
“To safeguard freedom of opinion, we must not stand idly by when the free exchange of ideas is threatened by intimidating and criminal speech.”
So as deplorable as democracy may be, I confess I fear it less than being unable to falsify those who think they’re the best, and therefore entitled to rule us, right out of office.
All the best,
David
David,
I’m OK with democracy so long as there is some type of center. In America, the center is not holding.
All the best.
RGK
jay-w,
“The first citizen of Athens” is a rather strange figure to my way of thinking. So I am told, some scholars believe Pericles’ was responsible for the gradual degeneration of the Athenian democracy precisely because of his populism.
Anyway, I would flip the dicta you attribute to Pericles. That is, with the undersigned and perhaps SHG as exceptions, people with children should not be allowed to vote.
As for Midshipman Heinlein, a graduate of the Naval Academy, he was a far better science fiction writer in my estimation than he was a political theorist. He thought of himself as “philosophical anarchist” whatever the hell that means. Nevertheless, I may have read every one of his science fiction novels. He was a captivating storyteller who most always gave me something to think about above and beyond the tale he told.
By the way, I wish my post was a daydream. I fear it is not.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. All the best.
RGK
“So I am told, some scholars believe Pericles’ was responsible for the gradual degeneration of the Athenian democracy precisely because of his populism.”
Your Honor,
I simply must disagree with the above quoted statement. Looking at “The Peloponnesian War” by Themistocles, the major source on Pericles, we see that the populace (“demos”) did not guide Pericles, but rather Pericles guided the demos. Stepping back from Pericles specifically, as he is listed as killed during the Plague, we see Athens being highly successful when following the Periclean ideal/battle plan during the war. That it is, guarding the long walls to the port, keeping the fighting at sea, and being just and fair to their allies in the Delian League. It is not after the sacking of Melos, a demonstration of hubris in the Hubris-Nemesis arc, that we see the decline of Athens.
If I remember correctly, we see the rise of Cleon, the first demagogue, in Book 6, shortly after the Melian Dialogue. Perhaps it was he that you or the ones telling you meant? Cleon is killed in a land battle, presumably much to the delight of Themistocles, and is succeeded by more demagogues. Later, shortly before the invasion of Sicily, we see the rise of a Periclean figure in Nicias. Now, Nicias held similar ideals as Pericles, however he lacked Pericles’ skill at guiding the demos. He spoke strongly against the invasion of Sicily, and in the demos’ rejection of Nicias we see the rejection of Pericles and the total corruption of Athens, which is appropriate, as the Invasion of Sicily is interpreted as the coming of nemesis in the Hubris-Nemesis arc. Anyways, this a short take and a vast oversimplification of the subject. There are several academic papers here.
Regards.
CJH
And here I was, worried that this post might get too deep in the weeds. What was I thinking (and Judge, the friggin’ reply button, please)?
SHG,
Blame it on Pericles. By the way, anyone who uses AOL has no call to blame old men who can’t see the right friggin’ reply button.
All the best.
RGK
PS I knew this post was a bad idea. But you are the master of this steamship, and should never have allowed me on board. I refuse to take personal responsibility for my musings.
Personal responsibility is dead. As a fellow Admiral once said, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
jay-w and Your Honor,
The mention of Heinlein brought some thought. I doubt it would work, for one reason or another.
What if the government were to institute a flat tax – a low one, but enough to maintain essential government functions? Then, each person can pay extra for votes (plural), while those who pay the minimum get none.
It’s something to think about, anyway, although I can see a few issues already.
Isn’t this precisely why we don’t have a Democracy?
Did I misunderstand the school teachers that told me we have a Constitutional Republic with democratic underpinnings? While we take much inspiration from Democracy, and understandably so, wasn’t the idea to build a system that would shield us from the ways that Democracy is doomed to fail?
Or is your concern that our experiment has come too close to Democracy, despite the intentions of the Framers?
That is correct, Aaron. The founding fathers abhorred the idea of a pure democracy and made no secret of that fact. They considered pure democracy to be simple fickle mob rule. That is why they did not set up a pure democracy but strove to establish something very different — a Constitutional Republic — instead.
Actually I think we should become more of a democracy. The electoral college and electoral districts have become a breeding ground for the factions and majorities that we were warned about. Do away with the electoral collage and find an alternative to districting.
Awww, I was just about to make my own electoral collage, using scalps from all fringes of the political spectrum.
Don’t pull a Barleycorn on us, Patrick. We know you so well!
insidious individualism, according to Plato, inevitably results in swaths of society refusing to be led
The success or failure of Democracy lies in the quality of its leaders and the fitness of its people. Fit voters can refuse to be led by unfit leaders. But if the rabble are unfit to rule, the leaders tend to become so. It is incredibly difficult to design a successful democracy that protects against the insidious individualism of the inept. They fail as the groups that vote (everyone, or a lottery, or parents, or those with military service, or landowners, or a race) become critically unfit. We prefer the American system to any alternatives, but if it is headed to failure it isn’t going to matter how much we like it.
Strong leaders are not necessarily a solution either. Democracy encourages manipulation to gain votes and power through any means, such as lies/spin or gerrymandering. This can produce sheep who elect unfit leaders who produce more sheep. Is there enough of a center left to save it?
Aaron,
Great point. But, not to be critical of you, that is why asked the rhetorical question this way: Is the great American experiment with democracy about to fall apart at the seams?
By referencing the American experiment, I acknowledged, albeit implicitly, that the Founders did their best to guard against what Plato feared. They had read him too including, in reference to your point, his masterwork, The Republic.
While doing their best, I remain uncertain that the Founders’ vision remains viable today for precisely the reasons Plato feared. Contemporary radical individualism has resulted in fervid factionalism such that there is no center. So, we swing wildly back and forth. On both sides, I see, hear and smell demagoguery of the worst sort. That’s is what Plato predicted.
Anyway, that’s my story and I am sticking with it. Thanks for commenting.
All the best.
RGK
I really don’t get why you think that “radical individualism” is some big problem in US society today, when a far more real problem is “tribalism”, or collective group identity politics. So much of Democrat versus Republican, or liberal versus conservative, or whatever group identity versus opposing group identity, amounts to nothing more than a My Tribe Good, Your Tribe Bad primitive feelz, with a strong tendency to downplay or rationalize whatever “bad” things one’s own Tribe does, while exaggerating the badness of the other Tribe. We could use a lot more “radical individualism” instead of this collective group identity nonsense.
I think you’re using different words to say the same thing.
Maybe they are but “individualism” does not really seem to fit. More like balkanization.
The judge is correct that the center is not holding but that is because the electoral system encourages divisiveness and tribalism.
It’s not My Tribe that worries us, it’s Haaavard lawprof Laurence Tribe who is the clear and imminent danger to our instituitions and established ways of comfortable life in the Amerikas. We are the best, don’t you forget.
Where’s the moist bint with the scimitars?
bacchys, (Real Name Known: Dennis),
You are a sexist!*
Shame on you.
All the best.
RGK
* “[Y]ou can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.”
Judge,
More historical than philosophical, but Athenian democracy also gave us Peisistratos — who more and more is seeming a cautionary tale, although by all accounts he was at least competent.
Regards,
Paul
Paul,
Tyranny, as used in reference to P, may not mean the same thing now as it did in the time of Aristotle. Indeed, the poor liked P ’cause he gave them stuff.
I think that stuff might have included free Gyros–but that’s pure speculation on my part. Indeed, if there is worse concoction in this world I am unaware of it. So, upon reflection, I’m probably wrong about P and G.
All the best.
RGK
I’m sure Nebraskan gyros are literally Hitler. That’s what you get. Try any Greek diner in New Jersey, you might change your mind.
Greek diner in New Jersey is redundant.
SHG,
From where I sit, New Jersey is redundant. All the best.
RGK
Wait, when did we start talking about Proctor and Gamble?
Leo Strauss said it best: The wise are not allowed to rule cause the masses are idiots.*
* May not be a direct quote
Democracy primarily rewards people who are highly skilled at getting people to vote for them. This does not necessarily mean that they will make good leaders, as we can see from our current situation, but in the long term it has still done better than systems that reward people who are able to politically backstab (or physically backstab) their way to the top, or skillfully claw their way through entrenched bureaucracies and informal loyalty systems to reach the top.
What’s more interesting to me is not the cracks in democracy as a concept, but how some of the peculiarly American features of American democracy have stopped working. The bipartisan system should theoretically keep both parties close to the center as they try to court the most average voter (parlimentary systems will happily vote both communists and fascists into few seats), and the electoral college system should theoretically push candidates towards maintaining broad generalized support across America. And yet, both of them went up in smoke during the election. The left seems to be using shame as their primary vote-winning tactic and the right has flipped the table. It’s a whole new world out there.
Joseph,
Your point about the two-party system is the heart of the matter. I think political scientists used to call the observation that both parties were roughly similar: “Dualism in a moving consensus.” That meant that both parties hewed closely to the ever changing middle because that is where the votes were.
Of necessity, both parties had to be practical and less ideological. They had to sense where the middle was moving and failure to do so meant electoral failure. Since the consensus was always changing, the parties did not need–and could not win with–strict ideological pitches to the electorate.
As consensus begins to break down that dualism-the relative similarity of the parties–breaks down as well. Thus one sees ideology begin to dominate rather than being constrained by the practical necessity of steering for the middle. And hence ideological purity begins to become more and more important because the message need not, and cannot, be diluted to appeal broadly. The base has become smaller and that group naturally demands conformity to dogma.
Why has this occurred? Plato thought that it was the inevitable consequence of human nature. The relative rapidity of the change in America is the more difficult question for me. I was going to give you my guesses but decided my ideas were only half-baked. So, I spared you my musings, and for that be thankful.
Thanks for writing. All the best.
RGK
It seems to me that there is some mechanism that tends to drive people away from the center. One possibility is that if you are in the center you get caught in cross-fire. Both parties were at one time coalitions but coalitions are unstable and neither party looks like a coalition to me.
What I see are confederations of fund-raisers who spend much of their time talking to people who have money. That means that they are talking to the 1% and who tend to get what they want.
Plato lived in Athens about 400 BC when it had a population of about 170,000 with 40,000 adult male citizens and about 40,000 slaves. About 5% of the citizens were literate so Plato was also talking to the 1% and had good reason to fear the 99%.
As far as Congress is concerned, the parties have drifted away from the center because Gerrymandering has created a situation where approximately 95% of Congressional Districts are either solidly Republican or Democrat. If an elected official fears a primary challenge more than a general election challenge, they will need to pander to the base rather than the middle.
As far as the Executive is concerned, most states are likewise not competitive. In addition, members of our political parties have shown they will vote for anyone with the correct letter next to their name, regardless of any manifest lack of qualification for office (e.g., Trump).
The Judiciary has ruled there is no constitutional problem with Gerrymandering. So expect things to continue to get worse.
The Supreme Court has just granted cert in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, so the “spoils of war” approach to gerrymandering may soon be over. That said, I think this is the effect, not the cause, of the problem.
I blame part of this on technology (and I am a technologist!). Any idiot today can create a blog (not an indictment here SHG/RGK) and can spout pure crapola and gain “clicks”. My mother (93), still believes just about anything that is “printed”. You would be surprised at the effort I have personally spent sending her to informed blogs like this one. The effort required for an electorate to fact check and stay fully informed has increased to the point that most people don’t, won’t or can’t take the time to. Probably, because of the same dynamic involved with the effort to buy a carton of milk – do I stop at a grocery store or visit a 7-11. Sadly, the least amount of effort usually wins.
Historically, every time the speed or efficiency of communications improves, there are geopolitical implications. Advances like Print, Radio, Television and the Internet have each contributed to significant shifts in access to information, each one more significant than the last. Each change creates divisions and the institutions that manage our system of policies and laws is slow and lags to the immediate view (which I believe is probably a good thing). But, votes do not lag, they attach to the immediate view.
In any case, Heinlein’s ideas of “service guarantees citizenship” or Plato’s view of democracy doesn’t really matter. In the end we all have a role in the execution of our system. And I believe the keepers of this are the informed.
More importantly, the people that take the time to debate and influence the course we take are more likely than not, the folks that take the time to consider downstream implications and apply critical thought, and no matter what side they take in a debate, I applaud them and though optimistic, is what I hang my hat on.
Best,
Dan
Dan,
I agree that the Internet has a major part to play in the discord we are seeing. My sense is that the Internet exaggerates the baser instincts of human nature. But there is something more. Something more fundamental. As I suggested to Robert, my ideas on this subject are half-baked. So take what I write next with a big grain of sale.
The proximate cause of polarization is not the Internet but extreme income equality brought about economic globalization. To be clear, I do not mean to use “income inequality” or “globalization” as pejoratives or normative terms but rather in the purely descriptive sense.
The pie is getting bigger because of globalization but it is being divided up into smaller pieces for the great majority of Americans while American business elites are able to take bigger slices precisely because they are smarter and abler than the rest. My guess is that it will take decades, if ever, for this economic disruption in America to settle down. In the meantime, individuals and their political parties in America will become less and less practical and more and more ideological.
In short, I am less hopeful than you. I have a rather jaundiced view of mankind generally and our fellow citizens particularly. But that is just me.
All the best.
RGK
Judge, thank you for taking the time to respond. I agree with your position on the impact of globalization.
I can only imagine what you see daily in your court. In your field, the edge cases matter and a lot of legal calories are spent on them. In tech, not always so much and usually, rewards disruptive products and technologies with a forgiving attitude for lack of maturity. I don’t have a solution, but I do think that education is a key component of what ever that is.
Best,
Dan
PS: I logged a lot of miles in Nebraska in the 80’s writing/selling accounting software to feedlots. IMO: Best steaks and burgers in the world.
Dan,
Selling accounting software to feedlots in Nebraska in the 80’s brought a smile to my face.
Truly, in the early 80’s, I once brought an “accounting” action in state court against a feedlot. My client had bought the manure and the feedlot failed to deliver. So, we sued. We could have used your software, perhaps, to prove our damages. After all, proving the value of cow shit is not an easy task.
All the best.
RGK
Ha! Pretty hard to fathom any situation where an active feedlot couldn’t deliver on manure!
The proximate cause of polarization…
I’m going to posit something — namely that we aren’t much more polarized than we used to be, but we’re looking at very different venn diagrams of governmental involvement.
If the people of Nebraska can agree more or less on a compromise measure because NE D’s aren’t so far away from NE R’s, it stands to reason that policy on the State level can be made in a way which doesn’t make the other side rally for it’s complete abolishment simply because of its existence.
But when policy shifts away from “the people” to a ‘one size fits all’ federal front, the chance of agreement between NY D’s and NE D’s becomes nearly impossible (forget about NE R’s).
By creating some much desire for Federal solutions to problems, which can be answered on more State and local levels, we’ve created the impression of polarization. I get the sense the internet is just making people in NE and NY aware of the kinds of people they always assumed existed, but never quite had enough day-to-day access to to bother them so much that they needed to nuke laws.
Let’s be honest judge: You’re just tittalated by Plato’s suggestion that our new overlords are to be warehoused in free-love communes staffed by the beautifuls.
“Everyone else, especially those who disagree with me, are an unenlightened cave-dwellers”: Plato, patron saint of philosophy professors everywhere.
I, for one, am still waiting for my beautifuls. Plato cheated me.
SHG,
That is a lie.
Plato gave you a “to die for” auto, a monster John Deere, Dr. SJ, two very bright kids plus, although this is a guess, a Persian cat.
Remember, “pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered!” (Citation: Declamations of Choricius of Gaza ).
All the best.
RGK
I don’t know what kind of cat it is, but it licks itself in disgusting places.
Yeah, I’ve met Dr. SJ. If I were Scott, I’d be thanking Plato on bended knee for giving me a wife so far out of my league.
Lex,
I am 70 plus. Nothing titillates me anymore, damn it. All the best.
RGK