Elitists and Populists
Steven Den Beste has a post on the right and left bloggers, elitists and populists, and declares where he stands on the whole thing.
But that deep division to which I referred, elitism versus populism, comes down to this: do you believe that the "common man" is wise enough to make up his own mind and pick the right answer if he's exposed to all sides of an issue?
The elitists do not. From their point of view, the common man is foolish, stupid, gullible, careless and intellectually lazy (not to mention being uneducated and simplistic). If he is exposed to the wrong information he will be seduced by it and will make the wrong choice. Thus it is important for that small segment of the population which is sufficiently intelligent, sophisticated, well educated and wise to evaluate the issues, and then to only let the proles see arguments for the right answer.
At its most fundamental, this point of view is based on deep contempt for the majority of the population.
I'm a populist. I have confidence in my fellow citizens, and I'm not afraid to let them see all sides of an issue. I'm willing to present my opinions and to see opposing opinions also be presented.
I'm a popular elitist. I don't share Den Beste's confidence in my fellow man. I do think most of us are intellectually lazy, greedy, uneducated, easily swayed, etc. In fact, history shows us that every democracy fails, based on those very factors. The common man is common, hence the name.
Look, we all know that some folks are smarter than others, are more attractive, are more athletic, or charming. We also know that some folks are born leaders. Through their charisma, force of personality, native intelligence, whatever, when they walk into a room, they take control, while the rest of us simply fall in line. We respond to their very presence. This effect occurs at an individual level, but is more profound in groups. Rational autonomous individuals can become sheep in a group, given a strong enough leader. It's just the way the human animal is built.
But, I don't believe that this gives me, or you, or anybody else the right to curtail our fellow sheeps' rights, responsibilities, or freedom of choice. For democracy to survive, it must be allowed to operate unfettered by elitist controls and countermeasures. If it fails, then so be it; it wasn't strong enough to survive. If we put in artificial controls, (censorship, repression of dissent, limitation of the electorate, etc), then democracy has already died, and we are back to aristocracy.
We are well down that road already, as the federal and state governments becomes increasingly paternalistic. In my home state of Tennessee for example, we have a ballot referendum for a constitutional amendment allowing a state lottery. As I
blogged earlier, much of the opposition to this amendment centers on protecting people from their own weakness. This simply is not a function of a democratic government, because once we allow the government to protect us from ourselves, we are setting the governors in an elite position. If I want to gamble my money away, so be it. At the same time, if I do gamble my money away, it is not the government's responsibility to take care of me until I get another paycheck. I am responsible for my actions, and solely accountable. Any assistance from the government should be on a
quid pro quo basis. By allowing the government to curtail my freedoms in return for securty, I am voluntarily assuming a subordinate status, creating an elite which is antithetical to democratic ideals.
So, I do believe that some people are better than others, that the bell curve may be an optimistic projection, and that those on the right half of the curve represent the ideal leaders and voters, and I don't give a tinker's damn. Everybody gets to play, or we give up, and go back to an oligarchy. Sadly, there's probably a lot of "common people" who wouldn't mind. It's much easier being a plebe than a citizen.
Posted by Rich at October 27, 2002 11:28 AM