Last week one of Jim McCrea's threads linked this article by Rick Shenkman, entitled "The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy". The subject is a paper by Shawn Rosenberg. From Shenkman's article:
"...Rosenberg, a professor at UC Irvine, was challenging a core assumption about America and the West. His theory? Democracy is devouring itself—his phrase — and it won’t last."
"As much as President Donald Trump’s liberal critics might want to lay America’s ills at his door, Rosenberg says the president is not the cause of democracy’s fall—even if Trump’s successful anti-immigrant populist campaign may have been a symptom of democracy’s decline."
"Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists. "
His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”
"...Right-wing populist politicians have taken power or threatened to in Poland, Hungary, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil and the United States. As Rosenberg notes, “by some metrics, the right wing populist share of the popular vote in Europe overall has more than tripled from 4% in 1998 to approximately 13% in 2018.” In Germany, the right-wing populist vote increased even after the end of the Great Recession and after an influx of immigrants entering the country subsided."
"...Taking democracy’s place, Rosenberg says, will be right-wing populist governments that offer voters simple answers to complicated questions. "
"...And therein lies the core of his argument: Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who don’t look like them. It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic."
"...Our brains, says Rosenberg, are proving fatal to modern democracy. Humans just aren’t built for it."
I have my own bias, which is that we can't afford to give up on democracy, because the alternatives are worse. I am including under the heading of democracy parliamentary systems such as Britain's, and the various European forms of self-rule. Basically the alternatives are right-wing populist governments, or out and out dictatorships; and the various forms of totalitarianism that make up communism. Not to mention monarchies, which nowadays seem to be mainly rulers in name only.
If we truly aren't capable of democracy, as the author suggests, for evolutionary reasons, we seem to have managed it for quite long times at a stretch. Our own democracy is over 240 years old. If we want older than that, the Icelandic Althing was established in 930 AD. Even though there have been some interruptions along the way, it is still functioning.
The article is worth reading, and discussing. I feel that it should serve as a wake-up call, rather than an excuse to give in to a kind of fatalism.
I hope Tom Blackburn will chime in, as he indicated last week that he had taken part in a discussion of the Rosenberg paper.
I am totally tired of these shmoops that say our brains aren't wired for this or that. First, it was, our brains aren't wired for slow onset threats like climate change, only lions, tigers and bears, oh my. Well, people were doing pretty well in understanding the problem until the fossil fuel industry and a certain political party started brainwashing them. Now, it's "We're not wired for democracy." Well, just about all my ancestors came from two adjoining regions in southern Poland. My name means "dig", probably because they were all farmers. I would imagine you could go back to 1583 or equivalent to the area around Łodz and find a cat with my mental attributes, capable of solving differential equations and understanding some physics. But "Oh, his brain must have been wired to plant turnips." I wish they'd stop with the brain wiring crap, please.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Not that there's anything wrong with planting turnips.
"I wish they'd stop with the brain wiring crap, please."
DeleteMe too, Stanley. I feel it's mainly an excuse for mental laziness.
That's my take, too, Katherine.
Delete"The last half of the 20th century was the golden age of democracy. In 1945, according to one survey, there were just 12 democracies in the entire world. By the end of the century there were 87. But then came the great reversal: In the second decade of the 21st century, the shift to democracy rather suddenly and ominously stopped—and reversed."
ReplyDeleteWell, why did democracy succeed so well in the last half of the 20th century? Surely our brains were the same then as now.
And why are the brains of the dictators and the elites any better than those of other people?
Just a very poor article.
The explanation for the rise and decline of democracy is much simpler. After 1945 there was a great economic expansion as part of the recovery from the war. That expansion was widely shared because of progressive income taxing strategies. Once those were dismantled under Reagan, the wealth of the middle class stagnated while that of the rich grew and grew.
Democracy prospers when the middle class prospers, it declines when the rich prosper at the expense of the middle class.
As it happens, I'm reading a book at present, entitled "The Suicide of the West", by a journalist with impeccable conservative credentials, Jonah Goldberg, who believes some of the same things: that human nature isn't naturally wired for either democracy or free market trading. In Goldberg's view, what we're wired for, roughly, is how the Mafia operates: a kingpin or strong man or authoritarian at the top, with his family and trusted friends forming a coterie, who pillage everyone around them, and continue to do so until an even stronger strong man and his coterie stops them.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read enough of the book yet to know whether Goldberg's outlook, the title notwithstanding, is as pessimistic as this UC professor is.
I don't see right-wing populism as the antithesis of democracy. Right-wing populism, when legitimately elected, is an exercise in democracy. When the right-wing populists are voted out of office and relinquish power peacefully - that's also democracy in action. It's entirely possible that Israel will provide a case study over the next few days. So I guess I'm not nearly as pessimistic as the professor.
One of the directions in which I fully expect Goldberg to go in his book is that, because democracy doesn't come naturally to us, we have to work hard at citizenship, and at forming our children and grandchildren for citizenship. I agree with that, too (and apparently, so does the professor). That is why so many of us conservatives are such grumps when it comes to primary education - the country settles for such bad outcomes; we privilege the perks of the unionized class over educational outcomes; we're more interested in "equity" than in education; etc. etc. The first business of education shouldn't be getting a job, nor in building a more just world. It's to form citizens. Citizens, well-formed, can attend to that other vital stuff.
Question is, how exactly does one form citizens? Seems like logic and critical thinking skills would be basic to that.
DeleteHmm, Rosenberg and possibly Goldberg are more examples of elites who think that "humans," i.e., some lower life form than themselves, are incapable of this or that. And that they, i.e., more evolved life forms, are among the few who actually see the truth while the rest of us are busy picking our noses, swilling beer, driving in demolition derbies, and generally living down to their expectations.
ReplyDeleteLord knows I have no good opinion of humankind generally, and I fully expect Trump to win a second term.
But totalitarian regimes tend to implode. The U.S. has lasted longer the regime's of Hitler, Franco, the Soviet Union, Pinochet, etc. etc.
Possibly I am being too influenced by Margaret Atwood and "The Testaments," which I finished reading recently. But I am sick of cheap doomsday mongers.
"But totalitarian regimes tend to implode. The U.S. has lasted longer the regime's of Hitler, Franco, the Soviet Union, Pinochet, etc. etc."
DeleteExcellent point!
Elitism, aka professionalism, is one of our central problems.
DeleteThe clergy believe they are the church; the professors that they are the university, the doctors that they are the health care system.
But as Newman (if I remember correctly) said; "the Church would look pretty silly without the laity" So would our universities without students, and our health care system without patients.
A professor friend once said "she lost 100 points from her IQ every time she saw her doctor."
When the 20th Century is viewed from a distance, I think we will be given credit for substantial progress on racism and sexism. However they will wonder why we did not perceive the huge elephant of elitism, professionalism, and credentials that dominated and distorted our humanity.
Jean, you made my day with the point Jack called excellent.
Delete"The U.S. has lasted longer the regime's of Hitler, Franco, the Soviet Union, Pinochet, etc. etc."
DeleteThat is true.
On the other hand, Athens didn't last. Neither did the Roman Republic. How many Republics has France had? Democracy is neither inevitable nor immortal.
You're certainly right that strongman regimes tend to last only as long as the strong man (although North Korea is trying to build a dynasty, apparently). But there have been many, many more examples of strongman regimes in human history than democracies. And probably there are many places that have never known any form of rule other than monarchy, or warlord, or generalissimo, or whatever form the strong authoritarian takes from place to place or time to time.
FWIW, I don't think Goldberg is arguing that there is actually something about genetics or brain chemistry that makes human societies tend toward the authoritarian model.
One possible explanation for the propensity to be ruled by strongmen is rooted in the agricultural revolution. When people became rooted in farms and villages, they were preyed upon by roving marauders (cf "The Magnificent Seven", or the Japanese film on which it was based). When this happens, the villages will welcome a stationary marauder who will live with them and fend off the roving bandits. The stationary marauder may be a despot in many ways, but at least he will allow the peasants to keep a portion of their crops to feed their families - the stationary marauder has a long-term business plan that calls for his enrichment over time while allowing his prey/subjects to subsist. According to the theory, this is the root of monarchical government.
Sounds like the root of business monarchies, aka capitalism. Trump as a business man surrounded himself with people who were there to do his agenda. When they fail, he fires them. He is running the government like a family business.
Delete>>On the other hand, Athens didn't last. Neither did the Roman Republic. How many Republics has France had? Democracy is neither inevitable nor immortal.<<
DeleteOf course not. There will be times when democracies fail, either because someone seizes power through the military, or people vote in a tyrant. There could be decades of death, chaos, want, and struggle. So I'm not downplaying the threat of incompetents like Trump.
But where tyrannies have popped up in industrialized countries since at least the beginning of the 20th Century, the general tendency has been has toward restoration of representative government.
Democracies appear to last when their citizens do not stoop to laziness and disinterest. Like it or not, way too many people are yearning for a Big Daddy to make their decisions for them. Look at the number of Big Daddies in control in what were once vibrant representative democracies. Look no farther than this hallowed "greatest nation on earth."
ReplyDeleteYup. And then when they've lived with Daddy for awhile, they realize (again) that that wasn't really what they wanted.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I don't perceive Trump to be a "Big Daddy" at all. If he's a dad, he's an amazingly weak, ineffectual and dysfunctional parent. Domestically, he has basically been on defense ever since the Mueller investigation got underway. In foreign affairs, his motto apparently is "Speak loudly and carry a small stick."
DeleteOh, I think he's Daddy on steroids to a lot of people. Bullying the bullies. Getting out the belt on those panty waist liberals. Tough talking. Says what he thinks. Clearing the Supreme Court of baby killers. Gutting regulations and getting people back to work.
DeleteAnd how about the latest with Ukraine -gate?
DeleteThe great advantage of coming into the room late is that one can get away with offering a lot of amens.
ReplyDeleteAmen to Stanley: "I am totally tired of these shmoops that say our brains aren't wired for this or that."
Me, too.
Amen to Jean: "But totalitarian regimes tend to implode. The U.S. has lasted longer the regime's of Hitler, Franco, the Soviet Union, Pinochet, etc. etc."
In one of his books (which the borrower seems to have made a permanent loan; it happens) John Lukacs had a brilliant two-paragraph summary of how the many democracies of the 1930s -- based on a combination of nationalism and Woody Wilson principles -- went, one after another, from democracy to strong man rule: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Poland, much of Latin America, some others maybe, and almost France. A couple of them -- Hungary, most noticeably -- have gone from dictatorship to democracy and back again in one lifetime. Franklin said the Framers had created a republic "if you can keep it." A lot of people have a hard time keeping it, but if they gravitate back toward it when Big Daddy finally piles on the last straw, they can't be said to be hard-wired against it.
Amen to Jack: "After 1945 there was a great economic expansion as part of the recovery from the war. That expansion was widely shared because of progressive income taxing strategies. Once those were dismantled under Reagan, the wealth of the middle class stagnated while that of the rich grew and grew."
I think that is a fair, short account of what happened. Americans know they are in the midst of a big swindle in which the rich -- by the witting and unwitting design of the political class -- get richer, and they get praise for accepting the risk of old age with 401(k), which tank with the business cycle (and turn retirement planning into a craps shoot) instead of demanding pensions. And get told that their health care system -- which I wasted yesterday on, which is why I am late to the discussion -- is the greatest in the world, when manifestly, by every objective measure, it isn't.
What I don't understand is why, when they decided to rebel, the losers decided to double down on the winners' program instead of trying to overthrow it.
Whether or not we are "capable of democracy" the true threat will be, as it always is, whether any faction tries to use democracy in order to eliminate democracy. A faction can be manipulated to support this, as we have seen throughout the history of populism. This is why it is very important that we focus on the support of the structures of democracy and not get distracted.
ReplyDelete"Structures of democracy." Yes, I think that's a vital point!
DeleteBecause of demographics, either the Republican Party or democracy has to go. The actions of the Republican Party shows that they value their continuance over the preservation of democracy. Ironic for a party that freed the slaves.
DeleteI disagree with Stanley to the extent that I don’t think it was their “continuance.” There’s no doubt in my mind that the Republicans simply decided that they wanted to take total state power. They tried for decades to undermine the federal government without success. Trump is their deliverer. And Trump was made possible by liberal reforms such as primaries (which destroyed the parties’ ability to choose viable centrist candidates) and the McCain-Feingold reforms (which made it unnecessary for Senators to cooperate with each other). Plus the internet to fan extremism and the hollowing out of American public education. Lots of blame to go around, but not the inability of people to manage a democracy.
DeleteMadeleine Albright is not complacent about what is happening in the world, including in the US. AS Sec State she interacted with many of today's authoritarian rulers. She knows the danger signs and sees them now. After all, her family had to escape Hitler's approach and go to England before WWII. After returning to Prague, they had to leave again because of the Russian take-over. She is not sanguine about authoritarian, right-wing populist nationalism - often freely elected. Hitler found favor by promising to "Make Germany Great Again" and finding scapegoats (sound familiar?). Mussolini promised to "drain the swamp". Many of today's nationalist/populist authoritarian leaders were elected. Many since have worked to destroy the free press, manipulate the legislatures, and silence their opposition in many ways. Will the US be the next victim?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Warning-Madeleine-Albright/dp/0062802186
Merriam Webster
:fascism noun
fas·cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \
Definition of fascism
1voften capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
I think the U.S. has always had fascistic tendencies and factions. (Southern plantations were fascistic little fiefdoms. So are sweatshops that employ non white or foreign labor.)
DeleteI don't think anyone believes fascism isn't a dangerous possibility, or that the current president isn't a fascist liar.
But the notion that humankind is somehow "hard-wired" towards fascism in the of a strong tribal leader is highly debatable.
I think we do have a tendency to embrace what seem like easy answers or, sometimes, magical thinking. And the Big Daddy leader types are certainly not above exploiting that. But, as pointed out, we have maintained democracies for quite long times. So I don't think it is a matter of being hard-wired towards fascism. What we have to guard against are mental laziness and disengagement.
DeleteAgree with both Jean and Katherine. But....
ReplyDeleteNot hard-wiring, but I do think that due to apathy, we are at risk of severe damage to our constitution, to how our government functions. There is a clear threat to freedom of the press. If trump wins in 2020, there will be little to constrain him.
He "jokes" about a third term, or about having been cheated of time by the Mueller investigation. I don't think he's joking. He knows that no matter how much he lies, and cheats, how corrupt he and his cronies are, how often he violates the Constitution and runs over the so called "balance of powers" that is supposed to protect us, he can count on the GOP and his "base" to support him.
The next election is crucial - not just the presidential, but the Congressional. If he still has a majority in the Senate, there is a big danger that his authoritarian tendencies will take over because there is little in his way to stop him. A bunch of weak sycophants in the WH, a bunch of Acting heads of various agencies, including DoD, a totally cowed "leadership" in the Intelligence and National Security agencies, and a spineless GOP who will do nothing to stop him and everything to re-elect him - even stopping primary challenges.
I think that a lot of people voted for Herr Drumpf because they WANTED a Big Daddy. He sounded the part and has turned out to be nothing more than Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulterer on steroids.
ReplyDeleteBernie and Warren tend to present themselves as Big Daddy/Mommy but on the "progressive" side of the scale. Something free for everyone and that, too, will not happen if either is elected. At least Yang is honest that he wants to give away free money. But, he, too doesn't give an honest answer to the cost.
I wish I thought Pete Buttigieg had a chance of getting the nomination. I think he is more grounded in what is realistically possible than Bernie or Warren. Well actually they have to know they're talking some smack to get votes, too. Biden? More about him later, I am uncomfortable with this Ukraine thing.
DeleteI disagree. I don't believe there's anything Big Daddy about Warren or Sanders. They are merely real old fashioned Democrats with LGBTQ rights thrown in. And I wish we'd stop worrying about the money. If we whittle the military budget to what defense of our country requires down from World Control, there'll be plenty of quatloos to go around. For goodness sake. See how a few puny nukes in North Korea scare the hell out of everyone. A few nukes in a few US cities would bring this whole show to an end. So why do you need a few thousand?
DeleteWarren and Sanders can't deliver on everything they have talked about. And they know it. The only way they can deliver on any of it -- the good parts -- is to have a Democratic House and Senate and a decisive victory. They know that, too.
DeleteNeither has talked of throwing opponents in prison. Neither is running on how many people they can hate. Bernie is too loud; he can't help that, but he is. Warren can 'splain herself AND SHE DRIVES THE DUNNING-KRUGER NUTS; all she has to do to get elected is not sound as if she is lecturing while she, um, explains. And then we can look at Congress to see what she can do.
BUT writing them off as too far left is just repeating Republican talking points. Remember what a left wing San Francisco hag Nancy Pelosi is in Republican talking points, and therefore in the "balanced" press and therefore in the mind of America. But who is holding up impeachment?
Too much of what "everybody knows" about the Democratic candidates is what the Roger Ailes wing told them.
A friend, a bit more centrist than me, made a comment about Bernie having some Trump-like tendencies in that he offers facile solutions and policies that would alienate right-leaners who might otherwise inclined to embrace some liberal social and environmental policies.
DeleteI'm not sold, but I do think this is worth thinking about.
I am also concerned with policies that basically throw free money or benefits at people. I can't control Republicans cuz I don't belong to their party.
But I do frequently nag at my Democratic to restore the social contract between labor and capital. Instead of using taxpayer money to provide a living wage and health care for workers, thereby giving capital yet another freebie, force employers to step up. Mandatory profit sharing, minimum benefits, and living wage.
That will still leave us with poor people--whom we will be better equipped to help if more working people have the do-re-mi
But nobody's talking like this other than Warren.
I dunno. I already pay a tax for medical coverage. It's called an insurance premium. Why should I care whether I pay some company or the gummint? I don't. Also, my friend the OR nurse says the only reason he stays in his job lifting 300 pound supersizees is the insurance. There'd be a lot more job mobility with medicare for all.
DeleteIstm that companies can bargain for better group rates for employees than employees can on their own. If companies don't want to deal with health care, then they should be required to pay the government for a universal plan for every employee, part time, full time, or gig. We need to take away the incentives employers have now to hire nothing but contract workers.
DeleteYes. The companies like to play that game. The status quo has too many loopholes for corporations to avoid paying benefits. I'm not for a dictator for the people but a dictator for corporations sounds good. Like when the automakers met with FDR to tell him how much of their production would be allocated to war production. And FDR told them, all of it.
DeleteAbout the employers who hire nothing but contract or part time workers to get out of paying for insurance, the worst example I can think of is our state government. Dept. of Game and Parks, to be exact. They are notorious for some 11/12 time positions. They want someone with a college degree in biology or wildlife management, but anyone with a student loan to pay off would be ill advised to work for them.
Delete