University of California–Irvine Professor of political science and psychology Shawn Rosenberg says I’m wasting my time trying to save democracy. According to Professor Rosenberg, the moral thesis on which I base my every political move, that our equal human dignity entitles us to captain our own destiny as a community via democracy, is overruled by the practical observation that our flawed psychology renders us incapable of running our own political affairs:
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.
Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in the context of a modern mass democracy. Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight. Biases of various kinds skew our brains at the most fundamental level. For example, racism is easily triggered unconsciously in whites by a picture of a black man wearing a hoodie. We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.
Our brains, says Rosenberg, are proving fatal to modern democracy. Humans just aren’t built for it [Rick Shenkman, “The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy,” Politico, 2019.09.08].
Shenkman said the semblance of democracy persisted in the United States persisted as long as it did only because certain “economic, political, and intellectual” elites conscientiously held it together (my heart sinks at the thought that the democracy I celebrate may have been a fiction maintained by benevolent overlords). Those elites have been dethroned by the supposed democratization of information (another heart-sink: by the very technology on which I have built my own role in South Dakota politics):
While the elites formerly might have successfully squashed conspiracy theories and called out populists for their inconsistencies, today fewer and fewer citizens take the elites seriously. Now that people get their news from social media rather than from established newspapers or the old three TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), fake news proliferates….
The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism. Rosenberg argues that the elites have traditionally prevented society from becoming a totally unfettered democracy; their “oligarchic ‘democratic’ authority” or “democratic control” has until now kept the authoritarian impulses of the populace in check [Shenkman, 2019.09.08].
Democracy is like exercising and eating our vegetables; right-wing populism is like sitting on the couch with a bag of Cheetos—it’s not good for us, but it satisfies our cravings:
Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense. They can simultaneously blame immigrants for taking jobs away from Americans while claiming that these same people are lazy layabouts sponging off welfare. All the populist followers care is that they now have an enemy to blame for their feelings of ennui.
And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just one. They insist that people be loyal. Loyalty entails surrendering to the populist nationalist vision. But this is less a burden than an advantage. It’s easier to pledge allegiance to an authoritarian leader than to do the hard work of thinking for yourself demanded by democracy.
“In sum, the majority of Americans are generally unable to understand or value democratic culture, institutions, practices or citizenship in the manner required,” Rosenberg has concluded. “To the degree to which they are required to do so, they will interpret what is demanded of them in distorting and inadequate ways. As a result they will interact and communicate in ways that undermine the functioning of democratic institutions and the meaning of democratic practices and values” [Shenkman, 2019.09.08].
Can we defy Rosenberg’s thesis?
If I accept Rosenberg’s observations but want to keep fighting for democracy, then I have to approach politics with something like Christian faith: we are fallible beings, not just unworthy of salvation but incapable of saving (governing) ourselves. Yet even as we accept our sinful nature, we must resist it. We must try to live according to the teachings of Jesus (Jefferson). That kind of faith is hard to maintain, but it is always better than sliding back into the alternative.
((This observation gets extra parentheses because it is that much more tangential, but could there be another analogy between Rosenberg’s view of democracy and Christianity: real Christianity is really hard to grasp and practice, and when we undermine conscientious and highly educated faith leaders, we end up with a rabble of populist preachers who play to fear and ignorance, offer distractions and easy answers, and demand only loyalty expressed with donations and gaudy exhibitionism.))
I’m not sure I can fully analogize the Christian worldview and Rosenberg’s pessimism about democracy. Christianity says we are all sinners. Rosenberg’s thesis depends on positing that at least a few humans are capable of overcoming their cognitive and emotional deficiencies and governing responsibly. If certain elites can do it, can create and sustain a system that offers imperfect but admirable and expanding liberty and justice for 200 years, why can’t more people rise such conscientious, functional democratic spirit? Why can’t we coach everyone to be Chris Traeger, get off the couch, exercise, eat well, and read and vote with their superego instead of their id?
There’s the challenge: do we accept the evidence of human fallibility, round up a few egghead friends, and retreat to our own Galt’s Gulches like Jeffersonian survivalists waiting for the End Times? Or do we take on faith (and the fact of a few great teachers, like Jefferson, Lincoln, Obama, and Elizabeth Warren) the idea that the common man is, if not perfectable, at least improvable, and that with guidance and good public schools, we can get a majority of citizens to make a little extra time to eat some broccoli, read some books, and exercise their mental and moral muscles just enough to resist petty tyrants and gasbags and elect responsible leaders?
More concisely, is the climb back to democracy hard or impossible?
Rosenberg’s thesis strikes me as internally contradictory. The premise that on the one hand that psychological research demonstrates our human physiology leads to irrational brain functions of humanity as we gain easy access to information. e.g.,
seems inconsistent with the additional premise, on the other hand, that there has been, and still is, a group of humans he labels the “elites” that apparently are not irrational and have somehow escaped these biological human characteristics.
Indeed, how did these “elites” escape a fundamental biological condition of humanity? A natural answer might be through their advanced education, yet even that conclusion is inconsistent with Rosenberg’s suggestion that access to information is substantially easier today than in the past he describes. Indeed, although I haven’t researched this andf cannot be certain, it would seem that there are substantially more educated people today than in the past in the US and other developed countries. If so, then it would seem that more education and access to information undermines the development oif the so-called “elites.”
Perhaps Rosenberg has valid criticism of where we find ourselves today in Trump-land, swindled by a con man with some odd ability to convince enough people that matter to ignore their lying eyes and ears and believe whatever Trump tells them. His theory that this is a result of an inevitable biological human characteristic, however, just doesn’t seem to hold water.
I might also note that his assertion that
which apparently is based on the election of con men like Trump, overlooks the fact that our own “majority’ voted for someone other that Trump by about 3 million votes.
One further observation – to the extent Rosenberg asserts that the “elite” are also irrational, which apparently was met with some skepticism by his audience, it would seem to follow that this irrationality does not, in fact, necessarily lead to the conclusion he posits, namely, the rejection of democratic society. Indeed, he argues instead that it was these irrational elites that have kept democracy together in the past.
I think BCB is right about the internal inconsistency of Rosenberg’s thesis. Also, isn’t Rosenberg assuming that the US is a democracy? I think that’s far from established, given the electoral college, gerrymandering, the US Senate, voter suppression, discrimination and a host of other issues. I don’t think the US has ever been a democracy, now or at any time in the past. Right-wing extremism/populism is a product of one part of the elite, not of some democratizing process gone awry.
Machiavelli put forward the idea that democracies will tend to cater to the whims of the people. They will follow false ideas to entertain themselves, squander their reserves, and not deal with potential threats to their rule until it is too late. Sounds like Republicans to me.
He, like Rosenberg is painting with too broad a brush. To assert that humans are too simple to practice proper democracy discounts that democracy (rule of the people), like human conduct is overwhelmingly variable.
Google any one of these forms of democracy for a definition. Then realize that there is no concise definition or ability to criticize democracy.
*USA practices representative democracy
Anticipatory –
Athenian –
Authoritarian –
Cellular –
Consensus –
Cosmopolitan –
Defensive –
Deliberative –
Direct –
Economic –
Electronic –
Empowered –
Ethnic –
Grassroots –
Guided –
Inclusive –
Industrial –
Interactive –
Jacksonian –
Jeffersonian –
Liberal –
Illiberal –
Liquid –
Media –
Multiparty –
New –
Nonpartisan –
Participatory –
People’s –
Pluralist –
Popular –
Procedural –
Radical –
Representative –
Religious –
Buddhist –
Christian –
Islamic –
Jewish –
Mormon –
Sectarian –
Semi –
Semi direct
Social –
Socialist –
Sociocracy –
Sovereign –
Soviet –
Substantive –
Totalitarian –
Workplace –
Wasn’t that almost the premise the Founding Fathers worked from as well? The idea of a republic where we elect people to choose a president (electoral college) and have our state legislatures decide our senators kept direct control away from the people and checked by the intellectuals.
http://theconversation.com/non-human-democracy-putting-inspirations-lessons-and-analogies-to-work-51405
Democracy dies in orangeness.
Democracy In Action … When the voters of CO voted to legalize marijuana, Gov. Hickenlooper was against the idea, strongly. However, he supported the people’s right to rule even more strongly and signed it into law. Would Madame Noem be so supportive of democracy? NO! Why even waste your time petitioning it onto the ballot? Use petition time to get signatures to stop the onerous rules against petitioning.
Great piece, Bill. I think most on this blog would take bonobo and honeybee democracy over the malevolent, strangleweed, authoritarianism we’re fighting in Trump, all day-every day.
FFS, the U.S. is a Republic.
Yes, the Age of Enlightenment, the celebration of freedom, reason and the natural rights of man . . . all just a passing fancy in the evolution of the Human condition.
YFI … The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy).
From the excellent essay Bill linked to:
“It’s crucial to remember that avoiding violence builds trust and confidence in the group and between groups.”
Crucial indeed. I tend to think of violence as a physical act, but I think the majority of violence I’m aware of is verbal via the web in various forms.
Regarding Rosenberg’s commentary and the comments here– yeah. He’s not exactly airtight. My impression from polls and other sources, in addition to the past 2 elections, is that the compromised brain cohort is, at the most, 1/4 of our population.
While that’s a lot of people, it’s far from a majority. The GOP would like to increase that number of course, hence their attacks on education and their corrupted media network. Also their collusion with Russia.
Question– How many GOP MOCs are among the corrupted brain cohort? What about the ones who’ve quit Congress in 2018 and now?
Debbo is right. Let’s dig deeper.
There is a tendency in humans to look to and depend on “strong leaders,” especially in times of crisis or uncertainty. Republicans, as did the Nazis and the Communists, have realized this human trait, and developed a cynical strategy that tries to take advantage of people’s concerns for safety and security. The problem is most people, especially in the United States, don’t feel that threatened in their daily lives. How do you make people afraid?
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists and other anti-democratic movements, including Trumpism, figured this out: you make people blame, fear and hate someone else, while building you, you perfect being, up to be perfect and odor free. All of your troubles, they say, are the fault of this group or that group. All your insecurities and economic problems come from, oh, the Jews, or a democratic government in temporary paralysis, or the bourgeoisie. In current times, a lot of folks are made to fear and hate immigrants, Democrats and even Republicans who have criticized Dear Leader.
Watch a Trump rally. You would think Hitler was speaking, though Hitler was a much better speaker.
Racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia are proselytized and exploited by demagogues, like Hitler, Putin and Trump, but these beliefs do have some small beginnings in the limbic brain. And many Republicans exploit that to gain and maintain power, in the manner of Hitler. We mostly fear what we don’t know. That’s why children seem to be afraid of lots of things or are led to fear a lot of things. They are ignorant, and it takes experience and an open mind to become unscared of life. The adult children in our midst are perpetually scared—of Muslims, Mexicans and anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they think.
Because they are sacred cowards, many have to carry guns and pretend to be men. They believe they are weak, otherwise. And they are: too weak to overcome their own cowardice.
They say they have to have guns in case the government becomes tyrannical. Hey, here’s some news for you: there’s tyrant right there in the White House. Your guns ain’t preventing that, because you are so scared that you surrendered your humanity to the tyrant, and become a skittering rodent or a scared kids hiding from reality.
Donald Pay’s comment at 2019-09-11 at 10:43 is profound and reveals a lot about today’s odd world, including a very rational and likely accurate explanation of how normally caring, empathetic people can be manipulated into a group that fears and hurts people that pose absolutely no threat to anyone. For any group to use this technique simply to gain power and wealth at the cost of hurting fellow human beings is sickening.
Pay often has some of the best comments on DFP but this one stands shoulders above the others – thanks Donald!
I suppose that for research rigor, we should start with a solid definition of democracy.
Rosenberg defines democratic governance lengthily. Here’s one chunk from his paper:
Rosenberg says a key part of democratic governance is a public sphere that is “deliberative” and “organized so that it facilitates a respectful, cooperative exchange between citizens in which each can elaborate their own claims and constructively address the claims, reasons and justifications of others.”
As O suggests, Rosenberg’s thesis reflects the Founders’ hesitance about mob rule. Can we take the Founders as models of the sort of elites we could trust to promote some semblance of democracy over an unruly populace?
But indeed, the contradictions are rife. How can we have more people who are more educated yet fail to do democracy better? One would think that education would create more “elites” who would be able to help sustain democracy against our baser urges? Has higher education focused too much on preparing people for jobs rather than for citizenship?
Don’t swear at me with your insulting abbreviations, Steve. We’re talking about ideas, not technicalities. Even with a technical republic, we can talk about whether we are fostering and respecting the participatory rights and capabilities of all citizens to a greater or lesser degree. Again, you’re so eager to throw an insult and act superior that you miss the real point of the conversation.
” … the decision-making and regulatory functioning of the state must be guided by a notion of justice as fairness.” – Rosenberg
One question, Cory. What in South Dakota state politics can be accurately described as fair? No other state is as biased. You have elected, majority party legislators openly laughing about how unfair they’ve made it for the minority party. They pass on ideas of how to make it even more inequitable on a majority dedicated, bigot blog. They then get rewarded for their inexcusable and immoral discrimination, which only encourages more corruption. It’s just a big joke among men who were bad at sports. To compensate they get their competitive rocks off by cheating at fairness.
No wonder wise men like you question the state of democracy. It’s nowhere near as unjust (as what you live with) anywhere but where you live.
Donald, didn’t many of the fascist/Nazi/communist anti-democratic movements start with a “democratic” acquired status? I want to say that many anti-democratic regimes (and I may well add Trumpism to this list) were elevated by “the people” — the frightened, manipulated, mob. After the “legitimate” ascension, THEN those democratic processes were shut down to hold that power. But still, those in power could point back to that one moment that “legitimizes” the power grab.
I actually wish we had an electoral college that did what it was intended to do: that we would elect smart men and women who would then select the best person to lead this nation. Instead, the EC is a perversion of democracy because the electors selected are neither willing (or able by some state statues) to vote for the best candidate available nor apportioned according to popular vote (which would reduce the process to pure redundancy).
I guess the means I actually fear the mob rule mentality of democracy. I also know that as people’s choices increase, the proclivity to make the wrong choice increases. Not all choice is good. Any real discussion of democracy also has to account for differing power structures within the electing goup. Can we expect 19 lions and one lamb to have a fair vote on what to have for supper?
As I read Cory’s attempt to wind Christianity into democracy, I would add along those lines that what we are discussing is some element of willing self-sacrifice. I have to be willing to go against my own interests for. a larger common good. Now we are talking the very fabric of society – not just democracy. American democracy has failed, devolved in to kleptocracy, because instead of making individual sacrifice for the common good, the special interests/wealthy/demagogues have marshaled large (majority) numbers to their repressive agenda.
Cory asks important questions.
“How can we have more people who are more educated yet fail to do democracy better? One would think that education would create more ‘elites’ who would be able to help sustain democracy against our baser urges?”
Thinking aloud . . .
I feel that we as a nation of free public education have lost focus on building critical thinking skills. In large part that’s due to the GOP push against such skills because they know it doesn’t serve their purpose of creating ignorant, compliant and fearful voters. But that’s not the only cause.
I think there’s an overemphasis on memorization and on teaching tangible skills. The test scores ratings of today are a failure, imo. Schools do need to improve, especially in lower income areas, but adequate support would make an appreciable improvement.
Improvements in teacher education and especially cultural teacher valuation would create better schools too.
I’m not advocating a strict “classical” education, but perhaps something along that line.
Maybe these folks will help revitalize our democracy. From Axios’ Kim Hart:
“Nationally, Hispanics and Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial minority groups, increasing by 18.6% and 27.4%, respectively, between 2010 and 2018, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution demographer Bill Frey.”
http://bit.ly/2Q4dWfz
Rosenberg made his name in the 80’s by asserting that voters select candidates based on their looks. Might be true in many cases or, as in SD, simply based on the R behind their name.
Exerpt – While the elites formerly might have successfully squashed conspiracy theories and called out populists for their inconsistencies, today fewer and fewer citizens take the elites seriously. Now that people get their news from social media rather than from established newspapers or the old three TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), fake news proliferates.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045