Or Maybe “Demopathy”

“Demopathy” is a term used previously, as far as I can tell from a Google search, by a few anti-democratic (and highly illiberal) polemicists of seemingly no great note. I find it expressive for a larger tendency that interferes with the Republican Party’s ability to handle the Trump challenge, and to govern its own affairs and argue its own case consistently and coherently, yet at the same time may justify the existence of the Party as a vehicle for a conservative understanding of the American system.

Assembled from Tweets:

[Dan Scotto’s The Republican Nomination and the Language of Popular Democracy”] comes closest among recent posts I’ve seen to [a clear] argument on “demopathic” distortion of our political discussion re primaries/

seems we need to review theories of democracy at their most basic – saying “republic not a democracy” apparently not enough/

very few observers take cognizance of mass electoralism as only one, highly compromised and mixed form of democracy/

the misapprehension underlies numerous policy errors: e.g., attempt to install “democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan/

in current discussion problem [Dan] get[s] at in his post is weird hybrid conception of party nomination process/

Trump et al discuss as though party is arm of democratic state – and as democratists we reflexively revert to majoritarianism…/

…regardless of how artificially or tenuously grounded

The relevant readings might seem, as Dan pointed out in a reply-tweet, a bit “Grad schooly,” or maybe they would once have counted as “High School Civics-y.” They would begin with the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, and the American Framers, possibly with summons to a group of expert witnesses to testify further on range of forms of self-government other than mass electoralism that fall or have fallen under the heading of “democracy.”

Yet the civics lessons have in fact been generally absorbed and are widely accepted, though somehow we fail to put them against the equally widely accepted contradictory democratist or demopathic notions. We all understand that “majority rules” is insufficient for running the government, to say nothing of other realms of life.

The disconnect seems to be a by-product of overcompensation on the part of leading proponents in their attempt to convince the masses that that the system (the whole state including the political administrative state and constitutional order) is being operated by and for them, that it belongs to them and they to it – or even that they or we are it and it is what they or we are. By now members of the former group, who may believe little else either individually or collectively, who may not even believe in belief at all, has come to believe their own propaganda, but are no longer aware that it is or ever was propaganda, or, to put things less prejudicially, that their explanation that is also their self-description is at best a gross simplification: just good enough for government work until the moment it prevents the government from working – or from working “good enough” according to views shaped by the same distorted process, as their unbelievable belief is insisted upon by those originally believed in need of being inculcated with that same belief.

The testimony of the experts has actually already been given. They identified this problem as a matter of theory, and correctly suggested that it could be solved in practice, if never securely. That remainder or gap is the same one that appears in the “discursive” problem that Dan describes, and that we are currently observing as a conflict bordering on crisis within and of the presidential nomination process primarily in the Republican Party, but increasingly enveloping the Democratic Party and perceptions of its legitimacy and therefore of the entire two-party political system as we know it.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins