4 ms·

Yes. However, I don't think it's accurate to characterize Lippmann's assessment of the public as "meddlesome". It's true that he was an elitist, but Lippmann's

Yes. However, I don't think it's accurate to characterize Lippmann's assessment of the public as "meddlesome". It's true that he was an elitist, but Lippmann's brand of elitism stemmed from the empirical observation that governing a large population is clearly too complex for even a representative democracy to do well (and is certainly more difficult than proponents of democracy are willing to admit, if not impossible). Unlike most forms of elitism, his view of the public as incapable of governing itself was not rooted in ideas about their moral inferiority but in the acknowledgement that it just isn't functionally possible for them to run the show. This observation led to three conclusions (which IMO are correct): 1) That democracy at scale always regresses to partisanship, 2) The idea that "the people" actually govern themselves in any real democracy is largely a farce, and 3) That a system of "representatives" and bureaucrats running the show is itself elitist.

tehjoker 6y ago
I think it is very easy for people living in the US to tacitly accept these very dangerous assumptions given the state of our democracy. However, I would posit that the degradation of our democracy is due in part to elite acceptance of the idea that the people are either too dumb or physically incapable of governing themselves and thus governing for their own benefit. I would strongly push back on these assumptions. The democratic structures outlined in the US constitutions are flawed by design and leads to the specious conclusion that democracy is impossible. Mass participation in the democratic process, smashing old structures, and reconstituting new structures will allow democracy and the public to thrive.
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  These are not "assumptions" about "the degradation of our democracy". They are factual assertions about the structure of democracy as a system of government.
  - neuro_image3 6y ago
    I encourage you to listen to this podcast: Radical institutional reforms that make capitalism & democracy work better, and how to get them https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/glen-weyl-radically-reforming-capitalism-and-democracy/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/glen-weyl-radically-...
    - freejazz 6y ago
      I'm not sure what that would add when his point is that if people were anywhere near rational about this, there would be no need for such a podcast because these would already be features of our democracy, demanded by the people.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    They are not at all factual statements. The elite conception of the issue has become so indoctrinated in the population that it has become fashionable to regard them as such. Liberal authors are starting to come out with books that attack the idea of democratic governance. This is a bankruptcy with elites, broken structures, and a failing of liberalism (but not of radicalism).
    - staticautomatic 6y ago
      Which among them are not factual assertions?
seagullz 6y ago
The distinction in such specialized brand of elitism lies merely in its sophistication, not in its essential contempt for the citizenry. The roles of such mandarins as Lippmann accelerate the regression of democracy. Contrast that with the democratically constructive roles of people (whistleblowers, participants in labor/antiwar/civil rights movement etc.). There is no impossibility theorem proving that people cannot socially organize into functioning democracies. Slavery looked like an inevitability at some point, and certainly Lippmanns in that era were enagaged in theorizing about effective slave-ownership rather than about ways to abolish slavery. The "farce" becomes more farcical as power keeps getting concentrated more and more into the hands of the elites, a trend that is facilitated in no small ways by the mandarins. And farcically, they do not stop calling it a "democracy" even then. The reps and bureaucrats are meant to be (public) servants. There can be and should be efforts to effectively organize such roles in bottom-up fashions, and to keep them in line with their stated roles. If the supply water is found to have impurity in it (some large ppm), the next step is to improve it, rather than taking sewage line as its alternative.

tehjoker 6y ago

I think it is very easy for people living in the US to tacitly accept these very dangerous assumptions given the state of our democracy. However, I would posit that the degradation of our democracy is due in part to elite acceptance of the idea that the people are either too dumb or physically incapable of governing themselves and thus governing for their own benefit. I would strongly push back on these assumptions. The democratic structures outlined in the US constitutions are flawed by design and leads to the specious conclusion that democracy is impossible. Mass participation in the democratic process, smashing old structures, and reconstituting new structures will allow democracy and the public to thrive.

staticautomatic 6y ago
These are not "assumptions" about "the degradation of our democracy". They are factual assertions about the structure of democracy as a system of government.
- neuro_image3 6y ago
  I encourage you to listen to this podcast: Radical institutional reforms that make capitalism & democracy work better, and how to get them https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/glen-weyl-radically-reforming-capitalism-and-democracy/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/glen-weyl-radically-...
  - freejazz 6y ago
    I'm not sure what that would add when his point is that if people were anywhere near rational about this, there would be no need for such a podcast because these would already be features of our democracy, demanded by the people.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  They are not at all factual statements. The elite conception of the issue has become so indoctrinated in the population that it has become fashionable to regard them as such. Liberal authors are starting to come out with books that attack the idea of democratic governance. This is a bankruptcy with elites, broken structures, and a failing of liberalism (but not of radicalism).
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    Which among them are not factual assertions?

seagullz 6y ago

The distinction in such specialized brand of elitism lies merely in its sophistication, not in its essential contempt for the citizenry. The roles of such mandarins as Lippmann accelerate the regression of democracy. Contrast that with the democratically constructive roles of people (whistleblowers, participants in labor/antiwar/civil rights movement etc.). There is no impossibility theorem proving that people cannot socially organize into functioning democracies. Slavery looked like an inevitability at some point, and certainly Lippmanns in that era were enagaged in theorizing about effective slave-ownership rather than about ways to abolish slavery. The "farce" becomes more farcical as power keeps getting concentrated more and more into the hands of the elites, a trend that is facilitated in no small ways by the mandarins. And farcically, they do not stop calling it a "democracy" even then. The reps and bureaucrats are meant to be (public) servants. There can be and should be efforts to effectively organize such roles in bottom-up fashions, and to keep them in line with their stated roles. If the supply water is found to have impurity in it (some large ppm), the next step is to improve it, rather than taking sewage line as its alternative.