Democracy, usually in its representative form, is something of a sacred cow in Western societies. One of the primary arguments made by Brexiteers following the European Union referendum in 2016 is that leaving the EU is simply respecting democracy; respecting the will of the people, and fundamentally, the people themselves. Advocates for lowering the voting age to 16 argue that this will expand and strengthen democracy. But why do we hold it so sacredly? It doesn't guarantee better debate, or better decision-making. I will argue that democracy reduces the standard of democratic debate, ultimately reducing the possibility of good ideas being shared in the political arena.
It is incredibly contradictory for us to both value the rigorous debate of political ideologies while also valuing democracy. The two are mutually exclusive. During election campaigns, politicians often compete (compete, not converse) in live, televised debates. Following the debate, we often hear complaints that the candidates are not given long enough to properly debate the issues at hand and the ideologies that drive such debates. We often complain that politicians are more concerned with bringing their opponents into disrepute than they are with the policies at hand. This is because they are adapting their messages for their audiences: the politically uninformed, who make up a large portion of the electorate.
You would be hard-pressed to find a politician who spends their precious debate time explaining the philosophy behind their positions. They would be accused of being uncharismatic, boring, too scholarly or "nerdlike"; as if politics should be more like stand-up comedy than intellectual warfare. Just in this US election cycle, Senator Warren (D-MA), prominent Democrats have criticised her for "lecturing". David Axelrod says, "people feel like she's talking down to them." In the last election cycle, ophthalmologist and politician Rand Paul failed in the GOP nominee race. I put it at least partially to his appearance of unrelatability; did Paul honestly believe he would win the nomination advocating for rational debate and using terms like non sequitur?
What is the product condensing and paraphrasing rigorous intellectual arguments for the benighted masses? The great political philosophers and economists are relegated to the lower leagues of the public conscience. The works of men like Aristotle and Burke are soon regarded as unimportant. Eventually, we will come to realise that our obsession with more easily digestible information has made nullified our ability to debate. And if debate is the tool by which we reach solutions, logic following, we will have no solutions. And that will be the end of us. Eventually, the anti-intellectualism that democracy promulgates will be the detriment of our society.
It is incredibly contradictory for us to both value the rigorous debate of political ideologies while also valuing democracy. The two are mutually exclusive. During election campaigns, politicians often compete (compete, not converse) in live, televised debates. Following the debate, we often hear complaints that the candidates are not given long enough to properly debate the issues at hand and the ideologies that drive such debates. We often complain that politicians are more concerned with bringing their opponents into disrepute than they are with the policies at hand. This is because they are adapting their messages for their audiences: the politically uninformed, who make up a large portion of the electorate.
You would be hard-pressed to find a politician who spends their precious debate time explaining the philosophy behind their positions. They would be accused of being uncharismatic, boring, too scholarly or "nerdlike"; as if politics should be more like stand-up comedy than intellectual warfare. Just in this US election cycle, Senator Warren (D-MA), prominent Democrats have criticised her for "lecturing". David Axelrod says, "people feel like she's talking down to them." In the last election cycle, ophthalmologist and politician Rand Paul failed in the GOP nominee race. I put it at least partially to his appearance of unrelatability; did Paul honestly believe he would win the nomination advocating for rational debate and using terms like non sequitur?
What is the product condensing and paraphrasing rigorous intellectual arguments for the benighted masses? The great political philosophers and economists are relegated to the lower leagues of the public conscience. The works of men like Aristotle and Burke are soon regarded as unimportant. Eventually, we will come to realise that our obsession with more easily digestible information has made nullified our ability to debate. And if debate is the tool by which we reach solutions, logic following, we will have no solutions. And that will be the end of us. Eventually, the anti-intellectualism that democracy promulgates will be the detriment of our society.
Comments
Post a Comment