- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 61,975
- Reaction score
- 39,042
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I remember first being exposed to arguments against democracy in college: by thinkers like Plato or Nietzsche. They wanted rule by an intellectual class, the elites of society, the philosopher-kings. They didn't think the ignorant uneducated mobs were capable of actually governing themselves, and the consequences would be disastrous
I remember thinking to myself: well thank goodness the founding fathers of this country created a system where we could have democracy, but with checks and balances to avoid the worst excesses of mob rule by the ignorant masses. They had figured out a way to have the best of both worlds, right?
Pffft. Boy was I wrong. This is clearly still an issue we humans have not figured out, even after all these centuries (or millenia). I recently stumbled across this video, talking about the exchange between the American philosopher John Dewey and American reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann on democracy, this one in the 1920s, revolving around the nature of public opinion, the role of expertise, and the feasibility of a truly participatory democracy.
Their exchange was sparked by Lippmann’s works, particularly Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925). It was based on his work as a war correspondent during WWI, where he saw how easy it was for government and media to sway and distort public opinions and passions. Dewey responded in The Public and Its Problems (1927). Here is a summary of their various positions if you don't want to watch the whole video (although I would recommend it, it's done very well).
For Lippmann, democracy should not be about direct public participation but rather about ensuring that informed elites make decisions in the public interest. The public, in his view, was more of an audience than an active participant in governance.
Dewey believed that reforms in education, media, and civic institutions could empower people to engage more effectively in political life, making democracy more genuinely participatory rather than a rule by elites.
___________________________
What do you think? Do you think, after seeing how easily mainstream media, science, medical organizations, economists, etc... have all been villified by Fox News and MAGA, to make room for a convicted felon who rose to power talking about secret Kenyan birth certificates and cat eating Haitians in Ohio, that democracy really works? Do you side with Lipmann or Dewey's side of the debate?
If you agree with Dewey, how do you suggest his proposal of "communication, education, and mutual inquiry" be conducted in a world today where science and education are being so effectively discredited by MAGA? How do you teach evolutionary biology in a world where the dept of education is being dismantled and more Americans believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old rather than basic evolutionary biology; or that the founding fathers of this country wanted separation of church and state rather than white Christian nationalism?
I remember thinking to myself: well thank goodness the founding fathers of this country created a system where we could have democracy, but with checks and balances to avoid the worst excesses of mob rule by the ignorant masses. They had figured out a way to have the best of both worlds, right?
Pffft. Boy was I wrong. This is clearly still an issue we humans have not figured out, even after all these centuries (or millenia). I recently stumbled across this video, talking about the exchange between the American philosopher John Dewey and American reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann on democracy, this one in the 1920s, revolving around the nature of public opinion, the role of expertise, and the feasibility of a truly participatory democracy.
Their exchange was sparked by Lippmann’s works, particularly Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925). It was based on his work as a war correspondent during WWI, where he saw how easy it was for government and media to sway and distort public opinions and passions. Dewey responded in The Public and Its Problems (1927). Here is a summary of their various positions if you don't want to watch the whole video (although I would recommend it, it's done very well).
Lippmann’s Position:
Lippmann was skeptical of the idea that the general public could meaningfully engage in democratic decision-making. His argument was shaped by his experiences with propaganda and media during World War I, where he observed how easily public opinion could be manipulated. He argued that:- The world is too complex for ordinary citizens to grasp in detail.
- People rely on simplified "stereotypes" rather than direct knowledge of political affairs.
- The media, often distorted by biases, fails to provide an accurate picture of reality.
- Governance should be guided primarily by experts and technocrats who possess the necessary detailed technical knowledge to make informed decisions.
For Lippmann, democracy should not be about direct public participation but rather about ensuring that informed elites make decisions in the public interest. The public, in his view, was more of an audience than an active participant in governance.
Dewey’s Response:
Dewey rejected Lippmann’s technocratic pessimism and defended a more participatory vision of democracy. In The Public and Its Problems, he argued that:- Democracy is not just a system of government but a way of life based on communication, education, and mutual inquiry.
- The public might be disorganized, but its capacity for democratic participation could be improved through education and better institutions.
- Experts do play a role, but they should not replace democratic engagement; instead, they should serve as facilitators who help the public deliberate effectively.
- The problem is not that the public is inherently incapable, but that modern industrial society has created barriers to meaningful participation (e.g., lack of access to knowledge, poor communication systems).
Dewey believed that reforms in education, media, and civic institutions could empower people to engage more effectively in political life, making democracy more genuinely participatory rather than a rule by elites.
___________________________
What do you think? Do you think, after seeing how easily mainstream media, science, medical organizations, economists, etc... have all been villified by Fox News and MAGA, to make room for a convicted felon who rose to power talking about secret Kenyan birth certificates and cat eating Haitians in Ohio, that democracy really works? Do you side with Lipmann or Dewey's side of the debate?
If you agree with Dewey, how do you suggest his proposal of "communication, education, and mutual inquiry" be conducted in a world today where science and education are being so effectively discredited by MAGA? How do you teach evolutionary biology in a world where the dept of education is being dismantled and more Americans believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old rather than basic evolutionary biology; or that the founding fathers of this country wanted separation of church and state rather than white Christian nationalism?
