
Democracy Is for the Gods – Humans Cannot Sustain It - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/opinion/why-democracies-fail.html
======
ellius
I'm glad the NYT has with a single op-ed answered the fundamental question of
the American Experiment.

Snark aside, there are entire great works of Western thought on the question
of whether men are capable of governing themselves. It is literally the the
opening question of "The Federalist Papers," for Christ's sake. A breezy
survey of a smattering of social science is bringing a knife to an
intellectual gun fight, and comes up well short of making a meaningful
contribution.

~~~
commandlinefan
NYT 1980-1992: Democracy has failed!

NYT 1992-2000: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!

NYT 2000-2008: Democracy has failed!

NYT 2008-2016: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!

NTY 2019: Democracy has failed!

~~~
karmakaze
I'm used to seeing them together--it's failing but we don't know of a better
alternative.

------
Mirioron
I find it curious that the author brings up populism as opposition to
democracy. I think it should be the other way around: populism can show the
danger of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing. I think a
constitutional republic is the best at keeping the danger of democracy away
and it also keeps the country democratic. That is, as long as people care for
the rule of law and follow the (likely reasonable) constitution.

> _For instance, much of today’s American democracy (one of the best versions
> on the market right now) would by Athenian standards be judged
> “oligarchic.”_

I fail to see how it would genuinely be called oligarchic. The current
president is someone that wasn't much in politics before running. Yes, he's
rich, but it still shows that even outsiders can come in and attain political
power.

On another note, I don't think people would call the democracy ancient
Athenians had as democracy either. Too few people had a say in politics.

~~~
inflatableDodo
Populism is ochlocracy, rather than democracy though. One defining feature of
democracy is that it is 'supposed' to take some account of minority views and
rights when legislating for the majority. People claiming winning mandates to
steamroller policies from knife edge splits, inflict some of the severest
damage on democracies.

~~~
vixen99
So you get to define it?

As Wikipedia suggests, 'There is no single definition of the term, which
developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various different
things'.

Included in these is a non-perjorative one as in 'a political philosophy
supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the
privileged elite or The movement organized around this philosophy.' (American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English)

A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.

~~~
inflatableDodo
>A personal agenda will decide which one to pick.

My personal agenda was to go with the usage in context. You can introduce
other uses of the term, for sure.

My point is that populism, in the context of _" populism can show the danger
of democracy. A tyranny of the majority is not a good thing."_ is rule of the
mob and so is actually ochlocracy, not democracy, as the demos is all of the
people.

A good example is wealth redistribution. A democracy might decide that it is
good for society as a whole to tax and spend its way to a more even society,
an ochlocracy is more apt to sieze that which is owned by whoever is currently
most unpopular.

Not all populist movements are ochlocratic, but all ochlocratic movements are
in some way populist. Is hard to form a public mob without being populist.

------
apo
The word "democracy" has apparently changed its meaning in the last few
hundred years. A few sources (whose titles I can't recall) state that at the
time of the founding of the US, "democracy" meant something more akin to "mob
rule."

In other words, not something to embrace, but something to fear. Not a
constitutionally-organized experiment in self-determination, but the French
Revolution (something that many founders saw as a cautionary tale).

The deep mistrust in direct democracy is on full display in the Constitution
itself. Only 1/3 of the Senate is ever up for election at one time. The
framers were deeply worried about a "throw the bums out" revolt.

The Electoral College is another example. The framers didn't want a popularity
contest that elected a lowbrow pandering to the the crowd's most base
instincts. They wanted someone who could appeal to the elite members of the
College and who shared their values.

~~~
buboard
> In other words, not something to embrace, but something to fear

Those were times where strong Kings ruled, of course they would bad-mouth any
dangerous idea, and most people went along with that.

Also, in modern times Democracy=Majorito-cracy, while they are not the same
thing.

------
ThrowawayR2
> _Ancient Athenian democracy devised two institutions that fleshed out this
> vision. First, sortition: the appointment of public officials by lot. Given
> the fundamental equality of rights that all Athenian citizens — that is,
> free male adults — enjoyed, the most logical means of access to positions of
> leadership was random selection._

There's an interesting unstated implication here: that all members of Athenian
democracy were willing to shoulder their responsibilities to the state and,
more importantly, all possessed the knowledge and qualifications to conduct
the management of the state. Contrast this with modern democracies where both
the wise and the foolish each get one vote on any issue, regardless of whether
they possess sufficient understanding to have a valid opinion. It does sound
like madness, doesn't it?

~~~
mikeash
It does sound like madness, but any alternative effectively tells the foolish
that if they don’t like how things are going then their only choice is to get
out the torches and pitchforks.

~~~
RobertoG
I think you are right. It seems to me that the strength of representative
democracy doesn't come from be able to choose who will be the leader, but from
the possibility of removing that leader from power in a peaceful way.

Looking to history we can see how extraordinary that is.

~~~
mikeash
Right, this is the weird thing about it. A democracy that has been captured by
a few powerful groups is still 90% as good as one that hasn’t, as long as the
people still believe that peaceful change is possible.

------
mola
But we can still try. Ideals are not meant to be achieved. We should use them
as a compass. If we give up entirely we give free reign to a minority of
bullies.

------
buboard
This is a good article. Democracy seems to work well over periods of a
relative sense of unity, like after WW2, when the world's nations realized
that this is their final borders and these are the final people they 'll live
with. I think sortition is a great way to bring to the test any democracy: If
you know that your neighbor might be the Judge of you next week, you adjust
your life, and demand adjustments of his life, in a way that ends up being
more fair for both of you. Unfortunately today's democracy is being used as a
tool for one mob to spite another.

~~~
seba_dos1
The borders after WW2 were nowhere near being final, and it's unlikely that
they're final even today.

~~~
buboard
Agreed, though I think that in everyone's mind, the perceived cost of
reshuffling borders once again in Europe had become unbearable considering the
devastation and horror of WW2

~~~
seba_dos1
Yet it still happens - just right out of my head: Ukraine, at least according
to some parties, has changed its borders recently and not exactly in a
peaceful way; Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore and neither does the Serbia and
Montenegro. And, of course, it's way more messy if you go outside of Europe.

------
rado
It's an illusion not unlike religion. The world has never been really governed
by the people, and never will be. Athenian voters were, like the article says,
"free males", so about 15%.

~~~
agumonkey
Some times I even question the emotional values of democracy compared to
monarchy. Monarchy .. is probably too easy to derail into half-dictature. But
I'm ready to bet 10$ that in normal cases the people have a better sense of
purpose.

~~~
krapp
> Monarchy .. is probably too easy to derail into half-dictature.

Monarchy, where the monarch has actual political power, _is_ a form of
dictatorship.

> But I'm ready to bet 10$ that in normal cases the people have a better sense
> of purpose.

Well, yes, such people do have a "better sense of purpose," in that they lack
the freedom to choose a purpose other than serving the aristocracy. Peasants
during the French Revolution doubtless knew what their purpose was in no
uncertain terms.

------
toddh
The big problem is a democracy relies upon the political process to counter
partisanship, which sounds good in theory—people working out their problems
together; in practice the political process algorithm has not proved a
sufficient immune system to sustain a democracy against the constant stream of
forces subverting it for their own ends.

In the US we’ve tried giving more power to the legal system in the hopes it
might be enough to save democracy, but that strategy is essentially
conservative. It’s not adaptive. A legalistic system can not rise to meet the
problems of the present or the challenges of the future.

A democracy, unless exceptional people lead it, can’t seem to overcome its own
greed and self-interest. What we need are more exceptional people.

------
rayiner
What a weird article. At scale, democracy has never been healthier in the
history of the world. More of the world lives in a functioning democracy than
ever has. Even in the west, the hold on politics of entities like organized
crime is near historic lows.

------
AnthonyMouse
Democracy fails, like any other system of government, with the centralization
of power. If you centralize power then people inherently have to fight over it
because it's the only way to have any. If people in California want free
public colleges and people in Wyoming want lower taxes, it's possible for them
to both have what they want, but not if they can't make different choices from
each other. If the same choice has to be made for everyone then you require
everyone to fight over which one to make. If you allow different communities
to make different choices, and then allow citizens to move freely to the
community they want to live in, that's really about the best we can do.

The inherent difficulty is that you need something strong enough to prevent
_someone else_ from accumulating centralized power, without that entity itself
becoming corrupted and used to impose the will of whoever controls it
uniformly on everyone else.

We tried that in the US and failed. The federal government was supposed to be
small. "Promote the general welfare" was meant as a restriction on the use of
government revenue for private use, not an enumerated power to spend money on
anything alleged to be of public benefit. "Interstate commerce" was never
intended to be equivalent to all commerce.

But the words on paper failed to resist the combination of a depression and a
strongman promising to fix it if only it weren't for all these silly
restrictions on centralized power. And they never give the power back even
after the crisis is over.

It remains to be seen whether a lock can be forged strong enough to keep
central power contained, but the first step today has to be to get it back
into its cage to begin with.

------
georgeecollins
This says that democracies never last and they almost never exist in their
perfect form. So what forms of government last in their perfect form?

~~~
purplezooey
right wing authoritarianism

------
nabla9
The problem with Athenian democracy was that there was not enough principles
limiting the instant power of the people. Socrates was trying to get Athenians
to accept some sense of justice and principles and that seems to be part of
the reasons behind his death sentence.

Athenian style democracy, sortition democracy, could work better with the
framework of principles in liberal democracy. In small local communities
sortition could work with no modification. It has never been tested in very
large scale (larger than city state) but I don't see reason why it would not
work. Some elected politicians seem to represent the low IQ lobby today.

~~~
astazangasta
Socrates was a fascist who hated democracy. His students imposed a noted
tyranny on the state of Athens, and his collaboration with that state is why
he was sentenced to death later. The only reason we think Socrates is so great
is that literally the only surviving texts are from his supporters. Meanwhile
texts from the Stoics or Democritus are lost. Its like if the only record of
our time was the writing of Henry Kissinger.

~~~
nabla9
Most of what we know about Socrates came from the writings of his student
Plato. What is you opinion on why Plato writes that Socrates did not support
tyranny?

Plato was supporter of the thirty tyrants led by the first cousin of Plato's
mother. Plato also clearly supported of the idea that philosopher kings should
rule, so I find it strange that he says Socrates was not supporting tyrants.

~~~
astazangasta
Plato was a young man when Socrates died. Imagine a bitter fascist a
generation later attempting to keep alive the cult of a noted collaborator put
to death for his collaboration. Of course he will say Socrates did not support
the tyranny.

~~~
nabla9
I don't follow. Plato was big supporter of the idea of philosophy of
philosopher tyranny, but he was so shamed of his own philosophy that did not
want Socrates to be associated with it?

~~~
astazangasta
No. Plato wanted to present an idealised world ruled by philosophers like
himself. He wanted to deny that this world was equivalent to the highly
unpopular government that had been imposed on Athens by their nemesis Sparta.
That is, he wished to deny that Critias, despite being educated in the manner
Plato favored, was a true representative of that philosophy, since the result
was so unpopular. This is a position taken by many ideologues, Marxist,
capitalist or otherwise, who repudiate the failures of their system in
practice - the system fails because it is not "real" Marxism, etc., which can
remain forever perfect in theory. In reality it isn't difficult to see the
outcome of Plato's philosophy (I am thinking mostly of The Republic) as
playing out in real life exactly as the Thirty Tyrants did - a bunch of rich
brats raised to think they were wise philosophers visiting their "wisdom" on a
captive populace.

------
EastLondonCoder
Its the old Human Nature argument. There is no definition on what this fabled
Human Nature is and I find it incredibly boring to reduce the nature of our
species to one aspect of us, most people are selfish from time to time. But if
selfishness is what define us, most people would be raging assholes and that
does not square with my experience of the world.

Further reading:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/20/human-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/20/human-
nature-politics-left-right)

~~~
PakG1
My experience is not that most people are raging assholes. It is that most
people are clueless assholes like elephants who aren't aware of the ants they
step on until they become "enlightened". I didn't use to think like this. The
older I get, the more confused and disappointed I get. At times, I find that I
am the clueless asshole. But I still hope that we can and will do better.

------
sausman
People (demos) and power (kratos) tend to not go well together, which is why
the US was founded as a democratic _Republic_ with strictly limited power.
Many of the founders viewed the state as a necessary evil.

Ben Franklin referred to the US as “A Republic, if you can keep it." I think
it’s fair to say we haven’t. Power is no longer viewed as an evil to be
restrained, but the solution to our problems.

We need to realize the state is force, and force is rarely the solution to our
problems. In most cases it creates more problems than it solves.

------
adolph
Is democracy a form of distributed consensus system? Have philosophers and
political scientists made checklists for what to do with various failure
modes?

[https://medium.com/s/story/lets-take-a-crack-at-
understandin...](https://medium.com/s/story/lets-take-a-crack-at-
understanding-distributed-consensus-dad23d0dc95)

~~~
buboard
I dont think it is. Democracy does not rely on consensus, instead the majority
rules over the minority. Bitcoin is a consensus. If 49% disagree, they can
leave and create a second consensus among themselves, and this action does not
somehow burden the 51% or vice-versa. If instead the 51% in a democracy
decides to tax the rest, they can't really escape it.

------
chvid
It is a very American perspective assuming democracy is given. A democracy
comes from the middle class, it requires a middle class. If that middle class
is deteriorating, the democracy will change into something else.

------
deltron3030
Democracy works if there is an option for a secession, if the part that
doesn't agree can branch off into its own thing without bloodshed. The
majority would have to find a balance or risk losing that part.

------
mikeash
The fundamental feature of democracy is that it gives people a way to address
their grievances that doesn’t require violence. This, in turn, provides for
peaceful transitions of power and overall political stability.

For democracy to accomplish this _does not actually require that it represent
the people_. It only requires that the people believe that nonviolent change
can occur.

Having a democracy that really is representative of the people and can
accomplish good things is, of course, very nice to have. But it’s a secondary
goal.

This is why I view Trump as much worse than W Bush even though W was
objectively worse on most metrics (like people killed for no good reason). For
all his faults, W respected the system. Trump’s hints that he wouldn’t accept
the outcome of an election he lost are, in the long run, far more dangerous.

------
astazangasta
This article is moronic. We are supposed to learn about human nature from Leni
Riefenstahl, a propagandist whose films were designed to make the Nazis look
as good as possible?

You know what is unsustainable? Fascism. Literally. It had no economic
program, and it flared out dramatically fighting conflicts with every other
country. Its soldiers had to be fueled by methamphetamines to prosecute this
war. And on both ends it was bookended by democracy.

~~~
krapp
>We are supposed to learn about human nature from Leni Riefenstahl, a
propagandist whose films were designed to make the Nazis look as good as
possible?

We can learn a great deal about human nature and the banality of evil from the
Nazis and their propaganda - they weren't aliens or demons after all. Also, a
lot of modern cinematography has been influenced by Leni Riefenstahl's
techniques.

I agree with you about the unsustainable nature of fascism, but its constant
need for plunder and spoil applies just as much to the imperialism of Europe
and (to a lesser extent) the US.

~~~
astazangasta
I agree we can learn from studying Riefenstahl, and also that the film is
amazing, but i deny that we are learning about "human nature", a concept which
I generally abhor and which is used to end sociological arguments at a desired
point.

My koan about human nature comes from my child, who at 18 months, just barely
after talking, was able to sustain the notion of video chat with no real
instruction - that is, that the image in the wall that was speaking to him was
a person he could interact with. Nothing in the evolutionary background
prepared him for this. If there is a "human nature" it is to be pliant to an
ever-changing circumstance.

------
inflatableDodo
I'm not sure that is exactly how I would describe the Manx.

------
dash2
On populism: "For in regimes of this kind, whenever power is used and
displayed, the effect is profoundly erotic."

You bet. I'm off to bed to Google frenetically for "Trump sexy pics".

Update: PAYDIRT!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY1kbCQP8Fc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY1kbCQP8Fc)

~~~
Fjolsvith
Sure beats the "sexy" pics of the other party.

------
anm89
Democracy falls into the same boat as capitalism. It's a total mess and
everyone hates the outcomes but it's by far the least bad system and always
will be.

That still leaves a lot of rooms to tweak the details and make it as bearable
as possible.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
Tweaks like take money out of politics, make votes mandatory, maybe abandon
the first-past-the-post system...

(If you can make those tweaks democratically, of course.)

------
henvic
Is for the demons. Democracy is not about freedom nor liberty but depriving
minorities to the willingness of a major party. It's about imposing plunder
and violence and has always been. You can't deny it. No Orwellian doublespeak
should get in the way to hide what it is. Society should stop accepting it as
a godsend and understand this is not ally to freedom or respect to private
property but quite the opposite.

It's just an old travesty that empowers the worst kind of gang criminals that
can force their desires upon us, plunder the poor, and assault innocent people
meanwhile they brainwash us to believe it's legit just because the majority
agrees with.

The Philosophy of Liberty: Plunder - Frédéric Bastiat
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI)

~~~
Fjolsvith
Emigration is an option.

~~~
buboard
Presenting Exit as the best option for anarchists is pretentious when coming
from Democratic States. They have repeatedly attacked attempts to create a
free state.

~~~
Fjolsvith
You have smeared me by embellishing my point and calling me pretentious.

~~~
buboard
You are not the "Democratic State" i was referring to

~~~
Fjolsvith
You should have been more specific as I live in a democratic state and
identify with it.

~~~
buboard
Even if you are a state official and thus part of it, I don't see how it is a
smear ? It is true that democratic states have repeatedly dismantled anarchist
enclaves and attack anarchist institutions like bitcoin.

------
caiocaiocaio
2edgy4me

~~~
dang
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

