Democracy as Acedia / Sloth

"There is undoubted danger in looking upon politics as a deeply interesting game, a never-ending cricket match between Blue and Yellow. . . . Neither experience nor probability affords any ground for thinking that there may be an infinity of legislative innovation, at once safe and beneficent. On the contrary, it would be a safer conjecture that the possibilities of reform are strictly limited. The possibilities of heat, it is said, reach 2,000 degrees of the Centigrade thermometer; the possibilities of cold extent to about 300 degrees below its zero; but all organic life in the world is only possible through the accident that temperature in its ranges between a maximum of 120 degrees and a minimum of a few degrees below zero of the Centigrade. For all we know, a similarly narrow limitation may hold of legislative changes in the structure of human society. We can no more argue that, because some past reforms have succeeded, all reforms will succeed, than we can argue that, because the human body can bear a certain amount of heat, it can bear an indefinite amount."
--Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government

And a nation that is constantly tossed between the reforms of two opposing parties, when each of these reforms are large and sweeping, must be subject to much bad legislation. The nation will thrash about like an animal with a disease, doing much but accomplishing little, until whatever innate tendencies lie within the government, ignored by both parties, ruin it.

And so one of democracy's ostensible advantages is in reality a serious flaw: democracy is interesting.  It distracts us.  And as Pascal loved to point out, diversion is what ruins life.

Democracy as Monarchy Inverted

"Democracy is Monarchy inverted, and the modes of addressing the multitude are the same as the modes of addressing crowds. The more powerful and jealous the sovereign, the more unbounded is the eulogy, the more extravagant is the tribute."
--Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government

Now, note that while a monarch might be on guard against such flattery, given the position that he is in, the people are nearly never on guard against such things, because they do not see themselves as sovereign.

In any event, if I were to praise a dissolute sovereign, I would praise his honorable and courageous ancestors (because my praise would be true) and I would praise his great and glowing potential (because my praise could not be shown to be false). And I would praise them with rhetorical flourishes that remembered all the emotionally-charged events of his dynasty's history, even while I anticipated similar events in his dynasty's future.

Apparently the current leader of the United States agrees with me in this policy.

Monday's Quotation

"The theoretical part of this work is divided into chapters, and the chapters into propositions or articles. Nothing makes better felt the connections between ideas than to disconnect the propositions. The reader then sees where the chain of ideas is interrupted, and where it is continuous. . . . The continuous style, which is more agreeable for the reader, is also easier for the writer, and is above all better suited to imposing itself on the reader's attention while masking the disorder of ideas; but it is less favorable to the exposition of truth, and this is why the geometers adopted the method of division into proposition."--Louis De Bonald, Legislation Primitive, freely translated by me.

This statement may be taken too far; Spinoza did not attain the truth. But what truth, if any, does this statement contain?

Well, it is difficult to hide logical errors in clear and logical prose with clearly enumerated propositions, syllogisms, and conclusions. The clarity with which the ideas are articulated makes inserting bad arguments difficult.

It is easier, but still difficult to hide such errors in paragraphs of typically rhetorical prose. The presence of rhetoric and the absence of explicit logical steps makes it easier to hide bad arguments. But the arguments are still articulated, generally in enthymeme rather than syllogistic form.

Worst of all, though, is visual or emotional rhetoric that lacks any articulated arguments or propositions whatsoever, and instead works by associating positive feelings and images with whatever the rhetorician wants to communicate. Most modern rhetoric appealing to rights, freedom, democracy, and so on and so forth falls into this category.

When one looks at modern democracy, however, we find that this is the sort of argument that dominates the public sphere. This is quite predictable. All articulated, logical arguments require significant attention and concentration if they are to work. Given that the supermajority of citizens in a democracy are unsuited for such an activity by education or by nature, by the amount of leisure time that they have, and by reason of their constant entertainment and distraction, political success can best be gained by the use of such language. This is why elections are not intellectual engagements.

----------------------

Untranslated quotation: "La partie theorique de cet ouvrage est divisee en chapitres, et les chapitres en propositions o articles. Rien ne fait mieux sentir la liaison des idees que de detacher les propositions. Le lecteur voit alors ou la chaine des idees est interrompue, et ou elle est continue. . . . Le style continu, plus agreable pour le lecteur, est aussi plus aise pour l'ecrivain, et surtout plus propre a en imposer a l'attention sur le desordre des idees; mais il est moins favorable a l'exposition de la verite, et c'est ce qui a fait adopter par les geometres la division en propositions."

Note: Mondays will, unless disaster strikes, feature short quotations from generally unknown authors, with a short meditation upon the quotation's significance for our day.