It is commonly acknowledged that America is a politically divided country right now. This is not a particularly new situation. As a nation we have been divided on political issues to the point of violence in the past. Pick from issues such as slavery, Vietnam, or Watergate as Exhibit A. In our history, citizens often have had to reach the point of great passion prior to political change.
An important “ahha” moment for anyone seeking to understand our history and system of government is the realization that the founders wanted government to be difficult not easy. Although they favored representative government, hey feared pure democracy as much as tyrants and sought to make political change as slow and deliberate as possible. They attempted to spread power out with checks and balances for everyone, including voters. Ironically, then, change often happens only when most Americans are passionate about some issue. And passion was something the founders generally abhorred.
To understand the current political divide, especially between Progressive Democrats and Conservative Republicans, I think it helps to study the contrasting views of Platonists and Aristotelians which began in Athens over two millennia ago. After all, the founders were well versed in both Plato’s and Aristotle’s opinions about democracy as they debated and designed the Constitution.
For those who haven’t read Plato’s Republic recently, his ideal government would be run by a philosopher king. Plato disliked democracy, in part, because it was responsible for the death of his teacher/mentor/ friend, Socrates. Socrates was figuratively stoned to death by a mere thirty votes out of several thousand. His trial and death were a temporary victory of the Sophists who convinced enough Athenian citizens to find one of the smartest men in history guilty of apostasy and corrupting the youth of Athens.
Plato, continuing a line of thought introduced by Socrates, argued that only a few people are wise enough to make good governmental decisions. Most people are too easily swayed by oratorical trickery and pork barrel politics to vote wisely. It is therefore necessary to give the kingly power to someone who is uninterested in using it for his own benefit. The philosopher, in Plato’s mind, knows better than to overvalue our physical world with its distractions and minutia. The philosopher-king would lead well because he has no interest in enriching himself at the expense of others.
Madison et al. didn’t trust that a philosopher king would be easy to find or replace so they chose another route. Only property owning white males were given the right to vote. This thinking, detailed in The Federalist Papers, argues that only educated property owners will vote to protect freedom. Protecting property rights was considered fundamental to maintaining the Republic. Anybody else might be swayed by the bread and circus socialism that helped doom the Roman Republic. As further insurance against voter passions, they created the Electoral College.
It can, therefore, be argued that modern Republicans are very much in sync with the founders when they work on so-called voter suppression laws. Voting, in their mind, should be hard so that only highly motivated people participate. Mail-in ballots, early voting, and motor voter laws make voting too easy for people who may not take the time to study the candidates and issues thoroughly. The negative impact of these voting obstacles on minority votes is not deliberately racist, just a side effect. Fortunate or unfortunate is a matter of perspective.
Democrats, on the other hand, are more in tune with Aristotle. For him, the mistakes made by misguided masses are like the sour notes in a large orchestra. They are drowned out by the people who play well. The Vulcan wisdom from Star Trek that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is pure Aristotle. Modern Democrats seek to give a voting voice to those who have been traditionally left out of the political process. They want voting to be easier so that all can participate. They trust the wisdom of the masses to figure things out eventually.
People tend to stick to one camp and only vacillating on specific issues. On the one hand, most of us are raised to value representative democracy as the best form of government. On the other side, many voters admire dynamic forceful people who take charge. This is especially true when society is faced with difficult situations. Direct leadership vs. hive mind. It is a difficult choice in the best of circumstances. When the ship is sinking or we are knee-deep in alligators, expediency often wins out over philosophical consistency.
Personally, I am conflicted. My head follows Plato. But my heart believes in Aristotle. I know way too many ill-informed people who vote. The level of their ignorance on important issues (climate change for instance) is worrisome. At the same time, history is filled with examples of smart, knowledgeable people making decisions that, in hind sight, were dead wrong. The 1929 stock market crash and resulting Depression is just one example. As a result of the disaster created by the “best and brightest,” a majority of voters ignored traditional American thinking, elected FDR, and ended up with the most powerful economy in the history of the world.
Maybe, where the heart leads, the head eventually follows. Then we can get back to being Americans again instead of ideological partisans.
