Democracy in Decline: Rediscovering an Ancient Truth
Recent events and trends have reminded us that democracy is neither inevitable nor invincible. Is this a cause for panic or merely a sober reminder that history is full of surprises.
The newest war to save democracy has begun. The American left, clutches its pearls, screeches about the threat of Donald Trump, and somewhat ironically does everything it can to get Trump removed from the ballot. But this is only one source of worry about democracy.
In America, support for democracy among those 18 to 35 has fallen to 57 percent. For this group, democracy appears to be ineffective and prone to creating crises. For similar reasons younger Americans have a more favorable view of socialism than other generations. Such scepticism is not relegated to the left. On the right, one can see the emergence of a post-liberal right that rejects globalism, immigration, and corporate capitalism; some even espouse forms of integralism, Caesarism, or Christian nationalism.[1] Indeed many on the right are fundamentally alienated form many of the institutions that make modern democracies work.
Things are not much better on the world stage. Across the world, we see the reemergence of nationalistic great power politics, theocratic Islam, and authoritarian regimes. These forces represent powerful alternatives to the international liberal order, which only a decade ago looked hegemonic. In balance, Francis Fukuyama’s predication of democratic hegemony seemed to have lost out to the predictions of Sam Huntington and Alexander Dugin. Working within very different paradigms, both predicted that the unipolar moment enjoyed by democratic, capitalist West would be soon replaced a multipolar world featuring a diversity of regimes, economies, and civilizations.[2]
Ancient Philosophy and the Limits of Democracy
As someone who witnessed the dramatic events of the 1990s, scepticism about the future of democracy surprises me. Democracy and capitalism seemed to be everywhere victorious. However, perhaps I should not be too surprised. Simply stated there are good reasons to be sceptical about liberal democracy; perhaps it has run its course. In saying this, I am hardly alone. Many people around the world are waking up to the fact that democracy is not infallible, sacred, or invincible. For some this is an existential crisis, but it should not be so. To recognize the limits of democracy is nothing but sober realism. Indeed the limits of democracy were well known to the great political thinkers of antiquity. Ancient political philosophy recognized a plurality of regimes and did not assume that democracy (or republicanism) was always virtuous or best.
Plato recognized the following regimes: philosophical republicanism, philosophical monarchy, timocracy (rule of the brave), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny; in this list, only the first two are really preferable; timocracy is decent; the last three are corrupt because they represent the pursuit of mere pleasure.
Plato’s ideal republic is governed by a small group of citizens united by their love of wisdom and dedication to the state. Wisdom, unity, and civic-spirit are the hallmarks of the true republic. By contrast, “democracy” is marked by division and selfishness. In a democracy, just anyone can participate in public life regardless of qualifications. Inevitably, such a regime falls into incompetence and corruption, for in Plato’s view, the many — driven by their desires — are ignorant; they do not know what is really desirable. One does not need to endorse Plato’s elitism to see the point here. An effective republic requires educated citizens. For this reason, the founding fathers of America insisted upon the importance of reading and education in the liberal arts. Given our precipitous decline in literacy rates and educational standards, we have little reason for optimism.
Aristotle provides a similar analysis. He divides regimes into just and unjust governments in relation to the common good, which consists in the virtuous development of temporal goods. Those regimes that advance the common good are good and worthy of praise; regimes that fail to do so are corrupt and unworthy of allegiance. Just regimes include the republic, aristocracy, and monarchy; unjust regimes include democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny.[3] The republic is rule by the many for the sake of the common good. It is the good form of “representative government.” However, it must be noted that Aristotle does not imagine a universal franchise. Only those who have the character, intelligence, and time to deliberate well are included as full voting citizens. This makes sense in a way. (One of the problems of modern democracy is that it treats the wise and the foolish, the virtuous and vicious equally, which is unjust.)
In Aristotle’s view, a republic devolves into mere democracy when the ruling majority no longer seeks the common good of the nation, but the individual good. Yes, a democracy can become unjust, and it does so precisely by prioritizing the individual good: personal wealth, health, power, etc.
The insights of Plato and Aristotle are instructive, but I think we can uncover a deeper contradiction within democracy.
Ethos and Self-Destruction
At the heart of every political community is national spirit or ethos — a unifying and energizing spirit that defines a people. Ethos creates a sense of belonging between citizens that may be rooted in one way or another with a shared history, religion, metaphysics, ethnicity, language, customs, or other similar factors. These natural and circumstantial bonds create a deep unity that creates an “us” with a will for political community: laws, government, obedience, command, citizenship, etc. Without ethos political community cannot abide. Unfortunately, democratic regimes seem especially prone to subvert their own national spirit.
Democracy is associated with equality, popular sovereignty, change, and diversity. At a practical level, these values playout in popular debate, election campaigns, media manipulations, political parties, legislative debates, politically motivated trials, political propaganda, social revolution, cultural revolution, etc. The upshot is a political culture of constant conflict and change. If everything can be decided by a democratic vote then eventually every possibility will be tested. In the competition for votes and power, eventually nothing will be left off the table. The arguments and counter arguments will continue until the debate hits rock bottom and the politicians begin to question and then little by little unravel the national spirit in their own quest for power. An ethos once venerated is deconstructed, critiqued, and slowly killed. Democracy by its own inner dynamism subverts the national spirit that makes political community possible.
Perhaps the current anxiety over democracy is about more than recent events. In addition, there is a growing awareness that the American spirit is in decline, and there are no (or few) mechanisms for rebuilding it. The destruction of our heritage is too long and varied for this essay, but the fact of this destruction at the national level is almost beyond dispute. But the real sorrow of the matter is that we allowed this to happen. We allowed discontented internal factions to guilt the rest of the nation into self-destruction. The English language is degraded and displaced; our history is rewritten; our heroes deconstructed and monuments torn down; Christianity is ridiculed; the Latin and the classical canon fall into oblivion; the natural family is replaced by sexual revolution. On and on it goes. This is the real crisis of American democracy — the ethos of America is dying. So, we are left with Trump, corrupt oligarchs, and left-wing subversion. I really do not see how the republic can be rebuilt.
Prospects
In making these observations, I am not advocating for an end to republican government; rather I am describing its corruption to the best of my ability. Our current politics is simply a sign of the rot. This reality does not prevent us from muddling on for a while. Elsewhere I have written about strategies for creating compromises rooted in shared basic interests. But self-preservation and convenience are shallow foundations for a nation. One may hope to rebuild the pre-political unity of America through education. I am sympathetic with such efforts, but I predict only local and partial success for these endeavors. Only two realistic possibilities for rehabilitation seem possible: (a) a deep religious revival, or (b) a nationalist political program that aggressively rebuilds the old American foundations (or both). Anything less will simply be too little, too late. In saying this, I do not counsel despair. Perhaps now is a time for us rethink, reimagine, reform, and engage in a discourse of radical change. Perhaps. I will confess that such a sentiment is contrary to my inclinations; I am adverse to radical change by both personal sentiment and conviction, but as we are instructed by sacred scripture, there is a time for everything under heaven.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8)
[1] January 19, 2024: https://logosletter2022.substack.com/p/exploring-the-post-liberal-right
[2] February 7, 2024: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/15785079, https://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550, and https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/413179.
[3] It is worth noting that Aristotle’s republican government excludes women, slaves, and “servile” workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
So your bio says you are a philosophy proff, has anyone tried to cancel you for these against the left "woke" zeitgeist ideas?
I tend to think elite theory like Burnham and Mosca, and it's popularized form Yarvin is correct, and that democracy is always a façade, and there is always an elite in control. Perhaps small d democracy assures more circulation in that elite, but beyond that it seems more an on paper form than substance in my opinion.