Home » Opinion » Opinion: Too Stupid To Govern

Opinion: Too Stupid To Govern

 
People often say that people are too stupid to govern. This is unfortunate since we’re all people. Monarchs, presidents, softball coaches, popes, senators, chairwomen, judges, county commissioners, fire chiefs, bureaucrats, generals, school board members, sheriffs and (by law) corporations are all people, and are thus too stupid to govern.

If people are too stupid to govern, then we can’t have a government; or if we do have a government, it will be stupid.

Supposedly, people are too dumb to rule, but not too dumb to pick political representatives who rule on their behalf. But if representatives are supposed to represent the voters, and the voters are blockheads who can’t govern, then their representatives should also be blockheads who lack a knack for politics; otherwise, those politicians don’t truly represent their half-wit constituents.

Perhaps some people aren’t political morons, and are thus cerebrally equipped for office. In a pick-a-leader democracy these not-too-stupid people must solicit votes from the square-dancing herd of idiots. The United States features a let-some-politician-make-your-decisions-for-you democracy wherein candidates gain support by telling voters how they would govern and which policies they’d enact. So apparently, voters are wise enough to decide which policies should be enacted and who should implement them, but they aren’t bright enough to ditch the interceding political gatekeeper and directly craft and apply those policies.

Democracy used to mean “the people rule” but nowadays most people think “democracy” means Republicans and Democrats run for office and whoever gets the most votes represents the voters who voted for them as well as the voters who voted against them.

People usually refer to democracy as “direct democracy,” which is like referring to eating as “direct eating”: Either you’re doing it or you aren’t. Similarly, “representative democracy” is like “representative eating”: Unfulfilling. These days, so long as somebody somewhere is voting on something, the entire system is called a “democracy.”

Ordinary mortals are told that matters of government are beyond their ken, and so their ability to rule should be confined to council positions at the Moose Lodge. And while it’s true that half of the world’s population is below average, there’s no way to tell if all the slack-jawed mouth-breathers are too ignorant to rule without letting them try.

To be sure, direct democracy has its fair share of petty squabbles that make it move slower than turtle feet crawling through a warp-and-weft of stubborn impatience as people fuss and fight and embarrass themselves by saying things that are false, racist, sexist, classist, ageist, nationalist, and outright asinine, which makes them much like people in Congress, the White House and every governmental agency.

We’re told that government should be entrusted to political professionals, such as the Pentagon officials who lost $2.3 trillion of public money, or Clinton and Obama’s financial gurus who enabled the economic meltdown, or the folks who neglected the levees in New Orleans and then directed FEMA’s graceful response to Katrina, or the many members of Congress who deny human contributions to climate change, or the diplomats whose juvenile shenanigans were exposed by Wikileaks or the architects of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” who said the war would last a few weeks and pay for itself. If one needs evidence of mediocrity in high places, examine the Republican presidential primary, which Fidel Castro called a “competition of idiocy and ignorance.”

Aristotle, a careful scholar of politics who is considered one of the most genius geniuses in history, said the collective wisdom of the nitwit masses is superior to the wisdom of the wisest lawgiver.

There was a time when regular people could only enter the palace if they wore a floppy felt cap with dangly brass bells, waved a bauble and played the fool. Monarchs said the rabble was too bird-brained to reign, and then they were overthrown by rich white guys who formed parliament and then those rich white guys said that anybody who wasn’t a rich white guy was too daft to rule.

But after centuries of struggle, the imbeciles have been enfranchised. These bonehead magpies have proved that the tyranny of the majority is much less dangerous than the tyranny of a minority. Indeed, history shows that there’s much less reason to fear the mob than to fear the elites. If the numbskull crowd of dim-bulb dullards can disempower their dingbat leaders, there might still be hope for the planet.

When people say that people are too stupid to govern, perhaps they only speak for themselves.

 

Related Posts

About the author

Isaac Abram is an Opinion Columnist for The New Political. Email him at opinion @thenewpolitical.com.

 
 

2 Comments

  1. Frank says:

    1. It once again bears repeating that in the U.S. we don’t have a democracy, never have. And even more important, is the fact that it was never the intent TO have democracy. We’re a republic and that was the idea to start.

    2. It’s not that people are too stupid to govern. It’s that simple majority rule/direct democracy lack constraint upon the rule of the majority. And while you are quite right in saying that there that history shows elites being guilty of crimes, one need not look much harder to find mob rule doing similar harm. And if we’re going by direct democracy, why then Proposition 8 should stand. It had 52% of the vote! Jim Crow laws, on a local/state level, had even higher margins all the way through the middle of the 20th century.

    By having representative democracy and constitutional constraints, with the separation of powers, we can dilute the power of a majority from needing simply 51% of a referendum to needing two-thirds of the House, Senate, Presidential consent, and THEN go through the referendums of the representative states.

    The point behind the American constitution and the brilliance of it is its diffusion of power. The point is to keep policy and law from accelerating too far in any one direction. The rule of majority can not and should not infringe upon the rights of the minority. And the only way you achieve that is by diffusing power.

  2. The author misrepresents Aristotle when he implies Aristotle would have favored direct democracy, or whatever term the author prefers. Aristotle’s political ideas fall into what is now referred to as classical republicanism, along with Plato and Cicero. Classical republicans support(ed) governments with elements of royalty, aristocracy, and constitutional government, believing that was the best way to protect against the negative aspects of each form with their three various forms of tyranny.

    Aside from that quibble over the use of Aristotle, I also have to disagree with the author’s points. The masses are woefully uninformed. To be fair, so are far too many of their elected officials (Congressman Johnson comes to mind). But how stupid and uninformed does anyone think the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have been? How much so for the chairman of the Fed (you may disagree with him, but I don’t think even Ron Paul would call him an idiot or unknowledgeable about matters economic).

    And, just so everything is clear and I can’t be called a hypocrite (in this matter, at least), let me be clear that I don’t think *I* am informed or knowledgeable on any specific subject to the degree necessary to be in a higher position of power. At the lower end of the political bureacracy? Yes. Higher-up where there’s real decision-making and real power? No. So when I say the people, the masses, are too stupid to govern, I am mostly including myself in that. And, very likely, the author.

    Other than all of that, the only other major point I’d make was already made by @Frank so I’ll leave it be and simply say I mostly agree with his second point.

 
 

Leave a Comment

 




 
 
*