Well written, but far too fatalist :). This essay misses the existence of a real alternative that once worked, not perfectly, but meaningfully. The United States, during the Old Republic era (1830s to mid 1960s), did manage to generate real democratic governance through decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties and a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized system with intentional redundancy in each of those spheres and policy variability. These parties, while far from some Athenian myth, generally were really were democratic parties that provided serious ability for local level people to effect and manipulate governance, including in areas, such as economic ones, where we have for decades now sent to very far away centers including global ones (might as well be on Mars!) Yes, elites existed, but there were far, far more of them, they were far more geographically, societally, and sectorally diffused, their membership was much more fluid, and their power but their power was checked by decentralized institutions, geographic and functional fragmentation, and public participation that was not merely symbolic.
Machiavellian cynicism about does mass politics makes more sense when looking at current, post-centralization systems, where political parties have become exclusionary, media systems cartelized, and real policymaking deeply centralized, under the control of concentrated special interest groups, and detached from voter influence. But this was not always the case.
Thanks for your comments. I agree it has been getting worse, and there were indeed a few times and places where democracy seemed to work quite well. But that cannot invalidate the general point about democracy. With time, the process I describe will become evident. And this was precisely the case with the US in the Old Republic era as well. Already then, the Federal government was already detached from direct popular will, as was enshrined in the Consitution. And with respect to democracy at State level, we can remember the prescient warnings of Alexis de Tocquille from the 1830s that one of the potential threats to the liberal society is that people can become so absorbed by the pursuit of their material interests which this society’s economic opportunities make possible, that they tend to lose interest in political freedom and democracy.
HI! Respectfully, you've been given some bad info on US history over there. In the Old Republic the federal governments was for the most part democratically run, for example, economic policy was determined by "Loggrolling",
From the 1830s to some point after WW2, the USA had a populist decision making architecture, it was politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system whose policy decision making was dominated by two decentralized and public accessible mass member parties.
Even during the so called Gilded Age the actual level of centralized power and decision making was relatively low. States retained significant autonomy, and mechanisms like interstate banking restrictions and local regulatory variability prevented full centralization.
And the Gilded Age overlaps with the so called Populist and Progressive Era, they may teach you lies about who was involved in those Eras. There were not national Populist or Progressive organization. There were a parties that formed independently that sometimes called themselves that but most almost all so called Populist and Progressives used the old democratic part or republican party, each of which was a decentralized and localized publicly accessible mass member party. But almost none of those people called themselves Populist or Progressives, but most all of them were small "p" populists, and they were split across thousands of discrete and independent groups engaging directly in economic policy, antitrust policy, banking policy (even to a limited extent monetary policy), and very importantly science and engineering. At local level. There are exceptions, the forces of evil did score victories during that time, but they were the exceptions, but the propaganda that has been taught to us lies and tells us those victories by evil were the norm, but they were the exception.
And while there was some stuff in the 1920s, even throughout the 1930s we remained a thoroughly politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system, we had a vibrant congress with a quite large small "p" populist presence that overturned the both the admin and the Republican congressional leaders like Taft, all the time. And states and localities were still deeply involved in policy and we hadnt centralized, banking/finance, media, the academe, and other things yet. And our parties were still decentralized and public accessible mass member parties.
And if something lasts for, depending on how you want to cut it, 100 to 150 years then in historical terms it was quite succesful
Indeed, but at the same time, as Prof Newman write: "After the election of 1848, the Liberty versus Power conditions no longer held, and cronyism has been with us ever since. There was no longer a question that cronyism should exist. The question was now what type of cronyism there should be. Since then, Republicans and Democrats have differentiated themselves only by which special interests and elites they reward with government privileges."
Well written, but far too fatalist :). This essay misses the existence of a real alternative that once worked, not perfectly, but meaningfully. The United States, during the Old Republic era (1830s to mid 1960s), did manage to generate real democratic governance through decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties and a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized system with intentional redundancy in each of those spheres and policy variability. These parties, while far from some Athenian myth, generally were really were democratic parties that provided serious ability for local level people to effect and manipulate governance, including in areas, such as economic ones, where we have for decades now sent to very far away centers including global ones (might as well be on Mars!) Yes, elites existed, but there were far, far more of them, they were far more geographically, societally, and sectorally diffused, their membership was much more fluid, and their power but their power was checked by decentralized institutions, geographic and functional fragmentation, and public participation that was not merely symbolic.
Machiavellian cynicism about does mass politics makes more sense when looking at current, post-centralization systems, where political parties have become exclusionary, media systems cartelized, and real policymaking deeply centralized, under the control of concentrated special interest groups, and detached from voter influence. But this was not always the case.
Thanks for your comments. I agree it has been getting worse, and there were indeed a few times and places where democracy seemed to work quite well. But that cannot invalidate the general point about democracy. With time, the process I describe will become evident. And this was precisely the case with the US in the Old Republic era as well. Already then, the Federal government was already detached from direct popular will, as was enshrined in the Consitution. And with respect to democracy at State level, we can remember the prescient warnings of Alexis de Tocquille from the 1830s that one of the potential threats to the liberal society is that people can become so absorbed by the pursuit of their material interests which this society’s economic opportunities make possible, that they tend to lose interest in political freedom and democracy.
HI! Respectfully, you've been given some bad info on US history over there. In the Old Republic the federal governments was for the most part democratically run, for example, economic policy was determined by "Loggrolling",
From the 1830s to some point after WW2, the USA had a populist decision making architecture, it was politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system whose policy decision making was dominated by two decentralized and public accessible mass member parties.
Even during the so called Gilded Age the actual level of centralized power and decision making was relatively low. States retained significant autonomy, and mechanisms like interstate banking restrictions and local regulatory variability prevented full centralization.
And the Gilded Age overlaps with the so called Populist and Progressive Era, they may teach you lies about who was involved in those Eras. There were not national Populist or Progressive organization. There were a parties that formed independently that sometimes called themselves that but most almost all so called Populist and Progressives used the old democratic part or republican party, each of which was a decentralized and localized publicly accessible mass member party. But almost none of those people called themselves Populist or Progressives, but most all of them were small "p" populists, and they were split across thousands of discrete and independent groups engaging directly in economic policy, antitrust policy, banking policy (even to a limited extent monetary policy), and very importantly science and engineering. At local level. There are exceptions, the forces of evil did score victories during that time, but they were the exceptions, but the propaganda that has been taught to us lies and tells us those victories by evil were the norm, but they were the exception.
And while there was some stuff in the 1920s, even throughout the 1930s we remained a thoroughly politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system, we had a vibrant congress with a quite large small "p" populist presence that overturned the both the admin and the Republican congressional leaders like Taft, all the time. And states and localities were still deeply involved in policy and we hadnt centralized, banking/finance, media, the academe, and other things yet. And our parties were still decentralized and public accessible mass member parties.
And if something lasts for, depending on how you want to cut it, 100 to 150 years then in historical terms it was quite succesful
Indeed, but at the same time, as Prof Newman write: "After the election of 1848, the Liberty versus Power conditions no longer held, and cronyism has been with us ever since. There was no longer a question that cronyism should exist. The question was now what type of cronyism there should be. Since then, Republicans and Democrats have differentiated themselves only by which special interests and elites they reward with government privileges."
https://mises.org/misesian/cronyism-america