[lbo-talk] stupidest quote of the week from an American politician?

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Thu Jul 20 08:08:35 PDT 2006


Max Sawicky:

This was for the hoople-heads. He's actually a smart guy; he was on Colbert and did well.

[WS:] Yeah, this is a lesson for Democrats: follow the mushroom theory of politics (keep them in the dark and feed manure), and you do really well at the polls.

PS. Most people do not vote to make decisions in political, economic and social issues. They do not know what the issues are, let alone what the right approach to them is. They cannot act towards a goal that they do not even know it exists. Most people vote to affirm their own power, status, and respectability - or at least appearances of them. When they cast their votes - and it does not really matter if the voting is to elect the American president or the American idol - they feel important, because someone asked their opinion and promised to take that opinion into consideration in determining the outcome.

But even more importantly, voting is a form of participatory ritual to affirm a sense of belonging to a group. The most important aspect of that sense of belonging is shared values and beliefs i.e. to be "in sync" with what everyone else thinks and feels. Voting on issues of cultural significance - again be it to elect the president or Miss America - serves as a mirror that reflects an individual being in sync with the group. The first reflection of being is sync is the agreement what the acceptable range of choices is. If I decide to vote on one of choices presented to me (as opposed to "none of the above") I demonstrate to myself that my view what the acceptable choices are is legitimate i.e. being in sync with the stock knowledge shared by my social group (or its spokesperson). The second reflection of being in sync is that if my choice happens to prevail, I am furthermore assured that my views and values are even more legitimate, because they are in sync with the actual preferences of the majority.

People are by nature like sheep - they follow the flock and keep up with the Joneses. This, I believe, is the result of our evolutionary adaptation. We succeeded as a species mainly because we could act in sync with a group rather than individually - which means that those with a strong herd instinct had a better chance of survival. This means that people by nature need rituals that create and confirm their belonging to a group. Those rituals may take many forms - from an orgy, to religious celebration, to going to a football game or a rock concert, and to voting to this or that celebrity.

So the problem is not to vote or not to vote, but whether it is wise to decide important issues affecting our material well being by such rituals. Why selecting managers of political and economic institutions the same way we select the American idol or Miss America - by popularity contests based almost entirely on impressions and appearances? After all, we would not feel very safe if, say, pilots or surgeons got their jobs by popular vote rather than by very undemocratic appointments based on rigorous skill and performance tests.

The argument that I am making is that if the goal of a democratic polity is to provide genuine feedback from the public about the current management of economy and polity - the first-past-the-post-elections are probably the least efficient way of doing it. In fact, they amount to nothing more than mindless and silly popularity contests a la Miss of America pageant. Parliamentary systems, which makes it much easier to recall the government if its policies are unsatisfactory, are considerably better in this respect albeit still subjected to popular whims, fears and delusions. One way to perfect such systems would be to abolish popular elections altogether - leaving the appointment of government officials to political parties and interest groups - and instead create the institution of the popular veto to any government decision or appointment. The no-confidence vote could be called even by small minorities and it would binding - if the public says "no" the government must drop dead i.e. abandon the policy or fire the official in question.

Wojtek -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5834 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20060720/4a168b1c/attachment.bin>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list