subject: When populism comes marching in [print this page] When populism comes marching in When populism comes marching in
Populism is on the rise, all over the planet. From South Africa to Alaska, from the Netherlands to Australia: those who speak with the passions of the underbelly while picking just the right tone to generate even more of that passion are marching towards the centers of power. Whether it's the Tea Party in the United States, or the Swedish nationalists: stories that speak of easy solutions to complex problems have become the most popular ideology of these first years of this millennium. A lot is at stake. Cowardice is no option.
More tarmac to concur traffic jams, a ban on any kind of subsidies to experimental art too complicated for 'the masses' to appreciate, and a drastic and dramatic cut of international aid to the less privileged globally. The vox populi is convinced that it lives in dire straits, and the vox populi wants to be able to satisfy its own addictions to all the goodies of our consumerist society. They don't want to worry about the future or about those beyond the horizon, because they find the instant gratification of ostrich, while sticking its head in the sand.
Where are the voices of those opposed to simplistic 'solutions' and the massive weight of populism and its demands? Why are 'they' silent? Where is their protest, their mobilisation of collective energy, brains, resources and idealism? Where, in other words, are the so-called 'Cultural Creatives' who, only a few years ago, were announced to be the vanguard of a new, holistic, global and responsible society?
Have they been wiped of the face of the planet, together with the savings of those who worked their asses off to acquire those savings in the first place? Together with honurable things like reason, knowledge, wisdom?
Have we really sunk this low, that we are actually looking at a shockingly naive person to possibly become the next most-powerful person on the planet?
It was Alexis de Tocqueville (author of the classic study Democracy in America) who, already in the early 19th century, brilliantly explained some of the dangers inherent to our contemporary democracy, which is best summerised in his famous quote: "In every democracy, the people get the government they deserve." Although an admirer of the system of democracy as it had developed in the US in a period when Europe was still in the midst of aristocratic meddling, he was also very critical towards the voice of the majority, which lacked the creative freedom to think new thoughts and would, through the sheer power of numbers, find ways to silence those with dissident opinions.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Wikipedia summarises his critique as follows: "These natural elites, who Tocqueville asserted were the lone virtuous members of American society, could not enjoy much share in the political sphere as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity. (...) Those who possessed true virtue and talent would be left with limited choices. Those with the most education and intelligence would either, Tocqueville prognosticated, join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society which have today become the academic or contemplative realms, or use their superior talents to take advantage of America's growing obsession with money-making and amass vast fortunes in the private sector. (...) I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America [my italics and bold]."
There is a psychological phenomenon that underlies this aspect of the political arena. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect is describes as
"...a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding."
My thought: I think this effect should be renamed into the Sarah Palin Effect, which would make the effect immediately clear to anyone with half a brain.
But I think there's more to it than all of this. The above effect could be seen as nothing more than a psychological curiosity. Whereas I think it shows exactly where and how we, in our life times, have bounced upon a crucial and historic boundary of the democratic ideals and democratic ideology. Part and parcel of that ideology is that everyone's opinion is worth as much as the next.
I'm aware I'm moving into dangerous terrain here, by possibly suggesting that 'the stupid' should have less of a say then 'the sage', for who will have the privilege to define the line separating these two extremes? Enlightened dictatorship is a figment of the imagination, because no person (or group of persons) will be able towithstand the temptations of their ber privileged positions.
What I am saying is that the Cultural Creatives and anyone else with a remote amount of intellect, intelligence and idealism can no longer afford to stare silently into the murky hearts of their societies and remain quiet out of an inherent 'illusory inferiority'. Your ideas are not just as good as (or even worse: worse than) those of anyone within the populist masses, they are better. Your ability to analyse, strategise and mobilise is way bigger than any demand of any fan of populism. Your insight into the risks and perils of a global swing to populism are way more valid than the ramblings of those addicted to fuel, tarmac, burgers and wrestling games.
The populist masses want bread and games; let them have it. But let that be all they have a say over.
Human civilisation has come too far for it to be threatened by the emotional insecurities and the 'illusory superiority' of 'the unskilled' persons on our planet. Our collective future is not safe in their hands. It is as simple as that. Anyone who still has the ability to think independently ought to realise that, within the grey scale of democratic idealism, it is up to 'those with true virtue' to defend the foundations of that democratic idealism when it matters most.
Now is that time. More than ever, now is the time since the demise of first fascism and nazism in the 1940s, and stalinism and communism in the late 1980s.
As Bertrand Russel once said:
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imaginations and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."
If the core values of democracy mean anything to you, it's about time to tackle your doubt and your indecision.
