The American form of gladiatorial combat, at least in myth, is the shoot-out. In the Dodge City that is the politics of the United States of America we have recently witnessed the encounter of Trump and Biden. Their television debate some weeks ago was remarkably sedate, unlike the Sunak-Starmer debate, since, by agreement, the Americans were unable to interrupt each other or squabble as Sunak and Starmer did (with English burnt-out asserting-moral-superiority eyes). Instead, Biden and Trump took turns to speak – or shoot, with the result that the debate was rather more like an English or Russian duel of pistols than an American shoot-out. But then last week someone actually shot at the Mara Lago Kid, who fell, to rise again; and a few days later Old Joe fell off his horse in the Arizona desert, worn down not only by senescence but also by the imprecations of Pelosi, Clooney and others. Then there was a graveyard vigil in which we heard the astonishing litanies by De Niro, Obama and others about how “selfless” Joe was, and what a “patriot”. That was the last week or so. One President was shot at; but the other fell.
Now Calamity Jane (original spelling Kamalaty) is coming in to seek revenge.
Anyhow, one significant part of current Democrat rhetoric is that Trump is a “threat to democracy”. This deserves examination. I think Trump has done well to turn the accusation around, even though this causes consternation amongst the ‘fact-checking’ press. For there is a standard claim perpetuated by corporate academics, corporate journalists and corporate politicians: this is the claim that democracy is threatened, and that the threat comes from populists. As usual, there are several terms here which need to be analysed.
Firstly, ‘democracy’. For some reason, ‘democracy’ is – and has been since the 1840s or so – the word for the European and American political systems. This is partly justified, and partly not. It is partly justified because there have been many attempts to extend our political systems so that the franchise is held by as many people as possible. It is justified because we do live within a system which is not content to let ‘popular sovereignty’ remain a mere theoretical legitimation for the system but must have some actual instantiation of that sovereignty. It is partly unjustified because the way this is done is, strictly speaking, republican and not democratic. The way we have instantiated actually popular elements in our politics is not ‘democratic’ in the historic, or Athenian, sense, whereby demokratia denoted the actual involvement of the citizens in assembly, council, army and jury. It is ‘representative’.
Representation is a trick. It is not well understood, because, like all tricks, it is ambiguous. On the one hand, representation relates us to our rulers. On the other hand, it distances us from them: it gives them licence, either to be independent MPs of great judgement, as Edmund Burke proposed, or to be stamped on the ear and herded by various dubious corporations, political, economic and ethical. In general, as I always try to say, politics is both very simple and very confusing: and always confusing because at every point something can be true and not true at the same time. Heisenberg thought up his uncertainty principle in the twentieth century; but Heraclitus and others glimpsed that the same thing was true of politics in twenty-five centuries earlier.
‘Democracy’ is a prestige term. It casts a glow on the rusty political contraption, it paints some golden lacquer on it, it strews tulips on it. No one should use the word ‘democracy’ carelessly. No one should reify it as if it is a thing. Nay, the word is an aspiration, a simple ideal of ruling ourselves, but it is also a word for a complicated system: and yet the system is not ideal. As I say, this confusion is a trap for the unwary.
Anyone who talks about a “threat to democracy”, or, worse, a “threat to our democracy”, is conflating two different things.
1. A threat to the established system, not ideal.
2. A threat to our ideals.
A threat to the established system, and a threat to the ideals of that system are two different things. The established system includes the entire interlocking order of extraction and justification and imposition. Anyone who, like Biden, says that Trump is a “threat to democracy” is saying two things at once. He is saying: 1) Trump is a threat to the established system (and my established role in that established system), a system which is not ideal, and 2) Trump is a threat to our ideals.
Anyone who has studied ‘critical theory’, knows a bit of basic Marxism or has any knowledge of the workings of the world should be able to decode this. Even if the state is an attempt to generate law, order and harmony, on its good side, it is also, inevitably and necessarily, an attempt to maintain power by a certain set of elites, on its, we could say, bad side: but, if we are calm about it, on its realistic as opposed to idealistic side.
This seems not to be understood by the half-cynical, half-earnest figures operating in the public sphere. Biden accused Trump of being a “threat to democracy” (“he’s willing to sacrifice our democracy”), and so Trump, in reactionary manner, accused Biden of being a “threat to democracy” (“he is a danger to democracy at a level few people have seen”). A BBC newsreader six months ago said nothing about Biden’s comment, thus allowing it to seem true (sin of omission), but, about Trump’s comment, said (sin of commission): “Trump has not provided convincing evidence to support this claim.” The BBC, like the Guardian and many standard American corporate media entities, treat Biden’s claims as no more than the usual rhetoric, and probably true, factual, anyhow acceptable, who cares, let’s move on, while Trump’s claims as fact-checkable hence, stop right there, false.
It seems to me that even if one has no political preferences one should be able to detect in the noises of the BBC, CBS, CNN etc. a salt-sucking defence of the established order. They speak as if the established order is not political, meaning partial, whereas Trump – or Farage – is always political, meaning partial. How about that for an evil political squint.
Now on the second word, ‘populism’. Starmer since coming to power has referred dismissively to the “snake oil of populist charm”. And this reflects a very common use of the term with a negative connotation. ‘Populism’ is a word used to terrify the established elites and their lesser spotted established acolytes in the ranks. I think it should be obvious that, in particular, this phrase is the attempt of Starmer’s advisors to rebrand his lack of charisma as a sign of businesslike propriety and efficiency. Starmer is not charming, ergo he is a business manager; whereas Farage, say, is charming, ergo, he is a carpetbagger. A ‘populist’, indeed, because, er, popular. The word ‘populist’ is meant to invoke the image of a confidence trickster, someone seeking easy answers, someone who sells snake oil. (Ironically, of course, ‘snake oil’ originally referred to bogus medicine, and so anyone involved in the pandemic should not use this term.) Starmer has said somewhere that he wants to find “serious solutions”. The important word there is “serious”. (He has obviously not read the articles in which I point out that politics is not an arena in which “solutions” should be sought: the best one can hope for is “settlements”.) Starmer is serious, a safe pair of hands, a boringly acceptable defender of the established order.
Populism also is an ambiguous word. At one level it refers to a necessary element in any representative democracy or modern republic: the politics of appeal to the people. So every politician is a populist. But at another level populism is the politics of appeal to the people who are being neglected by the other politicians – the others being the ones who are more embedded in the system and so take their duties to the system more seriously than their duties to the people. Populism, therefore, is a natural development, one could even say a part of the rebalancing of the representative system, whereby elites do not become too embedded or entrenched in the system. It should be an uncontroversial term. But it is at this level, however, that the language of ‘populism’ is being used in a highly duplicitous way.
The duplicity is that the systems-politicians defend the entire mediated and modulated system of distancing devices which exist in modern republican systems, and accuse populists of wanting to subvert them. Populists may, or may not, want to subvert ‘democracy’: but they definitely do want to subvert the protocols which prevent the modern state responding to the will of the people. This astonishes the elite or established politicians. But it should not. Populists tend towards a ‘direct’ relation to the people, whereas anti-populists, or constitutionalists, as I like to call them, or standard politicians, tend towards an ‘indirect’ relation to the people. So what we see is that the politicians, like Farage or Trump, who have an effective way of articulating some sort of common sensibility, leavened with their own wit or waywardness, are accused of being a “threat to democracy” because they are simply doing what the situation requires of them, which is reminding other established politicians that they might have forgotten what they should be doing.
The hysteria now exists on both sides. Each side thinks, or says, that the other is a threat to democracy. Constitutionalists hear the charming provocations of Farage or Trump, and hear cacophonous echoes of Boulanger, Bolivar or Savonarola (staff-or-spear-shaking simple-solutioners); while populists listen to CNN or BBC versions of establishment ideology and hear cacophonous echoes of Richelieu, Frederick the Great or the Medicis (cancerous controllers of the system). Both are right, but, alas, and every politician should be forced to admit this, the populists are more honest. They are more honest because it is part of the style of populism that it comes off it a bit, tries to tell the truth, tries to tear the veil, admits or alleges conspiracy. Whereas it is part of the style of the constitutionalists that they earnestly commend their own honesty and believe that they are public servants, while engaging in almost continual concealment.
This is such a shearing asymmetry that it makes all our political discourse very odd and invigorating at the moment. There was hardly such an asymmetry 30 years ago when the media imposed legitimate monopoly on everything. The mediations and modulations held together better back then. And, as everyone says, there was no ‘alternative media’ to expose the tricks of the political trade.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Nigel maybe you should get a packet of band aids. You never know when you might need to stick one on your ear.
I’d glad I didn’t choose to study Political Science – if this article is anything to go by, I’m nowhere near bright enough!
Threats to democracy:
Violent revolution
Once you’re in power, suspending elections, imprisoning political opponents for political reasons, suppressing freedom of speech, making certain political parties illegal, restricting basic liberties
I don’t think anyone really believes Trump or Farage will stage a violent revolution, so the accusation is IMO designed to evoke in the audience some or all of the “Once you’re in power…” list – something like what happens in countries that have ended up with dictatorships/authoritarian regimes. I guess there are some useful idiots who believe the accusation, but plenty of others who know it’s a Big Lie but are happy to use it to frighten the masses and keep power for themselves. Recent governments in many “democracies” are guilty of aspects of many of the things I’ve listed, especially during “covid”. Accuse others of exactly what you are guilty of.
Populism, like anti-elitism, is left-wing by its very nature.
Populism has also been defined as a shadow of democracy. The sun shines on you and the shadow it casts is the same shape as you. Though this definition would be more on the side of the barons who want to distance themselves by adding more curtain walls to their castle.
That runs contrary to my understanding of populism, which, at least in its current form, refers to an anti-globalist movement which is ‘the people’-centric. I suppose you could argue that as its goal is to minimise state interference that its ultimate logical goal would be to get rid of state itself, which would result in the destruction of capitalism in its current form and is, therefore, a left-wing ideology. I think that’s a huge, huge, stretch.
The left have weaponised words. They wield terms like ‘populism’ and ‘far-right’ as an obvious alias for a Hitler-like fascism (ignoring the uncomfortable truth that the Nazi’s were socialists). The irony, which seems lost on them, is that it’s largely the left who are now using language to describe the Jews that would have elevated them to a lofty position within the Nazi party.
“… get rid of state itself, which would result in the destruction of capitalism in its current ..”
What? Capitalism, that is free market capitalism, is the antithesis of the State.
The State is preoccupied with economic planning, direction and control of the economy by co-opting business and private capital to serve political objectives.
Capitalism – that is investment of money not being used to generate more by bringing goods desirable to consumers to market profitably – in Venice and Holland and was adopted in Britain prior to and making possible, the Industrial Revolution.
It is neither Left or Right.
We don’t have free market capitalism, which is why I said “capitalism in its current form”. We have a form of capitalism that is driven by state and big corporation interests and not by supply and demand (unless you include manufactured demand). Marx believed that all forms of capitalism would ultimately result in a two-tier society – the Bourgeois and the Proletarians – in which the Bourgeois ultimately owned anything of real substance, and the Proletarians were simply tools that created greater wealth for the already wealthy. So no, in as far as socialist and communist forms of Marxism is concerned, capitalism is definitely not left-wing
I call ‘capitalism’ in the presence of ‘the state’ corporatism. Even a sole trader is grossly effected by ‘the state’. A small business avoiding having a total turn-over in excess of the VAT registration threshold being just one example. Limited liability is another example, in a stateless society a business who asked you to contractually agree to such a stipulation would be considered highly suspicious. The sum effect of the presence of ‘the state’ in the market is such, I contend, that a true ‘free-market’ is totally non-existent. True capitalism is just free-market capitalism and that cannot exist in a statist society.
The distinction between left and right political persuasions is that the right see the need for as much of the powerful effect of market-capitalism to exist to provide for a vibrant economy whereas ‘the left’ consider that this process is significantly beneficial to the Bourgeois and hence detrimental to the Proletariats. Whilst a balance yoyoing between the two is the supposed solution I fail to concur with that. I see the lack of free markets as being incapable to manage the ever changing and complexed needs of society and the opposite, the right, as indeed being too likely to be captured by both corporate interests and yet still pandering to the popular demand for free-stuff socialism.
Isn’t populism what Norman Tebbit called the Common Ground which is apolitical and where you find the thing on which most people irrespective of political loyalties can agree?
Politicians circle the Centre Ground like flies round a light bulb, the playground for their political ideologies, not shared by or of interest to the populace at large.
I can remember reading one of my favorite blogs some 20 or so years ago – Devil’s Kitchen. The writer, Chris Mounsey, wrote one post where he argued that democracy was often a sham and the real issue we should all be concerned about was our freedom(s) with which I agree.
I do miss his blog (which was a swear-blog) – it was always fun and thought provoking. I found his potty mouth and sense of humour very entertaining! There were several prominent politicians at the time that he wanted to receive the “candirú fish treatment”…
https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/natural-sciences/animals/fish/the-amazons-horrific-candiru-fish-that-swims-up-the-urethra-fact-or-fiction/
The fundamental principle of democracy – each individual with the same power – is to prevent the tyranny that is synonymous with power being concentrated in once place.
How anyone can call it democracy when society splits into competing political gangs of thugs precisely to concentrate power in one place so the winner can impose their will on others and take the biggest share of plunder from the public purse, defies reason and logic.
Until we get rid of this corrupt system and revert to communities of nuclear families, interdependent individuals, culturally united, cooperating for mutual benefit we shall continue to have the de facto Fascist State-run everything and State-dependent, infantile population, but refusing to recognise it for what it is.
The power of ‘the state’, and its resultant government, is not to serve the public. It is a self perpetuating system designed, over eons, to keep the all the power in one place where it can be controlled by those predators who look to endlessly rule via their faux puppet show and simultaneously fool the public into thinking by way of ‘the state’ they are free.
The trouble with popularism is, well, it just responds to that which is most popular. The public is simply far too stupid to know what is good for them and since there are only so many folk who can be told what to think, some will slip through the propaganda-net and start thinking for themselves. Shock, horror!
The critique is that these stupid bigoted people get their stupid ideas from the popularist politicians or are encouraged by them – and there may be some truth in that assertion! I consider, for example, that socialism is a popularistic assertion, it can be accepted superficially as a good idea. (You know, taking money from people via the threat of force – taxation is theft is just part of the ‘social contract’ after all).
Most people fall for these popular ideas, tax the rich, take care of the weak, have a thing called ‘the state’ run things because there is no other way of running a safe, prosperous, fair, kind society.
Yup. Popularism is as horrid idea as is democracy, and representational democracy come to that. If and when these duplicitous devices are used in conjunction with the indoctrinated cult belief in the legitimacy and utility of ‘the state’.
What would you propose to replace the current arrangement with, and by what means would this transition occur?
Sounds like you would like to replace the current elite with people who you think are “right” because you are smarter than others.
…but I am
Me too
I don’t propose a solution – no one is going to save us. One of the weaknesses of human’s societal behaviour is that we endlessly believe in the existence of wiser minds, great leaders, who just could provide best solutions, and so we keep submitting to those we assume, or measure, to be valid authorities.
I have, however, reached a conclusion. I see our world endlessly harmed by wide capitulation to this belief, the belief in the utility of ‘the state’. I see the power over humanity consolidated into those supposedly legitimately appointed to act as ‘the state’. And I see the danger of this not only being the impossibility for these actors to be getting it right, but also that if all the power is consolidated so, it will always, endlessly, be usurped by a predatory class (who find this system an ideal construct for them by which to realise their aims, indeed devised by generations of predators all along perhaps).
My conclusion is that top down control, of vastly complicated systems, is unnatural. Nature always finds the best way: a river finds the most advantageous path to the sea, every organism acts in its own best interest in order to flourish. Yes it is natural to have leaders but it is not preferable to have rulers who pretend to be, act like, leaders, just to fool their tribe to support their rule. I conclude we should mimic nature if we want to enjoy the most optional system.
There are two ways in which an entirely free-market based social order could occur: one where this simple conclusion spreads (because it is a logical conclusion to draw when honestly observing our condition), the other is as a result of the systemic failure of ‘the state’ (in combination with a widespread logical conclusion becoming evident that the belief in the legitimacy and utility of the state was only accepted because it was an indoctrinated cult belief).
So I do not propose a solution, I just say ‘catch-up folk’, break free from the cult indoctrination and live in freedom from bondage to ‘the state’.
I completely agree. I interpreted your “The public is simply far too stupid to know what is good for them” comment as advocating that someone else should decide what is good for them. I think the public are wrong about a lot of their choices, but I have to suck that up and accept I need to persuade others I am right.
I was describing the public as being ‘far too stupid’ on the basis of this being how the agents of ‘the state’ view the public’s decision making powers. So yes, this is how ‘the state’ justify making decisions that ‘the public’ may not concur with (Brexit and lockdowns for example).
Where the power of the public mind, the ‘hive-mind’, comes into full effectiveness is when each and every individual makes individual rational decisions as to that which they measure serves their self-interest the best.
Call this ‘the free market of ideas’ where bad ideas, policies, choices, preferences are found to fail and good ones are found to thrive. Because the bad ideas fail they therefore also fail to be replicated. The good ones instead do replicate, and the best of the best develop form in a constant evolutionary social process.
I can come up with good ideas for addressing the needs of a safe, progressive, fair, prosperous social order and so can everyone else. My best ideas may well fail, it is from the the sum total, of everyone being enabled, that a plethora of actions derives and the various paths towards optimum solutions soon become recognised and used.
Indeed – sadly most seem to be going in the opposite direction.
In the end we will reach a point where the ball can no longer be just kicked down the road any more. Then we may just have a change at a free society where people realise that ‘the state is out of date’!
Sadly, between such times, there will be a terrible cost to pay.
I thought “covid” would cause mass civil disobedience or worse – instead, not much. I think things will have to get very bad before people wake up and it may be too late – apart from anything, the UK will be full of foreigners.
Things can change fast. Are you familiar with the Deagle 2025 Forecast? Not very jolly reading.
https://nobulart.com/deagel-2025-forecast/
I think the decline will be slow, at least for a while
Slowly at first, then all at once
https://www.schiffsovereign.com/offshore/slowly-at-first-then-all-at-once-12909/
I would agree with that, just don’t think we’ll see it in our lifetime – but that doesn’t make it any less regrettable or tragic.
I like your optimism.
Compared to most people I am very pessimistic
Meanwhile we soldier on
What do you make of the Deagle 2025 forecast?
It seems implausible to me, but then so would a global shutdown for a cold have seemed. There’s not much I can do about it anyway, beyond what I am already doing.
The greatest danger of some such population reducing calamitous event is the shear shock, to be forewarned is to be forearmed so they say! Being prepared with food, gold and guns better still.
‘Revelation of the method’ is apparently a necessary part of the operative’s procedure for setting such ‘hidden’ events into process but you have to know where to look. I am on the lookout all the time.
I didn’t guess that there would be a ‘global lock-down’ but as soon as it happened I understood it was a fully manufactured event and since that moment all my understandings have been shown to be right.
As usual, James Alexander is excellent. However, there is another take. We must distinguish democracy better from a liberal dispensation, which consists of the rule of law, freedom of speech and a managed mid-scale market economy. Democracy, properly understood, must mean electoral democracy, this being where ballots are held and votes counted. In a mass society it is inevitably representative most and arguably all of the time.
We do need to take leave of the notion that the outcome of ballots (let alone opinion surveys) is or should be the only determinant of policy. The discretionary decisions individuals make in a market economy themselves constitute a form of democracy, with purchase decisions resembling votes. But there is also democracy in the ability of people to choose or reject career paths. In the area of culture and religion, other factors are at play in defiance of majorities. Majorities themselves need to be understood as momentary coalitions of minorities, which must pay heed to the possibility that the next day it is they who will be outvoted.
Society and civilisation progress through entrepreneurs, those who look ahead, and innovate, including those filtering and reworking the cultural heritage.
Understood democracy then as giving at best a direction of travel, not a road map. And, most importantly, as the emergency break on the runaway train.
As for representation, at fuzzydemocracy.eu I have explained how we could take leave of parties and their groupthink. We are no longer constrained as we were in the 20th century. Today it would be feasible to ensure that every vote counts, and that there are no wasted votes, therefore no tactical voting. All explained at the site or in a few paragraphs the attached essay. The principles are that, in an electoral democracy, any citizen who wishes must be able, if they feel so called, to register general opinions formally; and to do this with a maximum of precision. The other principle is that registering this opinion in the form of a vote should not be onerous, i.e. complicated, overly time-consuming, or involve second-guessing. Voting should not be too frequent, as would happen with referenda on all and sundry.
In the UK we have a phrase ” Up your ‘arris” which I imagine non-Brits can guess the meaning of. I think she’s going to adopt it as her campaign slogan.
Along with the middle initial T, as in Kamala T Harris, although Doris Day in her film role as Jane might have objected to being associated.