Some good points here. I would note that Taleb thought of "a small but intransigent minority can rule over an apathetic majority" before Hanania did, and it's probably been observed even further back than that.
Also, there are cases where representative democracy has worked for right-wing ends. While the majority of Americans support more restrictions on gun rights, the NRA has massive lobbying power and can basically block any attempt at stricter gun laws. And of course, gun owners cares far more about guns than people that care about gun control. Although it would depend on whether or not gun rights is inherently right-wing, as some leftists valorize gun rights too.
And I would argue that it's more about civic homogeneity than it is about racial or religious homogeneity. I am Asian (as you can tell by my name...), yet my political outlook is completely rooted in Western tradition. So while me, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari are of different races, we have fundamentally similar mindsets. Although it is true that many immigrant groups do not assimilate and end up voting for ethnic interests, it doesn't mean that everyone is like that.
Impressively detailed, even though it's hard to agree with big chunks of it. The part about changing county boundaries is rather sudden and unexplained relative to the rest of your essay.
The biggest and most obvious problem with your plan is the part where you establish a temporary dictatorship to "fix" wokeness and only then migrate to direct democracy. The Soviets had a similar plan, if I recall, but of course once you take power in that way keeping it becomes necessary for survival. There's no stable way to let go because you're going to upset a lot of people during the dictatorship period and the moment you release your grip, they will attempt to kill you, arguing that it is morally justified to kill dictators. And a lot of others will have sympathy for that even if they disagree with the exact reasons why the dictator is being chopped.
So it makes more sense to just try and go straight for direct democracy. Yes it may encode parts of the status quo by default, but it at least is stable and of course things can always get worse. It's not like dictators are NOT subject to sophisticated lobbying efforts. Interestingly, it seems the defenders of the current system do understand how dangerous direct democracy is for their schemes. More referendums is a part of the AfD manifesto in Germany, and it's one of the aspects that the left find most terrifying. See eugyppius's recent post on the Verfassungsblog, where managerialists come right out and demand that "The AfD should not be allowed to conduct popular, non-binding referenda":
"The problem with such referenda, we read, is that they would lend legitimacy to the AfD programme and make it hard to oppose popular initiatives. Thus they “are not instruments of direct democracy, but rather campaign instruments” which somehow “bypass democratic institutions.” Also, Viktor Orbán is fond of “national consultations” so they are ipso facto bad for that reason alone. The Thüringen constitution must be emended to make such referenda illegal, that is how bad and dangerous it is, to ask the voters what they want."
See also the endless stuttering hatred of "populism", which we are told is dangerous to "democracy".
There's a contrast here where you fear referenda would entrench their power, and yet they feel the opposite. I'm inclined to agree with them and not you. It's also just far healthier to rely on referenda. Instead of imposing your rollback of wokeness by conservative fiat it'd require you to actually coherently explain why it should be done and win that argument, which is the core arena of intellectual combat in which bad ideas are slaughtered and good ideas become valorized. Why aren't you confident enough to enter that arena immediately?
Interesting comment. By the way, I do miss your comments calling me a leftist (I believe it was you), I found them informative at clarifying some divisions.
For the county boundaries, that was me outlining a hypothetical system that I admit is just a thought experiment and not likely to be implemented in its exact form. It's an extension of my point about localism, federalism, and small-scale.
I'm not advocating a Pinochet-style military dictatorship but more of an Orban-style regime. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, and I think I'll edit to clarify.
As for direct democracy, I think it depends on the issue. Immigration, yes, the people are not aligned with Wokeism, as well as stuff like affirmative action. However, my fear is the precedent of gay marriage, and LGBT ideology generally is at least passively supported by the majority of the public. I also feel that young people are indoctrinated enough, that whenever initiatives turn right it's the result of fading demographics.
As for 'winning the argument', I feel that the LGBT are extremely effective at engaging in postmodern discourse deconstruction that they can effectively win any argument through implicit demoralisation and intellectual humiliation, turning common sense on its head. Without religion as a pillar (and even religion is not safe from this, see how they use Jesus against Christians), talk of important ideas like categories and forms that form the bedrock of classical philosophy is seen as out of touch and won't reach most people, allowing them to be labelled 'bigot'.
The experience of the past 20 years, the unbelievable amount of power and status they have managed to gain for themselves beyond the 90s liberal's wildest imagination, makes me justifiably paranoid and suspicious. The most effective way of dealing with the LGBT agenda has been state repression; engaging them in debate simply gives them legitimacy and a 'seat at the table'.
Well, I don't really think you're a full leftist. No leftist would produce such a clearly written and thought-provoking defense of referenda, nor argue for this kind of constitution, nor argue against gay marriage. I think you're a unique smorgasbord of things including some ideas that you've kept from your former left wing days and maybe haven't yet revisited in an integrated fashion. Which is fine. I'm still here, still reading.
Localism is an idea I've fallen in and out of love with over time. There are benefits, and it works well in Switzerland, but has worked less well in the UK for example. We see some of the tensions it can create in the USA right now where leftists are fleeing their cities but not updating their beliefs, being apparently unable to make a mental link between "we voted for this", "we got this" and "this sucked so I ran away". If you go into localism overdrive then people who vote for bad policies find it easy to escape their effects whilst not having to face the mental/intellectual defeat required to force updated beliefs.
You're right that gay marriage is supported by most people. Perhaps that's because hardly anyone makes the explicit argument for why it shouldn't be (probably this is also due to media censorship/editorial policy around such views), and so people's natural conservatism erodes over time in the face of arguments which they hear repeatedly unopposed. I've forgotten exactly why you're opposed to it, but if I recall correctly your stance is not so much about gay rights _per se_ but more that you see it as a sort of slippery slope, or it was some other more abstract argument like that. It wasn't an immediately obvious argument at any rate and it wasn't one I saw before anywhere else. And now I forgot the details anyway.
Point is, referenda force this stuff into the open. As you say, in Switzerland people are given booklets that contain the pro/contra arguments and this can happen on _any_ issue (the booklets also say how the government recommends you vote and this is what most people do). And people take it seriously there, turnout is high even though there are hundreds of referenda per year. Imagine if you had the opportunity to put a concise version of your argument in front of the bulk of the voting population, more or less by legal fiat, immediately bypassing media monopolies and everything else. That's a powerful weapon for any political viewpoint or stance that can get onto the ballot sheet (which is easy there due to very low signature thresholds).
The process also washes away intellectual shoddiness. Brexit won from a position of weakness (only about 30% support) partly because the pro-EU position had been defended from intellectual combat for decades, and its muscles had atrophied. The Eurosceptic position had in contrast spent those decades in the gym. They entered the arena strong and skilled, and not just one fighter but multiple independent fighters with their own unique sets of weapons and tactics, attacking the pro-EU position simultaneously from multiple angles. I started out neutrally pro-Remain (status quo bias) in Jan 2016 and by the time of the vote was strongly pro-Leave, this change was entirely due to listening to the pro-Leave arguments for the first time and finding them persuasive. Without the forcing function of the referendum I'd probably not have been exposed to their thinking, nor realized how weak and manipulative the pro-EU default position genuinely was. And clearly nor did the Remainers themselves realize that.
So yes I would suggest refining the next version to skip over the "let's take over by force" part first especially as you guys also want to be Conservative Party entryists! It's not necessary and not helpful.
'but if I recall correctly your stance is not so much about gay rights _per se_ but more that you see it as a sort of slippery slope, or it was some other more abstract argument like that.'
Yes, this is my argument. It's outlined in detail here: https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/why-i-wont-stop-talking-about-gay, the problem is that gay marriage seems benign on the surface, aka 'the conservative case for gay marriage', but what it does is utterly undermine a society's association of law with biological reality, which was a slippery slope to transgenderism.
That being said, you do make a valid point. The problem is that Overton Window's are always limited, and certain viewpoints are just not given a place at the debate. This is inevitable and is a product of all societies, the only question is 'what should these values be?'
There's also the factor that direct democracy won't mean anything if it is aggressively obstructed by the deep state. This is what happened with Brexit (it only happened through the skin of the teeth), and these 'rights-obsessed' academics and bureaucrats are gradually chipping away at the foundations of Swiss democracy. How can that be avoided? Should parties that oppose direct democracy in favour of non-negotiable rights, like the Swiss Greens, be allowed to be elected? This is what the true 'Paradox of Tolerance' is, and if we are to have a direct democracy it will need a system of 'defensive pluralism' to defend it from those who believe the people shouldn't decide?
I think our disagreement comes to how we view human nature. My view, which is that of David Hume and that I believe is backed up by psychology, is that human beings are fundamentally emotional and not rational. It's very easy for bad actors to appeal to the 'pathos' and 'ethos' rather than the 'logos', particularly in a society built around a Christian notion of guilt, and this is how the Woke regime was established, appealing to people's more emotional nature. They can present idealised anecdotes that play on the heartstrings, like the whole discourse of 'love is love' around gay marriage, which temporarily shut down people's brains in favour of moralism.
My argument for direct democracy is more as a controlled way of getting politicians to address certain issues, other than public protest, as the experience of Chinese civilisation shows that a system must permit a degree of pluralism and the ability to criticise individuals in power and policies, or else it can lead to catastrophe. But I don't think in terms of 'rights' and 'universal equality', direct democracy through popular initiatives is simply the best way of making sure issues don't go unaddressed and insuring that the interests of the majority, not militant minorities, are put first.
If you read my article on Starship Troopers you'll know I also don't support universal suffrage, instead supporting a system of conscription and only those who have done military service and own a firearm getting to vote, as that is a 'formalist description of power' and ensures that the reality of power and what it says on paper are as closely aligned as possible. Whilst wanting direct democracy for those with suffrage, I want a more restricted, though still majority adult, suffrage than the status quo.
could you please try and directly define "representative democracy" as you see it?
To me this reads a bit like looking through fun house mirror or leaning into a caricatured definition seeing yours might help clarify where the split is happening.
Some good points here. I would note that Taleb thought of "a small but intransigent minority can rule over an apathetic majority" before Hanania did, and it's probably been observed even further back than that.
Also, there are cases where representative democracy has worked for right-wing ends. While the majority of Americans support more restrictions on gun rights, the NRA has massive lobbying power and can basically block any attempt at stricter gun laws. And of course, gun owners cares far more about guns than people that care about gun control. Although it would depend on whether or not gun rights is inherently right-wing, as some leftists valorize gun rights too.
And I would argue that it's more about civic homogeneity than it is about racial or religious homogeneity. I am Asian (as you can tell by my name...), yet my political outlook is completely rooted in Western tradition. So while me, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari are of different races, we have fundamentally similar mindsets. Although it is true that many immigrant groups do not assimilate and end up voting for ethnic interests, it doesn't mean that everyone is like that.
Impressively detailed, even though it's hard to agree with big chunks of it. The part about changing county boundaries is rather sudden and unexplained relative to the rest of your essay.
The biggest and most obvious problem with your plan is the part where you establish a temporary dictatorship to "fix" wokeness and only then migrate to direct democracy. The Soviets had a similar plan, if I recall, but of course once you take power in that way keeping it becomes necessary for survival. There's no stable way to let go because you're going to upset a lot of people during the dictatorship period and the moment you release your grip, they will attempt to kill you, arguing that it is morally justified to kill dictators. And a lot of others will have sympathy for that even if they disagree with the exact reasons why the dictator is being chopped.
So it makes more sense to just try and go straight for direct democracy. Yes it may encode parts of the status quo by default, but it at least is stable and of course things can always get worse. It's not like dictators are NOT subject to sophisticated lobbying efforts. Interestingly, it seems the defenders of the current system do understand how dangerous direct democracy is for their schemes. More referendums is a part of the AfD manifesto in Germany, and it's one of the aspects that the left find most terrifying. See eugyppius's recent post on the Verfassungsblog, where managerialists come right out and demand that "The AfD should not be allowed to conduct popular, non-binding referenda":
"The problem with such referenda, we read, is that they would lend legitimacy to the AfD programme and make it hard to oppose popular initiatives. Thus they “are not instruments of direct democracy, but rather campaign instruments” which somehow “bypass democratic institutions.” Also, Viktor Orbán is fond of “national consultations” so they are ipso facto bad for that reason alone. The Thüringen constitution must be emended to make such referenda illegal, that is how bad and dangerous it is, to ask the voters what they want."
See also the endless stuttering hatred of "populism", which we are told is dangerous to "democracy".
There's a contrast here where you fear referenda would entrench their power, and yet they feel the opposite. I'm inclined to agree with them and not you. It's also just far healthier to rely on referenda. Instead of imposing your rollback of wokeness by conservative fiat it'd require you to actually coherently explain why it should be done and win that argument, which is the core arena of intellectual combat in which bad ideas are slaughtered and good ideas become valorized. Why aren't you confident enough to enter that arena immediately?
Interesting comment. By the way, I do miss your comments calling me a leftist (I believe it was you), I found them informative at clarifying some divisions.
For the county boundaries, that was me outlining a hypothetical system that I admit is just a thought experiment and not likely to be implemented in its exact form. It's an extension of my point about localism, federalism, and small-scale.
I'm not advocating a Pinochet-style military dictatorship but more of an Orban-style regime. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, and I think I'll edit to clarify.
As for direct democracy, I think it depends on the issue. Immigration, yes, the people are not aligned with Wokeism, as well as stuff like affirmative action. However, my fear is the precedent of gay marriage, and LGBT ideology generally is at least passively supported by the majority of the public. I also feel that young people are indoctrinated enough, that whenever initiatives turn right it's the result of fading demographics.
As for 'winning the argument', I feel that the LGBT are extremely effective at engaging in postmodern discourse deconstruction that they can effectively win any argument through implicit demoralisation and intellectual humiliation, turning common sense on its head. Without religion as a pillar (and even religion is not safe from this, see how they use Jesus against Christians), talk of important ideas like categories and forms that form the bedrock of classical philosophy is seen as out of touch and won't reach most people, allowing them to be labelled 'bigot'.
The experience of the past 20 years, the unbelievable amount of power and status they have managed to gain for themselves beyond the 90s liberal's wildest imagination, makes me justifiably paranoid and suspicious. The most effective way of dealing with the LGBT agenda has been state repression; engaging them in debate simply gives them legitimacy and a 'seat at the table'.
So I've clarified it, added a disclaimer that what I am proposing is an Orban and not Pinochet-style regime.
Well, I don't really think you're a full leftist. No leftist would produce such a clearly written and thought-provoking defense of referenda, nor argue for this kind of constitution, nor argue against gay marriage. I think you're a unique smorgasbord of things including some ideas that you've kept from your former left wing days and maybe haven't yet revisited in an integrated fashion. Which is fine. I'm still here, still reading.
Localism is an idea I've fallen in and out of love with over time. There are benefits, and it works well in Switzerland, but has worked less well in the UK for example. We see some of the tensions it can create in the USA right now where leftists are fleeing their cities but not updating their beliefs, being apparently unable to make a mental link between "we voted for this", "we got this" and "this sucked so I ran away". If you go into localism overdrive then people who vote for bad policies find it easy to escape their effects whilst not having to face the mental/intellectual defeat required to force updated beliefs.
You're right that gay marriage is supported by most people. Perhaps that's because hardly anyone makes the explicit argument for why it shouldn't be (probably this is also due to media censorship/editorial policy around such views), and so people's natural conservatism erodes over time in the face of arguments which they hear repeatedly unopposed. I've forgotten exactly why you're opposed to it, but if I recall correctly your stance is not so much about gay rights _per se_ but more that you see it as a sort of slippery slope, or it was some other more abstract argument like that. It wasn't an immediately obvious argument at any rate and it wasn't one I saw before anywhere else. And now I forgot the details anyway.
Point is, referenda force this stuff into the open. As you say, in Switzerland people are given booklets that contain the pro/contra arguments and this can happen on _any_ issue (the booklets also say how the government recommends you vote and this is what most people do). And people take it seriously there, turnout is high even though there are hundreds of referenda per year. Imagine if you had the opportunity to put a concise version of your argument in front of the bulk of the voting population, more or less by legal fiat, immediately bypassing media monopolies and everything else. That's a powerful weapon for any political viewpoint or stance that can get onto the ballot sheet (which is easy there due to very low signature thresholds).
The process also washes away intellectual shoddiness. Brexit won from a position of weakness (only about 30% support) partly because the pro-EU position had been defended from intellectual combat for decades, and its muscles had atrophied. The Eurosceptic position had in contrast spent those decades in the gym. They entered the arena strong and skilled, and not just one fighter but multiple independent fighters with their own unique sets of weapons and tactics, attacking the pro-EU position simultaneously from multiple angles. I started out neutrally pro-Remain (status quo bias) in Jan 2016 and by the time of the vote was strongly pro-Leave, this change was entirely due to listening to the pro-Leave arguments for the first time and finding them persuasive. Without the forcing function of the referendum I'd probably not have been exposed to their thinking, nor realized how weak and manipulative the pro-EU default position genuinely was. And clearly nor did the Remainers themselves realize that.
So yes I would suggest refining the next version to skip over the "let's take over by force" part first especially as you guys also want to be Conservative Party entryists! It's not necessary and not helpful.
'but if I recall correctly your stance is not so much about gay rights _per se_ but more that you see it as a sort of slippery slope, or it was some other more abstract argument like that.'
Yes, this is my argument. It's outlined in detail here: https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/why-i-wont-stop-talking-about-gay, the problem is that gay marriage seems benign on the surface, aka 'the conservative case for gay marriage', but what it does is utterly undermine a society's association of law with biological reality, which was a slippery slope to transgenderism.
That being said, you do make a valid point. The problem is that Overton Window's are always limited, and certain viewpoints are just not given a place at the debate. This is inevitable and is a product of all societies, the only question is 'what should these values be?'
There's also the factor that direct democracy won't mean anything if it is aggressively obstructed by the deep state. This is what happened with Brexit (it only happened through the skin of the teeth), and these 'rights-obsessed' academics and bureaucrats are gradually chipping away at the foundations of Swiss democracy. How can that be avoided? Should parties that oppose direct democracy in favour of non-negotiable rights, like the Swiss Greens, be allowed to be elected? This is what the true 'Paradox of Tolerance' is, and if we are to have a direct democracy it will need a system of 'defensive pluralism' to defend it from those who believe the people shouldn't decide?
I think our disagreement comes to how we view human nature. My view, which is that of David Hume and that I believe is backed up by psychology, is that human beings are fundamentally emotional and not rational. It's very easy for bad actors to appeal to the 'pathos' and 'ethos' rather than the 'logos', particularly in a society built around a Christian notion of guilt, and this is how the Woke regime was established, appealing to people's more emotional nature. They can present idealised anecdotes that play on the heartstrings, like the whole discourse of 'love is love' around gay marriage, which temporarily shut down people's brains in favour of moralism.
My argument for direct democracy is more as a controlled way of getting politicians to address certain issues, other than public protest, as the experience of Chinese civilisation shows that a system must permit a degree of pluralism and the ability to criticise individuals in power and policies, or else it can lead to catastrophe. But I don't think in terms of 'rights' and 'universal equality', direct democracy through popular initiatives is simply the best way of making sure issues don't go unaddressed and insuring that the interests of the majority, not militant minorities, are put first.
If you read my article on Starship Troopers you'll know I also don't support universal suffrage, instead supporting a system of conscription and only those who have done military service and own a firearm getting to vote, as that is a 'formalist description of power' and ensures that the reality of power and what it says on paper are as closely aligned as possible. Whilst wanting direct democracy for those with suffrage, I want a more restricted, though still majority adult, suffrage than the status quo.
If you think direct democracy works better, check out what happened in ancient Athens.
could you please try and directly define "representative democracy" as you see it?
To me this reads a bit like looking through fun house mirror or leaning into a caricatured definition seeing yours might help clarify where the split is happening.