In many posts and comments here I've mentioned how Plato and Aristotle viewed demagoguery and the threat to democracy it constitutes. I don't recall doing a post dedicated to this critically important political issue.
Some people believe that the re-election of DJT is evidence that the American Republic no longer working. Exactly, what that means isn't clear to me. Maybe it's an implicit justification of people voting for a corrupt demagogue like DJT. Maybe it is an implicit criticism of the Democratic Party and/or liberalism generally that it failed. Maybe is justifies burning everything down because its all broken
But why doesn't the American Republic work any more? Lots of people believe that.
In my opinion, there are two main reasons. First, decades of demagoguery, propaganda, dark free speech, lies, slanders and crackpot "reasoning" from ruthless, radical right American authoritarian elites. Second, weakening and corruption of government, democracy and the rule of law by tens of billions of special interest dollars spent over decades. That is why our government arguably is broken, corrupted and subverted. That, plus some significant false beliefs by demagogues, is mostly why a lot of rank and file MAGA are really pissed off and voted for a deeply corrupt, authoritarian monster.
From what I can tell, this weakness to demagoguery in democracy has been known for millennia. Plato was critical of democracy , viewing it as inherently flawed due to its susceptibility to mob rule and the manipulation by demagogues. He believed that democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny because the masses could be easily swayed by charismatic leaders who promise to fulfill their desires without regard for the common good. Plato described demagogues as individuals who gain power by claiming to be champions of the people, making wild promises, and exploiting the populace's fears and desires. He saw them as leading democracy into tyranny by manipulating public opinion and undermining democratic institutions.
Aristotle emphasized that in a well-functioning democracy , laws should govern, not the decrees of the assembly influenced by demagogues. He warned that when demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, democracy devolves into a form of tyranny. No one has ever figured out a democratic way to stop charismatic, ruthless demagogues. That is what American democracy and its rule of law are falling prey to right now, in real time before our eyes.
Both believed in the importance of education and virtue in political leaders. They argued that only those with the proper training and moral character should govern, contrasting sharply with the idea of rule by the many, which they saw as prone to demagoguery.
So neither believed that pure democracy was a good way to go because demagoguery would cause it to degenerate into tyranny. In the Republic Plato suggested there five basic forms of government, with his ideal seen as either royalty or aristocracy, where carefully trained guardians or "good authoritarians" are in power.
By contrast, Aristotle favored a form of government he called "polity." He described this form of government as a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. The intent was to balance the interests of both the rich and the poor while incorporating elements of virtue from aristocracy. He envisioned the middle class playing a crucial role in maintaining stability and balance. Virtue is seen as a necessary moral value to balance excess and defect in both democracy and authoritarianism. His idea was that the best life and the best constitution are those in a middle ground, avoiding the extremes of both democracy and oligarchy or authoritarianism generally.
Plato's reasoning sounds strange to me. He advocates for good authoritarians to have power to prevent bad authoritarians from rising to power out of a democracy. In view of the human condition, the concept of such a "good authoritarian" sounds like nonsense.
Obviously, both Plato and Aristotle were uncomfortable with both bad authoritarianism and democracy. Plato given up on democracy and called for a benign philosopher king or good authoritarian ruler. That's not going to happen. By contrast, Aristotle tried to figure out a middle way to deal with the mess inherent in the human condition.
Qs: Is the rise of DJT back into power something that both Plato and Aristotle were arguing against, assuming DJT is seen as a "bad authoritarian"? Or, is DJT's character and behaviors consistent with a "good authoritarian" or is he not any kind of an authoritarian at all?
