Summary Critique of American Democracy

by Vaughn Klingenberg

I agree with Plato’s critique of democracy in The Republic made 2500 years ago: it is a harlequin government composed mostly of the basest elements of humankind.  Now remember Plato and Socrates lived under tyrannies, plutocracies, militocracies (government by the military), democracies, and lotteries.  (Not surprisingly, the only government post ever held by Socrates was when he was selected by lottery to fulfill a judicial post.)  Each form of governance has problems peculiar to itself (although, significantly, a critique of lotterism is omitted from The Republic).  With respect to democracy, what Plato does is he looks at the nature of man, with his appetites, spiritedness, and intellect, and deduces that since all people have appetites, fewer are honor oriented, and fewest still are intellectuals, that a democratic government necessarily would be run, essentially, by the moor less, appetative masses.  In other words, not reasoned policy would dictate government behavior but irrational, spur-of-the-moment, desire, because this is what all men have in common.  (If you think Plato is out of date, just look to Maslow hierarchy of being to uncover a popular [plagiarized from Plato] version of it for today.)  Of course Plato’s solution to the problem of governance is rule by philosopher-kings, but since that ain’t gonna happen, the trick for us is to raise not individual philosopher-kings, but a nation of philosopher-kings, and lotterism has the potential, at least, to make that happen.

Of course Plato isn’t around to see the intricate sophistication of two party democratic rule in the U.S. today.  In the abstract, democracy is a viable form of government, provided we have an intellectually critical electorate sift candidates on the reasonableness of their views.  But that is not how it works in America.  Instead, we have a two party dictatorship that filters candidates so that only those who are willing to go along to get ahead are nominated for positions.  This of course brings out the worst type of person for elected office: spineless, sycophantic demagogues who are more loyal to the party that got them nominated and elected than to the public which they purported serve.  In fact, I would go so far as to argue that, as with authoritarian personality types that are attracted to police work, the very fact that someone wants to be a politician should, by that very fact, disqualify them from office.  The type of person who wants to be elected to office in order to have legislative power over the ruled masses is, by definition, a power hungry self-seeking, quisling of the worst order.  Combine the modern self-seeking politician personality type with the constant need for high-buck campaign solicitations (actually, legal bribery) and we can easily see how this personality type will suck up to power, and eventually become a mere water boy for the moneyed elite that can guarantee him the money he needs for the deliberately ever increasingly expensive political campaigns. 

In America, the public is only given the opportunity to ratify and rubber stamp the existing plutocratic democratic system that actually functions here in the U.S. with elections every 2, 4, or 6 years.  Unfortunately, the Media conspires with the two parties to shut down upstart, grassroots political organizations.  They both do this by, typically, ignoring or marginalizing these upstart parties, by making it onerous legally and logistically to set up a party, and by infiltrating and destroying an upstart party from within.  This brings me to Orwell’s critique of democracy from his profound and insightful book, 1984. In the world Winston Smith inhabits, the real power in Oceania is the Inner and Outer Temple (oops, I mean Party).  The way the Temple seized power in Oceania was not through democratic election necessarily, but via “oligarchic collectivism.”  In other words, a kabbal from the Temple used the political methodology of both overtly and covertly mutually self-promoting members of their organization until they held the very top positions throughout all of government (the top position, Big Brother, being merely a figurehead behind which the Temple rules).  As Orwell notes, it doesn’t matter to the Temple who particularly is in positions of power as long as they are members of the Temple.  As Chekov notes in The Government Inspector, any old fool and his foot soldiers can invade another country from without; it takes real genius to invade a country from within.  Orwell’s critique of the pernicious influence of “oligarchic collectivism” would apply not only to any form of democracy, but to other institutions—Media, big business, education, the military, intelligence...etc...—as well.

So what is the cure?  From the above we can see that we do not want people in office who want to be there, nor do we want moneyed interests to have decisive sway over policy, nor do we want partisans of “oligarchic collectivism” to covertly infiltrate and subvert government institutions.  To my mind, government by lottery is the only solution. True, we will get the odd self-serving, self-centered individual selected for office, but I believe we will get far more public spirited, selfless, well intentioned Americans who will do what is right for the nation as a whole.  No longer will political parties filter out altruistic, uncompromising Americans.  No longer will money have an influence on policy.  And no longer will it depend on “money, or who is in your family tree” when it comes to determining who we have as "our" so-called “representatives” [sic].

_______________________________

[Draft copy—a work in progress.]

The Lotterism Manifesto (Government by Lottery).

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."   (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

His disciples came to him and asked, "When will the Kingdom [of Heaven] come?
And Jesus answered them, "It will not come by waiting for it...."
                                      -- The Gospel of Thomas. 

Introduction

Today in the United States we live in thrall to a two party dictatorship.  The two wings of this dictatorship are the political parties know of as the Democrats and the Republicans.  The life blood of these parties is money.  Money to get re-elected and money to reward their partisans.  It is a vicious circle: big businesses and the wealthy contribute to both parties in order to advance their parochial agendas, the parties reward big businesses and the wealthy for their financial support, and this spurs further contributions from big business and the wealthy.  Since the political system of the United States is so driven by money, campaign contributions, and political influence, as a rule only the worst form of human being typically runs for office—bootlicking, sycophantic, morally-moor less, money-chasers--the dregs of society.  While the politicians self-servingly call themselves “public servants,” and the compliant Media (which has a stake in maintaining the status quo) dutifully repeats and promulgates this mantra to the public, they are anything but.   They have sold their souls years before as they worked their way through and up the filtering process of the political parties.  It is indeed rare for a politician as he compromises his way up the political food chain to maintain his integrity, and that is exactly how the powers-that-be, the puppet-masters who control and manipulate the politician-marionette, want it.

Perhaps a better way to conceptualize our political system is as that of an oligarchic mafiaocracy.  Power in the U.S. rests in the hands of a very small clique and their goal is not the betterment of the commonwealth but instead maximizing power, control, and wealth over the minions they have sway.   There is an undeclared class war going on between the uber-wealthy and influential and the ignorant, myopic, and cowed middle and lower classes, but the latter do not see it.  In fact, I will argue that the greatest fault with the so-called “democratic” government system here in the U.S. is that it, in fact, is undemocratic, especially demographically when one compares the personnel composition of the federal Senate and House of Representatives with the composition of the public at large.  In truth, the most glaring shortcoming with the present form of democratic governance is that the poor are deliberately and systematically excluded from not just from representation but also from having a voice in the political process.  However, before we begin our investigation into government by lottery as a superior form of governance to democracy, we first need to reflect on the nature of man, how he is composed, and how we can morally, politically, and intellectually elevate man so that he can assume his rightful place in the political process.  

> 
> The danger of oligarchic collectivism and intelligence sponsored 
> conspiracies infiltrating and subverting the mechanism of lotterist 
> selection and guarantee its very existence however requires a counterbalance 
> to, say, a democratically elected government. There has historically been a 
> tension between political and ecclesiastical power which is codefied in the 
> US as the "seperation of church and state." However, I believe that the 
> only effective counterbalance to oligarchic political power is religious 
> organizations. I come to this conclusion kicking and screaming because I 
> am, if anything, an agnostic. There needs to be an organization--an 
> international council of churches--to adjudicate whether it is just and 
> sanctioned for someone of that particular faith to fight on behalf of a 
> particular political system. This organization needs to be eccumenical and 
> international. If one nation wished to declair war on another nation 
> (always of course in the name of moral right) the church council would meet 
> to decide if it would morally sanction the men and women called up to fight 
> in that conflict. It would be best for an international ecclisastical 
> tribunal adjudicate this decision so that impartial voices would be deciding 
> the issue. It could also declair fighting for either policitcal 
> system--democratic or tyrannical--immoral and declair religous sanctions 
> against those of that particular faith who fight anyway. This organization 
> needs to be international so that it can appeal across borders to get both 
> sides and both religions to lay down their arms. In fact there needs to be 
> a well funded television station used to broadcast religious programming 
> across the nation so the churches can directly speak to the nation as a 
> whole.
> Ideally, there would also be some humanistic, non-religious, philosophical 
> societies also included in this council to speak to those folks who like 
> myself do not have a religious affiliation. Otherwise, it could be 
> declaired that all non-believers and agnostics can opt out of fighting in 
> any conflict merely because of their apolitical or areligious beliefs.
> Above the door of the council chamber in Switzerland (best because of the 
> multiplicity of languages and its pacifistic traditions) it should read "All 
> men and women, boys and girls, children and infants, are my brothers and my 
> sisters."
> Some may object that giving religions the right to veto any warlike 
> engagement would usurp on political authority and make it harder to wage war 
> by morally micromanaging personnel. I say, fantastic! Why should religions 
> as moral institutions forgo the most important moral issue of life and death 
> and leave the field to the politicians and general to decide. War and legal 
> killing needs to be far less easier to start.
> I also agree that tax exempt status should also be granted to religions so 
> as to foster them. There most certainly is a conspiracy to undercut 
> religious organizations--at least in the US--by questioning the sincerity of 
> religious people’s faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOTTERISM AS A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
> 
> 
> Definition
> 
> Lotterism is a form of government in which representatives are determined by 
> random selection from virtually the whole of the adult population. In the 
> United States, the most convenient method would be to use social security 
> numbers which are already assigned to each individual citizen. The most 
> striking benefit that would result from such a form of government is that 
> since literally anyone could become a representative it is in the interest 
> of a lotterist government to provide the maximum educational, social 
> welfare, and health benefits possible to the population as a whole since 
> anyone may be selected as a representative. The economic system in which 
> lotterism would best flourish would in a small scale truly capitalist 
> economy, an economy in which small companies are encouraged, and encouraged 
> to compete, and in which monopolies, cartels, or very large corporations are 
> actively (i.e., legislatively. judicially, and executively) discouraged. 
> This would include a cap on personal wealth and yearly income, more about 
   which later.
 
 
> Criticism of Other Systems of Government, especially Democracy.
> 
> With the exception of a pure democracy in which all citizens vote on all 
> issues, all other major forms of government are predicated on some form of 
> minority rule--be it monarchic, oligarchic, plutocratic, socialistic, 
> communistic, or representative democracy. Since it is considered unwieldy in 
> the modern age to have the whole population vote on literally every issue 
> that needs to be decided in a state, a pure democracy has not been in place 
> since the days of ancient Greece. Moreover, the reason there is such a lack 
> of scholarly activity in political philosophy today is that an almost 
> universal consensus has formed, both inside and outside of academia, that 
> democracy is unquestionably the best—even if admittedly flawed--form of 
> government. Theoretically, at least, anyone can run for political office, 
> and if one chooses not to run one may at least influence the composition of 
> the government by voting for one of the pre-selected, winnowed candidates. 
> Consequently, the public has at least some nominal check on who its 
> representatives are. Furthermore, if the congressperson is judged unfit or 
> unresponsive, he may be impeached or voted out of office. As a result, he 
> must pay some attention to his electorate, and presumably responsive and 
> responsible government is the result.
> 
> Be that as if may, there are several theoretical and practical drawbacks to 
> democracy which render it a distant second as a form of representative 
> government when it is compared with lotterism.
> First, today people proudly say that in a democracy the majority rules, no 
> doubt they are warmed by the feeling that the constantly shifting aggregate 
> that comprises the majority also often reflects their own attitudes. 
> However the statement, "In a democracy, the majority rules" contains at 
> least some ambiguity and also begs the question. By "majority," people 
> often think that the greater part of the electorate has their view truly 
> expressed through the organ or government, but this is by no means 
> necessarily true. For example, if the representatives are ultimately 
> beholden, not to the electorate--the voters--but to an economic oligarchy, 
> then it is not the majority of the electorate that rules but the members of 
> that powerful and influential oligarchy. Not only that, but to say that in 
> a democracy the majority rules begs the question. By definition, whoever 
> has the most votes is the majority; therefore, the majority can never not 
> rule; therefore, it is an empty concept. That is not to say that the 
> majority in an Assembly composed of members of an informed electorate should 
> not rule, only that the virtue of democracy will have to be sought 
> elsewhere. Second, while it is true that in many democracies anyone may run 
> for office (often after paying a registration fee), the fact of the matter 
> is that the candidates who receive the lion's share of attention are the 
> ones who have a well organized and financed political vote-getting machine 
> behind them, i.e., a political party. In the U.S. at least, since the 
> candidates of the two major political parties are seen as the only real, 
> so-called, "serious" contenders, the media focuses almost exclusively on 
> their campaigns. Moreover, since one does not become a candidate for one of 
> the major parties until one has gone through a lengthy filtering process 
> which determines whether one is acceptable to the wealthy and influential 
> supporters of that party, pro-establishment candidates are naturally the 
> result, be they Democrat or Republican. These candidates are then thrown up 
> to the public as the serious options they have to choose between. While 
> there may be actual disagreement between parties on social issues such as 
> abortion, human rights, and affirmative action, the more profound issue of 
> the just accumulation and distribution of wealth and power is largely 
> unexamined or ignored. If very wealthy businessmen (who are the ones who 
> finance political parties) and an oligarchic, capitalistic private media are 
> the powerbrokers responsible for one's election to office, one is extremely 
> unlikely to attack or even question the basis of their power. On the 
> contrary, one is likely to reward them with sycophantic fawning, tax breaks, 
> reduced regulation...etc. for their support (which of course is why the 
> media focuses on establishment candidates in the first place). 
> Consequently, while theoretically anyone can be elected as a representative, 
> factually only pro-Establishment people actually do get elected. And if the 
> Establishment is essentially interested in securing and furthering their 
> already inordinate power and influence at the expense of the middle and 
> lower classes, one has a very unjust system indeed.
> 
> From a public relations point of view, democracy is a God-send for 
> oligarchic plutocratic capitalists. Behind the facade of a form of 
> government in which reputedly "anyone can be elected", the actual 
> oligarchic, capitalist power brokers can go about their job of selecting 
> spokespersons and then, by means of parties, present these persons as the 
> serious independent candidates for congress. To further cloak the very 
> narrow capitalist parochialism of the candidates within a party, the 
> appearance of a serious range of views is presented when candidates with 
> marginally differing opinions compete against each other in party primaries. 
> This gives the appearance of there actually being some (small) range of 
> substantive dissent within party ranks. This leads the public to believe 
> that parties are not mere organs of the wealthy but that they are the main 
> avenues in which legitimate candidates can run for office.
> 
> To further illustrate the unrepresentative nature of oligarchic capitalist 
> democracy, especially in the United States, the persons sent to Congress are 
> simply not, as a group, typically American. Over 90% of the congresspersons 
> are white, middle-aged males. And while many of them were very wealthy 
> before assuming office, they get paid a salary three times that of the 
> average American family breadwinner. Consequently, if economic class 
> largely determines one’s social and political views, and it does, how 
> sympathetic--and understanding--will these congresspersons be to the poor? 
> Not very. To get a better understanding of how, demographically, truly 
> unrepresentative the U.S. Congress is, consider who is not being 
> represented: Over 50% of the population is female, but they make up less 
> than 5% of the Congress; over 30% of the population is non-white, but they 
> make up less than 10% of the Congress; only 30% of the population is between 
> 40 and 60 years of age and yet the Congress is made up 80% of people from 
> this age group; only 5% of the population makes over $100,000 a year, and 
> yet 100% of the representatives make that much; 30% of the population is 
> without health insurance, and yet all of the congressmen and their families 
> have state financed health care; 20% of the population is officially living 
> at the poverty level, and yet no one in congress lives at that level. In 
> short, while this very select group acts in our name as our representatives, 
> they are a very un-representative lot indeed.
> 
> Finally, the root theoretical problem with democracy is parochialism. In 
> order to be elected to office I need the financial support of wealthy 
> individuals and be in the good graces of the capitalist media, including the 
> so-called "public" Media networks. Consequently,