Some Important –isms and Their Partners in Crime
Some Important –isms and Their Partners in Crime
I have expressed myself before, frequently, about egalitarianism, populism, emotionalism, sensationalism and
propaganda, but I cannot help myself; I must dive in again.
Inevitably my positions appear to be anti-democracy because we Americans insist on identifying democracy with
equal rights and equal just about everything. Sadly, we pretty much don’t understand what democracy is, at least our
democracy, and that is the basis of my concern with the isms above. U.S. democracy is far more than one man one
vote and the idea of electing by popular vote is frightening to me because, I would contend, most people really don’t
know what they are voting for. As Churchill pointed out, democracy is a poor form of government – but superior to all
the rest that have been tried.
American democracy is equality before the law, sanctity of property, free enterprise, checks and balances, rule of
majority – but accompanied by protection of minorities, free expression and more – but all with restrictions that
preclude what could become anarchy. There is also the matter of responsibility, but we won’t go there now. Our
leaders have by and large done a pretty fair job of balancing wild idiosyncrasies of our disparate population – certainly
not perfectly, but the pendulum has always swung back reasonably effectively when it went out of balance. Others
have not been so fortunate.
My strongly held view is that people are not and will never be equal; to me that is an obvious and irrefutable fact. Thus
the leadership in our republic will always be that of an elite. To some, who would say that is why our forefathers left
their previous homes and came here in the first place, that is blasphemy. To them I would say that what they call
blasphemy I would call naïveté. No one can lead effectively without having the experience with which to do it; that
“experience” comprises much: intelligence, knowledge, motivation, etc.; but less I become distracted, let’s leave it at
experience and accept that much goes into that. Our elite is designed not to be hereditary, or even entitled for
whatever reason, though we have some of that. It is designed to be based on merit, though merit seems often
enough to be circumvented, and besides, merit is too often subjective, and difficult to determine. But elite it is.
Perhaps the most important advantage that we have had (aside from abundant resources and protective oceans) is
that our republic, and more importantly the economy that gives it its energy, is so complicatedly diverse. The term elite
most often conjures up an aristocracy, determined by birth; but it has as often come from a powerful clique that has
assumed it through force. We have multiple elites, which create the diversity, and they are often enough opposed to
each other in terms of their views and beliefs. The most visible is our governing elite who assume their positions
within it through choice of voting citizens. But there are also economic elites who gain their positions through intense
competition, elites who rise through academic achievement, and media elites who are both academically and
competitively chosen. The labor movement has given us elites, as has the entertainment industry, and we still have
elites that owe their positions to property. It is the glorification of our system of governing that these elites and many
others both support and challenge each other to keep the pendulum essentially in balance.
Isms come in when the pendulum gets out of balance; they can both cause it and help it remain that way, swinging
ever farther in one direction than in the other until the balancing process breaks down, or return it to balance. The
best chance of imbalance comes with majorities that push the pendulum in only one direction – their own, for their
personal very narrow and limited-understanding self interest.
And that brings us back to elite. The workers don’t do a good job of running the factory and the students will inevitably
screw up the education process if left to their own devices. Similarly “the people” don’t know much about running the
government; ergo “the will of the people” is not what many try to make it out to be, and they are best served by an
experienced elite who understand the process they are attempting to manage. A republic is not a democracy, and
democracies of scale have never been known to work; democratic governments in the world today are republics, not
democracies, run by elected elites – with lots of advice and council – if not pressure – from all those other elites that
are not shy in giving it to them.
But the choosing of the ruling elite remains a problem to be examined. Among men there are almost infinite
opinions, and an effective republic is served by the pendulum effect, even if that pendulum effect may be excessively
realized by throwing the bums out. What that means, of course, is when things are not going well, whether it is the
cause of government policy or not, there is a tendency to vote for change, regardless whether the change is productive
or not. And who really knows, when the electorate is inexperienced at best and ignorant at its worst, what is
productive? Our trust in at least a gut-feel intuition of what makes sense seems to have served us reasonably well.
Will it continue to do so?
The isms have always been with us; emotion and sensation rule man, and populism panders to I that by promising
them what they want, if realistic or not. Egalitarian propaganda feeds egalitarianism, and propaganda of all sorts
drives everything because people allow it to, particularly when they are ignorant of facts to refute that which is not true.
Thus we are constantly buffeted by differing positions, almost always self serving, the appeal to our nature and
weaknesses, within a foundation of rules and restrictions designed to keep the pendulum from leaping from its
fulcrum, defended by struggling elites who struggle for their own positions and interests.
So why should these competing elites be any less apt than others to attempt to skew the system to their own ends?
They aren’t, but they check each other within the structure of the system. Corruption? Sure, corruption. Man is likely to
pursue his own interests whenever he thinks he can get away with it, and the more that’s available to corrupt (money,
power, power, money) the harder he will try – in that we are more equal than in perhaps anything else.
Can there be any doubt that this competition is volatile and tenuous? Is it not obvious that the balance can start to
deteriorate at any time with the wrong impetus? So why does it hold together? Well, obviously, is does not always,
and thus the pendulum swings, pushed by emotion, speculation, greed, power, sensation, exhortation, false
information, inaccuracies, ignorance, and more: the isms and their partners in crime. The package is so fragile, and
susceptible to spurious forces born of self interest. Yet we blithely take it for granted – even damn it, because it is not
perfect, yearning for something more utopian where truly all men are equal, content, happy and well cared for. The
next to final ism: utopianism. It cannot exist, but yearning for it still, we keep thinking somehow it might appear
magically from the heavens, and succumb to the siren song that it is.
And the final ism? Realism. Accept it; understand it; even appreciate it. For only realism can keep the pendulum in
balance.
I have expressed myself before, frequently, about egalitarianism, populism, emotionalism, sensationalism and
propaganda, but I cannot help myself; I must dive in again.
Inevitably my positions appear to be anti-democracy because we Americans insist on identifying democracy with
equal rights and equal just about everything. Sadly, we pretty much don’t understand what democracy is, at least our
democracy, and that is the basis of my concern with the isms above. U.S. democracy is far more than one man one
vote and the idea of electing by popular vote is frightening to me because, I would contend, most people really don’t
know what they are voting for. As Churchill pointed out, democracy is a poor form of government – but superior to all
the rest that have been tried.
American democracy is equality before the law, sanctity of property, free enterprise, checks and balances, rule of
majority – but accompanied by protection of minorities, free expression and more – but all with restrictions that
preclude what could become anarchy. There is also the matter of responsibility, but we won’t go there now. Our
leaders have by and large done a pretty fair job of balancing wild idiosyncrasies of our disparate population – certainly
not perfectly, but the pendulum has always swung back reasonably effectively when it went out of balance. Others
have not been so fortunate.
My strongly held view is that people are not and will never be equal; to me that is an obvious and irrefutable fact. Thus
the leadership in our republic will always be that of an elite. To some, who would say that is why our forefathers left
their previous homes and came here in the first place, that is blasphemy. To them I would say that what they call
blasphemy I would call naïveté. No one can lead effectively without having the experience with which to do it; that
“experience” comprises much: intelligence, knowledge, motivation, etc.; but less I become distracted, let’s leave it at
experience and accept that much goes into that. Our elite is designed not to be hereditary, or even entitled for
whatever reason, though we have some of that. It is designed to be based on merit, though merit seems often
enough to be circumvented, and besides, merit is too often subjective, and difficult to determine. But elite it is.
Perhaps the most important advantage that we have had (aside from abundant resources and protective oceans) is
that our republic, and more importantly the economy that gives it its energy, is so complicatedly diverse. The term elite
most often conjures up an aristocracy, determined by birth; but it has as often come from a powerful clique that has
assumed it through force. We have multiple elites, which create the diversity, and they are often enough opposed to
each other in terms of their views and beliefs. The most visible is our governing elite who assume their positions
within it through choice of voting citizens. But there are also economic elites who gain their positions through intense
competition, elites who rise through academic achievement, and media elites who are both academically and
competitively chosen. The labor movement has given us elites, as has the entertainment industry, and we still have
elites that owe their positions to property. It is the glorification of our system of governing that these elites and many
others both support and challenge each other to keep the pendulum essentially in balance.
Isms come in when the pendulum gets out of balance; they can both cause it and help it remain that way, swinging
ever farther in one direction than in the other until the balancing process breaks down, or return it to balance. The
best chance of imbalance comes with majorities that push the pendulum in only one direction – their own, for their
personal very narrow and limited-understanding self interest.
And that brings us back to elite. The workers don’t do a good job of running the factory and the students will inevitably
screw up the education process if left to their own devices. Similarly “the people” don’t know much about running the
government; ergo “the will of the people” is not what many try to make it out to be, and they are best served by an
experienced elite who understand the process they are attempting to manage. A republic is not a democracy, and
democracies of scale have never been known to work; democratic governments in the world today are republics, not
democracies, run by elected elites – with lots of advice and council – if not pressure – from all those other elites that
are not shy in giving it to them.
But the choosing of the ruling elite remains a problem to be examined. Among men there are almost infinite
opinions, and an effective republic is served by the pendulum effect, even if that pendulum effect may be excessively
realized by throwing the bums out. What that means, of course, is when things are not going well, whether it is the
cause of government policy or not, there is a tendency to vote for change, regardless whether the change is productive
or not. And who really knows, when the electorate is inexperienced at best and ignorant at its worst, what is
productive? Our trust in at least a gut-feel intuition of what makes sense seems to have served us reasonably well.
Will it continue to do so?
The isms have always been with us; emotion and sensation rule man, and populism panders to I that by promising
them what they want, if realistic or not. Egalitarian propaganda feeds egalitarianism, and propaganda of all sorts
drives everything because people allow it to, particularly when they are ignorant of facts to refute that which is not true.
Thus we are constantly buffeted by differing positions, almost always self serving, the appeal to our nature and
weaknesses, within a foundation of rules and restrictions designed to keep the pendulum from leaping from its
fulcrum, defended by struggling elites who struggle for their own positions and interests.
So why should these competing elites be any less apt than others to attempt to skew the system to their own ends?
They aren’t, but they check each other within the structure of the system. Corruption? Sure, corruption. Man is likely to
pursue his own interests whenever he thinks he can get away with it, and the more that’s available to corrupt (money,
power, power, money) the harder he will try – in that we are more equal than in perhaps anything else.
Can there be any doubt that this competition is volatile and tenuous? Is it not obvious that the balance can start to
deteriorate at any time with the wrong impetus? So why does it hold together? Well, obviously, is does not always,
and thus the pendulum swings, pushed by emotion, speculation, greed, power, sensation, exhortation, false
information, inaccuracies, ignorance, and more: the isms and their partners in crime. The package is so fragile, and
susceptible to spurious forces born of self interest. Yet we blithely take it for granted – even damn it, because it is not
perfect, yearning for something more utopian where truly all men are equal, content, happy and well cared for. The
next to final ism: utopianism. It cannot exist, but yearning for it still, we keep thinking somehow it might appear
magically from the heavens, and succumb to the siren song that it is.
And the final ism? Realism. Accept it; understand it; even appreciate it. For only realism can keep the pendulum in
balance.