Leadership Final Essay
Freshman Quarter, Fall 2010. This was my very first quarter at the UW, and it hit me like a freight train.
Attached below is the final paper I wrote for my Honors social science class, "Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public". This class was important to my education and influenced me for several reasons. Firstly, this class was linked with my Freshman Interest Group (FIG), so I got to know the other students fairly well. I also greatly admired the professor and his method of teaching, and enjoyed the subject immensely. I truly appreciated the breadth and quality of the reading material we covered, from Sophocles to Dostoyevsky to Orwell. I had been in previous social science classes with very marginal or poor reading material, so this was a breath of fresh air. The class was small, with only 20 students, so we really got a chance to have interesting discussions during class periods. I truly felt like this was what an Honors class should really be.
However, this class was my most time-sapping class of the quarter. It required two papers per week, and I was a slow writer at the time, so this led to many late nights in Odegaard Undergraduate Library. Although I ended up getting a 4.0 in this class, my other two graded classes suffered greatly. I learned in the following quarters how to better balance my study time.
The following paper represents much of what I learned and still had to learn after my first quarter had come to it's end.
Attached below is the final paper I wrote for my Honors social science class, "Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public". This class was important to my education and influenced me for several reasons. Firstly, this class was linked with my Freshman Interest Group (FIG), so I got to know the other students fairly well. I also greatly admired the professor and his method of teaching, and enjoyed the subject immensely. I truly appreciated the breadth and quality of the reading material we covered, from Sophocles to Dostoyevsky to Orwell. I had been in previous social science classes with very marginal or poor reading material, so this was a breath of fresh air. The class was small, with only 20 students, so we really got a chance to have interesting discussions during class periods. I truly felt like this was what an Honors class should really be.
However, this class was my most time-sapping class of the quarter. It required two papers per week, and I was a slow writer at the time, so this led to many late nights in Odegaard Undergraduate Library. Although I ended up getting a 4.0 in this class, my other two graded classes suffered greatly. I learned in the following quarters how to better balance my study time.
The following paper represents much of what I learned and still had to learn after my first quarter had come to it's end.
Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public: Final Essay
In the University of Washington Honors Social Science course Leadership, Democracy, and a More Thoughtful Public, the professor, Roger Soder, and the students dealt with readings and examples pertaining to the three issues mentioned in the course title. In this paper, I would like to break apart each of these core issues, and discuss them in more detail.
Leadership
The main book from the course was The Language of Leadership, by the professor Roger Soder. This book, in addition to several other readings from throughout the history of literature, provided a basis for the discussion.
There were several aspects of leadership that were discussed, and I would like to mention a few of them here.
There were several aspects of leadership that were discussed, and I would like to mention a few of them here.
The first aspect of leadership that was discussed in the course was persuasion. In The Language of Leadership, Soder writes: “If you cannot persuade others of the rightness of your proposals and your view of what needs to happen, you will not be an effective leader.”
Several different persuasion tactics were presented, such as logos and pathos. Logos is defined as appealing to the rational mind, and being based on “the facts”, while pathos is “based on the appeal to emotions.” |
Logos is defined as appealing to the rational mind, and being based on “the facts”, while pathos is “based on the appeal to emotions.” |
Personally, I like to think of myself, as someone who has more respect for arguments from logos, as I think is a common theme among many people. When someone else is attempting to persuade me of their idea, I try to be objective and weigh the arguments from a logical point of view. Additionally, when I am trying to persuade other people of my own ideas, I am much more likely to take the path of logos, and present them with firm evidence and solid logical grounding for my argument. I often find myself commenting on my own persuasion style, arguing that my position holds further credence simply because I am constraining myself to a logical, scientific sort of debate within the realm of facts.
However, as we discussed in the course, logos is not always, indeed less often, the most effective of the two persuasion tactics. Pathos, the appeal to emotions, is frequently more effective.
However, as we discussed in the course, logos is not always, indeed less often, the most effective of the two persuasion tactics. Pathos, the appeal to emotions, is frequently more effective.
However, logos is not always, indeed less often, the most effective of the two persuasion tactics. Pathos, the appeal to emotions, is frequently more effective. |
This is illustrated very clearly in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in which both Brutus and Antony attempt to persuade an audience at Caesar’s funeral. Brutus, as Caesar’s assassin, uses logic to explain that Caesar deserved to die, and his death will be beneficial to the people, while Antony appeals to the people’s emotions surrounding the brutal assassination of their leader. Ultimately, Antony succeeds and Brutus fails.
|
I think we can all appreciate the affect of persuasion from pathos. People are much more likely to become inspired by speeches appealing to their emotions than their logic. I often find myself persuaded by appeals to my emotions, no matter how objective I attempt to be. I would still prefer policy decisions in government to be based on logic as opposed to emotion, but that is not to say I would dismiss arguments based on emotion. On the contrary, I respect arguments based on emotion if only for their effectiveness. As a person interested in persuasion and debate, I must applaud those who can inspire whole crowds of people with emotion, and would like to aspire to that talent myself.
Persuasion is often seen with negative undertones. Advertizing, for example, is almost exclusively persuasion, and the public generally views it unfavorably.
A common theme I have noticed among politicians is the tendency to accuse the opponent of dishonest or shallow persuasion. The words used are often akin to “empty rhetoric” or “smoke and mirrors”, where they are accusing their opponent of attempting to trick the people in to believing a fallacy. I believe there is a balance that must be reached here.
Obviously, you can persuade someone of something that is untrue, and such persuasion should be guarded against, but at the same time, I think accusing an opponent of having empty arguments often comes from a lack of talent at forming ones own arguments. When you are failing at the game, it is easy to cry foul against the other team, while the winners take advantage of their strengths and call it fair play. I think we need to respect good debate skills and persuasion tactics for what they are, while striving for the best policies and absolute truth as much as possible.
Persuasion is often seen with negative undertones. Advertizing, for example, is almost exclusively persuasion, and the public generally views it unfavorably.
A common theme I have noticed among politicians is the tendency to accuse the opponent of dishonest or shallow persuasion. The words used are often akin to “empty rhetoric” or “smoke and mirrors”, where they are accusing their opponent of attempting to trick the people in to believing a fallacy. I believe there is a balance that must be reached here.
Obviously, you can persuade someone of something that is untrue, and such persuasion should be guarded against, but at the same time, I think accusing an opponent of having empty arguments often comes from a lack of talent at forming ones own arguments. When you are failing at the game, it is easy to cry foul against the other team, while the winners take advantage of their strengths and call it fair play. I think we need to respect good debate skills and persuasion tactics for what they are, while striving for the best policies and absolute truth as much as possible.
I think persuasion is a very important aspect of leadership that is often undervalued. I think nearly everyone acknowledges the obvious role persuasion plays in effective leadership, but often people dismiss leaders with strong persuasion tactics as merely good speakers, and not necessarily good leaders.
Obviously, being a good persuader is not necessarily the mark of a good leader. There are many examples throughout history of people with good persuasion skills who rose to power and inspired masses of people to unite for a terrible cause. |
Obviously, being a good persuader is not necessarily the mark of a good leader. There are many examples throughout history of people with good persuasion skills who rose to power and inspired masses of people to unite for a terrible cause. |
In The Language of Leadership, Soder quotes from Cicero on persuasion, “the stronger this faculty is, the more necessary it is to be combined with integrity and supreme wisdom, and if we bestow fluency of speech on persons devoid of those virtues, we shall not have made orators of them but shall have put weapons in the hands of madmen.”
“The stronger this faculty is, the more necessary it is to be combined with integrity and supreme wisdom, and if we bestow fluency of speech on persons devoid of those virtues, we shall not have made orators of them but shall have put weapons in the hands of madmen.” |
The most notable and horrifying example of this is Adolf Hitler. He rose to power through his natural speaking and persuasion abilities with tremendous support from a large group of people in a republican government, transformed that government into a dictatorship, and began a campaign of genocide and imperialism that led to the holocaust and the second world war.
The same goes for Napoleon Bonaparte. He also rose to power by virtue of his speaking abilities, in addition to his military talent, and transformed the newly created French Republic into the Napoleonic Empire, starting a series of wars that were named after him. |
It is worth noting here that there is a difference between an effective leader, and a truly good leader. An effective leader needs only to persuade an audience, and get stuff done. A truly good leader needs to ensure that what he gets done is the right thing for the people, and that the people have a say in the matter.
I think the conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that all good leaders are effective at persuasion, but not all those who are effective at persuasion make good leaders. There is more to a truly good leader that just speaking ability, although that is certainly a valuable component. This is where we must examine other aspects of leadership.
Another aspect of leadership that was discussed was information seeking. Leaders must have knowledge of the issues in order to make balanced and effective policy decisions, create well founded arguments that will succeed in persuasion, and predict how the public is likely to react to their decisions. The only way for a leader to be so well informed is through active information seeking.
There are many different ways of seeking information, and some are more profitable or ethical than others. In a letter to his son, Lord Chesterfield details many different information seeking tactics, and argues for very shrewd and calculating means of obtaining information, viewing people as little more than tools from which to gather information on your own path to success.
Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Francis Bacon argue that good leaders should keep a counsel of multiple advisors to assist them in their decision-making and help them seek information. They warn against trusting flatterers, and instead argue that a leader should encourage honest conversation, even if it bears bad news.
In The Language of Leadership, Soder explains that there is a balance to be struck when seeking information. Obviously, some methods of seeking information (such as torture for example) are unethical, but if you completely trust others to offer you information of their own free will, and never seek information for yourself by other means, you could run the risk of becoming a puppet ruler.
I have always valued information seeking as something very important to concern myself with. In all honesty, I had never considered the subject at this deep of a level before, but there is one area I was always conscientious about: being objective with the information you receive.
I believe many people put too much credence in the source of the information they gather from. This is especially true in politics. People who have a certain political allegiance are generally very likely to accept an argument from a political figure from their own party without much objective consideration, and almost certain to promptly reject any arguments from those on the other side without much consideration at all.
I am not proclaiming myself to be completely objective in my information seeking, like anyone else, I have my personal biases and favorite authors and historical figures, who are especially influential on my thought. In particular, I have a special reverence for our Founding Fathers, other leaders from history who I believe were great, and authors whose works have stood the test of time.
I think that a little bit of extra credibility should be afforded those who actually performed great actions in history. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and it is a lot easier to aspire to a line of thought on paper or through speech than it is in through your own actions. You have to be able to “walk the walk” if you want to people to believe you when you “talk the talk”.
Obviously, a more experienced and respected author or historian is generally more credible than an amateur, and works that have stood the test of time deserve special attention and consideration, but in all cases, I think we should strive to be careful and weigh all information in an objective and unbiased manner.
I think the conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that all good leaders are effective at persuasion, but not all those who are effective at persuasion make good leaders. There is more to a truly good leader that just speaking ability, although that is certainly a valuable component. This is where we must examine other aspects of leadership.
Another aspect of leadership that was discussed was information seeking. Leaders must have knowledge of the issues in order to make balanced and effective policy decisions, create well founded arguments that will succeed in persuasion, and predict how the public is likely to react to their decisions. The only way for a leader to be so well informed is through active information seeking.
There are many different ways of seeking information, and some are more profitable or ethical than others. In a letter to his son, Lord Chesterfield details many different information seeking tactics, and argues for very shrewd and calculating means of obtaining information, viewing people as little more than tools from which to gather information on your own path to success.
Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Francis Bacon argue that good leaders should keep a counsel of multiple advisors to assist them in their decision-making and help them seek information. They warn against trusting flatterers, and instead argue that a leader should encourage honest conversation, even if it bears bad news.
In The Language of Leadership, Soder explains that there is a balance to be struck when seeking information. Obviously, some methods of seeking information (such as torture for example) are unethical, but if you completely trust others to offer you information of their own free will, and never seek information for yourself by other means, you could run the risk of becoming a puppet ruler.
I have always valued information seeking as something very important to concern myself with. In all honesty, I had never considered the subject at this deep of a level before, but there is one area I was always conscientious about: being objective with the information you receive.
I believe many people put too much credence in the source of the information they gather from. This is especially true in politics. People who have a certain political allegiance are generally very likely to accept an argument from a political figure from their own party without much objective consideration, and almost certain to promptly reject any arguments from those on the other side without much consideration at all.
I am not proclaiming myself to be completely objective in my information seeking, like anyone else, I have my personal biases and favorite authors and historical figures, who are especially influential on my thought. In particular, I have a special reverence for our Founding Fathers, other leaders from history who I believe were great, and authors whose works have stood the test of time.
I think that a little bit of extra credibility should be afforded those who actually performed great actions in history. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and it is a lot easier to aspire to a line of thought on paper or through speech than it is in through your own actions. You have to be able to “walk the walk” if you want to people to believe you when you “talk the talk”.
Obviously, a more experienced and respected author or historian is generally more credible than an amateur, and works that have stood the test of time deserve special attention and consideration, but in all cases, I think we should strive to be careful and weigh all information in an objective and unbiased manner.
We have established that an effective leader needs to be both persuasive and properly informed, but this still gets us no closer to the real question of what makes a truly good leader, as opposed to a merely effective one.
As I mentioned before, both Hitler and Napoleon were persuasive speakers, and I think we can agree that they were both very well informed as well. What then, caused them to be such bad, though effective, leaders? To answer this question, I will bring two more leaders into the discussion, leaders I believe were truly good for their people: George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. To answer this question, I will bring two more leaders into the discussion, leaders I believe were truly good for their people: George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. |
When the Revolution was over, a large group of people offered to make George Washington king of the newly freed country. He refused this offer, declaring that there would have been no point to their fighting if they simply instituted another monarchy in place of the last. Washington had a view of what he and his men had fought for; a free country, and he did not want to take that away from the people for his own gain. |
George Washington led the continental armies during the American Revolutionary War, and when the Revolution was over, a large group of people offered to make him king of the newly freed country. He refused this offer, declaring that there would have been no point to their fighting if they simply instituted another monarchy in place of the last. Washington had a view of what he and his men had fought for; a free country, and he did not want to take that away from the people for his own gain.
Napoleon was in a very similar situation about a decade later. He had been a very influential military strategist for the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, and the people offered to make him king of the newly freed country as well. Not only did Napoleon accept the offer, he enlarged it by becoming more than a king; he declared himself Emperor.
|
Not only did Napoleon accept the offer, he enlarged it by becoming more than a king; he declared himself Emperor. |
The question we have to ask ourselves is this: what path would we have taken, if given those options? It is a hard question to answer. Obviously, we are inclined to take the moral high ground by siding with Washington, but can we feel the temptation of Napoleons decision? It is easy for us to say, looking back at history now from our daily lives, that we would side with Washington, but if we were actually placed in that situation I think many of us would fail the test. Perhaps from a natural sense of ambition, or desire for power as was Napoleon’s case, but I think it is more likely from a natural sense that we know best, and would do what was right in a more efficient manner than in a democracy. As the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, and when people place their own ideas above the value of others, and decline to allow outside input, it is a recipe for disaster.
I think this example sheds a bit of light on the character of Washington, and the personal struggle he must have overcome in the formation of that decision, for the greater good of the people.
Abraham Lincoln confronted an issue that every politician preceding him had dodged or taken the wrong stance on: slavery. Even our Founding Fathers allowed slavery to slip through their fingers when they created a country founded on the “self-evident” “truth”, “that all men are created equal”. To be fair to our Founding Fathers, they could not very well have tackled the British Empire and the issue of slavery simultaneously, and their words of freedom and equality certainly laid the groundwork for a future abolition of slavery, a future that was made real by Lincoln, who can be said to have taken up the reins where the founders left off. He took a stand on a very difficult issue of the time, and ultimately, he paid for it with his life.
I think this example sheds a bit of light on the character of Washington, and the personal struggle he must have overcome in the formation of that decision, for the greater good of the people.
Abraham Lincoln confronted an issue that every politician preceding him had dodged or taken the wrong stance on: slavery. Even our Founding Fathers allowed slavery to slip through their fingers when they created a country founded on the “self-evident” “truth”, “that all men are created equal”. To be fair to our Founding Fathers, they could not very well have tackled the British Empire and the issue of slavery simultaneously, and their words of freedom and equality certainly laid the groundwork for a future abolition of slavery, a future that was made real by Lincoln, who can be said to have taken up the reins where the founders left off. He took a stand on a very difficult issue of the time, and ultimately, he paid for it with his life.
Lincoln also truly respected the power of public opinion, and stated: “With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.” |
Lincoln also truly respected the power of public opinion, and stated: “With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.”
Now that we have examined four effective leaders, two good and two bad, what can we learn from them to discover what makes the difference between a good and bad leader? |
Here is what I would argue the fundamental differences are: character, integrity, moral values, and a respect for the rights and wishes of the people. Washington and Lincoln both had high integrity and personal character, as well as fundamentally good moral values. They also had a trust and belief in the people. They believed that they people have rights, and are capable of being a part of the decision making process. Hitler and Napoleon lacked all of these characteristics, or at least, the positive aspects of them.
If personal character, integrity, moral values, and respect for the rights and wishes of the people are what truly make a great leader, then how can we protect ourselves from the possibility of being dealt a bad leader? If these are traits someone is born with, or develop at a very young age, it almost seems like a simple luck of the draw whether we get a good or bad leader. What sort of government system must we have in place to ensure that our freedoms will be preserved?
If personal character, integrity, moral values, and respect for the rights and wishes of the people are what truly make a great leader, then how can we protect ourselves from the possibility of being dealt a bad leader? If these are traits someone is born with, or develop at a very young age, it almost seems like a simple luck of the draw whether we get a good or bad leader. What sort of government system must we have in place to ensure that our freedoms will be preserved?
Democracy
Our Founding Fathers had experienced tyrannical government control, and knew that they wanted the new government they established to be free from those threats indefinitely. They set up our government with independent branches, all represented from and elected by the people. They ensured that there were many checks and balances to prevent a bad leader from taking too much control.
First, all leaders in a democracy are elected, and that makes it more unlikely that a horribly bad leader will take power. If a bad leader were elected for some reason, they would not have all the control due to the legislative powers awarded to the House and Senate, and the judicial powers of the courts. In addition, the US Constitution and the Bill of rights protect the form of our government and the individual rights of the citizens. Finally, if a leader proves to be bad, it only takes until the next election to replace them.
That is not to say it is impossible for a bad leader to infiltrate the government, or that it has not happened before to some extent, but clearly the extent and severity is minimal compared with other forms of government.
First, all leaders in a democracy are elected, and that makes it more unlikely that a horribly bad leader will take power. If a bad leader were elected for some reason, they would not have all the control due to the legislative powers awarded to the House and Senate, and the judicial powers of the courts. In addition, the US Constitution and the Bill of rights protect the form of our government and the individual rights of the citizens. Finally, if a leader proves to be bad, it only takes until the next election to replace them.
That is not to say it is impossible for a bad leader to infiltrate the government, or that it has not happened before to some extent, but clearly the extent and severity is minimal compared with other forms of government.
However, democracy is not perfect. The worst part about democracy is the difficulty involved in actually getting anything done. This system was put in place to prevent bad from being done too quickly, but the price we pay is a slow process for our good policies as well. Winston Churchill was quoted as saying: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
|
Winston Churchill was quoted as saying: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” |
So here again, we have a question for ourselves: what can we do to ensure our democracy is properly preserved as well as improved?
In a chapter in Developing Democratic Character In The Young entitled “Education For Democracy; The Foundation for Democratic Character”, as well as a chapter in The Language of Leadership, Soder presents twelve conditions he considers necessary to sustain a democracy. I would like to examine four of these in more detail here: respect for civil discourse, respect for equal justice under law, freedom, and recognition of the tension between freedom and order.
On respect for civil discourse, Soder explains: “If people cannot talk to each other, advance ideas, adduce evidence, and weigh and consider options without resorting to physical or verbal violence, democracy will have difficulty surviving.”
I have always appreciated the importance of respect for civil discourse. I have been interested in politics and various other controversial issues from a very young age, and still greatly enjoy discussing these topics with people. Occasionally I will meet people who are not interested in listening to views contrary to their own, and all debate ends. I find this very counterproductive.
I have been brought up in a very large extended family with relatives on both ends of the political spectrum, and have learned to listen to multiple viewpoints. I think this is a critical component of democracy; by listening to different views, not only will we better understand the issues and develop a more balanced and effective viewpoint, we will also be better equipped as individuals to defend our own opinions. As the old saying goes, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”
In a chapter in Developing Democratic Character In The Young entitled “Education For Democracy; The Foundation for Democratic Character”, as well as a chapter in The Language of Leadership, Soder presents twelve conditions he considers necessary to sustain a democracy. I would like to examine four of these in more detail here: respect for civil discourse, respect for equal justice under law, freedom, and recognition of the tension between freedom and order.
On respect for civil discourse, Soder explains: “If people cannot talk to each other, advance ideas, adduce evidence, and weigh and consider options without resorting to physical or verbal violence, democracy will have difficulty surviving.”
I have always appreciated the importance of respect for civil discourse. I have been interested in politics and various other controversial issues from a very young age, and still greatly enjoy discussing these topics with people. Occasionally I will meet people who are not interested in listening to views contrary to their own, and all debate ends. I find this very counterproductive.
I have been brought up in a very large extended family with relatives on both ends of the political spectrum, and have learned to listen to multiple viewpoints. I think this is a critical component of democracy; by listening to different views, not only will we better understand the issues and develop a more balanced and effective viewpoint, we will also be better equipped as individuals to defend our own opinions. As the old saying goes, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”
By listening to different views, not only will we better understand the issues and develop a more balanced and effective viewpoint, we will also be better equipped as individuals to defend our own opinions. As the old saying goes, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” |
I would now like to discuss two of the conditions together, freedom, and recognition of the tension between freedom and order. It is worth noting here that freedom appears twice. Soder clearly intended this as no accident.
I would argue that freedom is a condition that must stand alone, separate from strings attached and other words to smother it. I believe freedom is the central and most critical component of democracy. After all, freedom was the original goal of our Founding Fathers in the first place, and continues to be something America and other democracies around the world espouse today. Freedom is the first word that springs to my mind when I think of a good definition of democracy. |
Now, clearly, there must be a government and order. Otherwise, everything would fall into anarchy, and a few ambitious people would take control, and impose an even more dreadful form of order on the people: despotism. Order must be in place to preserve freedom. However, that very function of order is often forgotten, and all too frequently, the argument for more order surpasses the argument for more freedom, until freedom disappears entirely from the equation. Images of the Roman Empire replacing the Roman Republic, the Napoleonic Empire rising out of the ashes of the French Revolution, and Hitler’s creation of Nazi Germany all come to mind. But much less violent and obvious cases exist around the world, and we must be careful to protect our freedoms from every angle, including threats within our own government.
One example of a modern day country that has taken away the freedoms of its people in favor of more order is Singapore. Singapore is a clean, prosperous, peaceful country, but in exchange for this security and prosperity, the people have very few freedoms. There are laws governing practically everything, from restricting the number of cars to reduce traffic, to fining people who chew gum.
I think what makes Singapore a distinctive example here is that it is not a military empire. When arguing against too much government control, the conversation is often centered on the argument for less freedom and more safety as opposed to less freedom for more convenience, economy, or equality. The image is often one more akin to that of Hitler transforming Germany into a dictatorship, than that of the people of Singapore living in their government mandated apartments. I believe both fronts need to be carefully watched, which brings us to another vision of where our country could head if we are not careful.
One example of a modern day country that has taken away the freedoms of its people in favor of more order is Singapore. Singapore is a clean, prosperous, peaceful country, but in exchange for this security and prosperity, the people have very few freedoms. There are laws governing practically everything, from restricting the number of cars to reduce traffic, to fining people who chew gum.
I think what makes Singapore a distinctive example here is that it is not a military empire. When arguing against too much government control, the conversation is often centered on the argument for less freedom and more safety as opposed to less freedom for more convenience, economy, or equality. The image is often one more akin to that of Hitler transforming Germany into a dictatorship, than that of the people of Singapore living in their government mandated apartments. I believe both fronts need to be carefully watched, which brings us to another vision of where our country could head if we are not careful.
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville expresses a concern that our government could grow to restrict our freedoms over time. He first refers to the Roman Empire, but predicts that in a modern democracy, despotism “would be more widespread and milder; it would degrade men rather than torment them.” He describes a government that “makes the exercise of free choice less useful and rarer, restricts the activity of free will within a narrower compass, and little by little it robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. Equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial.”
|
Tocqueville predicted that in a modern democracy, despotism “would be more widespread and milder; it would degrade men rather than torment them. Little by little it robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. Equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial.” |
I think that Tocqueville’s concerns are extremely valid. It does not seem likely that this sort of thing could take hold in our government, but I think it is very possible. This sort of thing will not jump at us straight on, it will creep up slowly, compiling more and more laws before we realize what has happened. At that point it will probably be too late to fix the problem, so that is why we must be ever watchful. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Soder makes the argument that people are not born knowing these twelve conditions for democracy, and must be taught them in one way or another. I agree with this sentiment for the most part, and think it is a rather obvious and inarguable assumption, with the partial exception of two of these conditions: freedom, and justice. I say partial exception because I still think they still require education and discussion for optimum implementation, but I would argue that people are born with a natural desire for freedom and justice.
Soder makes the argument that people are not born knowing these twelve conditions for democracy, and must be taught them in one way or another. I agree with this sentiment for the most part, and think it is a rather obvious and inarguable assumption, with the partial exception of two of these conditions: freedom, and justice. I say partial exception because I still think they still require education and discussion for optimum implementation, but I would argue that people are born with a natural desire for freedom and justice.
I would argue that people are born with a natural desire for freedom and justice. |
Ever since I was a small child I had a very firm grasp on justice, and I would argue that all children are the same. After all, what child has not screamed the words “no fair” at some point in their lives? I remember many points in my early childhood where I felt injustice had been dealt: by family members, teachers at school, and other people of authority. It may be argued that this occurrence among children is simply a product of the society in which they are raised, but I would strongly argue that a desire for justice is a natural human instinct, engrained in our subconscious minds.
|
An incomplete and less dignified version of justice is manifested in revenge. Throughout human history and in literature, revenge is often a catalyst that ignites human passions. There are references to “an eye for an eye” in the Bible, and many books and stories throughout literature are based on the concept of revenge, such as The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexander Dumas. In all of these cases, it does not take much literary persuasion to inspire anger in the audience; something I would argue is a natural (though not necessarily admirable) human trait. We can all recognize when a wrong has been done, and we all feel a natural desire to balance the scales and set things right.
This brings us back to our discussion of democracy and a civil society, and begs the question; what is the difference between justice and revenge? What is acceptable in a civil society? This, I believe, is where good education comes into play to hone the natural instincts and intuitions of children into value sets that are productive in a civil society.
This grapple with the ideas of justice and revenge transcend human history. There has always been a natural individual desire for revenge, and a tendency for larger thinkers and societies to despise it. After all, Jesus discouraged revenge over two thousand years ago, and most societies in general frown upon it today. However, we all seek better justice. Let us examine for a moment, the pros and cons of justice and revenge, so we can better grasp the idea of what we want in a civil society.
Here is the problem with revenge: a person is killed, and a relative of the victim avenges their death, but then a relative of the second victim feels obliged to reciprocate, until we have and endless cycle of death and violence. This is not what we want in a civil society, as it is a catalyst for anarchy and chaos.
Justice is an attempt to set things right from an unbiased perspective and even the score. By having a third party implement justice, civil society is balanced in the best way. Instead of a bitter or biased person being the judge, other people are brought into the issue to resolve it through due process of law. In addition, it ends the cycle of repeat vengeance because, after all, one cannot very well kill the government.
Freedom also, I would argue, is something people are born with a desire for. I believe, that in general, people are slightly rebellious, and adventurous. That certainly describes my behavior throughout my life. I have always wanted to break free of the few rules and constraints that were placed around me, and become completely free. Obviously, this presented a very serious headache for my grade school teachers, and I am not arguing that we should all behave defiantly, I am simply noting that the tendency is there naturally. Freedom is I think, the most fundamental right of mankind. However, there are those who would not agree.
In a chapter titled “The Grand Inquisitor” in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Jesus is portrayed as coming down to Earth in sixteenth century Spain during the inquisition, where he is arrested and jailed by the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor. A conversation between Jesus and the Grand Inquisitor (actually a monologue by the Inquisitor; Jesus never speaks) follows, in which the Grand Inquisitor reveals his belief that people do not want freedom, cannot handle freedom, and would much rather have their lives dictated by a higher power. He is angry with Jesus for giving men more freedom of faith, because he truly thinks it makes men unhappy to have such freedom.
The character of the Grand Inquisitor is very disconcerting to me, as his view of human nature is in direct opposition to mine. I personally think that someone with the Grand Inquisitor’s point of view would be very rare indeed, but there certainly are those who believe taking away some of our freedom would increase our happiness. Those are some of the people we need to watch in our government, to ensure our freedoms are preserved.
What I am trying to communicate through this is a sense of optimism for the condition of human nature. I hope that we can all disagree with the sentiments of the Grand Inquisitor. It makes it much easier to educate the people about conditions for democracy if you believe they already possess a natural affection for two of them.
This brings us back to our discussion of democracy and a civil society, and begs the question; what is the difference between justice and revenge? What is acceptable in a civil society? This, I believe, is where good education comes into play to hone the natural instincts and intuitions of children into value sets that are productive in a civil society.
This grapple with the ideas of justice and revenge transcend human history. There has always been a natural individual desire for revenge, and a tendency for larger thinkers and societies to despise it. After all, Jesus discouraged revenge over two thousand years ago, and most societies in general frown upon it today. However, we all seek better justice. Let us examine for a moment, the pros and cons of justice and revenge, so we can better grasp the idea of what we want in a civil society.
Here is the problem with revenge: a person is killed, and a relative of the victim avenges their death, but then a relative of the second victim feels obliged to reciprocate, until we have and endless cycle of death and violence. This is not what we want in a civil society, as it is a catalyst for anarchy and chaos.
Justice is an attempt to set things right from an unbiased perspective and even the score. By having a third party implement justice, civil society is balanced in the best way. Instead of a bitter or biased person being the judge, other people are brought into the issue to resolve it through due process of law. In addition, it ends the cycle of repeat vengeance because, after all, one cannot very well kill the government.
Freedom also, I would argue, is something people are born with a desire for. I believe, that in general, people are slightly rebellious, and adventurous. That certainly describes my behavior throughout my life. I have always wanted to break free of the few rules and constraints that were placed around me, and become completely free. Obviously, this presented a very serious headache for my grade school teachers, and I am not arguing that we should all behave defiantly, I am simply noting that the tendency is there naturally. Freedom is I think, the most fundamental right of mankind. However, there are those who would not agree.
In a chapter titled “The Grand Inquisitor” in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Jesus is portrayed as coming down to Earth in sixteenth century Spain during the inquisition, where he is arrested and jailed by the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor. A conversation between Jesus and the Grand Inquisitor (actually a monologue by the Inquisitor; Jesus never speaks) follows, in which the Grand Inquisitor reveals his belief that people do not want freedom, cannot handle freedom, and would much rather have their lives dictated by a higher power. He is angry with Jesus for giving men more freedom of faith, because he truly thinks it makes men unhappy to have such freedom.
The character of the Grand Inquisitor is very disconcerting to me, as his view of human nature is in direct opposition to mine. I personally think that someone with the Grand Inquisitor’s point of view would be very rare indeed, but there certainly are those who believe taking away some of our freedom would increase our happiness. Those are some of the people we need to watch in our government, to ensure our freedoms are preserved.
What I am trying to communicate through this is a sense of optimism for the condition of human nature. I hope that we can all disagree with the sentiments of the Grand Inquisitor. It makes it much easier to educate the people about conditions for democracy if you believe they already possess a natural affection for two of them.
A More Thoughtful Public
The second to last of the twelve conditions for democracy laid out by Soder is: “recognition of the difference between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public.” Here we ask: what exactly is this difference?
Ralph Lerner describes in Revolutions Revisited how Lincoln molded public opinion: “Rather than remain the tacit understanding in a politician’s private calculations, the shaping of public sentiment itself becomes, thanks to Lincoln, a subject of public reflection and debate.” Lincoln believed that “no policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained”. Lerner writes: “Where others see a public wanting in belief, Lincoln sees a public also wanting in understanding.”
Ralph Lerner describes in Revolutions Revisited how Lincoln molded public opinion: “Rather than remain the tacit understanding in a politician’s private calculations, the shaping of public sentiment itself becomes, thanks to Lincoln, a subject of public reflection and debate.” Lincoln believed that “no policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained”. Lerner writes: “Where others see a public wanting in belief, Lincoln sees a public also wanting in understanding.”
“Where others see a public wanting in belief, Lincoln sees a public also wanting in understanding.” |
Lerner mentions Lincoln along with a few other historical figures and claims, “politicians of their rank have in view not only a persuaded audience but a more thoughtful public”, and “they undertake to make their public rise in some sense above itself.”
|
This is a very interesting notion. The difference, it seems, between a persuaded audience and a more thoughtful public is found in the leader’s respect for the rights and responsibilities of the people, and the people taking advantage of their involvement.
In a persuaded audience, the leader simply presents the people with his own plans of action, and attempts to persuade them that he is right, and gain their support. The leader hopes to enact their own agendas while appeasing the people through persuasion.
In a more thoughtful public, the leader invites the public to become part of the solution. The public actually weighs the information as a leader would, and put forth their own ideas, and are not easily persuaded by bad policy.
In a persuaded audience, the leader simply presents the people with his own plans of action, and attempts to persuade them that he is right, and gain their support. The leader hopes to enact their own agendas while appeasing the people through persuasion.
In a more thoughtful public, the leader invites the public to become part of the solution. The public actually weighs the information as a leader would, and put forth their own ideas, and are not easily persuaded by bad policy.
In a more thoughtful public, the leader invites the public to become part of the solution. The public actually weighs the information as a leader would, and put forth their own ideas, and are not easily persuaded by bad policy. |
This notion of a more thoughtful public in directly in line with my view of human rights and the nature of mankind. It is founded on a fundamental belief in the overall goodness, intelligence, and competence of mankind in general. There are those who believe the average citizen is not qualified to vote and make policy decisions, and this has been the cornerstone of philosophy for nearly every monarchy and dictatorship in history.
|
It is the view of human nature that I believe was the foundation of democracy in America. The royalists of Europe proclaimed the new government was doomed to failure, because the people were not qualified to be involved in the policy decisions of the state. Only a “God ordained” monarchy had the proper qualifications to run a country, they argued.
A similar belief is held among all dictatorships; when Napoleon was offered the crown, it was more than just his personal ambition that made him take it. He truly believed he was more qualified to run the country than the people.
A similar belief is held among all dictatorships; when Napoleon was offered the crown, it was more than just his personal ambition that made him take it. He truly believed he was more qualified to run the country than the people.
Conclusion
This brings us back to the other conditions for democracy, as well as what it means to be a good leader. I argued earlier that a leader must have a respect for the rights and wishes of the people, and a respect for their faculty of thought. George Washington refused the crown, and offered the people a government that required responsibility of them.
George Washington refused the crown, and offered the people a government that required responsibility of them. |
I think it must have been difficult for our Founding Fathers to create such a well-balanced government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Another natural instinct of mankind is self-confidence that we can do something better than anyone else. A truly good leader puts the wishes of the people before their own. That is something that needs to be respected in a democracy, though education, good leadership, and the creation of a more thoughtful public.
|