I’m Not Among the Faithful

by Don Boudreaux on March 5, 2010

in Politics,Religion

Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to the L.A. Times:

Maxwell Kennedy, son of Robert, justifiably objects to the L.A.P.D.’s ghoulish public display of his father’s blood-stained clothes (“Personal effects,” March 4).  But there’s another public display that I find even more objectionable.  It’s one that, alas, occurs all too often, and an instance of it is revealed in the photograph that accompanies Mr. Kennedy’s op-ed.

In that photo, the young and handsome Bobby Kennedy is standing upright in a roofless car, arms outstretched much like Jesus’s arms are outstretched in countless Christian images.  A sea of hands from both sides of the slowly moving car reaches out to touch Mr. Kennedy’s hands.

Too many politicians, then and now, display themselves as secular messiahs – as transcendent saviors possessing unique insight into the human condition, unparalleled devotion to all that is right and just, and superhuman powers to rescue humanity from the trials and tribulations of reality.

And too many people fall for these charades.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

After reading this letter, my friend David Hart sent to me this welcome correction:

I think you describe only half the problem. There is a market for would-be saviour politicians and self-serving [politicians] like the Kennedy’s are only too willing to satisfy this need. The demand side is that there are millions of people who actively want such politicians to save them. We will not have victory until enough people voluntarily reject this notion and turn their backs on all politicians for good. I find the thought of hundreds of people lining up to touch a politician even more repulsive than the politician receiving the touches.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • RL
    "I find the thought of hundreds of people lining up to touch a politician even more repulsive than the politician receiving the touches."

    Talk about your tough calls...
  • Lee Jamison
    It is one of the functions of our social instincts to want to attach ourselves to someone who will be triumphant over those who seem to oppose us. That is what education is for. With it we are supposed to be able to moderate the tyrranies of thosw whom we choose to lead us. Then again, the German people were arguably the most civilized people on Earth for a thousand years and they strapped their aspirations to Adolph Hitler and destroyed themselves.

    What we must do to prevent such things is brightly illustrate how our fondest hopes can be empowered by markets rather than powerful people. That's obviously a huge challenge. It's much easier to focus the intellectually lazy hope of a lot of people on a slogan-infested messianic wannabe.
  • thats what people do...its called human nature...ever watch the pope?
  • I think it's about the celebrity.

    Touch has a powerful impact on social relations.
  • MnM
    I think you have it right. It isn't so much messianic worship as it is an (perceived!) increase in the value of personal stock in local social markets.
  • Rob M.
    This is the last straw. What an absolutely idiotic assertion. Don, stick to economics and maybe from time to time give us some hint of how Hayek fits into all your clever letters to all these newspapers. I'm getting rid of my RSS feed to this waste of time blog.
  • brotio
    One neat thing about the Cafe is that it has an open-door policy. Unlike the Socialist Utopias worshiped by some of our more Left-leaning patrons, and their righteous ruler (that Uncle Joe Stalin-blowing SOB, Roosevelt), you can leave any time you want.
  • HaywoodU
    Oh you must have missed the disclaimer at the bottom.
  • vikingvista
    No, he's just demonstrating the emotional response of a true believer encountering irreverence.

    "True irreverence is disrespect for another man's god."
    --Mark Twain

    "Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense."
    --Mark Twain
  • BV
    Bush/Cheney/"neocon" = evil;
    Obama will deliver us from evil;
    Therefore, Obama = messiah.

    QED.
  • What you mentioned is a kind of decay of dignity. And you, talk about the inhabitants of your country. Imagine you what happens in Latin America. Here in Latin America, there is no dignity, voters have lost all sense of dignity. The politicians and the advertising media have managed to twist the will of man to transform it into beggars and slaves. Latin America is a huge tomb of dignity. It's sad.
  • Seekingexports
    There is charisma and then there is hijacking charisma for movements that it is more frightening. Religious, political, military etc. leaders can have their even slightest purported utterances used by their followers as fodder to attack the beliefs of others who might challenge or disagree.

    Ronald Reagan is one who still has a charasmatic hold on myself and I wish I would have met him. I might defend him if attacked in an argument but hopefully with my own critical thinking.
  • vikingvista
    Ronald Reagan was probably the greatest President of the last century, and in his private life was a good and decent man of conscience and uncommon intellect. And yet I could probably give you a long list of offences for which he should've served his remaining years in prison.

    Such is the nature of the state. When your only tool is a sawed off shot gun, there is never a shortage of innocent victims. It is a tool that should not be wielded.
  • Seekingexports
    You have presented an interesting set of thoughts/nemes and your ability to express them should give you pause as you juxtapose freedom and vigiliance instead of attributing their symbiotic ascendancy throughout so much of the world .
  • vikingvista
    "attributing the reason for their symbiotic ascendancy"

    How so?
  • Seekingexports
    You have added a word "reason".
  • vikingvista
    I just did a copy and paste. I see the text has changed twice since I first looked. Maybe you were editing and the web software got confused.

    But I still don't see how I am attributing...
  • Seekingexports
    Freedom and vigilance should not be juxtaposed. You are not attributing their rise in the world.
    .
  • vikingvista
    My point was not to pass judgement on how freedom can realistically be achieved. My point was only that state action even under the best circumstances is necessarily evil, and evil by design. For people who think they can use the state as an agent against evil, this point cannot be emphasized enough.
  • Turin.
  • No_Red_Bull
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYii6nxhvUk

    Sorry Max for this awful, cynical thread. When will they ever learn?
  • Randy
    I guess I understand the need that people have for guidance, role models, leadership, etc. - not everyone is capable, experienced, intelligent, confident. But to look for these in a politician?!
  • Mike M.
    And I think your friend David Hart nails this one perfectly. Conversion happens from within. I don't know what wakes people up ... but that's where the change needs to occur.
  • vikingvista
    In spite of some pleas for more decorum, a healthy dose of contempt for others does help inoculate against some idolatry. Instead of demanding I respect my elders, my mother passed her contempt for public school teachers and politicians on to me as a boy. And boy am I ever glad she did. I really think she saved my life.
  • Methinks1776
    Most people need religion. They need to believe that life is not as random as it really is and they have a hard time believing that, come what may, they will be able to deal with it themselves.

    David Hart may be repulsed (and so am I), but like Karl Marx, he must accept that it's human nature. People routinely reject these notions of earthbound saviours when the cost is finally revealed. But, often it's too late and when it's not, the next generation seeks the same and the cycle repeats.

    The French seem to be the most accurate expression of human nature - God help you if you mess with French person's liberty, but he wants to tell everyone else what to do. Is this fixable?
  • vikingvista
    "They need to believe that life is not as random as it really is"

    Life is a journey of knowledge. They need to believe that they are not as ignorant as they are.
  • Perhaps many are uncomfortable with uncertainty.
    Faith allows one to suspend uncertainty in an arbitrary manner.
  • Methinks1776
    "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design" - Hayek

    But, I was specifically talking about the unavoidable things in life. True randomness - people dying in car accidents (preventable if we torture Toyota long enough?), people becoming victims of serial killers (police weren't vigilant enough but such perfect vigilance is possible!), losing money in the financial markets (choose from a cornucopia of scapegoats who can all be stopped with enough government), being struck down by disease (must the chemicals in the water, incompetent doctors, etc.).

    The idea that it just happens this way sometimes is difficult to accept for a lot of people. We try to rationalize randomness and we seek a saviour. I use "we" loosely here.
  • Mike M.
    Here's the funny thing though ... if people need religion, why not turn to religion? The curious thing to me is that people will object to religion and its rules but flock to a politician. It can't be that there isn't enough variety of religion out there, Lord knows (pun intended) that you can find a group of people that will call themselves a congregation that believe almost exactly what you do.

    So it must be that there are devout atheists out there (their prerogative) that have truly replaced God with the state. Even in atheism, this is kind of repulsive. Replacing a message of love and free will with one of force and coercion.

    Note that I would hope that nothing I've typed above would be construed as anti-atheist. I'm just anti-statist (no matter what the rationale).
  • Randy
    My thought on modern atheists is that many of them are not true atheists. The true atheist disavows the mythology of his own time, not the mythology of the past. And the mythology of our time is the divine state.
  • vikingvista
    Not all irrational beliefs are religious, and those who preach nonreligious mysticism are particularly antagonistic toward the religious. It is a vicious competition for the abandoned minds of men.
  • Randy
    One of my favorite thoughts on the subject is from Hume (I think), who defined a distinction between belief and faith. Basically, that belief is a compilation of evidence of the senses and experience, while faith is matter of deliberately ignoring the evidence of the senses and experience. To me, all such faith based ideologies are "religious". E.g., it is necessary to deliberately disregard a whole lot of sensory evidence and experience in order to have faith in the modern divine state. And don't modern politicians routinely promise to perform miracles?
  • txslr
    Like "bending the cost curve"?
  • Methinks1776
    "if people need religion, why not turn to religion?"

    You've answered your own question - they have. They've turned to the worship of the state and its presumably super natural powers (it would have to be supernatural to accomplish what these people believe it can as each "public servant" would have to be as holy and pure and as capable of miracles as Jesus to live up to their fantasy). Fascism, socialism, communism, etc. are all just sects of the statist religion.

    I would disagree that religions with the amorphous "God" as the deity are all a message of love and free will. In most religions obedience and punishment are pretty central.

    The question for me is why? Ancient humans needed an explanation for the randomness. It seems modern humans seek that elusive insurance against randomness. Since, as Thomas Sowell points out, people rarely think beyond step one, they never contemplate the full cost of such insurance until it's too late. And it seems that new generations don't learn from the older ones. Yet, the U.S. seems to have defied this cycle for over a century before slowly falling prey to the siren call of security at any price. Is it because people in the U.S. are still more traditionally religious than the Europeans? Is it because with the rise of government, the power of government is felt more and personal helplessness is also more prominent?
  • vikingvista
    "And it seems that new generations don't learn from the older ones."

    People love and/or fear their fathers, and the same life-long deep emotional attachment extends to the ways of their fathers. It is emotion over reason.

    That is the strength of tradition. Were it not for the traditions of liberty in this country, American conservatism would not be one of its defenders.
  • Mike M.
    Well, maybe I should have been more explicit (and I think you knew what I meant) ... I was curious as to why those that have crafted the state into a religion wouldn't have just danced with what brung [sic] them.

    Go to a church / synagogue / mosque / temple / altar of the sacred calf. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Why create a Church in D.C.? Why make a politician your priest?

    The insurance that you're talking about, if found through a traditional church, rarely comes laden with additional costs. Contrasted with the combination of Church and State which obviously can have severe negative consequences. I don't see a downside to voluntary religious affiliation and practice. Even if the message in a church is one of obedience and punishment -- the punishment is spiritual or in the form of a less desirable afterlife and the obedience is voluntary (because you can always leave the church to attend a different one or stop attending altogether).

    I actually view the Church as a perfect role model for the state. It has to ask for donations to fund its activities, has no real authority, and can make suggestions on proper behavior. Sounds like the kind of government that I want. :-)
  • Methinks1776
    Sure, I agree with that. However, the church was not always optional throughout human history and the punishments for heresy were not always in the after-life. The opt out option is a relatively recent development (and Islam has and still does routinely imprison and kill apostates - just not in the United States). Why do people want to recreate this all-powerful church in the form of the State?

    I agree with your view of religion in the West today and the model of the modern church. I also don't see a downside to voluntary association - of any kind, really.

    Perhaps the problem with the religion of statism is that it's actually a cult. Why people are attracted to it is as mysterious to me as it is to you. But, I suspect that it's the same thing that attracts anyone to a cult. After a while people become dependent on the cult, disempowered and feel they have nowhere else to go. This domination of men by priests is exactly the model used by modern politicians. But, it seems to fill some inner need for a lot of people - at least at first. Pretty frightening, IMO.
  • I tend to the idea that tribal instincts come into play here.

    The tribal hierarchy has been a rather successful survival mode, but I think the deficits exceed the benefits when the tribe gets large enough to support a formal institution of political hierarchy.
  • danielkuehn
    "I was curious as to why those that have crafted the state into a religion wouldn't have just danced with what brung [sic] them."

    It's possible they don't dance with what brung them because you've misdiagnosed their state of mind or "who brung them". It's a much less convoluted explanation than the claim that you know their mind on such things better than they do. Perhaps you're misdiagnosing this whole "make a politician your priest" thing - if you are, then that explains all the allegedly contradictory behavior that you're confused by here.

    Let me frame it this way - can you conceive of someone who isn't a libertarian who also hasn't "crafted the state into a religion"? It seems like such a person is very hard for people to conceive of on here. If you can't even conceive of someone that is both (1.) not a libertarian, and (2.) not worshipful of the state, then it's quite possible that your own definitions have painted you into this apparent inconsistency - not the facts themselves. Allow those two things to coexist (which they quite obviously do), and it all automatically becomes a lot less confusing.
  • Mike M.
    I'll reply to your edit here. Government has continued to let us down over and over and over again throughout history. In some places more tragically than others. As far as governments go, ours in America has been one of the least intrusive of any throughout history. We still maintain our core freedoms, get to keep at least half of our income, and the state only steals from us once in a while through eminent domain.

    Yet, we still see horrible corruption in politics. We see law enforcement officers, judges, and politicians on the take. We see back door dealings with our tax dollars. We see wars fought with our young men and women who sacrifice their lives "for the good of the country."

    I agree that my views are biased, but if you follow my line of thinking, how can anything but "faith" sustain this system? There's a reason that the old adage says that you can't discuss religion or politics. People get irate when you challenge their faith in the state.
  • JohnK
    People get irate when you challenge their faith in the state.

    I find that most of those people use the first person when talking about government and the third person when talking about society.
  • danielkuehn
    I suppose if you expected government to be corruption free, then this would be disconcerting. If you expected a limited constitutional republic to do a decent but not perfect job - and if you expected some corruption and failure from the outset, I don't see what the problem is. If I was aware of a better alternative than a limited constitutional republic I suppose the corruption and problems would bother me more. But I expected that sort of thing from the beginning so I see it as an inevitable problem to be addressed, not an existential crisis. Unless you're aware of a better option where corruption wouldn't be a problem, in which case sure, I could see the wisdom of scrapping it all. But I don't know of a better option, and I certainly don't know of a better option that is immune to the corruption you describe.
  • I would like to see people a bit more open to the idea that political hierarchy is systemically corrupting, that there are systemic issues that make various forms of corruption inevitable in such systems.
  • Sam - What are the systemic features that cause a political hierarchy to corrupt?
  • I will attempt to describe a specific corruption process:

    A "decent" candidate comes to believe that the election of his opposition will be "bad" for the country.

    What does he do?

    He might be less than honest with voters so as to offend as few as possible.

    He might be tempted to accept money to help his campaign.

    He might be willing to cheat to assure the defeat of his enemy.

    In short, he is no longer trustworthy...for the "best" of reasons.

    Having made the compromise, it will become not just habitual, it will become the norm.
  • The power of some over others.

    In short order, due to human nature, this arouses feelings of entitlement, entitlement to power, entitlement to exercise it.

    The temptation to influence power to affect control of resources.

    The illusion that something can be had without effort.

    The illusion that the exercise of power can override the reality of limitations.

    The confusion of self interest with general interest.

    The disconnection of means from ends.

    To list a few.
  • Lee Jamison
    Amen to all of those Sam. I would add that people are not made better by self-conscious "public service". They are the same animal no matter who employs them.
  • Mike M.
    Daniel-

    That's a fair point and exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I'm not professing to know what people are thinking. I'm seeing behavior and trying to come to an understanding of it. There is a blind faith in politicians that is only evident in religious circles.

    Every day you see articles about corruption in DC, corruption at the local level, incompetence in the public sector, etc. and yet people continue to "go to church" -- that is, believe in the system and be dutiful stewards of the state. There is a role that faith plays in government sustaining itself. I just don't completely understand it or all of its implications.
  • danielkuehn
    That's a very interesting point you raise about scandals - we've seen scandals in the Catholic church too. How do people respond? Generally they attribute it to bad people rather than a corrupt institution. And it has taken it's toll on membership. I would say the same of political scandals too - they've certainly taken their toll on our trust in government. But should we abandon the idea of self-government through a constitutional government because some people are imperfect? I was always under the assumption that imperfect people would be in office to begin with - after all, I'm not aware of any people that aren't imperfect so I had no reason to expect anything else. My faith isn't that any politician or government program will save me. It's not that we'll always get the perfect results. My faith is that a democratic, constitutional republic will govern a free society more or less intelligently and justly. That's all. And I think that's all most people have faith in. And as for the hero-worship stuff, I personally do admire Obama. I think he's intelligent, pragmatic, and caring. I think he values our governing institutions and traditions. And I think he'll do a decent job running the apparatus of government. I have no illusions that he's a "secular savior" or that there aren't lots of other people who could also do the job decently well. I have no illusions about the fact that he might mess up. But if I'm on the street in a parade he's in I'll probably try to shake his hand. Why the hell not? That would be pretty cool! He's an admirable guy, I have every expectation that he'll do a decent job. It's nothing more than that though. And I think for most people it's nothing more than that. But a lot of people out there truly don't like him and distrust him. And when someone like that sees someone like me, it's possible they'll make the mistake of blowing my admiration out of proportion into something else. That's largely what I think is going on.

    And like I said above - there are DEFINITELY people out there that do have a very bizarre devotion to and expectations of Obama. There are always people like that. As I said above, that is truly repulsive and it's out there. But I also think that kind of devotion is very abnormal, and is certainly nothing like people who happen to want to grab his hand during a stump speech.
  • Mike M.
    I believe that you don't worship at the altar of the government and appreciate the thought you've put into this response.

    I only have one comment. The difference between the Catholic Church losing membership and me losing faith in the government is that I can't be put to death for "treason" against the Catholic Church.

    That's a significant difference.
  • Gil
    The religious synonym for 'treason' is 'heresy'. Your analogy fails.
  • Mike M.
    I'm not quite sure why. In a mostly free society (such as ours), can I be put to death for heresy (now -- not in 1535)?
  • Gil
    In an idyllic free society people would neither be liable for heresy or treason
  • danielkuehn
    "The difference between the Catholic Church losing membership and me losing faith in the government is that I can't be put to death for "treason" against the Catholic Church."

    It is good to be out of the 16th century, isn't it :)
  • Mike M.
    It certainly is. If only we could get government out of the 16th century. I say this tongue-in-cheek. I appreciate that we have made strides over the years to live in a more liberty rich society.

    My hope is that in another 50-75 years, America in 2010 appears to have been the 16th century. Just the same way that state sponsored segregation of schools and conscription seem bizarre today.
  • danielkuehn
    You're reading an awful lot into a campaign waves and handshakes, Don. And I'm amazed that multi-paragraph self-defense posts go up on here when someone is accused of being a "liar", but you think nothing of calling other people "repulsive" just because they want to shake a leader's hand. It seems grossly disproportionate to me.

    The thing is, the only people I ever hear making claims of superhumanity, transcendence, "unparalleled devotion to all that is right and just", and a messianic role is critics like you who impute such claims to them. Don, if they REALLY display this sort of pretense then cite it, don't impute it. Demonstrate to me that they do, because honestly I only hear this position from their detractors. If I heard it from them or from the people who admire them I would be concerned with you, but I don't. The rare instances that you do see go up on youtube are repulsive (but most of those are pretty flimsy - I'm thinking specifically of the "prayer to Obama" where they're actually saying "deliver us Oh God"). I only really hear such outlandish claims from oppositional posts like this.

    If they really think this of themselves or promote themselves in this way then cite it. Shaking hands from a car with a crowd is hardly proof that Robert Kennedy thought of himself as a secular messiah.
  • "If they really think this of themselves or promote themselves in this way then cite it."

    Yes, narcissists come right out and say that they're narcissistic. Though there are some examples where Obama has shown his slip (see link I provided below), you get better clues from behavior, body language and ability to accept the possibility that they may be wrong and actually address the merits or demerits of an argument.
  • Gil
    So what? An aspiring entrepreneur has to be full of it too if he thinks he's going the one the owners of one of the 1% of businesses that are still profitable a decade later.
  • Further, politicians use the power of government to force their stuff on us, which do not need to be mutually beneficial. Entrepreneurs usually have to rely on voluntary exchanges with customers that are mutually beneficial.

    Sometimes when business people have a tough time adding value they try to harness the power of government to their favor. I don't like that either.
  • Gil - I agree.

    You just identified that the private sector is much more effective than the public sector at rooting out the people and programs that don't add value. We reward the two based on different principles.

    Read the first chapter of Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics". He givers an excellent explanation on the differences between the decisions we make in the private and public sectors.

    For example, in the private sector, I base my decision to keep buying from a business on the results of what I get from them. If I find that they add value to my life over what I give them, I keep buying. In the public sector, however, I may make the decision to keep supporting a candidate based on their stated intentions, rather than results.
  • danielkuehn
    "Yes, narcissists come right out and say that they're narcissistic"

    Nobody requested a quote, Seth.
  • Who'd I quote? I'd be happy to give them due credit next time.

    Whether or not 'nobody' requested a quote, doesn't impact the validity of the point.
  • BoscoH
    Daniel, I think a good test of Don's premise would be for you to get a 60s era convertible Cadillac, hire a driver, and cruise down the main drag of your town standing and waving to people. I suspect that the most attention you will get is from a local traffic cop ticketing you for not wearing your seat belt.
  • Gil
    If Daniel shouts about being a saviour and advocates change and no one notices him other than he gets a ticket from a trafiic cop then doesn't that mean Don's theory has failed?
  • Mommsen1625
    Modern politicians spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year crafting personality cults which they wish people to lock into. People generally don't spend money on stuff over long periods of time without a pay off. BTW, there is whole class of literature on the subject; of politicians using media as a means to craft an image that people can get wrapped up in.
  • danielkuehn
    The dispute isn't with this air-tight logic:
    "People generally don't spend money on stuff over long periods of time without a pay off."

    But with this considerably less than air-tight claim:
    "Modern politicians spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year crafting personality cults"

    Unless you're simply saying that they try to promote themselves - which I would agree with, and don't see much wrong with. It's this whole "messiah" hyperbole that's a little more iffy.
  • Mommsen1625
    So, politicians never try to promote themselves as secular messiahs? Or only rarely? Or some of the time? Or quite often? Or all the time?

    BTW, if you have a problem with the word messiah, you can use some other term. The fact is though that modern politicians constantly promote themselves - they after all, at the heart of it, entrepreneurs for their own brand or rather themselves - as "the solution" to whatever today's problems are. Whether one wants to call that promoting the notion of a "secular messiah" or some other terminology doesn't matter to me.

    Now from the standpoint of the consumer there are lots and lots of buyers and these buyers (a) are in general fairly ignorant and (b) have very low costs when it comes to investment. So it is easy (and cheap) for a lot of these buyers to pour whatever hopes and dreams they have into a particular candidate.
  • danielkuehn
    You can use whatever noun you prefer, Mommsen. I'm just saying that there's a big difference between saying "I have some good ideas - much better ideas than that other guy over there" and promoting that, and saying "I have all the answers you just need to trust me with decisions because I will never let you down".

    Elections are about competing ideas. And when it's not a ballot measure and until we start running robots as candidates those ideas are going to be communicated by people that we elect. The simple fact that people run for these offices and promote their ideas doesn't mean they promote themselves as having all the answers.
  • A very special moment from the annals of competing ideas:

    http://www.entertonement.com/clips/shfmfmqdmn--...
  • danielkuehn
    I can understand why he's being melodramatic - he's giving a victory speech after all. I'm not so sure why you're being melodramatic. No, I don't think it's a "very special moment", but I do think that those of us who voted for him were encouraged that things might finally turn around in our response to climate change... a feeling of encouragement that he melodramatically captured in a poetic line. So? What's the fuss?
  • mark
    The obama apologist is back with a vengeance!
  • Same fuss as usual. People see the narcissist for what he or she is not and buy into his or her baloney to their own peril.
  • Mommsen1625
    What you are at heart - as far as I can tell - is a democratic fundamentalist; I am not. I am market fundamentalist. Markets are better. Democracy sucks in comparison to markets.
  • Gil
    Wouldn't you agree that the masses should be disenfranchised? That the masses are too flippant and superstitious to be entrusted with any help in the decision-making in the country and the U.S.A. should go back to the days were those who were allowed any decision-making were those who had amassed signigicantly wealth - the minority who should have a good deal of common sense and respect for the free market? Isn't quite clear the masses had little long-term outlook and are quite Socialistic?
  • danielkuehn
    Oh no. Democracy can be a dangerous thing. But it is an important and powerful tool, just like the market. Tempered with the right restrictions on state power and republicanism, democracy is an excellent way to make use of the decentralized information which the market is so efficient at using as well. I don't think thats "democracy fundamentalism" do you? I'm not a market fundamentalist either, granted. You use the right tool for the right job. And properly used, there are a lot of jobs that both democracy and the market can address. I'm not sure I would say "democracy sucks" - but I would agree with you that there are considerably more facets of life that the market should organize than there are that constitutionally restrained democracy should organize. But there are a few very important ones where constitutionally restrained democracy has a role to play.
  • Mommsen1625
    "...constitutionally restrained democracy..."

    That's a chimera. I think we like to think that constitutions restrain politicians and masses, but they don't if neither are interested in such.
  • danielkuehn
    "I think we like to think that constitutions restrain politicians and masses, but they don't if neither are interested in such."

    I couldn't agree with you more. Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.
  • Mommsen1625
    You can be eternally vigilant all you want; constitutions are only as strong as strong the virtues of the population.
  • Mommsen1625
    Well, just so we understand each other's starting positions.
  • Mommsen1625
    This of course illustrated by what the news organization focus on: who fucked who, etc. They do not focus on the details of legislation, or political philosophy, etc. They focus on personality traits and who fought in what war and how many awards they were decorated and whether they "cool" under questioning during a debate and who got what one line zinger in, etc.
  • Mommsen1625
    Ha ha ha ha ha!

    They are not about competing ideas in any way, shape or form. This is illustrated by the ignorance of the voting population. They are at heart personality contests.
  • danielkuehn
    Oh, well I would say they end up being both. I didn't mean that to be an exhaustive catalogue of what an election is. But even popularity aren't the same as claims to secular saviorhood.
  • Mommsen1625
    It varies along a spectrum. Some politicians try to paint themselves as messiahs, others are more circumspect.
  • Mommsen1625
    The reason that politicians put out platforms is as a means to signal other elites primarily; also, that's what the voting population expects as part of the personality criteria; the population isn't that interested in the ideas so long as they are not too radical and outside the norm. Elections aren't about ideas to the voting population; they are about that to party insiders, wonks, etc. This is of course why I stopped voting; voting is a joke. I have no say whatsoever in what this republic does; I have far more say with what Dell or my local supermarket does.
  • Mommsen1625
    This explains it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8oi8kYRKdA&feat...

    *link fixed*
  • magilson
    I watched people line up for over a mile (yeah) to get into a high school football field so they could sit and listen and cheer at the man they hoped would lead them into a new paradise. I watched them as they put on their t-shirts covered in slogans and I watched as they were handed pre-fabricated signs. I even stomached the chants they ushered at their hopeful leader.

    And I sat and listened to them belittle and demonize others for showing the same bahavior at the next person who came to my town to ask to be their leader. And I saw their facial expressions as I compared their behaviors as being exactly similar.

    Just because the person doesn't build a compound in Texas and literally claim to be the son of a god does not mean they don't see themselves as super-human. Nor do I so constrain myself as to only believe that they might believe it if the literal words come out of their mouth. By making this statement you've constrained yourself to acting only on someone's words and not their actions. Now I know that you don't do this. And I admire your desire to stand up against false accusations. But I've said it before. Sometimes it's readily apparent you are just trying too hard.
  • danielkuehn
    "Nor do I so constrain myself as to only believe that they might believe it if the literal words come out of their mouth. "

    Nor do I. Why do you and Methinks think I'm talking about explicit claims????

    "By making this statement you've constrained yourself to acting only on someone's words and not their actions. "

    Elaborate. I think you're wrong on this. If I gave that impression I would happily take it back, because that's not what I meant to imply. I think you're taking the easy way out of addressing my point. I asked someone to demonstrate that they thought this - I didn't ask for an instance where they actually said it. Nobody would actually say it.
  • magilson
    Don gave proof he thinks demonstrates their affinity for hero-worship. Your rebuttal was, essentially, that you don't think that it is. If somehow your simple statement was all it took to disprove Don's I am having a hard time understanding why you think you deserve more proof than what Don provided. He didn't just talk about hand shakes and baby-kissing. He's talking about Mr. Kennedy's gross display of self-esteem via motorcade. Frankly I think your taking the easy way out it addressing Don's point. I'm not talking about the idiotic passtime of counting the number of personal pronouns in a given speech. I'm talking about welcoming one's adoring followers by promising them paradise on earth. I'll make the world a better place if only you let me be your master type stuff. How many political campaigns would you like me to point out?
  • Gil
    If the vast majority of the populace are highly superstitious as though the Renaissance had never happened then is this a good argument to ditch Democracy?
  • vikingvista
    No, but the fact that democracy does not accomplish what most people think it does, is--if by "democracy" you mean a very strict adherence to majority rule.
  • Gil
    If 'democracy' equals 'majoritarian rule' and that means diaster because people are voting on that which they have no qualifications then why not ditch it?
  • vikingvista
    "because people are voting on that which they have no qualifications"

    Qualifications has nothing to do with it. It's about voting to do things to people that you should never be allowed to do.
  • Methinks1776
    Why do you and Methinks think I'm talking about explicit claims????


    Because you are.

    Occam's razor.
  • danielkuehn
    I'd be thrilled to have the opportunity to read an elaboration on that. I'm not holding my breath, though.
  • mark
    Please hold your breath Dan.
  • Methinks1776
    I'm not interested in a fruitless attempt to disabuse you of your delusions. If the weight of the data can't do that, I certainly can't.
  • erp617
    I doubt any of the Kennedy’s think of themselves as messiahs, but their PR teams certainly sold them that way even through there’s overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Obama OTOH probably does think of himself as a savior of sorts. He was certainly sold that way and it was bought by millions who voted for him knowing very little, if anything, about him.

    I think the frenzy to touch the hand or the hem of the robe of an alleged holy man is a desperate attempt by the superstitious uninformed public to make sense of the chaos around them by assigning to a messiah superhuman abilities to solve their problems and take care of them.

    We were born a nation of independent individuals and the sooner we get back to that model, the better off we’ll all be.

    Perhaps Robert Kennedy’s son is truly upset about his father’s bloody clothes being put on display or perhaps he’s thinking of running for public office and his flaks thought this one up as a good opening salvo.

    Given the history of Camelot, I’ll bet on the latter.
  • danielkuehn
    "I think the frenzy to touch the hand or the hem of the robe of an alleged holy man is a desperate attempt by the superstitious uninformed public to make sense of the chaos around them by assigning to a messiah superhuman abilities to solve their problems and take care of them."

    Why do you think that? I'm just curious what it is that leads you to invest so much meaning in that. It seems like you're getting an awful lot of meaning out of a relatively benign activity.
  • erp617
    Empirical evidence in the form of adoring mobs prostrating themselves, chanting, sobbing ... paparazzi who put themselves in personal danger trying to snap a photo of some pop culture icon ...
  • danielkuehn
    OK... so you seem to have gone from secular messiah to obsession with pop culture icons. There are probably one or two pop culture icons I would be genuinely star-struck in front of, but generally speaking I don't understand that impulse either. Either way, obsessing over an icon seems like a perfectly legitimate activity for an individualist to engage in if they want to. I'm not sure when they do that they're excited by a "secular savior", though. Adoring fans can be pretty vacuous but they're not that vacuous. It usually has more to do with personal appearance ("he's so dreamy") or a deep interest in whatever they produce. Again - two instincts that are perfectly consistent with a good, classical liberal individualism - no pretense of messianism necessary. We're allowed to admire our fellow man, aren't we?
  • erp617
    1. IMO pop culture idols/icons include politicians, religious leaders and others who allow themselves to be held out as messiahs/saviors who have all the answers to our problems .

    2. We're "allowed" to do anything we want that isn't illegal.

    3. That about covers it.
  • danielkuehn
    I shouldn't have left that ambiguous. I should have written "we're allowed to admire our fellow man and still be consistent classical liberal individualists, aren't we?" - i.e., such a thing is not incongruent, is it?
  • Methinks1776
    Well, as long as nobody EXPLICITLY claims superhumanity and transcendence, then it doesn't happen.

    If we don't EXPLICITLY call it socialism, it isn't. If we don't EXPLICITLY call it fascism, it isn't. And as long as nobody in your circle at the Urban Institute claims that politicians will save them, then it doesn't happen.

    It's all about labels and anecdotes with you Statists. Keep up the relabeling campaign, myopia and foot stomping in indignation when someone calls a spade a spade.
  • danielkuehn
    I never said anything about explicit - that's something you brought to the table. I'm perfectly willing to work with implicit. But if you really, truly think that shaking hands from a car is an implicit claim to superhumanity, then I'm not sure this discussion is worth having. Although I would be open to hearing why I'm wrong and why it is such a claim.

    The irony of someone labeling everything under the sun as "socialist" and "statist" lecturing others on relabeling gave me a good laugh to lighten my Friday too, by the way. OK - back to evaluating government programs at the Urban Institute to keep them honest about making claims to what works and what doesn't work. Because that's how people who are genuinely concerned with abuse of state power do: collect evidence and confront the state and the public with it. Generally speaking, it's much more effective (not to mention professional and civil) than screaming "statist!".
  • mark
    "I never said anything about..."

    Hairsplit then deny. Hairsplit then deny. Dan's Ph D. envy makes him respond the same way, every time. He's like a robot, but less personable.
  • Methinks1776
    Your delusions are deeply fascinating. Probably.

    Please return to keeping the government honest and preventing it from wasting money. You're doing such a bang up job so far. I'm sure you're worth every penny.
  • I agree with your comments ( and plan to quote in my blog Retired doc's thoughts) and with the comment by David Hart. I wonder about the strong tendency among humans to want and idolize would be leaders.It is strong over time and location. Is there some survival benefit to that tendency that we carry with us from our hunter-gatherer phase? Any thoughts?
  • I had some of the same feelings when they transported Reagan's body from coast to coast and the same sense of stomach illness when I saw the peeps lined up to pay homage to Ted Kennedy.
    Lemmings, all.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: