Democracy's Fatal Flaw

Front page political cartoon, "The Mascot", New Orleans, for 9 July 1887. "The Politicians' Serpents Tempting Our Democratic Eve"

In my last entry I examined the underlying defect of authoritarianism.  I had a few quotes in it which I'll revisit now.

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

- Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love (pp. 245-6)

and:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

- Lord Acton 

How do these all relate?  I'll explain.

Autocrats like to think they're smarter or more special somehow than the rest of us—because if not, there's no justification for their authority.  Whether they're politicians or in some less official position of power, they need an excuse for why they make decisions for the rest of us.  (Or to put it another way, they need to justify taking decision-making away from the rest of us.)

So they pretend, or even have convinced themselves, that they alone are wiser than millions, and then have to justify that belief.  Or try to.

It's a big reason why the USA's founders sought to limit the power of the government, and especially of whoever was atop the executive part of it.  The founders had had their decisions taken away from them and given to those who were certainly less wise, and the founders not only didn't like it, they could see it made authoritarianism unstable.  Some percentage of the population will always be restive, wanting that decision-making back.

So they put checks and balances in place in the Constitution, to try to keep the government under control.

They put the ultimate power, the decision-making, in the hands of the people, as much as they could.

Unfortunately, people aren't perfect, so their constructs, including governments, aren't either.  They're flawed.

Democracy has the same fatal flaw as authoritarianism, actually.  At some point, someone has to have the final say on decisions, and whoever it is won't be perfect.  Or even wise.  Certainly not incorruptible, not always.

Whoever has that authority needs to be reined in.  There need to be checks and balances on them, so they don't just follow their whims or wishful thinking.  Or temptations.

Unfortunately, the same is true of voters.  The problem is, where checks and balances are concerned in the USA and too many other democracies, they're lacking.  No checks, no balances.  Not on the voters.

There's nothing to stop voters from voting for unconscionable candidates, for idiotic ideas, for counterproductive propositions.

Just look at the election that started Hitler off decades ago, eventually bringing down Weimar Germany.  Or look at some more recent elections, in any number of democratic states.  There's nothing stopping voters from looking only at the immediate, and taking their eyes off the long-term.  To look only at what's bothering them right now, and not what is best for all, decades down the road.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power absolutely.  It applies to voters the same as anyone else.

And other than those same voters making sure they have accurate and reliable information, even if unwelcome, to base their decisions on; those voters ensuring they're looking at everyone's needs and not just their own, no matter how pressing; those voters fighting to keep the power they have from leading them to corrupt choices, no matter how tempting…there is no answer.

Voters have to be wise; their power is unchecked.

And I'm sorry about that.  I've thought and thought and thought about this, and I don't have any better solution.  I wish I did.

Then again, the founders didn't either.  Did they?

* * *

I realize it may sound from this like all political systems are flawed, so it doesn't matter which you're under.  The first part is true, but the second is not.

Tyranny, historically, has restricted the rights and choices of individuals.  Communism creates a power vacuum that a tyrant inevitably fills.  Aristocracy ends up being unmerited elitism.

Democracy is still the best choice, if the welfare of the individual matters to you.

But that's best choice, not perfect choice.  With people or politics, there is no perfection, no easy way out.  Only the hard work of learning the issues and the candidates, making the best choice for the long term, not yielding to temptation.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  If voters stop being vigilant…the price is all too high.

The Fatal Flaw of Authoritarianism

A jackboot

I remember, all too vividly, being a young man, and finding I could be attractive to women—some women.  The world being what it is, temptation came my way.  Suffice it to say, things did not go well.

What does that have to do with authoritarianism?  Bear with me a moment.

The appeal of a single individual taking charge is pervasive within humanity, or so it seems.  Even the more collectively minded cultures are prone to doing this.  How many dictators have there been in group-centered cultures?  As many as in the more individualist ones, I'm certain.

Or if that argument doesn't sway you, how about this?  How many corporations anywhere don't have a CEO?

Or how about a Heinlein quote on the subject, from Time Enough for Love (p. 246)?

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

(It comes after his one-liner on democracy:

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

(It just goes to show that governing isn't simple.)  (If it was, we would all have the same form of government, and wouldn't be having discussions like this.)

The fact is, all forms of government have a fatal flaw, it's just more pronounced in an authoritarian form.  One more quote explains why:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton

If you've got an autocrat in place, his (it's almost always a he) whims have nothing to check them.  He can issue  an edict, and it has to happen, no matter how bad it might be for however many people.  This is why the Roman Republic and the USA put checks and balances in place, to keep this kind of corruption under control.

Until it's evaded, anyway.

Consider if your autocrat is tempted to, for example, exile anyone who criticizes him, what's to stop him?  Or from denying anyone governmental protections?  Seize their property?

Do I seem to be doom-mongering?  Overreacting?

I don't think so.  I know from personal experience what happens when something tempts you, and there's nothing to stop you yielding.

Propaganda vs. Journalism

This is from 1894, not 2024

Introduction

Misinformation is bad enough.  Disinformation—meant to mislead—is even worse.  And there's a lot of it out there.  It's been a problem probably ever since town criers started bawling, but it's gotten worse lately.  There are propaganda outlets masquerading as media.  If you want to make intelligent decisions, you need to be able to tell propaganda apart from reputable journalism.

Example

I found when teaching that there's nothing better than a good example.  I managed to dig up something from Chinese state media back in 1961.  The distance in time and foreign origin should defuse anything inflammatory, and enable easier analysis.  I'm going to put some words in italics:

This coup was reactionary, and deliberately engineered by the American imperialists. After the American imperialist running dog Syngman Rhee was toppled, [they] brought Jang Myeon [Chang Myun] to power, bringing in so-called American-style “democracy” with the scheme to strengthen their colonial rule in South Korea. But since last April the people’s struggle had been growing by the day, the struggle for peaceful reunification gathering more and more steam. … So in advance they engineered a so-called “military coup”, with the purpose of suppressing the South Korean people’s struggle and strengthening fascist rule.
- https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-chinese-embassy-north-korea-contents-may-18th-north-korean-party-central-standing

Analysis

Things like the above used to come out of Chinese state media all the time.  (Nowadays they're a little more subtle.)  But let's examine it.  We'll start with everything I put in italics, divided up into three groups:
1.    reactionary, engineered, imperialists, scheme, colonial, people's struggle, peaceful
2.    so-called "democracy"/"military coup"
3.    running dog, fascist

Group 1 consists of words with emotional loading.  Neutral terms, which don't evoke an emotional reaction, would be "conservative," "facilitated," (I can't think of one for "imperialist"—maybe "expansionist"), "plan," "conflict," "foreign," "non-violent."  Note that in the cases of "people's struggle" and "peaceful," the emotions meant to be elicited are positive.

Group 2 consists of redundant phrases with scare quotes.  Scare quotes are meant to scare, on some level, which makes them a variant on the kind in group 1.

Group 3 consists of insults, terms meant to denigrate.  Again, meant to make the audience react emotionally.

(One other note: a lot of "they" in that example, with "they" never quite defined.  It's easier to cast blame without accountability if you never specify who you're blaming.)

Journalism and Propaganda

Now, these bits from Wikipedia are useful (they come from the Journalism and Propaganda entries):
⦁    "Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that informs society to at least some degree of accuracy."
⦁    "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented."

The key words from each include "informs" vs. "influence," and "accuracy" vs. "emotional…response."  Journalism has a different goal from propaganda.  If you can't tell them apart you can easily be misled, being influenced when you were open to being informed.

Distinguishing Between the Two

Reputable journalists are trying to give you the facts and the context so you can make up your own mind.  They don't seek to persuade.  (Editorials are something separate, and are not a problem if labeled as such and kept apart from news stories.)

Journalists will often point out potential consequences, but try not to let their own biases creep in, and try not to use alarmist (emotional) language.  That can of course be difficult.  But the goal is for rational reaction, not emotional.

But if you read or watch information sources, whether they call themselves news or not, sources that consistently or even constantly use loaded words and emotional language, if the reporters resort to insults, well, go ahead and follow that outlet if you want to.  Just keep in mind you're watching something where influence is the goal, and the message trumps accuracy.  Watch or read it if you want.  But don't trust it.

Five Things Wrong with Today's Party in Power

With the Fourth of July here, this seems like a reasonable time to take a look at the current regime party holding power in the US.  There are many more problems within it, but here's five pertinent and prominent ones:

1. All They Value Is Money  Help for the poor?  Efforts to reduce inequality?  Education or training assistance?  Nope.  To today's government leadership, if you haven't earned a lot, there's something wrong with you.  Likewise, if the field you're in isn't high-earning, then they view you as having made foolish choices, and, again, deserve nothing.  So much for farmers, nurses, firefighters, police officers…

2. All They Value Is Power I  The will of the people?  A government by, for, and of the people?  Not so much.  A government where they make the decisions is paramount, and whatever means it takes to get to that end, they will use.

3. They Can't Handle the Truth  You may have noticed that just about any policy, statement, or anything else that comes out of the administration doesn't align with science, facts, or reality.  Nor do they care about expertise, education, or experience.  Why?  Because truth isn't something they can exploit.  Truth does not bring power—not that they can see.

4. All They Value Is Power II  The ultimate political power is that which has no checks upon it, and no balance with competing authorities.  This is primarily why Congress has been so inactive and the Supreme Court so permissive, even with both being controlled by the ruling party in power.  Much simpler to just issue presidential edicts than pass laws, even when unconstitutional.  Because the Constitution, in their view, is simply a competing authority, to be disregarded at best, destroyed at worst.

5. They Can't Handle Opposition  We'll see how far they go in this respect.  But, so far, they've at least threatened to arrest or deport anyone who gets in their way, including judges and legislators.  Fortunately, this blog is too minor to be on their radar.  Otherwise they might consider me a threat.  Then who knows what will happen.  But I'm safe.  Aren't I?  They won't come for me.  Will they?

Will they?

Happy Independence Day.

Except…independence from what?

How Smart People Can Get Stupid

If you've been around a while, or even have followed the news, you'll have noticed people of high accomplishment doing something amazingly lowbrow.  I won't bother to cite any examples, because there are far too many of them.  But this is one way a descent into foolishness can happen.  The (il)logical progression goes (mis)step by (mis)step:

1.    A person excels in some way.  Can be in an academic field, can be in business—whatever.
2.    They sensibly think, "I did something excellent."
3.    That fairly reasonably grows into, "I'm excellent in that area."
4.    We all like to think well of ourselves.  We all need self-approval.  So it doesn't usually take too long before they senselessly think, "I'm excellent."
5.    And so doing one thing well once then morphs into "I do all things well at all times."
6.    They then set themselves up as experts in all fields.
7.    Their actual ignorance then leads them into error.

It isn't hard to do.  The only way to avoid it that I know of is with time and self-reflection.  It's no secret that I, for example, have had some bad experiences.  Self-reflection keeps me from attributing them all to others' mistakes and mis-perceptions.  Sometimes I screw up.  Sometimes I get stupid.

And I'm no exception in doing so.  To err is human, you know.

Self-awareness is far more of a virtue than self-approval.  Even if you probably have to be around a while to develop it.

"86 47" Explained?

If you've been following the news, you're aware that former FBI Director James Comey posted a picture that showed seashells spelling out "86 47."  The White House, as it is wont to do, promptly got in a kerfuffle.  After all, the argument went, "86" means to get rid of, and so this was, in their view, a call to assassinate the 47th president.

Leaving aside using questionable logic and overexcited hyperbole—not that this White House is wont to do that—I suggest a much simpler explanation.

Comey and "47" are both of an age to have seen the classic TV comedy Get Smart.  (Not to mention the later movie.)  I suggest Comey was merely drawing attention to the similarities between Maxwell Smart, aka Agent 86, and "47."

Smart was a bumbling government official who constantly made mistakes, never adequately thought anything through, and depended on others' intervention to keep disaster from developing.  He always sounded anxious, with his high-pitched, tense voice, while uttering utter nonsense.

"47," by comparison…

Ah.  Well.

So that's my suggested explanation.  And I do consider it plausible.

Completely plausible.  Wouldja believe it?  Completely.

Ah, wouldja believe mostly?

Revised Princess Onesie

I found there were a couple of errors in The Adventures of Princess Onesie and Fairy Friend (there were chapters named Chapter Two), so I went in and fixed them.  While I was there, I made it a little easier for parents to read to children, too.

(If you're waiting for something new, my twentieth novel's first draft is done, so more is on the way.)

My Publications

 

I always need to challenge myself somehow with what I write, or I lose interest.  I also like a level of challenge as a reader.  Not all of you do, so I've followed this list of my works, in publication order, with a note on which are the easiest reads.

See the sidebar for links to all of these (everything self-published is in the Free Ebooks one); everything but Lower than the Angels is a free ebook. 

By the way - no AI has been or ever will be used in producing any of my works, including artwork.   What fun would that be?!

Published

"Flip of a Coin" in Lower than the Angels
The Neglected Giant: Agnes Meyer Driscoll

Self-Published

Collections and Novellas
1.    Ice Cold and Other Stories: Expanded Edition
2.    Aunt Gabby Saves the Universe!
3.    Ghost Mode
4.    Eleven Nonsense Rhymes and a Handful of Poems
5.    Fallen into Shadows
6.    The Adventures of Princess Onesie and Fairy Friend
7.    Trouble Magnet
8.    "How to Write" - An Approach That Worked for Me
9.    Parallel Worlds and Skew - Essays and Reflections
10.   Second-Best with a Sword and Other Stories
11.   300-Plus Problem Words and Phrases
12.   Worlds of Wonder - Essays on Writing - Reflections on Life

Novels
1.    Roads Between Worlds
2.    T-Man
3.    Shadows Between Worlds
4.    Across the Worlds with Aimee and Phineas
5.    Department G
6.    Rivers Between Worlds
7.    In Solstice and in Peril
8.    US Gummint Cunning Man
9.    End of the Line
10.   Faker
11.   Shadowed
12.   Souls Between Worlds
13.   Traveling the Transdimensional Highway
14.   Making It Home
15.   Thresholds
16.   In the Service of the Queen
17.   In the Service of the Prince
18.   In the Service of the Heir
19.   A House Between Worlds
20.   Traders (coming "soon")

"Easy Reads"

My shorter fiction and collections are easy enough reads, generally, but some of my novels may challenge you as a reader more than you like.

These are the more "accessible," "easy reads" among my novels, from the #1 easiest to #8:
1. In Solstice and in Peril
2. End of the Line
3-5. In the Service series (three novels)
6. Traders (coming "soon")
7. Making It Home
8. Across the Worlds with Aimee and Phineas

If I Find a Rainbow Bridge One Day

If I find a rainbow bridge one day
I hope that you'll be there
Maybe you won't be waiting
Maybe your heart is bare

Maybe you feel unwanted
That you were not in our hearts
Since you were never adopted
At the end or near the start

You seemed to be improving
You'd even regained weight
We didn't know that there was more
We found out far too late

You came along too late for us
You were too old, too ill
The choice was taken 'way from us
Sweet one, a bitter pill

If you find a rainbow bridge today
Join the others we'll look for
I swear to you that in our minds
We loved you as much or more

We were able to adopt our foster kitty at the last minute.  No one should go to their death unwanted

About Me

Kevin Wade Johnson began writing fiction in the 1970s, and began getting serious about it in the following decade, as the embedded image shows.

Fiction had to take a back seat to the more technical writing required in a thirty-year career within the Defense Department, active-duty and civilian.  In the course of a career learning foreign languages, cultures, history, and more, he focused more and more on teaching effective communication, and capped off his tenure by writing The Neglected Giant: Agnes Meyer Driscoll (link current as of November 2024), the free, award-winning, published biography of a pioneering codebreaker.  Before retiring he had a short story published in a regional anthology; not long after, and then since retiring, he has self-published numerous novels, novellas and collections, all of which are free ebooks.  For ten years he posted thought pieces, free fiction and more at kevinwadejohnson.blogspot.com; most of these articles have been moved to ebooks.

Those ebooks and the others are at http://self.gutenberg.org/Authors/KevinWadeJohnson.

I do plan to flesh this out some more in the future.

A House Between Worlds (free ebook)

El Jefe rules the country, and has for a dozen years.  Has ruled disastrously.

His early decision to expel every Muslim, his decision to send in the military to do so, the mutinies and desertions that followed, all had caused global economic disaster.  With healthcare being ruined, the nation and world had suffered economic, health, and population collapse.

Of course there were those who fought against his rule and his "Provisional" Security Teams.  They sought independence from his tyranny, though they hadn't issued any formal declaration, like the one made a couple of centuries before.  But, like that time long ago, they were outgunned and out-organized.  Eventually they might have prevailed as their predecessors did.  But in the meantime they needed something or some place that would aid their resistance.  (As their predecessors had.)

A few of them found a cabin lost in the woods.  A house.  A house between worlds.

A House Between Worlds is available here.

All my (free) ebooks are at http://self.gutenberg.org/Authors/KevinWadeJohnson.