The End of US Democracy Was All Too Predictable by Jason Stanley

[ltlee1]

"For 2,300 years, at least since Plato’s Republic, philosophers have
known how demagogues and aspiring tyrants win democratic elections. The
process is straightforward, and we have now just watched it play out.

In a democracy, anyone is free to run for office, including people who
are thoroughly unsuitable to lead or preside over the institutions of
government. One telltale sign of unsuitability is a willingness to lie
with abandon, specifically by representing oneself as a defender against
the people’s perceived enemies, both external and internal. ...

Philosophers have also always known that this kind of politics is not
necessarily destined to succeed. ...

In my own work, I have tried to describe, in minute detail, why and how
people who feel slighted (materially or socially) come to accept
pathologies – racism, homophobia, misogyny, ethnic nationalism, and
religious bigotry – which, under conditions of greater equality, they
would reject.

And it is precisely those material conditions for a healthy, stable
democracy that the United States lacks today. If anything, America has
come to be singularly defined by its massive wealth inequality, a
phenomenon that cannot but undermine social cohesion and breed
resentment. With 2,300 years of democratic political philosophy
suggesting that democracy is not sustainable under such conditions, no
one should be surprised by the outcome of the 2024 election.

But why, one might ask, has this not already happened in the US? The
main reason is that there had been an unspoken agreement among
politicians not to engage in such an extraordinarily divisive and
violent form of politics.
..
Democratic political philosophy, then, has been correct in its analysis
of the Trump phenomenon. Tragically, it also offers a clear prediction
of what will come next. According to Plato, the kind of person who
campaigns this way will rule as a tyrant. "

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-election-inequality-meant-that-us-democracy-was-doomed-by-jason-stanley-2024-11

[ltlee1]

Something funny about this article:

To the degree that one agrees with Plato, the end of democracy
everywhere is "All Too Predictable."

Plato viewed democracy as inferior and world history is largely on
Plato's side.

[ltlee1]

Questioning the Britannica Chatbot:

"Question1
In what way is Plato's conception of democracy should be considered
anachronistic?

Britannica Chatbot
Plato's conception of democracy can be considered anachronistic when
compared to modern understandings of democracy due to several key
differences. In his works, particularly "The Republic," Plato critiques
democracy as a system where the masses, driven by desires and passions,
rule without the necessary knowledge or virtue, leading to disorder and
eventual tyranny. He believed that only philosopher-kings, who possess
true knowledge and wisdom, should govern, as they can apprehend the
eternal Forms and promote the good life and social harmony.

Plato's critique reflects the direct democracy of ancient Athens, where
only a minority of the population, excluding women, slaves, and
foreigners, could participate. This contrasts sharply with modern
representative democracies, which emphasize broader participation and
the protection of individual rights through institutions and laws.
Furthermore, the evolution of democracy has seen the transition from
direct to representative systems, allowing for governance in larger
nation-states, which would have been inconceivable in Plato's time.

Question2:
What would preclude the masses, driven by desires and passions, without
necessary knowledge or virtue, from choosing tyrannical leaders?

Chatbot:
In democratic systems, checks and balances play a crucial role in
preventing the rise of tyrannical leaders by ensuring that power is
distributed and regulated among different branches of government. This
system is primarily applied in constitutional governments, where
separate branches—typically legislative, executive, and judicial—are
empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share
power. This separation of powers is fundamental in tripartite
governments, such as that of the United States, where each branch has
specific powers and responsibilities that can counterbalance the others.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, influenced by thinkers like
Montesquieu, believed that checks and balances were essential for
safeguarding liberty. They designed a system where each branch could
check the others, thus preventing any single entity from gaining
excessive power. For instance, the president can veto legislation, but
Congress can override this veto with a two-thirds majority. Similarly,
the judiciary has the power of judicial review to ensure that
legislative and executive actions are constitutional.

Additionally, informal checks and balances have evolved, such as the
congressional committee system and the role of political parties, which
further help to distribute power and prevent tyranny. In some systems,
like parliamentary ones, checks and balances may operate through
mechanisms such as no-confidence votes and the ability of a government
to dissolve parliament.

Overall, checks and balances are designed to prevent the concentration
of power and ensure that leaders remain accountable to the people, thus
reducing the risk of tyranny."

---------------------------------
In the sense, the Britannica Chatbot see US democracy as "End of
history" system. Of course, such belief is more Faith than Reality
based.

[ltlee1]

Westerner commentators love to brat about check and balance. Actually,
dynastic China also had check and balance.

隋唐三省六部制。三省，分为了中书、门下与尚书，中书省负责起诏书，门下省负责审核，尚书负责执行。