In "Public Opinion" (1922), Walter Lippmann argued that the vastness, complexity, and invisibility of the modern world make democracy impossible. He got a lot right.
Great article. I wish I could write like this! An extension of Lippman’s ideas is also available in Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri. He dissects very skillfully the fallibility of experts, and the distrust of institutions in the internet era.
As a technical person myself, I really feel the allure of technocracy. Unfortunately, I've found it just pushes stuff back one level, in terms of making the politics play out in capturing the technocrats. All the pseudoscience in support of slavery is a real cautionary tale. If there's any reward for supporting a political position, technical people can be found who will make up a technical argument in favor of it. Then you need some way of deciding which argument is correct. And how do you do that?
Great points. I've written about the issue - that technical people will be available to produce arguments for preferred views - in my "Marketplace of Rationalisations" paper, so completely agree.
That is true, but it is possible and plausible to select for people who care about that and are more likely to decide that, which is _not_ the majority.
A passage from 'Public Opinion' I've been coming back to for more than a decade: "For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture."
It can be argued that the technocracy is real in much of the developed world, and has contributed to a good deal of prosperity, stability, and good decision making.
Where is the technocracy? The Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDA, the EPA, the FTC, and hundreds of big and small organs of the administrative state. Political actors may occasionally cause large disruptions but most work around the edges. People complain (it is in our nature to complain) but by and large this works better than the alternatives.
“those days there was no king in Israel. Each one was doing what was right in his own eyes.’’
This land had laws. Still available for examination.
Not anarchy and not controlling. Freedom with limits.
Then . . .
“So Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king all the words of Jehovah.
He said: “This is what the king who rules over you will have the right to demand: He will take your sons and put them in his chariots and make them his horsemen, and some will have to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself chiefs over thousands and chiefs over fifties, and some will do his plowing, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be ointment mixers, cooks, and bakers.
He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and he will give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grainfields and your vineyards, and he will give it to his court officials and his servants.
And he will take your male and female servants, your best herds, and your donkeys, and he will use them for his work.
He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you will become his servants. The day will come when you will cry out because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but Jehovah will not answer you in that day.”
However, the people refused to listen to what Samuel told them, and they said: “No, we are determined to have a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and lead us and fight our battles.”
So . . . so true.
And this prophet believes then percent tax is terrible!
People want direction, a judge of conduct (not freedom). And security by someone known in charge (not unknown future).
Nationalism, especially since 1914 hasn’t produced a positive record.
Jeez you’ve made some great points here. About our capabilities - we really are just evolving primates who walk upright, wear shoes and blindly seek status. And our capabilities to process info are evolving more slowly than our societies are developing. Additionally we get the vast majority of our info from 2nd hand - at best - sources. Too much filter altogether to make much of a mental map of the world. Reminds me of David Attenborough following a Wolfpack in Yosemite as they reconnoiter their patch to update their mental maps. We humans are no different - other than that the info we need is more complex and we rarely obtain it directly. Oh, and the Alpha male isn’t chosen. He just is.
One critique of democracy that might be missing, and in my opinion is the most important defect of democracy, is that the incentive structure for politicians is based mostly on being popular (doing what people want), as opposed to being a good manager (what is needed for society). In California, for instance, a state that has been struggling with drought conditions for a while, they’ve been slow to invest a few billion dollars into water infrastructure improvements,…as a result, a lot of the rain in the past two years has gone into the ocean. Fixing water infrastructure is not sexy. It won’t win any popularity contests, but I think it can be easily argued that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
On the other hand, the state has invested what will probably end up being $150B+ into a “high speed rail to nowhere,” a project that has taken decades with little progress. Easy to get voters excited about high speed rail, not nearly will give society the bang for its buck that water infrastructure improvements will, but it will get votes.
The incentives aren’t aligned well enough to expect proper management and care in democracy, and this is especially true at the federal level where seemingly there is never any budget caps on anything. A good CEO will unfortunately have to cut jobs or programs from time to time for the long term health of the organization. Meanwhile, the motivation of popularity means that things rarely get cut in D.C.
The effectiveness of democracy is very limited in this regard.
Frequent rotation is probably the No. 1 feature of democracy. Power does corrupt: it blinds, it makes one slowly detach from reality. In 2010 even liberals in Hungary endorsed Orban. In 2024 even a lot of conservatives are fed up with him. The hospitals and schools have no staff, the trains do not work, the prices are in the sky, all these basic things are falling apart and Orban talks about gender studies are bad. He just checked out from reality. 8 years term limits are smart. Orban started crap like banning gender studies after 8 years in precisely. Things were more reality-based before.
Dan, this is a great summary and analysis of Lippmann's work. I've been looking for something like this for a while and plan to assign this for my class session on democracy and technocracy. Thanks for writing!
Long ago, Robert Michels argued in Political Parties [1911] that “he who says organization, says oligarchy” (the Iron Law of Oligarchy). So, if the question is, Can “participatory oligarchy” work?, the answer is “Yes”; but if the question is, Can real (direct participation) democracy work?, the answer is “No” because of the Iron Law. However, referendums can be a means for direct participation.
The best solution would be for political power to be broad enough to avoid oligarchical capture but narrow enough that it doesn't descend into cheap vote buying. The balance that was struck before WWI in the west (partial suffrage with strong constitutions) was probably best, but the needs to mass mobilization brought about universal suffrage and new classes of voters were brought about by changes in society.
The votes of the underclass, single women, and the old are too oriented away from good governance towards short term parasitism. Moreover, the class that should in theory get the most of societies attention, children, have no vote (you could easily give their parents votes on their behalf).
Great article. I wish I could write like this! An extension of Lippman’s ideas is also available in Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri. He dissects very skillfully the fallibility of experts, and the distrust of institutions in the internet era.
Thanks! Yes, I like Gurri's book, and actually this reminds me that I should re-read it...
As a technical person myself, I really feel the allure of technocracy. Unfortunately, I've found it just pushes stuff back one level, in terms of making the politics play out in capturing the technocrats. All the pseudoscience in support of slavery is a real cautionary tale. If there's any reward for supporting a political position, technical people can be found who will make up a technical argument in favor of it. Then you need some way of deciding which argument is correct. And how do you do that?
Great points. I've written about the issue - that technical people will be available to produce arguments for preferred views - in my "Marketplace of Rationalisations" paper, so completely agree.
That is true, but it is possible and plausible to select for people who care about that and are more likely to decide that, which is _not_ the majority.
A passage from 'Public Opinion' I've been coming back to for more than a decade: "For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture."
Love that quote - very true.
It can be argued that the technocracy is real in much of the developed world, and has contributed to a good deal of prosperity, stability, and good decision making.
Where is the technocracy? The Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDA, the EPA, the FTC, and hundreds of big and small organs of the administrative state. Political actors may occasionally cause large disruptions but most work around the edges. People complain (it is in our nature to complain) but by and large this works better than the alternatives.
I agree in part.
History can enlighten . . .
One cultural record
“those days there was no king in Israel. Each one was doing what was right in his own eyes.’’
This land had laws. Still available for examination.
Not anarchy and not controlling. Freedom with limits.
Then . . .
“So Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king all the words of Jehovah.
He said: “This is what the king who rules over you will have the right to demand: He will take your sons and put them in his chariots and make them his horsemen, and some will have to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself chiefs over thousands and chiefs over fifties, and some will do his plowing, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be ointment mixers, cooks, and bakers.
He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and he will give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grainfields and your vineyards, and he will give it to his court officials and his servants.
And he will take your male and female servants, your best herds, and your donkeys, and he will use them for his work.
He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you will become his servants. The day will come when you will cry out because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but Jehovah will not answer you in that day.”
However, the people refused to listen to what Samuel told them, and they said: “No, we are determined to have a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and lead us and fight our battles.”
So . . . so true.
And this prophet believes then percent tax is terrible!
People want direction, a judge of conduct (not freedom). And security by someone known in charge (not unknown future).
Nationalism, especially since 1914 hasn’t produced a positive record.
See Robert conquest.
J.L. Talmon.
Carlton Hayes
Thanks
Clay
Clay
Thanks
Jeez you’ve made some great points here. About our capabilities - we really are just evolving primates who walk upright, wear shoes and blindly seek status. And our capabilities to process info are evolving more slowly than our societies are developing. Additionally we get the vast majority of our info from 2nd hand - at best - sources. Too much filter altogether to make much of a mental map of the world. Reminds me of David Attenborough following a Wolfpack in Yosemite as they reconnoiter their patch to update their mental maps. We humans are no different - other than that the info we need is more complex and we rarely obtain it directly. Oh, and the Alpha male isn’t chosen. He just is.
Ha - good points. I agree.
Absolutely love this article.
One critique of democracy that might be missing, and in my opinion is the most important defect of democracy, is that the incentive structure for politicians is based mostly on being popular (doing what people want), as opposed to being a good manager (what is needed for society). In California, for instance, a state that has been struggling with drought conditions for a while, they’ve been slow to invest a few billion dollars into water infrastructure improvements,…as a result, a lot of the rain in the past two years has gone into the ocean. Fixing water infrastructure is not sexy. It won’t win any popularity contests, but I think it can be easily argued that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
On the other hand, the state has invested what will probably end up being $150B+ into a “high speed rail to nowhere,” a project that has taken decades with little progress. Easy to get voters excited about high speed rail, not nearly will give society the bang for its buck that water infrastructure improvements will, but it will get votes.
The incentives aren’t aligned well enough to expect proper management and care in democracy, and this is especially true at the federal level where seemingly there is never any budget caps on anything. A good CEO will unfortunately have to cut jobs or programs from time to time for the long term health of the organization. Meanwhile, the motivation of popularity means that things rarely get cut in D.C.
The effectiveness of democracy is very limited in this regard.
Great points - I agree. (And thanks for the kind words about the article).
Thank you for your substack. I enjoyed this post so much I have ordered a copy of Lippman’s “Public Opinion”.
Great to hear!
Great post.
Thanks!
Frequent rotation is probably the No. 1 feature of democracy. Power does corrupt: it blinds, it makes one slowly detach from reality. In 2010 even liberals in Hungary endorsed Orban. In 2024 even a lot of conservatives are fed up with him. The hospitals and schools have no staff, the trains do not work, the prices are in the sky, all these basic things are falling apart and Orban talks about gender studies are bad. He just checked out from reality. 8 years term limits are smart. Orban started crap like banning gender studies after 8 years in precisely. Things were more reality-based before.
The PNAS paper is fascinating, thank you for the link!
Dan, this is a great summary and analysis of Lippmann's work. I've been looking for something like this for a while and plan to assign this for my class session on democracy and technocracy. Thanks for writing!
Thanks - greatly appreciated!
I was delighted to see that you recommended Jeffrey Freidman’s book Power Without Knowledge.
One of my favourite books!
Long ago, Robert Michels argued in Political Parties [1911] that “he who says organization, says oligarchy” (the Iron Law of Oligarchy). So, if the question is, Can “participatory oligarchy” work?, the answer is “Yes”; but if the question is, Can real (direct participation) democracy work?, the answer is “No” because of the Iron Law. However, referendums can be a means for direct participation.
The best solution would be for political power to be broad enough to avoid oligarchical capture but narrow enough that it doesn't descend into cheap vote buying. The balance that was struck before WWI in the west (partial suffrage with strong constitutions) was probably best, but the needs to mass mobilization brought about universal suffrage and new classes of voters were brought about by changes in society.
The votes of the underclass, single women, and the old are too oriented away from good governance towards short term parasitism. Moreover, the class that should in theory get the most of societies attention, children, have no vote (you could easily give their parents votes on their behalf).
Dan, this is what Lakoff develops as framing, more or less: “Don’t Think Of An Elephant”
Interesting - thanks for the recommendation.