Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Expertise or Popularity
Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for
example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to
have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather
than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the
owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the
ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that
democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is
essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from
class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming
when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic
recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you
give a point in democracy's favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Plato's argument against democracy is a simple yet powerful one; why put the power into the hands of everyone when it can be controlled by one, or a few, of the most apt and knowledgeable? While what he is saying makes sense, I believe he is making a key oversight: how is it that these esteemed leaders, the captains of our ships, are to be chosen? The only such way that he has proposed has been his metal analogy, where the leaders, the people in the guardian class, are chosen by their simply possessing "gold" within themselves. While this is fine in theory, how much is there in practicality that really prevents someone who is unfit for a position of leadership from obtaining it? Would it not be just as bad, if not worse, if an irresponsible, unfit captain wrecked the ship than if the crew collectively did it themselves? If the crew were at fault, at least they would be responsible for their own fates and would have no one to blame but themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis principle is also applicable to the real world problems mentioned of global warming and the economy. Who is to say that the people who are (or perhaps hypothetically would be) “in charge” of handling these matters are really fit for their posts? They could very easily be handling things in ways significantly less than ideal, perhaps even making things worse and not better. If they end up crashing the ship, so to speak, everyone will have to deal with the repercussions. Is it really just to disenfranchise the vast majority of people on such issues in which everyone is so heavily invested? But of course on the flip side is Plato’s fundamental point that the majority of people don’t know what the best course of action to take is and have no way of figuring it out. Because of this, I feel that the most ideal political setup, particularly when issues such as these are involved, is one which Plato does not mention, yet it is the one we are all the most familiar with: the representative democracy.
In this case I completely agree with Plato. To me, it is definitely a no brainer that expertise will always be superior to the majority. If this weren't the case, we would have to take a national tally on whether to, for example, drop an atomic bomb. I know that I certainly would not trust the American population, including myself, to make any decision of this magnitude without having the necessary knowledge and EXPERTISE when the consequences are so vast. With experts in power, theoretically every decision has been calculated precisely by all the information available. What Plato fails to mention, however, is that this would never work in the real world. In the real world, power is and will always be corrupting. Even the best are corrupted by the quest for power and money. Having a system in which the populous can check the actions of its leaders is absolutely necessary. Without these checkups, the Hitlers and Mussolinis of our world would run rampant. Plato also overlooks where one draws the line at what expertise really means. Who gets to determine what member of their community is an expert? Is it voted by the majority? This system sounds very similar to the political system of the United States, a democracy. Unless it becomes possible to find people who are both experts and perfectly moral, I believe that our system works relatively well. The problem with today's political system in my opinion is that there are not enough EXPERT opinions taken into account on certain matters. I also feel that, as we discussed in class, in a democracy there are way too many people who are only focused on themselves. Many people vote for the President who benefits their personal goals and will further them in society. This is where the problem lies in our American community. The real criteria for decision making should be based solely upon the potential outcomes and repercussions to everyone else inside that community, then and only then will our system be flawless. Until that day, yes, I say let the experts rule, but only until they become overwhelmed by the pursuit of power.
ReplyDelete"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain".
-Batman
This is a very tricky argument. In a perfect world, expertise would always be preferable over popularity in the world of politics. The best-case scenario would be that Ben Bernanke would take over as president and bring us out of the current economic slowdown. Bill Clinton could come back and head our foreign relations, and our most severe problems would be solved. However, we do not live in a perfect world. For example, if Ben Bernanke were to take over as president and only 11% of the population wants him as president, then obviously that is not a good thing. This is problematic because this could lead to uprisings in the home country. This can actually be seen empirically. In 1917 during World War 1, extremely upset with the horrific leadership of the country’s leader, the Russian citizens revolted against the government and overthrew the government. Basically, if the citizens of the country do not like the person in power, then expertise is meaningless. However, I do agree with some of Plato’s ideas. For example, if 60% of the population wants Leonardo DiCaprio to become president, obviously that is a horrible idea. You have to be able to draw a strict line between expertise and what the population wants, which simply put Plato does not do. Moreover, I believe that in the status quo governments both can and should deal with issues like global warming and economic downturn because for example, in the current democratic system of the United States if President Obama wants a law passed about clean energy, that goes through the different branches of the government, the experts in that field. So although the people elect the president, once elected everything is based on the expertise of the other people in government. So while I agree that expertise is important, you have to be able to draw a fine line, in order to keep the population at large in check.
ReplyDeletePlato makes a very strong argument that expertise trumps popularity. It makes logical sense to allow those who are experts and knowledgeable on experts to make the decisions. While this argument sounds great, there are many flaws in the argument. What defines an expert and how are these experts going to be elected. An expert alone is not fit to govern a society. Society needs an expert who is able to connect with the people and be able to convince them that the decisions that he is making is the correct one. If the general population continues to disagree with the expert, multitude of problems will arise. I agree with Michael that if this is the case, revolution is inevitable. Even if the decisions that the expert is making are in the best interest of the country, people still will want their opinion to be heard and will rebel.
ReplyDeleteNow we must answer the questions whether democracy can solve long term issues such as global warming. In this presidential election, many people are not focused on how the president chooses to handle global warming, but instead about tax cuts and different economic policies. While these economic policies are important, issues such as global warming need to be dealt with correctly. If our president fails to halt or delay global warming, the repercussions will be numerous. The question is whether the person in charge is best fit to handle issues such as global warming. Plato proposes that an expert who truly understand global warming makes all of these important decisions. I agree with plato in this instance. I feel that democracy is not able to handle these long term issues. The population does not have the education to make these important decisions. While Platos argument makes sense in an ideal world, I still feel that it is not realistic and cannot be accomplished. In conclusion Plato makes an extremely strong argument about having experts rule, yet I feel that it is not realistic in 21st century society.
There is lots of truth to Plato’s argument about democracy. It is true that at times absolute democracy favors popularity instead of expertise. And moreover there are times when and absolute democracy is too slow and indecisive to act in the benefit of the people.
ReplyDeleteFor any government to be successful the people must surrender some of their freedoms. If the citizens of the state don’t surrender any freedoms at all than no government can’t rule its people, but if the people surrender all there liberties than they become oppressed by the government that is supposed to protect and better their lives. Because of this there exists a friction between a government and her people, no matter what form of government that may be. There are problems with any form of government, however some more so with some than others. Democracy, however, is one of the safest forms of government. Having many people making many low consequence decisions is very safe for the society. One radicle can’t catastrophically affect the society because he swings so little power. On the other hand in Plato’s republic, if the ruler king is a radicle, there is no one to balance his ideas. He is free to do what he wishes. And as you can see throughout history supreme control is corrupting. Plato claims that his aristocracy would be different because a philosopher is ruling it. However, philosophers are no less human than we, and therefore need to be kept in check and balance like any other ruler. Plato’s Ideal state offers none of these checks or balances, and therefore possess much more of a danger to its people than a democracy does.
Understanding Plato’s opinions about democracy requires a bit of cynicism. At the basis of his argument, Plato assumes that the average citizen is exactly that -- average. They have little to no expert or in-depth understanding of the political, economic, or social climate of the nation in which they live. They would make decisions regarding the country in the context of their own personal standpoints (which, in democracy’s defense, does create a large range of perspectives). He believes that these converging opinions in no way could result in a cognitive government. Assuming the basis of his argument is somewhat accurate, he does seem to have a valid theory. It’s a better idea to have someone who is an expert handle what he or she is best at then allow a body of people who collectively may or may not be able to make acceptable decisions control the future of the nation. The only problem with this idea is that there is no such thing as a perfect ruler. We want a ruler to be someone who is an expert at what they do, but that would require being an expert in everything to do with the nation he or she is ruling. Can there possibly exist such a person?
ReplyDeleteA relevant problem has arisen with the current state of affairs in the US government, where one candidate has often been criticized as being unsuited to be the leader of our nation because he has led a privileged life, and some fear he does not understand what it’s like for people living in the middle or lower classes. We expect our leader to be knowledgeable about one of the many issues that plagues our nation (economic crisis) and we feel one of the candidates for the presidency is not acceptable because he can’t sympathize or make decisions from personal experience. One could make the same argument if a candidate, let’s say, lived in poverty his or her whole life, then ran for the presidency. No doubt they would be criticized for their lack of knowledge of the upper class.
There is no such thing as the perfect ruler, an expert on everything the nation needs and will need to address in the future. Democracy might not be the most elegant of systems, but is the alternative so much better?
Plato’s argument against democracy certainly looks nice on paper; however I believe that he fails to mention important details to further strengthen his case. He argues that only those equipped to govern a society should have such power. How, then, should such leaders be selected? Throughout his writings, Plato never directly addresses this issue. He writes that philosophers are the best equipped to govern a society because of the knowledge and inherent goodness they possess. However, how can society be sure that such people who claim to be “philosophers” live up to Plato’s standards? Couldn’t anyone claim to possess the wisdom required to be a successful ruler, when in actuality they are no better than any other citizen? And say such an unequipped, and potentially corrupt, person assumed leadership, what then would happen to the society? The decisions made by such a person could not possibly be worse than those made by all members of a state as a whole. Society must be composed of citizens who are either moral or immoral, so decisions have a 50/50 probability of being either moral or immoral. However, if a corrupt member assumed leadership over a society, decisions would definitely be a reflection of their immoral nature. It then goes without saying that the power to make decisions might as well go to all members of a society because there is a lesser risk of corruption and immorality. For this reason, I believe that democracy is the more effective form of government. As Will pointed out in an earlier post, there are, without a doubt, many flaws with a democracy as society is inclined to side with candidates who express views to benefit their own needs. Nevertheless, I feel that a democratic government is less of a risk than entrusting a potentially corrupt person with all power. If Plato would have described how to determine who is equipped to govern with greater detail, my response may have been drastically different. However, due to failure to actually outline what defines a leader I must argue in favor of a democratic system.
ReplyDelete