“[T]hese poor souls who are looking for some answers….we’ve given them to them, but they are blocked by some of their views on the three G’s: guns, gays, and God—that would be a woman’s right to choose—and these cultural issues cloud their reception to an argument that is really in their interests.”
—-Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Cal.) appearing at an Oxford Union debate to take the position that populism is a threat to democracy in the United States.
Let me get a compliment out of he way and on the record up front: Pelosi showed guts by appearing in this forum, and that is worthy of a measure of respect. Of course, her daring may be less attributable to guts than hubris, arrogance, or stupidity, because her position is indefensible from a Jeffersonian and Madisonian point of view and stating it in a public forum demonstrates that the totalitarian disease now rampaging through the Democratic Party has so corrupted its values that leaders like Pelosi no longer are capable of realizing how repulsive its ideology has become.
It is frightening to realize that a woman with this much contempt for the American public guided the nation’s legislature for so long. Just look at that quote. The condescension! The complete “we know what’s best for you” conceit! This is yert another example of promnent Democrats saying the quiet part out loud, like Hillary’s “deplorables” line, and Obama’s infamous 2008 remark, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
All three statements are redolent of the axiom, “When people tell you who they are, listen.” What is truly frightening is how many voters like this elitism and anti-democratic attitude.
Here is most of Pelosi’s defense of the proposition that populism is bad for democracy.
And here is the grand-slam rebuttal by Winston Marshall (obviously a relative, somehow):
Ethics Alarms 
Well, at least Pelosi didn’t sit there and tear up a copy of his speech.
I thought it quite a powerful argument.
1. Someone should slap Pelosi in the face every time she starts talking with her hands and/or tell her to stop and shut up and sit down. I can’t watch people like that.
2. Pelosi sounds like an unintelligent rambling and lying fool in her speech, it’s clear to me that she is suffering from The Dunning-Kruger Effect and she thinks everyone else is stupid. Pelosi is a true Congressional embarrassment.
How can populism be a threat to democracy? As populism is essentially a political ideology that relies on the people (sometimes those abused or forgotten by the elite), it should contribute to democracy unless abused by a different elite that purports to work for them but is interested only in his/her/their/its own power….the criticism often levied against President 45. (I leave it to you to decide how you think/feel about that criticism). In such a case, “populism” isn’t populism at all.
Michael,
Pelosi redefined the terms which is how the Left manipulate the public. In her definition of Democracy she made no reference to the will of the people but instead defined democracy in terms of bureaucratic institutions.
When he chastised Pelosi about her use of the term Hijacked in regard to the 2016 she said it was but accepted the results. She suggested that Trump did not when in fact he did.
Her resolution that populism is a threat to democracy falls flat unless you accept her new definition of the term. I do not.
And that was kind of my point.
Michael, sorry I am getting dense in my old age.
What is interesting is that the Left likes to say something is a social construct that has a fluid definition such as gender. In fact, language is a social construct designed specifically to aid in communication. Fluid definitions obliterate language because without defined terms there can be no understanding. Perhaps conservatives should start redefining terms in a manner the benefits conservative thought and stop letting the Left define what things mean.
For example what does “freedom” mean? To me it means living as I choose so long as I don’t impose costs on another. Shared sacrifice is defined as doing what is necessary to preserve freedom. Freedom does not mean avoidance of personal costs.
Michael, I think the word that is really having its definition warped is “democracy.” Unwittingly, Nancy revealed what her party really means when it says that Trump is a danger to “democracy.” The idea is for the public to think they mean democracy as Jefferson and Madison envisioned it. But Nancy and her gang define “democracy” as a virtual dictatorship of benign elites to whom the “poor people” hand over their fates at the ballot box after being confused and misled by a complicit news media. So by their definition, they aren’t lying. It’s like when Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman!” because in Clinton’s rule book, oral sex wasn’t really sex.
In response to the Oxford guy’s argument: “Here, fucking, Here!” Right-O! Bloody fucking hell!
Embarrassing.
As impressive and encouraging as the Oxford guy was in responding to Aunt Nan, it was depressing to hear so many of the Brits in attendance clapping like seals in approval of Nan hitting the “insurrection” talking point button. I guess that BS has made it all the way across the pond intact and is infecting minds over there.
I was depressed to find out that the motion ultimately passed. https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2024/04/26/oxford-union-believes-populism-is-threat-to-democracy/
Surely not surprised, though! The Great Stupid is far more advanced in GB, and the place still has a king! What would the Brits know about populism?
It’s easy to see the legitimate points on both sides. It’s an issue of trust.
Elites don’t trust ordinary people to use big-picture knowledge to make decisions that are sustainable in the long-term. They’re afraid of bread-and-circuses populism, where people will support any policy that gives them immediate comfort and validates their complacency, no matter who it harms or how inevitably it leads to societal collapse.
At the risk of incurring Godwin’s Law, keep in mind that Caesar and Hitler were very popular when they seized power. If some of that popularity was from people being afraid to speak out against them, that only adds to the argument that unchecked populism is dangerous, because ordinary people can literally be persuaded to vote against their own interests, through intimidation if nothing else.
On the other hand, ordinary people don’t trust the elites to understand or prioritize their values. When elites don’t have to deal with the consequences of their own policies, they’re more likely to base policies on abstract models and ideals of what “should” happen that are detached from reality and more based on what appears virtuous in a vacuum. They may also be quick to write off casualties of bad policies as acceptable and necessary losses.
Adding confusion to the situation, there are selfish and dishonest people in both of these camps, actively turning them against each other so they don’t figure out that the selfish and dishonest people are useless parasites who need to go get real jobs. The people on both sides usually see the selfish people on the other side while ignoring the legitimate people, and vice versa for their own side. The line between “selfish parasite” and “person who has legitimate concerns” can also be blurry, as people are tempted to what they think they deserve and what they think the other side doesn’t.
That said, I’m inclined to agree with the points on both sides. I consider neither the elites nor the ordinary people to be trustworthy. I consider my conclusion well-supported based on human history.
We can change that, though. By making it easier for people to discuss their concerns and figure out approaches to address them without imposing drawbacks on each other, we can equip ordinary people to come up with sustainable ways to achieve prosperity, and we can make sure elites understand and answer to the people for the policies they design. It’s not difficult at all–a modicum of education in a handful of concepts is all it takes for the world to take over itself.
I know your commitment to see seeing both sides of every argument, EC, and respect that as well as admire it. But there are some fatal flaws in arguments you cannot responsibly ignore. Democracy depends on the “wisdom of crowds,” and, to a remarkable extent, it has served The Great Experiment we call the United States of America well. What Pelosi calls democracy quite simply isn’t. Not is it a republic. She is advocating a dictatorship of self-anointed experts who are convinced of their own superiority in all things—that itself is anathema to democracy. If these people don’t trust the public, then they are not qualified to represent them. You don’t have to consider the “elites’ trustworthy, but the core principle underlying democracy is that people have the right to decide what is in their own best interests and that of their society. With some limited restrictions, the system trusts them, and makes the “elites” subordinate to their wisdom.
Your even-handed approach might be justified if there was any evidence that the “elites” are really smarter and more responsible than the hoi polloi they despise, lie to, and manipulate. But there isn’t.
It sounds like you’re more comfortable trusting the general public than those who dub themselves elite. That’s fair. It’s important to be aware that there are people who have been harmed by decisions made by ordinary people and who are therefore less inclined to share your trust, even if it means they find themselves having to trust “elites” who aren’t worthy of that trust.
Luckily, we don’t have to play the game of “choose the lesser evil.” We have the option of building trust. If we equip the public with the concepts they need to analyze situations, explore options, and collaborate to implement solutions constructively (including ethically), they’ll not only be able to solve many problems themselves without “elite” interference, but they’ll be able to see through elite deception and replace corrupt and incompetent officials. The power truly will be with the people. How does that sound?
I’m not, the system as conceived is. I trust myself, and in the properly functioning system, everyone, like me, assumes personal responsibility for being competent and responsible as participants in society. “Elites” want power.
I would argue that the reason the people who call themselves elites have power is because the system isn’t functioning properly, because people don’t assume personal responsibility for being competent and responsible as participants in society. We wouldn’t have elites like we do if ordinary people stepped up to the task of self-governance. To do that, though, they’ll need to acquire a few skills beyond what they’re used to.
“Elites don’t trust ordinary people to use big-picture knowledge to make decisions that are sustainable in the long-term.”
The fatal flaw in their worldview. The elites are not elite because of superior intelligence, wisdom, or virtue. It’s a self-proclaimed status inferred primarily from their own motivations–they see themselves as elite because they’re in charge, but they’re largely in charge because they want to be, where most, even much more capable people, do not want to be. I have a hard time giving that point of view any serious consideration.
That’s not even getting into the idea of the wisdom of the crowds and central planning.
It may very well be that “elites” currently aren’t any better than non-elites at making good decisions for society. That doesn’t absolve us of making sure that whoever is making policies uses big-picture knowledge to make decisions that are sustainable in the long-term. Just because the people saying they can solve the problem are wrong doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist or isn’t worth solving. Neither the public nor the government were competent enough to prevent the Dust Bowl.
The wisdom of the crowds is a charming thought, but crowds these days can say all kinds of contradictory things and the most common beliefs aren’t always correct. We have better epistemological options, and I’m looking forward to the day when the crowd will employ those options and be truly wise.