Are Ordinary People as Stupid as Their Leaders Believe?
July 16, 2005 19 Comments
Recently, an old friend who lives in New York told me that he wanted to leave because he was convinced that he was in a fascist United States. A participant at a writing seminar handed me an essay to review in which she likened George Bush to Hitler and the people who voted for him as brain-washed ‘Jesus freaks’. An acquaintance in London informed me that citizens who were anti-EU integration tended to be racists and those flirting with fascism. What the three had in common was a sense that they belonged to a natural ruling class that had been spurned. This, I think from personal observation, is part of a growing trend in which political elites the world over are increasingly vocal about ordinary citizens being puppets to demagoguery, stupid, unsophisticated and therefore not qualified to make democratic choices.
In Africa, we often hear that democracy cannot flower because of the lack of education and an excess of ‘tribalism’. In Europe, the EU’s political honchos rejected the French and Dutch ‘No’ vote to the EU constitution as an indication of voter ignorance. To those democrats in my old city of New York, the election of George Bush signalled the rise of an ‘overweight, over-consuming, racist, ignorant and Christian fanatic’ who was going against his interests which should have been represented by enlightened, cosmopolitan and egalitarian liberals. Typical of this attitude is Michael Gronewaller who had this to say after the election of Dubya:
I really think the problem is that we as liberals are in general far more intelligent, well reasoned and educated, and will go to astonishingly great lengths to convince people of the integrity and validity of our fair and well thought out arguments. The audience, in case anyone has been paying attention, isn’t always getting it! I suspect the problem is not the speaker – it is most of the audience. Our problem with getting our message across to people outside “the choir” is our understanding of the intelligence of our greater audience.
Everywhere you turn, ordinary voters are subject to this type of withering contempt by their supposed betters who when they do meet in the conferences that I deride so much in these pages, wax poetic about all manner of rights and oppressions. But this is only conditional on the ‘oppressed’ agreeing to be led and indeed dictated to by them. In Kenya, I have often written about this ‘babi’ class – what we used to call a petit bourgeoisie except it is now united in “fighting” capitalism rather than serving it – and its aid-dependent links to the metropole. The American left, in the form of Michael Moore, has been ruthlessly and hilariously picked apart by Christopher Hitchens (see ‘Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore’). In Kenya, the old men of the nationalist struggle, tied helplessly to colonial conceptions of tribe and modernity, have never had anything but contempt for ordinary people who they assume are existentially tied to tribal Bantustans and in need of modernising. Their inheritors, mostly esconded in the aid-funded civil society, talk a more radical game of ‘people power’ but are characterised by a complete democratic alienation from most Kenyans and a politics that owes more to the ideological divides in Europe and the United States that it does with their own country. It is these camps that are fighting over the bone of ‘good governance’; both desperate for the approval of the West’s political masters who are themselves increasingly out of touch with their own polities. What we are left with is a permanent game of musical chairs where the televisions are filled with besuited types from New York to Nairobi speaking to and for each other while the rest of us sit by the sidelines enraged or not giving a hoot.
About bulletsandhoney
There is a difference between elitism and pointing out that political discourse in certain quarters has been tainted by impulses that are less than noble. If you are critiquing a popular movement you have to beware the trap of elite misanthropy, but on the other hand the word ‘demagoguery’ does describe a real phenomena.
The phrase ‘white-trash’ used by one side is about on par with those ‘nuke their ass and take their gas’ stickers you see displayed by the other side.
chris – I agree with you in the main but still believe that demagoguery is too often invoked to discredit democratic choices and has become one of the most common words in the liberal lexicon. But there is no doubt that it is a real phenomena albeit one that is rarer than its invocation. Both sides have certainly used demonising language. The reason I take issue with the liberals – as I did with the other side during the Cold War machinations in Africa – is that they are increasingly setting the tone for the kinds of politics of dependency and paternalism that Kenya is suffering from.
MMK, you write: “It is these camps that are fighting over the bone of ‘good governance’; both desperate for the approval of the West’s political masters who are themselves increasingly out of touch with their own polities. What we are left with is a permanent game of musical chairs where the televisions are filled with besuited types from New York to Nairobi speaking to and for each other while the rest of us sit by the sidelines enraged or not giving a hoot.”
Isn’t this a symptom of globalisation?
Somehow politicians always seem to have a worldwide audience in mind, an almost godlike presence which dictates that their opinions and actions conform to the Kantian categorical imperative: “”Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Some politicians have an unlimited ambition – to become universal lawmaker.
Marius – How interesting. Indeed I could not agree more. There is a kind of assumption that humanity is a political community and that there are those leaders and institutions that speak for it. Thus the existence of ‘crimes against humanity’ and statements about humanity ‘standing united’ against group or person X. If for a moment you use Carl Schmitt’s definition of politics as the contest between friend and enemy, you will realise, as he did, that the universalisation of humanity has a genocidal impulse at its heart: the enemies of humanity must be inhuman and if that is so, then they are beyond redemption and must be exorcised. Almost every major American or European politician speaks in universal tones and the implicit message is that they speak for humanity, and of course they are always speaking against some other political entity. This I take to be a symptom of an enormous growth of the Western ego in the last couple of centuries. Watching TV, I am constantly fascinated by the continued references of which unfolding event is history making and how one leader or the other shall be judged by history. History here serves as a vast canvass for the gratification of the ego and the leaders of politics and opinion in the west feel themselves to be constantly in its glare. I think these poses give leaders a charge to that good old needy self esteem; confer a sense of brave selflessness to their selfish actions; and turn local injustices to universal justice. Quick, now tell me more about Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
MMK – I once wrote a paper on his proposal for peace, Zum ewigen Frieden, but I never could get my head around the categorical imperative. He basically argues that there are objectively existing, compelling moral laws that are grounded in an abstract universal reason, irrespective of our belief in the existence of a Godhood.
Obviously Kant didn’t heed Machiavelli on the cruelty of piety and, as per your response above, neither do the do-gooders of our present age.
Yes – ‘demagoguery’ is invoked by much of the left, in part this reflects the shrill tone in which political discourse is carried out. The flip side is that ‘demagoguery’ is not a binary setting.
What else are you to call it when a ‘political analyst’ on a mainstream right wing channel calls for Paris to be bombed instead of London ?
Chris – Did someone on the news actually say that Paris should be bombed rather than London? That is incredible. They still have a job?
Marius – I have done a little readin now and it would appear that for the major leaders to speak in universal terms reflects the hypothetical not categorical imperative. The former springs from desire rather than reason. So they might speak the universal language, but it is nothing more than an expression of their narrow and selfish desires. Meaning that their very reason is a servant to their emotions – this is all quite Nitzschean. But suppose for a minute we were to assume the workability of the Categorical Imperative in international relations, what would that produce? Sorry, I cannot resist these kinds of questions even when I know that they shall be no good to anyone…my reason for blogging I suppose
MMK: “But suppose for a minute we were to assume the workability of the Categorical Imperative in international relations, what would that produce?”
One world government under a philosopher king?
Sorry, I was being facetious. What would be a good example of such an imperative?
Obey the UN? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
A fascinating discussion so pardon my own lack of credibility when it enters the realm of philosophy, but I would presume in the current American debate of political philosophy that we see folks like Hitchens, more characteristic of the old left, what I mean by that is Kennedy/Rooseveltesque in policy, reprimanding that which is changing the leadership and philosophy of the Democratic Party. It is that of a realism (Hitchens) politic vs. a visceral emotional (Moore/Dean) politic which seeks not truth in matter, nor recognizes its own weaknesses, only shear power “their very reason is a servant to their emotions,” as MMK so stated. Last week Hitchens was on a program chastising Ron Regan for espousing that fighting terrorism is the root cause of terrorism, an absolutely nonsensical argument repeated by many leftists in the U.S.
Granted, characters from both sides speak in biting terms; although categorically different in that Howard Dean is the DNC Chair, Dick Durbin a Senator and Michael Moore is invited to sit next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Presidential Convention. Though idiots on the right at times make ignorant comments, often tongue in cheek, there are no comparisons from which one can argue that persons of equal authority, as to those mentioned above, spew likened rhetoric on Republican’s behalf. We may suppose many leftist to be foolish or ignorant but mostly we see them as flat out wrong. They however perceive us as evil which poses a danger in any organized government, no matter how democratic, as it seeks to make partisan those issues that are predominately nonpartisan amongst its people to the extent that fellow citizens become enemies.
mmk – yes. John Gibson, Fox News.
Are Ordinary People as Stupid as Their Leaders Believe? No, the customer is always right, their leaders only give them what they want, we agree on that fact, however, it is hypocritical to bash the left for fostering dependency and not attack the religious right with the same venom for attempting to enforce a new type of dependency. Like the lefties your attack, you too have the halo of doing what is good for Kenya. Just how different is your paternalistic “good for Kenya” stance different from the lefties? Is this a take on social and economic interests and their relation to voting patterns or a new way to bash foreign aid.
Anonymous – Thanks for commenting. I must admit that I try to find every way I can to bash foreign aid because that is exactly what it deserves. As for the religious right, I am not interested in one way or another what they are upto in regard to aid; I at least never see them in white jeeps running around Kenya trying to save themselves by saving us. And on the matter And I would hope that I am interested in what is “good for Kenya” since I am Kenyan. But please, let me know what this new dependency the right is pursuing that is different than the one we have now.
MMK said, “Watching TV, I am constantly fascinated by the continued references of which unfolding event is history making and how one leader or the other shall be judged by history…I think these poses give leaders a charge to that good old needy self esteem; confer a sense of brave selflessness to their selfish actions; and turn local injustices to universal justice.”
Or, more cynically, they have also figured out that history is malleable. There is a group that runs around the US (and the world) “honoring the legacy” or airbrushing Ronald Reagan’s legacy: see Legacy Project. He was voted the ‘greatest American’ on a tv show here, and Budapest will erect a statue in his honor.
Anonymous – History is indeed malleable and is far from an accurate record of events. We always need history now and so we approach the past from where we are standing. There is actually no other way that it can be written, no other way to choose the whats and the whys. In a way therefore most politician talk about history is spin which when it doesn’t work will be given another spin in the future. So we are left adrift, rarely knowing much about our past even as it is invoked with increasing regularity.
The right runs around Kenya in jeeps all right, not white but in many colors with the crucifix painted on the side.
They are trying to save themselves by saving us. Their churches have been empty for a while now and they are gallivanting the countryside “saving us” and recruiting rural Kenyans as foot soldiers in their cultural war against social progression.
These Christian groups are not in Darfur and northern Kenya for ultraistic reasons. They need to save Kenyans to save themselves; the crack they peddle is worse than aid groups because theirs creates generations of dependency. Their crack operations may not be as extensive as the aid donors but they are by enlarge peddling the same dependence.
MMK – A very interesting read and even more interesting comments section.
Anonymous – I would like to understand more about dependency that the Christian groups are peddling like crack. If you mean the dependency is on Christianity rather than this social progression, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that social progression precludes Christianity. Maybe I just don’t understand your definition, thus my confusion.
wow – intelligent post. exactly my feelings especially on the activists in kenya. i think foreign aid distorts democracy -
‘Their inheritors, mostly esconded in the aid-funded civil society, talk a more radical game of ‘people power’ but are characterised by a complete democratic alienation from most Kenyans and a politics that owes more to the ideological divides in Europe and the United States that it does with their own country.’
you couldnt have said it better