Is classical liberalism anti-democratic? Spoiler alert: yes.
As we have discussed, classical liberals and libertarians have an uneasy relationship with democracy. The reason is obvious – classical liberals support unregulated or lightly regulated capitalism, and this is not a popular position with voters.
Of course, it could be that classical liberals support both capitalism and democracy, and reluctantly prioritize their commitment to democracy over their commitment to limited government. Yet as democracy has come under threat from the economically conservative Republican party, classical liberals have generally refrained from defending democracy and criticizing Republicans.
But maybe some classical liberals are willing to take a clear stand in favor of democracy.
Classical liberal economist Daniel Klein recently participated in a debate with Helena Rosenblatt on the relationship between classical liberalism and democracy. Klein denies that classical liberalism is anti-democratic, but then tells us “it’s complicated”. OK then, let’s roll the tape.
In his opening remarks Klein tells us:
Classical liberals, on the other hand, soberly see that government is a coercive institution. It is based on force—its force is part of its defining nature and specialness—and see that it needs hemming in. Liberal principles are checks, limits on expansive intrusive government.
Now, one of the beauties of aristocracy, back in the 18th century, was that the vast majority of people were officially excluded from governing.
I know that sounds strange, but think about it. That meant that the vast majority of people could not be easily bamboozled to think that the government acted in their interest. The vast majority of people were skeptical of government because government was a small group of aristocrats and magistrates who governed them.
At the same time, that exclusivity of governing ordained a certain responsibility for good governing. And hence we have an idea of responsibility with power. The word for that is nobleness or being noble. In mass democracy there is no nobility. And nobleness is rare.
Got that? One of the “beauties of aristocracy” is that “the vast majority of people were officially excluded from governing.” That’s his emphasis, not mine. And it turns out that this is good, because it makes people skeptical of government. And it somehow made the governing elites noble. I’d love to see his evidence for this.
Further on Klein continues as follows:
We’re never going to be a small band again, so we need democracy demythologized. It should be understood narrowly and plainly: Democracy is about voting more. Democracy means expanding the electorate, expanding the choices of the electorate, expanding the frequency of voting, making the electorate more directly determinative of outcomes.
None of those dimensions of greater democracy are necessarily good. The more numerous the number of voters, the less a vote means, and the less a vote means the more fancifully will votes be cast. When a million people decide, no one decides. And no one is responsible for the outcome. Since the voter knows his vote doesn’t affect the outcome, he is more prone to let delusion sway his choice. People indulge in false political quasi-religions.
In terms of determining electoral outcomes, they [voters] have no skin in the game, although in another sense I think they do have skin in the game because wisdom is good for you, and foolishness is bad for you. But people have a hard time learning not to be foolish in politics. They are indoctrinated and propagandized, particularly by the school system and the media.
So, there is much to be said for narrowing the electorate and limiting the role of mass or direct democracy. . . .
Klein tells us that “democracy is about voting more”. This means “expanding the electorate, expanding the choices of the electorate, expanding the frequency of voting, making the electorate more directly determinative of outcomes.” Klein then suggests that reforms to narrow the electorate and limit the role of direct democracy are justified. By his own definition, then, he seems to be anti-democracy. Furthermore, although many pro-democracy democratic theorists are skeptical of reforms that move us from representative democracy to direct democracy (open primaries, referenda, etc.), narrowing the franchise is anti-democratic under any definition of democracy I am aware of. Libertarian philosopher Jason Brennan argues for narrowing the franchise in a book called – wait for it – Against Democracy.
Then Rosenblatt and Klein debate a bit. Rosenblatt asks Klein what he thinks about the threats to democracy today, and if he votes Republican. He responds:
I think the Republicans are the lesser evil. (in the podcast, around 41:00)
Later she asks if democracy in decline in America. Klein:
In many ways I’ve become more democratic recently because I’m worrying about elections being stolen. (around 46:00)
OK, that sounds hopeful, although it’s not clear how that squares with Republicans being the lesser evil. Rosenblatt then presses him on whether the last election was stolen. Klein:
I don’t think we know.
Sure, it’s a mystery. Klein denies that classical liberalism is anti-democracy, but with American democracy at risk of catastrophic failure his classical liberal commitments and Republican partisanship prevent him from speaking out clearly and forcefully against attacks on the integrity of elections by Donald Trump and the Republicans who shamefully support him.
WRT whether the 2020 election was stolen, we “know” as much as we know anything. Is it possible? Sure, but it’s also possible that none of us exists and are only the figment of imagination of some extraterrestrial mind or some computer simulation.
As things stand, we know that the question of election fraud on a scale to overturn the results of 2020 have been extensively researched and found utterly without evidence. And the claims of evidence have *never* been accompanied by evidence, only shouting and name-calling.
Look, beliefs are like nose hairs–everybody’s got ’em. Facts and evidence are scarcer on the ground. In science, as in politics, there’s no such thing as “proof,” only the weight of evidence. From where I sit, the weight of evidence is against widespread election fraud in 2020, and the burden is on those who believe we don’t know to come up with a test that can falsify the hypothesis that Biden won. Klein, of course, is a phony, and his bleating that “I don’t think we know” deserves our contempt.
There is a tiny bit of voter fraud in America. Mostly it is perpetrated by Republicans with two homes that try to vote in both. Or a Republican tries to cast a ballot for their recently deceased parent.
Derek Chauvin lived and worked in Minneapolis but voted in Florida. Mark Meadows and his wife used a fake rental house in North Carolina while they lived in Virginia.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/10/was-nixon-robbed.html
Was Nixon Robbed?
The legend of the stolen 1960 presidential election.
By David Greenberg
Oct 16, 2000
9:30 PM
“You gotta swallow this one,” says a Republican hack in Oliver Stone’s Nixon, referring to the 1960 election, in which John F. Kennedy prevailed. “They stole it fair and square.”
That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You’ve probably heard the allegations: Kennedy’s operatives fixed the tallies in Texas and Illinois, giving him those states’$2 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College. Fearing that to question the results would harm the country, Nixon checked his pride and declined to mount a challenge.
The story is rich in irony: The much-hated Nixon, later driven from the presidency for cheating in an election, puts country before personal gain. The beloved Kennedy, waltzing through life, pulls off the political crime of the century. Nixon’s defenders like the story because it diminishes Watergate. His detractors like it since it allows them to appear less than knee-jerk—magnanimously crediting Nixon with noble behavior while eluding charges of Kennedy worship.
Ironic, yes. But true?
The race was indeed close—the closest of the century. Kennedy received only 113,000 votes more than Nixon out of the 68 million ballots cast. His 303-219 electoral-vote margin obscured the fact that many states besides Texas and Illinois could have gone either way. California’s 32 electoral votes, for example, originally fell into Kennedy’s column, but Nixon claimed them on Nov. 17 after absentee ballots were added.
Even before Election Day, rumors circulated about fraud, especially in Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley’s machine was known for delivering whopping Democratic tallies by fair means and foul. When it became clear how narrowly Nixon lost, outraged Republicans grew convinced that cheating had tipped the election and lobbied for an investigation.
Nixon always insisted that others, including President Eisenhower, encouraged him to dispute the outcome but that he refused. A challenge, he told others, would cause a “constitutional crisis,” hurt America in the eyes of the world, and “tear the country apart.” Besides, he added, pursuing the claims would mean “charges of ‘sore loser’ would follow me through history and remove any possibility of a further political career.”
Classic Nixon: “Others” urge him to follow a less admirable course, but he spurns their advice for the high road. (William Safire once noted that he always used to tell Nixon to take the easy path so that Nixon could say in his speeches, “Others will say we should take the easy course, but …”) Apart from the suspect neatness of this account, however, there are reasons to doubt its veracity.
First, Eisenhower quickly withdrew his support for a challenge, making it hard for Nixon to go forward. According to Nixon’s friend Ralph De Toledano, a conservative journalist, Nixon knew Ike’s position yet claimed anyway that he, not the president, was the one advocating restraint. “This was the first time I ever caught Nixon in a lie,” Toledano recalled…
{ much more at link above }
As to Daley’s machine delivering votes, there was always a contest to see who would supply the last of the votes to be counted. The other contestant was the Republican machine in Dupage and Kane counties. The Republicans were never the good guys; only the other guys.
Jackd,
Yes sir, exactly and going all the way back to the beginning with the Federalists and Jefferson Democratic Republicans. Founding Fathers worship is cute. Just loving the rich guys trying to protect their stuff from their German monarch on the one hand and the greater threat of liberty, equality, fraternity on the other hand.