How Democracies Become Tyrannies

Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about Americans and America:

That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.

How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?

The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato's Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.

In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."

Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.

For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."

Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how "democratic man" comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic man starts out as the son of an "oligarchic" father -- a father who is thrifty and self-disciplined. The father's generation is more concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves, invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]

The father's pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give attention to his son's moral development. The father focuses on business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then begins to associate with "wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way." These Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son's oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for "unnecessary pleasures" undermines "the citadel" of his soul. Because the "guardians" of the son's inner citadel -- truth, restraint, wisdom -- are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the "false and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of him."

A 1960s revolution in the son's soul purges the last remaining guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues: "anarchy" replaces freedom, "extravagance" replaces magnificence, and "shamelessness" replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over himself "to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot." Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires are chosen by "lot" instead of by "merit" or "priority."

For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In this stage "there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as long as he lives." Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young man's new democratic life:

Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he's idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he's carried in that direction, if money-makers, in that one.

In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless, superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of propriety and prudence. What's worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers exercise their right to vote, they elect "bad cupbearers" as their leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, "gets drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom." Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with calls for self-restraint "are punished by the city and accused of being accursed oligarchs."

As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective measurements of performance: "A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors." Conservatism becomes unpopular just about everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly "stoop to the level of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian."

The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners "are made equal to a citizen."

The citizens' souls become so infected with freedom that they become excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself. Says Socrates: "They take no notice of the laws, whether written or unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all." That is, any kind of "hierarchy" in a democracy is rejected as "authoritarian." But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves democracy.

As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the democratic city, its "fiercest members do all the talking and acting, while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse to tolerate the opposition of another speaker." There are "impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides." The politicians heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising to spread the wealth around. The people then "set up one man as their special champion" and begin "nurturing him and making him great."

The people's "special champion" however transforms from leader to tyrant. He "drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land" and continues to "stir up civil wars against the rich." All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, "soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them." The people give him this new security force, "because they are afraid for his safety but aren't worried at all about their own."

After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens finally decide they've had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.

At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously: "What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] or to hit [them] if [they] don't obey? Socrates answers:

Thus ends Book VIII of Plato's Republic. I won't spoil the marvelous ending (Books IX and X) but I would like to spend a few moments drawing some conclusions about the overall message of this fascinating text and its relevance for 21^st century Americans.

First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits. When we exhaust the financial and moral capital of previous generations (and future ones, as with the current stimulus bill) we will dutifully line up at the public trough, on our knees. Citizens capable of self-mastery will always choose to be left alone. In other words, they'll always choose limited government.

Second, freedom without limits paves the way to tyranny by undermining respect for the law. When politicians play fast and loose with the law it becomes easier for them and for the people to see special champions as alternative sources of rule. Today in America the objective basis for law is being attacked on campuses and even in law schools as too authoritarian and too insensitive to the subjective experiences and personal narratives of criminals. The SAT exam has also been under assault for the same reasons. As Socrates warned: extreme freedom will instill a paranoia about any kind of "master" including objective measurements of right and wrong, and of merit based forms of achievement. But when the citizens become enslaved to their vices they'll dutifully cry out for another kind of master.

Third, is the crucial role of education, which is the underlying theme of Plato's Republic. The ethos of American education has been for many decades saturated with a simple mantra: choice. What's worse, those few remaining educators who chant the old, Socratic mantra of "judgment" are vilified and harassed by the modern day lotus-eaters as hateful conservatives. Socrates predicted that all of this would happen in a democracy. But it is judgment not choice that enables a young person to erect a citadel in the soul. This eliminates the need for tyrants, and for bailouts too.

Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today: How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to recover the desire to be left alone in order "to realize our capacities and talents" as Eric Hoffer says?

I've read that in Iran, many young people chafe at the pervasive despotism there, but when the burning desire for freedom threatens to boil over, the government in Tehran eases its restrictions on the use of personal satellite dishes. Electronic Soma for the digital age.

[i] As Max Weber noted in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the men who built America were guided by deferred gratification and a sense of limits, not by reckless notions of vanity, pride, and display.

Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a sorry state of understanding by the general public (not just the younger crowd) regarding the Constitution.

I would agree whole heartedly. If I were king I would make reading (and memorizing) the Constituion and Declaration of Independence mandatory with the capability to write word for word a mandatory requirement before graduating high school.

I would also require extensive learning that includes both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, in additioni to detailed study of the history of human government.

That said, the plain text of the Constitution and it's amendments is the law of the land. There are opportunities to modify it, but there should always be caution in doing so. That is why our founding fathers made it so hard to do so. Changing the Constituional voting rights of citizens on a whim is no different than restricting the right to keep and bear arms on a whim.

I am not in objection to your goals - a citizenry that understands the brilliance and importance of our Constitution.

I object to your approach and the involvement of whoever happens to be in control of the government at the time that such training occurs. See our public school system for an example of my concerns.

I want/wish for a constitutional amendment establishing a 'No service, No vote' type principle.

It is beyond the powers allowed to the government by the Constitution. If you want to change the rules - change the Constitution via the constitutionally required process. Otherwise, please don't advocate for a buearacracy to decide what counts or doesn't count for boot camp,--

Straw man anyone? -- I'm not 'advocating' any such bureaucracy.
-- I'm advocating that we can have a boot camp type training program, [probably run by our military establishment] That would teach constitutional values to our young people, prior to enabling them to vote..

I am not in objection to your goals - a citizenry that understands the brilliance and importance of our Constitution.
I object to your approach and the involvement of whoever happens to be in control of the government at the time that such training occurs.

Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government -"?

Get real.

Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government -"?

Would you have full faith if BHO appointed Wesley Clark, retired general, to establish the cirriculum?

Get real.

I'm trying. But I am also trying to reconcile your thoughts that only those who serve should have the right to vote. Does that only apply to military service? Does it apply to civil servants - they are in effect serving, just not in the armed services.

Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded. I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced.

Agree to disagree - take care.

As a mother, I’m pulling my strength from the generations of my husband’s Polish ancestors who lived through centuries of oppression, but yet managed to keep their cultural society intact through it all. I think that’s where we’re headed at this point. I don’t think there are enough people ready to “learn the easy way”, and alas, that means the rest of us will suffer as they instead learn the hard way. Eventually, the tide will turn back, and it is THEN that we must be ready. In the meantime, we will have to go “underground” in one way or another, and keep teaching future generations the TRUTH to combat what will for SURE be a revisionist plan for brainwashing when it comes to Liberty, Freedom, Justice, Morality, etc...

The Republic is all over but the shouting. The reason why is apparently not obvious, since few mention it, but it is there plain as day for all to see

The Founders warned against granting the Franchise to non freeholders and those under 21.

Over the past 90 years their advice went unheeded and it is these very groups that are responsible for the election of the socialists who have destroyed the country a State at a time.

This doesn’t get solved at the ballot box.

This doesn’t get solved by continuing to allow imbeciles, welfare recipients, convicts, children,and most importantly, PEOPLE WHO DON’T PAY TAXES, to vote.

When it hits the fan (most likely in the aftermath of a major WMD attack) its going to be bloody, quick, and a real shock to the marxists riding high today.

There will be a provisional military government and homosexual socialist crooks like Barney Frank will be SOL.

And only freeholders and veterans will once again be entrusted with the franchise.

Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.
Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government."
Get real.

It applies to those who volunteer at 18 -- to attend a 'boot camp' on our constitutional principles, agreeing to support and defend those principles.

Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded.

Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded? -- Do you have any concept of how silly you make yourself look by using such tar-baby tactics?

I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution.

So do I.

Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced. Agree to disagree?

Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..

Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.

How does it not? Again - since you skipped it last time - what if Clark was in charge of the training?

Get real.

Maybe you should. When, ever, has granting power to the federal government regarding educating our children been a good idea.

Get real in deed.

Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded?

Because it is direct conflict with the Constitution as it currently stands.

Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..

Then we will agree to be disagreeable - fine by me. You want boot camps to qualify for citizenship or the right to vote - then do the things necessary to get that into the Constitution and I will then agree with you.

Absent that, your idea is not in line with the Constitution, at least my opinion of it. Maybe in the world of a "living" Constitution where it is open to interpretation of the day, but unless you formally amend it, your boot camps as a qualifier are not Constitutional.

Good Luck.

I am not in objection to your goals - a citizenry that understands the brilliance and importance of our Constitution. I object to your approach and the involvement of whoever happens to be in control of the government at the time that such training occurs.

Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.

Again, since you skipped it last time - what if Clark was in charge of the training?

Again.. -- Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government."
Get real.

Maybe you should. When, ever, has granting power to the federal government regarding educating our children been a good idea. Get real in deed.

Passing a amendment to qualify voters is not "granting power" to the feds. You really can't debate without using the 'straw man' technique, can you..

It applies to those who volunteer at 18 -- to attend a 'boot camp' on our constitutional principles, agreeing to support and defend those principles.

Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded.

Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded? -- Do you have any concept of how silly you make yourself look by using such tar-baby tactics?

Because it is direct conflict with the Constitution as it currently stands.

Silly comment, seeing that I'm proposing changing our constitution, - about voting..

I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution.

So do I.

Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced. Agree to disagree?

Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..

My proposal is part of "the things necessary to get that into the Constitution".. Read much?

Absent that, your idea is not in line with the Constitution, at least my opinion of it. Maybe in the world of a "living" Constitution where it is open to interpretation of the day, but unless you formally amend it, your boot camps as a qualifier are not Constitutional. Good Luck.

You seem stuck with the 'straw man' that I'm opposed to amending the constitution.. -- Get over it..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks neverdem. Plato's Republic mentioned, so a definite GGG ping topic. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·