Snark aside, there are entire great works of Western thought on the question of whether men are capable of governing themselves. It is literally the the opening question of "The Federalist Papers," for Christ's sake. A breezy survey of a smattering of social science is bringing a knife to an intellectual gun fight, and comes up well short of making a meaningful contribution.
> “Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.“
Seriously, the above passage sounds like something anyone could come up with in about three seconds (with a touch of stylistic flourish). The assertion has absolutely no philosophical nuance, no careful appeal to scientific research, no sophisticated anticipation of counterpoints or caveats. It’s a very basic form of argumentation, and I think that many readers of the times are more than capable of digesting more significant arguments that bring the tradition of political philosophy to bear on the subject more seriously than through a couple of passing references.
I know part of the mission of this column is to make philsophy more accessible, but I think the times better carefully consider whether adhering too strongly to that mission is also making modern philosophy seem shallow and childish (which it isn’t).
Shame too, I’m sure the author’s other original work is probably interesting and more apropos of a professor. My sense is that the editorial work here perhaps harmed this submission more than it helped.
I'm half afraid to read more. Something tells me there's going to be insight to contemporary issues laid bare to the extent that I just lose faith in humanity.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Feder...
BTW I’m happy to read opinions I disagree with, but I need sound arguments. That’s why I read the Wall Street Journal’s op-eds instead of ones from Fox News.
So what exactly did you dislike?
NYT 1992-2000: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!
NYT 2000-2008: Democracy has failed!
NYT 2008-2016: Democracy is the greatest system in the world!
NTY 2019: Democracy has failed!
It's an easy and compelling introduction, rather than a rigorous intellectual treatise, in order to increase the probability that people will actually read it and thereby have something added to their perspective.
For instance, for those (such as myself) who are unaware of the Dostoevsky quote, it may be useful to see it: "There is no more ceaseless or tormenting care for man, as long as he remains free, than to find someone to bow down to as soon as possible." It may not be strictly true. But it is useful to consider that such a perspective on human behavior is, perhaps, not to be immediately dismissed as useless and ridiculous.
The way the article writer describes The Triumph of the Will is accurate (I've seen it a couple times); most people haven't seen it, or even heard of it. The reference to the "collective ecstasy" well-depicted in the film does, after all, reveal a human phenomenon that goes beyond Nazis and which it would be good for more people to understand, as a warning.
The Athenian process for protecting their democracy against populism is useful to think about, because we, in taking democracy for granted, tend not to see any risk that such a system would be useful for addressing: "When one of the citizens was becoming a bit too popular — too much of a charmer — Athenians would vote him out of the city for ten years by inscribing his name on bits of pottery. It was not punishment for something the charmer may have done, but a pre-emptive measure against what he might do if left unchecked. Athenians knew that they were too vulnerable and too flawed to resist political seduction (their complicated affair with Alcibiades gave them ample proof of that), and promptly denied themselves the pleasure. Man-made as it is, democracy is fragile and of a weak constitution — better not to put it to the test."
Again, it's useful to present such ideas to people who may not have been exposed to them before. I had already known these details about Athens. But a year ago, I hadn't, even though I studied and loved Plato in college. And I'm 62 now.