Interview Transcript
Topic: The “excess” of democracy
American elites, this goes back to the Constitutional Convention, have been very concerned over what's sometimes called an "excess of democracy." That is, real participation by the public in formulating policy. In fact the constitutional system was designed to prevent that. [James] Madison's conception was that, what he called the "wealth" of the nation, the responsible set of men, they're the ones who should set policy. That's why the senate, which represented the wealthy, was given most of the power in the constitutional system—least responsive to the public and more consisting of wealth.
And there have been battles about this all through American history and of course things have changed a lot since the Constitutional Convention, but the basic theme remains the same. So, for example, the leading public intellectual of the 20th century, Walter Lippmann, was progressive, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, progressive. Now his view, he wrote what are called "progressive essays on democracy," was very influential. And his view was that the public should be spectators, not participants and that what he called the "responsible people," people like him, the ones who make policy, they should be insulated from the public. As he put it, they ought to be protected from the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd, the general public, ignorant and meddlesome outsiders who don't belong in the political system.
That's a very standard view. This is a version from the progressive sector, but it extends pretty much across the spectrum.
There was an outburst of democratic participation in the 1960s, in fact it significantly civilized the society. But it caused enormous concern among elites. There was a major study called The Crisis of Democracy, by relatively liberal elites, basically, for example, the [Jimmy] Carter administration was drawn from their ranks, that sector, internationally. And they were concerned about the excess of democracy—too much participation. It's an overload on the state, you can't have all these so-called special interests pressing their own demands. Who are the special interests? That’s minorities, women, the young, the old, farmers, workers, in fact, the population. They're the special interests.
Then there's the national interest, which has to be sustained and that's the interest of the one sector that they don't mention, namely concentrated private capital, which is overwhelming in its influence, but they represent the national interest, so it's okay. In fact, [James] Madison had rather similar ideas.
That's a leading conception of social and political thought and there's a lot of effort put into instigating it. That's what propaganda's about. We don't call it propaganda, what appears in the media and the schools and so on, and you can see its effects.
Recorded on: Aug 18, 2009
Democracy: America’s Oldest Spectator Sport
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Noam Chomsky discusses the limits of civic participation in the U.S., and the extensive efforts that political and business elites have made to keep it that way.
August 26, 2009 | In Politics & Policy, Truth & Justice
Discuss
Gerard Owmby on October 18, 2009, 6:56 PM
Madison was right. The elite might not be intelligent enough to run the country, but I know the masses are not.
Pritam Mishra on October 20, 2009, 3:43 PM
But isn’t that just creating an oligarchy? The idea that most of the political power in a society is vested within a small group of people is unsettling.
Sharon Danley on October 29, 2009, 10:54 AM
This truth sends a chill up the spine. Agree with Gerard though that neither the elite nor the masses are intelligent enough to run the world, let alone a country. There is a vested interest in training our young people rather than educating them. Its a sad state of affairs.
Leah Sponburgh on December 7, 2009, 6:32 PM
True, the masses are uninformed, but there are extensive measure taken by those groups who have power to keep it that way. From corporate censorship to political control of the press, information viable to making decisions conducive to the progress of the country are not present in mass media outlets. Therefore, the common American citizen is not aware of many issues that affect their daily lives. They are only aware of the bipartisan conflict of issues rather than the facts behind the legislative decision because it is in most politicians, those with corporate backing and private interests, to keep the masses out of the legislative process.
David Mango on December 18, 2009, 7:34 PM
We live in the wealthiest nation in the world with 90% of the wealth concentrated among less than 5% of the population; a nation that has more military and destructive power than the rest of the nations combined and we produce little else but greenhouse gasses. This is the “wisdom” of the so-called “elites”?
Olivier Audet on December 30, 2009, 7:54 PM
The problem with the idea that the “masses” can’t rule the nation is an assumption that it must be done in a centralised manner. It’s simple enough for the inhabitants of a town to administrate it directly, on a democratic and entirely or almost entirely non-hierarchical basis. It’s been done successfully. It’s been done on the national level during the Spanish Civil War, and lasted until the Fascists forced everyone else to comply, run or die. It is true that the people on one end of the country are likely to take decisions which don’t suit the other end of the country, but they’re likely to be more competent (and absolutely are much, much more legitimate) to take decisions on a local level.
And in the end, to many, the question of legitimacy is more important than the question of competence; is it legitimate for an elite, even if it’s quite competent, to decide the fate of a nation of people? Even if we decide that it is, should we call it democracy? We have an etymology to live up to.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register