Of Voting in 2024 (Part II of III): On Positive Democracy (and the American People's Hatred of Aristocratic Ideals)

By Drew Maglio

Picking up from Part I, we will now turn to an analysis of positive democracy and its inherent opposition to America, conceived as a lofty idea made manifest in political experiment.

In moving forward, we should look to the past for firm foundations, good ideas.

But either way, the whole structure of American Republicanism is centered around such notions of common decency and the decentralization of power, as well as the promise of those who—by fortuitous endowment, no doubt enhanced by the opportunity-rich conditions available to some in imperfect early America—promised, if imperfectly (owing to human nature), to facilitate the common good of the whole organism (and that of its inferior and subjugate, component parts); a  society ought be a living organism, not a mere inhuman machine: living in the sense that it is animate and alive—fatally flawed assuredly, but alive and filled with real uniqueness of being, nonetheless.

The preceding is why, in the early days of American civilization, the “right to vote” was restricted to those who were landed—but early America in its very creed, sought (as an anti-Federalist and Jeffersonian ideal) to make every man the “lord of his own domain", no matter how menial; but what is very often omitted and seldom acknowledged by proletarians: such endowed “landed aristocrats” were also—quite often—properly educated: which is to say, those who owned property in their own right, were blessed to have had the leisure necessary to afford and facilitate, the reception of a liberal education in the full and proper sense; they were therefore, ostensibly by extension, invested in the permanence of place and the flourishing of the people in that particular place which they were so deeply and personally invested; such an arrangement meant statesman were often beholden to their neighbors on a personal, "face-to-face" basis. We must acknowledge: it is a lot easier to be a pedant behind a computer screen than it is in person, where real audacious and brazen "courage" is required. But nonetheless, genuine “progress” for a civilization such as America or Britain, would encompass a wider, more judicious, and more fully-realized application of its estimable principles—far and wide—thereby reaching a greater number of persons from all races, and noble religions and creeds.

Further, such a collection of statesmen as America’s diverse and disparately stitched-together “Founders”—who in reality consisted of a patchwork of individuals from various backgrounds and inheritances—were therefore, generally invested in the tranquil flourishing of the domestic whole; unlike modern America, the culture—at least in an aspirational sense—was that (among other things) of a soulful nobility, "can-do" spirit of self-determined and self-reliant agency, and a collectively common (but individually-prescribed) "pursuit of happiness”: i.e. an attempt at human flourishing; it is therefore no coincidence that the “pursuit of happiness” is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, wherein Thomas Jefferson famously effaced it as a sacred prescriptive command, eschewing what had hitherto been conceived of by John Locke: i.e. the right to "property"—material (as in land and resource) and immaterial (as in mental and physical labor). To such ends, the American government was designed intentionally with an Aristocratic-bent, modeled in part after the mercantile and bourgeois, Venetian Republic—and not merely, the more warlike and agri-democratic Roman one, with which we are all more familiar.

"Positive democracy", it turns out, is net-negative: why we ought aim at goodness, rather than inclusivity.

The Electoral College—against which it is en vogue to levy attacks in the age of wayward and absolute “democracy”—for instance, was conceived as but a buttress against such “tyrannies of the majority” whim. As such, America’s mode of government was designed precisely to pit one “estate” interest (as in the three "estate" interests, or houses, of pre-revolution, Ancien Régime, France) against another—ensuring that institutional interests by each present party would be in continual opposition to one another, so that precisely nothing “radical”—to quote one of the circulating anti-Kamala Harris ads—would ever “get done”. Which is merely to say: to preserve the evolutionary Anglo-American format and tradition of governance, which developed incrementally over time (since 1215 in fact, when the Magna Carta was first issued by King John II of England) with continual but gradual refinements: America, at her infancy, may have had far more in common with Burke than Paine, it turns out. 

America's "Founders" issue the "Declaration of Independence", declaring separation from Great Britain.

But we have forgotten our founding principles (and creed) in the age of positive democracy; to that destructive “end”, we no longer allow (or even wish for) the wise and good (to whatever extent it is possible) to administer government on our behalf. Our politicians are us, and we become them: for we project onto those who rule us, every shadow impulse from below—creating a two-way feedback loop. As “they” become worse, so too do “we”—as we become worse, so too do they. But perhaps more damningly: our intimations and suspicions have been borne out time-and-time again, as if it were all prophetic!—self-fulfilling or otherwise. Absolute power does in fact, corrupt absolutely—every single time. Why should the result be altogether different, if the mere distinction at present, is that such grasping undertones are of a tyrannically-democratic pretense? Who can, here and now, make the case that the democratic impulse itself—which demonstratively asserts that “I, myself, am so great that I deserve to take part in my own governance”—has not simply been commandeered by those who, for their own ill purposes, wish the Republic harm? Now, as always, good power must resist those forceful and ill-gotten powers—which seek to do us all iniquity for their own warped conception of political society as a canvas whereby some may paint others in a new manner, of their own likeness.

. . . we no longer allow (or even wish for) the wise and good (to whatever extent that is possible) to administer government on our behalf. Our politicians are us, and we become them: for we project onto those who rule us, every shadow impulse from below—creating a two-way feedback loop. As “they” become worse, so too do “we”—as we become worse, so too do they. But perhaps more damningly: our intimations and suspicions have been borne out time-and-time again, as if it were all prophetic!—self-fulfilling or otherwise.

But we now occupy a world in which the wicked and avaricious have been made more powerful, while the good have been made impotent: that is the true cost of our gradual economic losses of power—as witnessed in the realms of: housing, education, work, healthcare, taxation, (legally-mandated) insurance(s), etc. Such a process didn’t occur over a fortnight: how could anyone then suggest it may be undone, here and now, with this “2024 Election”, about which it is said—like every preceding election in recent memory—that it is “the most important election of our lifetime”? What people has ever loosened their chains merely with the vote?—especially when the balance of power, between ruler and ruled, has shifted so dramatically in one mere century. I believe we may witness in our lifetimes, the effective abolishment of the “Second Amendment”, which will—once and for all—eliminate the necessary threat of forceful resistance; all other nations have fallen in such a regard: America is but the last holdout, but she too has been chipped away at, “bit by bit”.

A world-order with tattered foundations cannot stand for long.

As evidence of the previous—i.e. the drive to raze our wisened foundations and begin anew from the ashes as a new, conscious state-creation—consider that which we all know in our heart-of-hearts, but frequently fail to verbally explicate: America has become a place in which its consumer-citizens cannot even agree on fundamental and foundational presuppositions from which to proceed and orient ourselves (and by extension, our society); and few realize this is precisely the illogical conclusion of positive democracy: that is, democracy which is exercised and extended outwards for its own sake and "purposes". Democratic participation is not—nor has ever been, itself—a worthy ideal which should be collectively pursued for its own sake: hence why Plato and Aristotle knew such an obvious "truth" (wherein both described the way in which democracy always devolves into lower, more tyrannical forms of governance), at the concomitant dawn of philosophy and "Western Civilization", both of which are sadly in retreat.

As a result, such obvious truths, which have been hitherto known for ages—e.g. what is a woman?—have come under fierce attack from an increasingly unhinged, disjointed, irrational, and inhumane political left; the right is not without equal blame: for it is there that much hostility, resentment, general unfriendliness, selfishness, and megalomaniacal micro-management—as often seen in stodgy HOAs and uber-entitled directorial boards—occurs. In such a pluralistic society, with only a smattering of vague guiding principles and purposes remaining, is it any wonder that political advertisements directed at the masses placate the selfish, while eschewing the good of the whole? America has become a place in which its consumer-citizens cannot even agree on fundamental and foundational presuppositions from which to proceed.

But the conditions of early America that I sketched above—i.e. where decent men and women, who are of a somewhat philosophic dispensatory bent, are empowered and take an active ownership in the state interest itself—can only exist insofar as a society itself aims at “The Good”, and thence uses every tool at its disposal to facilitate such estimably worthy ends; but to do the aforementioned, a society must not merely aim at self-preservation and material wealth, but human flourishing. But fulfilling such an impossibly difficult task, is first based on knowing what that aforementioned “Good” be—if only to a vague degree—which is itself only possible insofar as we, en masse, will it so. As you consider voting this election season, ask: what does contemporary American society aim at?—if anything at all, beyond the mere material fulfillment of litanous base impulses.

Tyranny: as such things change, much remains the same.

Perhaps when adjudicating our current plight—seeking to understand how tight we find our chains—we should consider those wise and beneficent words of the sagacious Erasmus, who in his On the Education of the Christian Prince, painted an immemorial portrait of tyranny that, in every age, rings true: 

Now let him bring out the opposite side by showing a frightful, loathsome beast, formed of a dragon, wolf, lion, viper, bear, and like creatures; with six hundred eyes all over it, teeth everywhere, fearful from all angles, and with hooked claws; with never satiated hunger, fattened on human vitals, and reeking with human blood; never sleeping, but always threatening the fortunes and lives of all men; dangerous to everyone, especially to the good; a sort of fatal scourge to the whole world, on which everyone who has the interests of state at heart pours forth execration and hatred; which cannot be borne because of its monstrousness and yet cannot be overthrown without great disaster to the city because its maliciousness is hedged about with armed forces and wealth. This is the picture of a tyrant unless there is something more odious which can be depicted. Monsters of this sort were Claudius and Caligula. The myths in the poets also showed Busyris, Pentheus, and Midas, whose names are now objects of hate to all the human race, to be of the same type. 

The main object of a tyrant is to follow his own caprices, but a king follows the path of right and honor. Reward to a tyrant is wealth; to a king, honor, which follows upon virtue. The tyrants' rule is marked by fear, deceit, and machinations of evil. The king governs through wisdom, integrity, and beneficence. The tyrant uses his imperial power for himself; the king, for the state. The tyrant guarantees safety for himself by means of foreign attendants and hired brigands. The king deems himself safe through his kindness to his subjects and their love for him in return. Those citizens who are distinguished for their moral character, judgment, and prestige are held under suspicion and distrust by the tyrant. The king, however, cleaves to these same men as his helpers and friends. The tyrant is pleased either with stupid dolts, on whom he imposes; or with wicked men, whom he puts to evil use in defending his position as tyrant; or with flatterers, from whom he hears only praise which he enjoys. It is just the opposite with a king; every wise man by whose counsel he can be helped is very dear to him. The better each man is, the higher he rates him, because he can rely on his allegiance. He loves honest friends, by whose companionship he is bettered. Kings and tyrants have many hands and many eyes, but they are very different. A tyrant's aim is to get the wealth of his subjects in the hands of a few, and those the wickedest, and fortify his power by the weakened strength of his subjects. The king considers that his purse is represented by the wealth of his subjects; the tyrant strives to have everyone answerable to him either by law or informers. The king rejoices in the freedom of his people; the tyrant strives to be feared, the king to beloved. The tyrant looks upon nothing with greater suspicion than the harmonious agreement of good men and of cities; good princes especially rejoice in this. A tyrant is happy to stir up factions and strife between his subjects and feeds and aids chance animosities. This means he basely uses for the safeguarding of his tyranny. A king has this one interest: to foster peaceful relations between his subjects and straightway to adjust such dissensions among them as chance to arise, for he believes that they are the worst menace to the state that can happen. When a tyrant sees that affairs of state are flourishing, he trumps up some pretext, or even invites in some enemy, so as to start a war and thereby weaken the powers. The opposite is true of a king. He does of his own people. everything and allows everything that will bring everlasting peace to his country, for he realizes that war is the source of all misfortunes to the state. The tyrant either sets up laws, constitutions, edicts, treaties, and all things sacred and profane to his own personal preservation or else perverts them to that end. The king judges everything by the standard of its value to the state . . . The tyrant is first concerned to see that his subjects neither wish to nor dare to rise against his tyrannical rule; next, that they do not trust one another; and thirdly, that they cannot attempt a revolution. He accomplishes his first end by allowing his subjects to develop no spirit at all and no wisdom, by keeping them like slaves and devoted to mean stations in life, or held accountable by a system of spies, or rendered effeminate through pleasure. He knows full well that noble and acute spirits do not tolerate a tyranny with good grace. He accomplishes his second point by stirring up dissension and mutual hatred among his subjects so that one accuses the other and he himself is more powerful as a result of their misfortunes. The third he attains by using every means to reduce the wealth and prestige of any of his subjects, and especially the good men, to a limit which no sane man would want to approach and would despair of attaining.

—Desiderius Erasmus, On the Education of a Christian Prince, 1516

Desiderius Erasmus: a truly noble thinker from a bygone world; I think we need a new Renaissance.

While we should venerate our “kings” in the proper sense—i.e. those who have “fulfilled” their natures to the fullest extent possible by the dual-application of education and habit—we now bear among us, those (unwilling and disenchanted) “citizens” who tear down past figures who could have very easily usurped presidential power for their own capricious purposes, but consciously decided—despite the perpetual temptation—not to do so on principle alone: and George Washington is perhaps the greatest exemplar of the former in our sweet American canon! But either way, make no mistake: only those who deeply care for, and are wholly concerned with, the “common good” deserve the “natural right” of voting: i.e., taking an active part in the governing process, and otherwise holistic machinery of government. 

Tocqueville: The trouble with democracy is the wholesale worship of mediocrity—the exaltation of equality for equality's sake.

We should all aspire to be aristocrats—not merely by birth, but by merit; which is to say, we ought tirelessly strive to be those superiorly learned and modulated creatures—who through philosophy properly-applied, become better in disposition as demonstrated by consciously-ordered habit. Such a high-and-mighty fellow can then be shown to demonstratively possess an inner governing principle of honor, duty, obligation—who then can enter the arena and be responsible to safeguard our fellows, culture, and nation-state. Why do we allow people to represent us—geopolitically and on a global scale—who cannot even govern themselves? 

The modern political arena laid bare.

One of many reasons modern politics have devolved to the degree they have, is precisely because they have become harbor to self-aggrandizing miscreants to placate mass hoards of self-aggrandizing miscreants; in such a devolved “order”, both political masters and willing participants are guilty of seeking their own (usually short-sighted and material) benefit at the public expense. The previous, i.e. cultural decadence, is why all great empires hitherto known have eventually fallen—including Greece, Rome, France, and Britain: why now, should America be any different? Great men and women build great civilizations, but groveling and conniving cowards seeking their own advantage at the expense of other people (and the institutional apparatuses that buttress and sustain a great civilization) tear them down.

E.g.: with advertisements and “corporate branding” literally everywhere, it feels more and more like we are truly living in Idiocracy.

We have, quite literally, reached a point in American civilization, where doing and being good—to whatever toilsome extent that is possible for a creature as flawed as man—rewards less (in terms of tangible but mean benefit) than its corollary: when a civilization reaches that point, it has surely lost its soulful principle of collectively-directed spirit. All of this is to say, America has become a culture without a soul that is steadfastly becoming merely parasitical—on the past no doubt, but also on the good-hearted individuals and families of the present: consider America’s declining birthrate, which shows that for various economic and environmental factors, people feel it a hopeless endeavor to have as many children as they indicatively desire. What kind of “civilization” are we becoming when people can’t even fulfill such a good and necessary—but basic—biological and spiritual imperative?

The proper role of a state and its methodology are, in actuality, mutually exclusive.

In our technocratic age, criminals—petty or otherwise—and illegal immigrants are often treated better than naturalized citizens, it seems: what insanity! The former is not to say we ought be inhospitable to individuals seeking a better life by emigrating or seeking asylum, but rather to acknowledge the sheer hypocrisy and dysfunction of the current governmental tapestry (and its vast, but inept, bureaucratic apparatus). When everyone seeks his own advantage, Rome—new and old—burns; it truly does feel like what we are witnessing are the early stages of onset, of an all-consuming cultural conflagration.

The role of a state ought be to facilitate the public “common good”, rewarding virtue whilst punishing vice; the means which it employs to such an end is of little consequence insofar as it achieves said end in actuality. For instance, consider that justice—in an Aristotelian sense—is not mere retribution (as many on the modern political right so wish), but that which is good for both the individual and the whole: who can look at the privatized and so-called, "prison-industrial complex", and argue in good faith that it aims at any modicum of "The Good"? Perhaps the aim of punishment ought to be corrective action aimed at bettering society by reorienting prisoners towards "The Good" in a tangible, practical manner—and not merely indulging and harboring (i.e. housing and clothing), nor exploiting, prisoners (all the while financially-incentivizing an increasingly numerous "population" of prisoners: petty or otherwise). But the other side of such a token of "true justice", at which a good society aims (at least in principle), is that prisoners—for the benefit of their own soul—often require swift and fierce punishment, through imposed corrective action. But in the current political dichotomy, prisoners are seen—quite literally—as either an irredeemable scourge upon society (for the Trumpian right), or as easy targets for an increasingly neo-Fascistic and extortive, capitalistic state that is racist, sexist, and xenophobic to its very rotten core (and is therefore irredeemable and in need of being torn down) to the increasingly neo-Marxist left. Such a non-critical conceptual duality is utter insanity. What tenet or law precludes viewing of the prisoner through an individual lens and on a case-by-case basis? But what is usually missed in such discourse, is the sheer ease by which individuals may become themselves consumed by a public sphere that wholly lacks nuance and discernment: i.e. it is far easier to pick a wayward "side" than exist in no-man's-land, and draw the ire and artillery from both front lines.

Our brief tangent notwithstanding, consider: Anglo-American practitioners of now-sacred “democracy”—like Locke, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Thoreau, Emerson, etc.—understood the former, namely that democracy exercised for its own sake is the surest way to abject tyranny; but to the contrary: a society which aims at some nebulous combination of "the Divine"—in its many manifest conceptions—by extension, aims at moral virtue, which teaches us to value the human being for his own sake and that of his dignified, embodied existence. It is only within the confines of such lofty aims that "human flourishing" may be pursued: for the human being is, in primary terms, foremost an embodied soul-principle of spiritual orientation. And don't take my word for it, but instead receive such a vital message of paramount importance from all of humanity's great sages: from Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, Boethius, and Rumi—to Kant, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche—to Lewis, Huxley, Orwell, and Jung. We have misunderstood and forgotten first things: is it any wonder we have become a mass of materialistic heathens who can no longer govern ourselves?

Aiming at "The Good", the humane, the decent, the illuminated, the perplexing, the stupefying, the mystifying—i.e. those things which make us human and not merely beasts with the ability to deliberate, are in fact, the surest safeguards against an inhumanely exercised tyranny (and the overarching destruction of individual dignity, which everywhere precedes the disintegration of the social contract, around which political life is foremost centered). But we have now reached a point in America, where it is so obvious to almost everyone, that our government has long since ceased, by-and-large, to facilitate the common good; and in that state of affairs, voting one’s own interest might, in actuality, be morally defensible!—which bodes catastrophe for the future of our valued civilization. Is it too late?—is America already irredeemable? I don't think so: for like the phoenix, that which has been reduced to ashes, may thereafter be reborn and rise once again; tyrants may dispense with individual people—and with force if they deem it necessary—but "spirit" and ideas are much more difficult to dispense with (over the long-haul).

. . . like the phoenix, that which has been reduced to ashes, may thereafter be reborn and rise once again; tyrants may dispense with individual people—and with force if they deem it necessary—but "spirit" and ideas are much more difficult to forever stamp out.

In the end, what you do decide to do is up to you—and we all ought to respect one another's choices in light of the extenuating circumstances:

For in the end, the "empowered" democratic individual controls but little in the age of overarching wayward democracy. And so, if you go to the polls this 5th of November, do so with a calculated realism, rather than a foolhardy idealism, understanding that no people has ever fully voted its way out of tyranny—especially one as vastly interconnected and insidiously hidden, yet persistently pervasive, as ours.

Part III will analyze the incessant and ubiquitous call for “political engagement”, as though the former was good in itself—for its own sake.