The crisis of American self-government
Few have thought as hard, or as much, about how democracies can preserve individual liberty and national virtue as the eminent political scientist Harvey Mansfield. When it comes to assessing the state of the American experiment in self-government today, his diagnosis is grim, and he has never been one to mince words.
… “I live in a one-party state and very much more so a one-party university,” says the 80-year-old professor with a sigh. “It’s disgusting. I get along very well because everybody thinks the fact that I’m here means the things I say about Harvard can’t be true. I am a kind of pet—a pet dissenter.” …
Consider voting. “You can count voters and votes,” Mr. Mansfield says. “And political science does that a lot, and that’s very useful because votes are in fact countable. One counts for one. But if we get serious about what it means to vote, we immediately go to the notion of an informed voter. And if you get serious about that, you go all the way to voting as a wise choice. That would be a true voter. The others are all lesser voters, or even not voting at all. They’re just indicating a belief, or a whim, but not making a wise choice. That’s probably because they’re not wise.”
By that measure, the electorate that granted Barack Obama a second term was unwise—the president achieved “a sneaky victory,” Mr. Mansfield says. “The Democrats said nothing about their plans for the future. All they did was attack the other side. Obama’s campaign consisted entirely of saying ‘I’m on your side’ to the American people, to those in the middle. No matter what comes next, this silence about the future is ominous.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
A good piece. Well worth reading the entire thing.
visions on December 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Sarcasm? Cause the article was vacuous.
tom daschle concerned on December 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM
A surprisingly substantive pice considering what usually gets linked to around here. Erika working this morning?
abobo on December 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Yes, but we got to keep Ward Cleaver out of the white house so the irreversible national decline is totally worth it. Take that you judgmental rich white religious people!
Kataklysmic on December 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM
It was the Primary voter’s duty to pick someone that would actually win.
The primary candidate’s duty was to actually win.
Romney was damaged goods going into the general, because Romney was an unelectable cypher that no where near enough people were happy about voting for.
Romney and his sycophants made matters worse through their disregard for the base of the republican party, the social conservative.
For ever Romney supporter, there were 20 automatic Republican voters who just go to the polls as a habit.
For every Romney supporter, there were 10 conservatives who normally would have dragged 20 to 30 people to the polls with them.
That means Kataklysmic, your support of Romney required you to make up those 20 to 30 people, or in other words you needed to drag 199 to 299 people to the poles to make up for Romney’s shortcomings.
Did you do that?
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM
I didn’t support Romney in the primary so I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
Kataklysmic on December 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Well then, I am guessing you did the same as me. Took your own self to the poll and filled in the oval next to Romney’s name. Took no one with you. Well then, if you are not willing to make up the difference of enthusiasm that having Romney as the candidate created, how exactly can you blame other people?
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM
My initial comment was meant to mock the mindset of the typical Obama supporter. If that’s prohibited now unless one brought 300 people to the polls with them, I guess I didn’t get the memo.
Kataklysmic on December 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Miss understood it. It looked like you were mocking the supposed stay at home conservatives.
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM
@astonerii: Who’s Miss Understood? Is she available?
Seth Halpern on December 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Tired, I was up late last night.
She is totally single. Did I really write that?
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM
I would never do that. ddrintn and sharrukin are two of my favorite commenters and I’m pretty sure neither voted for Romney.
As a matter of fact I could respect a liberal who said “deep in my heart I know Obama is a disaster but when I take a dispassionate look at Romney’s positions over the years including his tenure as Gov of MA I’m just not that confident that he’s in politics for any cause greater than his own advancement and therefore I’m going to stick with my own party’s nominee”.
I could respect a liberal who made that case. But as you know the people who decided this election can’t name the three branches of government let alone what Romney’s record is. All they know is some rich guy who wants to take away big bird was running against their messiah.
Kataklysmic on December 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM
I’m just not awake enough his morning.
I am going to be off with the wife to look at purses. Hopefully will be more aware by the time I get back.
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Mitt Romney was a successful businessman, and John McCain had a distinguished military career. I wouldn’t kick either one of them out of my Rotary Club. But there’s a rather important factor in political campaigns that a lot of people want us to forget, and that is POLITICS.
What political cause did either candidate offer aside from: “I am not Barack Obama?” Don’t get me wrong, in a perfect world that should be sufficient. But it very clearly wasn’t.
The liberal media know that they can give fifteen points to any candidate they want. That might not be enough to overcome a strong candidate in a general election. But it is sure as Hell enough to allow them to choose their favorite opponent out of the top four or five in a primary.
If we want to be successful, we have to get serious about this. From now on, any Republican candidate whose platform consists of: “Hey, the liberals don’t hate me as much as they do the other guys,” will have to be politely, but firmly, removed from consideration very early on in the process.
logis on December 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM
No. Democracies can not preserve individual liberty. Individual liberty cannot exist without property rights and Democracy is incompatible with property rights.
antifederalist on December 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM
^^^
So please count me as 100% against democracy.
antifederalist on December 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Well, when you put it like that… cultivating self-government/reliance sounds a lot more daunting.
In any case, Mansfield had a good interview on Uncommon Knowledge a while back that covered some of the topics in this article – academia, character, etc.
flush_explorer on December 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM
A candidate who couldn’t attack Obama’s biggest weakness: Socialized medicine. And he also just happened to be a real-life Richie Rich cartoon caracter; thus stepping, fairly or not, into the anti-investment banker attack Obama had spent the last three years making?
John McCain had spent the entire time from 2000-2008 doing precisely what the Democrats were doing: badmouthing George Bush and the Republicans in Congress; leaving him no way to dispute anything a Democrat candidate had to say. And again, fairly or not, McCain’s hardcore pro-Iraq War stance made him the perfect target for the rhetoric the Democrats had been spewing for the past five years.
John McCain was (assuming Jim Jeffords to be technically ineligible) the worst candidate the Republicans could have run in 2008. And Mitt Romney was the worst candidate the Republicans could have run in 2012. And neither of those was a coincidence.
logis on December 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM
No question about it. And in both cases the FL primary is what essentially clinched the nomination for both. I fully anticipate the trend to continue in 2016 with Jeb.
Kataklysmic on December 1, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Sneaky victory? To say the least.
Democracy and democratic republic alike.
petefrt on December 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Modern day slavery and Obama, ironically, is the perfect slave-master. He and Michelle live like Lois XV and Madame de Pompadour, sacrifishing nothing, as she says.
“party of condoms”…and they have the perfect Pimp to scroom the entire land.
Heh, Mr. Mansfield is a nationa treasure whom the leftist will certainly call “racist”. Anyone who helps minorities how to become independent is called a “racist’. MLK died for nothing, in this regard.
Kat, you are delightfully objective and intelligent and please don’t let the turkeys bring you down, from either side.
Schadenfreude on December 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Louis XV that is
Schadenfreude on December 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Ever heard the saying “If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit”? Guess who you tagged?
xblade on December 1, 2012 at 12:51 PM