tag:theconversation.com,2011:/institutions/maryland-institute-college-of-art-2430/articlesMaryland Institute College of Art2021-03-23T12:32:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1498042021-03-23T12:32:00Z2021-03-23T12:32:00ZPrivacy may be under threat, but its protection alone isn’t enough to preserve civil liberties<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390448/original/file-20210318-23-ybwzfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C2995%2C1989&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Demonstrators shine their cellphones during a protest in St. Louis in 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-light-up-their-cell-phones-during-a-protest-news-photo/1228695076?adppopup=true">Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>While the battle over privacy is everywhere in American life, it’s actually a relatively new concept that didn’t become grounded in law until over a century after the Declaration of Independence. </p>
<p>Privacy is supposedly a core American value, forged in the country’s founding. For example, <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Privacy/b7CE5PqvVw8C?hl=en">historians claim</a> that privacy concerns drove the American Revolution. Colonists were reacting to British troops invading their warehouses and shops in search of taxable goods, and to British demands that the Colonists shelter soldiers in their homes. </p>
<p>And today, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/qa-daniel-solove-how-bad-security-arguments-are-undermining-our-privacy">civil liberties advocates argue</a> that democracy requires privacy. They believe privacy is necessary to create independent-minded, free-thinking citizens who vote as they wish.</p>
<p>Yet the term “privacy” is not mentioned in the Constitution. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1321160">legal right to privacy</a> wasn’t articulated until 1890. And it came to be robustly <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/">defended by the Supreme Court</a> only in the 1960s. </p>
<p>These are among the many things I discovered while researching “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/e-commerce-law/life-after-privacy-reclaiming-democracy-surveillance-society?format=PB&isbn=9781108811910">Life after Privacy: Reclaiming Democracy in a Surveillance Society</a>,” which explores the nature of privacy, its history and its uncertain future. I also learned that privacy remains an ill-formed and embattled concept. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/">Americans feel</a> their privacy is gravely endangered in the digital age. Corporations use increasingly sophisticated methods of data collection to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2016/12/31/facebook-knows-when-you-fall-in-love-and-thats-pretty-creepy/?sh=21021cf6f525">analyze and influence people’s behavior</a>.</p>
<p>This ability can be used both to bolster and hamper democracy. For example, Facebook used its deep knowledge of user data to <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/facebook-experiment-boosts-us-voter-turnout-1.11401">boost voter turnout</a> in 2010. Four years later, data firm Cambridge Analytica used the same technique to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory">target voters</a> with Donald Trump campaign ads.</p>
<p>In my research, I learned that political liberty relies much less on privacy than on people’s ability and willingness to demonstrate and deliberate in the public realm. By that I mean protecting privacy alone will not help with consumer and citizen freedom. I believe people need to use the power of public protests to gain and maintain their civil liberties.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/the-stonewall-riots-didnt-start-the-gay-rights-movement/">gay rights movement</a> demonstrated this power in the past century. Throughout the 20th century in much of America, people were <a href="https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/decriminalization-sodomy-united-states/2014-11">prosecuted for homosexual behavior</a> in their private lives. The aggressive work of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/13/t-magazine/act-up-aids.html">ACT UP</a> and other gay rights activist groups led to legal protections for people to live and love as they wished. And in 2003, the Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/">overruled all state laws</a> that had prohibited homosexuality. </p>
<p>Civil and <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/labor">labor rights campaigns</a> in the 20th century had similar outcomes. Despite civil rights leaders’ being <a href="https://taylorbranch.com/king-era-trilogy/parting-the-waters/">spied on and hounded</a> from the start, they used their power of coordination and public organizing to trump their lack of privacy. Their organizational roots, built over many decades, enabled them to withstand repeated assault and launch <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in">disciplined</a>, <a href="https://www.biography.com/news/black-history-birmingham-childrens-crusade-1963">creative</a> protests. </p>
<p>In other words, privacy is not so much a prerequisite for democracy as it is a product of democratic action. </p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>It is still unclear how digital technology has changed the nature of political protest, and whether it has made it more or less effective. </p>
<p>As scholar <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259292/twitter-and-tear-gas">Zeynep Tufekci notes</a>, modern, internet-fueled “networked protests” like <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/what-is-occupy-wall-street-the-history-of-leaderless-movements/2011/10/10/gIQAwkFjaL_story.html">Occupy Wall Street</a> and the <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/17/what-is-the-arab-spring-and-how-did-it-start">Arab Spring</a> used social media to quickly organize massive protests, but with <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/nze9em/twitter-makes-it-easy-to-start-a-revolution-without-finishing-it">limited long-term success</a>. </p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>Digital technology has changed Americans’ behavior in surprising ways, including when it comes to privacy. People share intimate details about their lives on social media. Meanwhile, digital media <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2023301118">has also given rise</a> to hardened partisanship and political radicalization.</p>
<p>I believe philosophers need to look ahead and consider what other new behaviors digital technology is inspiring. Perhaps consumers and citizens will become more predictable, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/02/age-of-surveillance-capitalism-shoshana-zuboff-review">data analysts believe</a>. Alternatively, people may rise up and rebel against constant surveillance and the efforts of spying governments and marketers to control them.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149804/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A privacy expert says citizens will need to exercise their right to public protest if they want to preserve their privacy.Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1106862019-02-13T15:32:05Z2019-02-13T15:32:05ZIs love losing its soul in the digital age?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258581/original/file-20190212-174861-tz6o6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A young couple posing for an Instagram photo.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-photo-video-call-speak-talk-1279976611?src=ahBaNpYfV9RmhweEMoJpLg-1-17">Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Instagram users have taken to issuing “weekiversary posts,” where they diligently mark the duration of their romances. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/opinion/sunday/relationships-love-instagram.html">An article</a> in The New York Times explained how weekiversary posts have the unintended – or very much intended – consequence of shaming people who are not in love. </p>
<p>The article also noted that this phenomenon <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/opinion/sunday/relationships-love-instagram.html">makes some doubt</a> the intensity of their own relationship. They wonder why their partners are not similarly starry-eyed and gushing online. Some even admitted that this phenomenon prompted them to stay in relationships longer than they should have: they go on celebrating their weekiversaries, just to keep up appearances.</p>
<p>In truth, this could apply to any of the social media platforms, where people increasingly feel the need to act their lives in real time in a public format, documenting every event and incident, no matter how remarkable or mundane. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300208931/do-guns-make-us-free">philosopher</a> researching the topic of privacy, I found myself thinking about the brave new culture of digital sharing.</p>
<p>What does it say about love, that many are compelled to live their romances aloud, in detailed fashion? </p>
<h2>Why display your love?</h2>
<p>On one hand, there is nothing new here. Most of us seek the approval of others – even before our own, sometimes. Others’ approval, or their envy, makes our joy sweeter.</p>
<p>Philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/">Jean Jacques Rousseau</a> recognized something like this when he distinguished between “amour de soi” and “amour propre” – <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=n0tdG2qZFJUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rousseau+second+discourse&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ2J-3sazgAhUPTt8KHQRbDNAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=rousseau%20second%20discourse&f=false">two different forms of self love</a>. The former is love that is instinctual and not self-reflective. Rousseau sees it in presocial man, who is unconcerned with what other people think of him. Largely, he loves himself unconditionally, without judgment.</p>
<p>Society, which complicates our lives irredeemably, introduces amour propre. This is self-love mediated through the eyes and opinions of others. Amour propre, in Rousseau’s view, is deeply flawed. It is hollow, flimsy, if not downright fraudulent. The opinions and judgment of others change rapidly and do not make for a firm foundation for honest, enduring, confident self-love and any emotions related to or rooted in it.</p>
<p>This suggests an unflattering view of weekiversary posts. Are they just one’s way of satiating the need for amour propre – meeting the approval, and stoking the envy of online witnesses? Are they for one’s lover at all? Or, are they for public affirmation?</p>
<h2>Curating our life stories</h2>
<p>Is there a more positive way to make sense of weekiversary posts?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258565/original/file-20190212-174873-9win0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social media is a way to give a narrative structure to our lives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnysilvercloud/17151867417/in/photolist-s8DNC2-sBDC4d-aEeCqz-diNSS9-BCT5hu-apwELC-wNGPX-pE65mJ-6jNaFP-ecLpCP-6mQwVZ-dLnekA-6S1zLa-5VVb1v-vxoK7J-cxQSVU-DMvnG-dGc6iJ-aEeCuP-aXnDmk-C24FK2-dwsQnM-79MVvu-qyp9x3-qMF7Tg-7XPZN5-TWYcrK-93zzg9-9YHsyp-21QG5Zs-nXwmof-8nyw9g-yibvq-243SwrK-8rvrWq-iGt3K5-gNxNgJ-iKd84N-5NKein-bDQy3i-GicT4E-UWdwQp-gvZxb-9QLU4e-bER864-oEc3LU-bCUWtR-hP6epv-agtCmD-aSWPcP">Johnny Silvercloud/Flickr.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Philosopher <a href="https://www.biography.com/people/paul-ricoeur-9458208">Paul Ricoeur</a> argued that humans have an inherent need to view their lives <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5h9lJLdjoBwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ricoeur+time+and+narrative+volume&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif8fGbsqzgAhUlh-AKHbpZDS8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=ricoeur%20time%20and%20narrative%20volume&f=false">in a narrative fashion</a>. This is a prime way in which a person makes sense of his or her world. </p>
<p>Specifically, one aims to project a narrative structure onto life, and give it a beginning, a climax and, hopefully, a fitting conclusion. The individual also wishes to situate his life story within a greater narrative, be it social, historical or cosmic.</p>
<p>Social media, I believe, gives us newfound powers to curate the story of our lives, and if need be, change characters, dominant plot lines or background themes, how and when we like. In documenting everyday events and occurrences, we could even elevate them and lend them a degree of significance. </p>
<p>So, it might seem perfectly natural that people would like to narrate their budding romances. </p>
<p>I am now long and happily married, but I remember how first love is both exhilarating and confusing. It’s a mess of emotions to work out and understand.
Among the many mixed messages issued by family, society and the media, it is often difficult to know how best to navigate romance and determine if you are doing things right – or if you have found “the one.” </p>
<p>In fact, I sought to get a handle on it all by writing down my many thoughts. This helped give me clarity. It objectified my thoughts – I literally projected them on paper before me, and could better understand which were more resonant, powerful and pressing.</p>
<h2>Love and insecurity</h2>
<p>Social media, on the other hand, is not designed for introspection or soul-searching: Posts must be relatively short, eye-catching and declarative. Twitter emissions only tolerate 280 characters. </p>
<p>Ambiguity has no place there. Social media isn’t the place to hash through a host of conflicting emotions. You are either in love, or you are not – and if you are in love, why declare it if it isn’t blissful? </p>
<p>As Facebook discovered, negative posts tend to lose followers – and many people <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html">want to keep up their viewership</a>. The legal scholar <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/bernard-harcourt">Bernard Harcourt</a> argues that social media sharing <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ymouCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bernard+harcourt&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHl7q4sqzgAhWHm-AKHdmzADIQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=bernard%20harcourt&f=false">evokes the great American tradition of entrepreneurship</a>. From this perspective, in issuing weekiversary posts, individuals are creating an identity and a story – they are generating a brand that they can market widely.</p>
<p>It’s hard to see how this phenomenon contributes to or makes for lasting and fulfilling relationships. If, for example, as Ricoeur says, social media effusions are an attempt to elevate the mundane, the simple, the everyday, and lend it special meaning, it begs the question: Why might one feel the need to do this repeatedly, persistently?</p>
<p>I would argue that it betrays an air of insecurity. After all, at some point, all the affirmation one needs should come from your lover.</p>
<h2>True love</h2>
<p>There is an understandable need for young lovers to pronounce their joy in public. But love, when it matures, does not live publicly.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258558/original/file-20190212-174864-1k3ephm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Love is a largely private emotion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/americanbachelor/43039500754/in/photolist-W3cRBv-2dgQjoT-28sTg3s-rtWYj6-QQAq3r-2e4V8PB-2a3tSAG-TVUuq3-2aLP8cy-2ctejRT-JC7SF2-dCmqnu-K7xhjY-2eiiNvy-2b4hu1L-2d5PnCL-WzFu29-WCe4Uq-cRbyHs-2aiS2nW-V2aM8U-dj1gz2-VYHNLK-2dcTv7J-2cVaPFD-23FXF26-28zfG6Q-obtKUb-pQm4Bu-oFgptT-Ry5u2o-S3RW7L-VQDNph-URL9Xq-2cFKpQC-d83DL1-Z4gyvu-2bLHsfj-RDNYcG-zrXheE-gX4eg6-d8YmPu-QAGFSq-oCtMhy-VWL3Cw-2b4E7A7-WyDkjV-VNxSy9-mYAaek-qiPwkc">michael rababy/Flickr.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Loving couples are not necessarily easy to pick out in public. I think of my parents, and my in-laws, married for nearly 50 years. They can sit with each other in comfortable silence for long periods of time. They can also communicate with each other without saying a word.</p>
<p>Love is largely a private relationship, and demands intimacy. Only in intimacy does the inherent ambiguity or complexity of love emerge. Only in intimacy are you and your partner fully seen and known, with all your shortcomings or contradictions – and they are forgiven.</p>
<p>It is in these intimate moments that lovers learn to tolerate ambiguity, negotiate differences and endure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On social media, people increasingly feel the need to document every event and incident in their lives in public. What does that mean for romantic love?Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/787942017-06-08T02:36:18Z2017-06-08T02:36:18ZWhy is climate change such a hard sell in the US?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172777/original/file-20170607-29582-1r11jej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People gather outside the White House in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, June 1, 2017, to protest President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump on June 1 took the dramatic step of <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-pulls-u-s-out-paris-climate-agreement-n767066">removing</a> the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement – the product of many years of diligent and difficult negotiation among 175 nations around the world. Recent polls reveal that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/05/post-abc-poll-nearly-6-in-10-oppose-trump-scrapping-paris-agreement/?utm_term=.ed9aa84e920b">six in 10 Americans oppose</a> Trump’s move. However, a significant portion of climate skeptics remain – especially among Trump’s base and the Republican politicians who cheered this move.</p>
<p>The unfortunate truth is that environmentalists and their allies have failed to ignite widespread passion around climate change. And now they are faced with an administration stridently opposed to environmental regulation, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/22/epa-remains-top-target-with-trump-administration-proposing-31-percent-budget-cut/?utm_term=.14f3fa6d4c10">slashing the EPA’s budget drastically</a> and reversing President Obama’s climate change initiatives.</p>
<p>As a philosopher, interested in the nature of knowledge and persuasion, I have long wondered why climate change is such a hard sell in the U.S. Is there something about it that makes it liable to doubt, skepticism or inaction?</p>
<h2>Climate change is invisible</h2>
<p>Among industrialized democracies, the U.S. has long been an outlier on climate change, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/">hosting a higher proportion of climate change deniers</a>. No one would say, however, that America is a nation of cave dwellers, who suspect science and eschew technology in favor of some bare-bones premodern existence.</p>
<p>I would argue there is some hypocrisy afoot.</p>
<p>Millions of Americans who happily doubt the scientific consensus behind climate change then avail themselves of the fruits of science, which are, one might argue, worthy of suspicion or doubt.</p>
<p>Many people happily gamble with pharmaceuticals, for example, which may offer the most trivial of benefits, while they disregard or ignore alarming side effects. If a person’s life is on the line, he or she will eagerly accept and experiment with the strangest theory or cure, even if it offers only modest success.</p>
<p>But these same people <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml">may not as easily believe the facts</a> on climate change.</p>
<p>Why are so many unwilling to make sacrifices for the climate – even on the chance that human geography and life on Earth will be profoundly changed?</p>
<p>Many say that <a href="http://science.time.com/2013/10/21/why-we-dont-care-about-saving-our-grandchildren-from-climate-change/">selfishness is at fault</a>. We are simply unwilling to make the requisite sacrifices that climate change action implies, such as curtailing individual energy use. But I suspect there is something else also going on.</p>
<p>Climate is a special object of knowledge – unlike any other. It is always changing; it is immense, elusive and in its most accessible form to all of us – the weather – subjective and variable. Climate change is a form of pollution that is tricky to rally around, because it is impossible to pinpoint or identify neatly and succinctly. What’s more, climate seems variable among people’s perception; what is warm to me may be cool to you.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172779/original/file-20170607-29582-1uc2qqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The use of DDT led to the decline of bald eagles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolebeaulac/9182751593/in/photolist-eZs18k-djouHB-DHDpb5-fDHHjp-633AUE-qGMS7g-ejPAq1-9C4MA5-9xJyUG-dw2HYG-ohfuNS-qvVKuf-c7VVNY-s88czW-7ScmFZ-pv6V1z-3oRAK4-7hpNyd-nBQG4H-51aA4U-hCSee5-fC4ZDn-dvWaVg-dvWb7H-Q8LPg-Q8LKz-o2EMTL-4Ueouj-6TLXvV-qkkt1K-qYHtc6-qWby8k-qtqxSa-afxsw2-dYpVE7-aLGUEP-ds2RBN-oBHmV3-7sVjz5-iVeJhG-oyKvbX-3EKJ47-PmuPMG-uAoPyj-f1oXmH-7NNAPZ-qrFEW8-qC13ub-dF2ndT-ehC3WG">Nicole Beaulac</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other forms of pollution or environmental degradation have proven easier calls to action, because they had very visible, tangible implications. Consider, for example, the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 – when, <a href="https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63#.WTX3z2WCzzJ">because of abysmal water pollution,</a> this river in Cleveland literally caught on fire – and galvanized action that helped create the Clean Water Act. Or the decline of bald eagles – the nation’s symbol – <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0620_020620_baldeagle_2.html">due to the</a> use of the pesticide DDT, which, when it entered the food cycle, caused birds to lay weak eggs and kill their young. These disasters were easy to recognize and rallied support behind environmental action. </p>
<h2>Does it seem less urgent?</h2>
<p>By contrast, greenhouse gases are invisible and climate change is gradual – at least for human perception. Everything looks fine, so perhaps people feel less urgency to act. </p>
<p>In Maryland, for example, the primary environmental focus is the Chesapeake Bay. Last year it <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-chesapeake-bay-grade-20160517-story.html">received a grade of “C” from scientists</a> – which was the lowest it had received in over 20 years. The crab harvest is poor year on year, and the oyster harvest is minuscule compared to the past, because of constant and growing pollution from suburban sprawl on the Western Shore, and intensive chicken farming on the Eastern Shore. </p>
<p>But the bay looks fine: When suburbanites pour over the bay bridge on the way to Ocean City each summer, the water glistens in the sunshine, boats stream back and forth, cattails drift in the waves and kids splash on its beaches. And there’s this, as <a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0506/feature2/text2.html">expressed</a> by National Geographic in a piece on the Chesapeake Bay in 2005: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Chesapeake style crab dishes are still on local menus, but many are full of imported Asian crabmeat. Plump fried oysters…are widely available, too – but they are trucked in from Louisiana and Texas for the most part.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article went on to express concern that a seafood culture could prosper without local supplies. It implied, as it said, “less urgency to make the bay healthy.”</p>
<p>I would draw the same conclusion on climate change: Everything looks and feels fine, for the most part; few people connect extreme weather events with the larger global changes. And the more dramatic or obvious effects of climate change, well, they are not felt here – yet. As a result, there is little urgency behind this nebulous environmental threat. </p>
<h2>Does it appear to be futile?</h2>
<p>What’s more, it is possible climate change seems utterly fantastical – and unrealistic – to many people, believers and doubters alike. </p>
<p>We are told seas may (or will) rise by several feet; entire cities and nations may (or will) disappear, including much of the coastline of Florida. Climate change could render vast portions of the planet uninhabitable and spark widespread wars between suffering populations. Indeed, five tiny Pacific islands have already <a href="http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2016-05-09/five-islands-have-completely-disappeared-into-the-pacific-ocean">disappeared</a> due to global warming, and other island nations are bracing for disaster as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-thousands-flee-pacific-islands-on-front-line-of-climate-change-a6757796.html">thousands flee</a> extreme weather events. Many experts <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/">argue</a> that the brutal civil war in Syria was spawned by global warming-induced famine.</p>
<p>But, even then, to some, it may sound like the stuff of science fiction – apocalyptic visions such as Hollywood has been doling out for years. Indeed, it has <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/07/cli-fi-thats-climate-fiction-new-sci-fi/">given rise to a whole new genre</a> of science fiction: “Cli-Fi,” or Climate Fiction. </p>
<p>It is easy for those of us who do not directly see the impact of climate change to doubt the pronunciations of climate change activists, especially when they are so dramatic and dire. We do know that many conservatives scoff at statements like that of climatologist Michael Mann, who <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448250/michael-mann-climate-scientist-demands-skeptics-submit">declared</a> that “The cost of replacing Earth is infinite.” Indeed, it is hard to believe claims like this when the sun is shining, the flowers are in bloom and birds are up to their usual business. </p>
<p>Alternately, these apocalyptic scenarios make any response just seem futile. In the face of such devastation, climate change action is inconsequential – especially when scientists tell us we may be too late. And if we would do anything, we must first negotiate the <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/12781/chapter/5">immensely tricky cooperation</a> between all the nations of the Earth – the largest and most complex global cooperation humanity has ever attempted.</p>
<h2>Learning from the past</h2>
<p>I suspect that because of all these hurdles, climate change is not liable to be solved by democracies. Autocracies might do better – like China, for example. Given the severity of its current air pollution – a veritable “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/dec/16/beijing-airpocalypse-city-almost-uninhabitable-pollution-china">airpocalypse</a>” – China’s government does not need to be prodded or persuaded to act; the necessity is obvious, and urgent. And China has the ability to take dramatic measures on climate change and act quickly – just what scientists are calling for – dragging the people with them. This is, after all, the nation that lifted half a billion people into the middle class in a single generation. </p>
<p>But what about the U.S.? </p>
<p>In our democracy, I believe, if there is one thing that can be pressed upon the public to sway them with respect to climate change, it is how the U.S. has tackled immense environmental and geopolitical threats in the past, not entirely unlike climate change. </p>
<p>For example, the U.S. spearheaded the response to the ozone layer hole in the 1990s. When it was learned that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emitted by air conditioning and refrigerants were creating a massive hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, exposing the Earth to dangerously high levels of UV rays, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/12/us/bush-orders-end-to-ozone-destroyers-by-1996.html">President George H. W. Bush led</a> the way on a moratorium of CFCs that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11077491/Were-saving-the-ozone-layer-but-climate-change-is-a-different-matter.html">solved</a> a dangerous problem in short order.</p>
<p>And of course, the U.S. overcame and resolved the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, which endured for 40 years. That threat, like climate change, offered the possibility of mutual destruction – only quickly. We successfully faced up to that threat, and <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1991-09-01/nuclear-weapons-after-cold-war">diminished</a> the world’s nuclear arsenal, effectively ruling out the threat of global nuclear war.</p>
<p>Of course, we might put some hope in the caprice of the democratic public itself. Only a decade ago, a majority of American voters accepted the threat of climate change, and were prepared to take action. Opinion polls quickly <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/13/joe-scarborough/scarborough-americans-cooled-climate-change/">changed</a>. </p>
<p>Who’s to say they cannot change back again given an extra warm winter? Or an extra scorching summer? Or a string of disastrous weather events? The only problem is, when such measures finally turn public opinion, climate scientists may well say it’s just too late.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While many people are willing to happily gamble with pharmaceuticals, which may offer the most trivial of benefits, they are not ready to believe the facts on climate change.Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747392017-04-04T00:45:08Z2017-04-04T00:45:08ZHow Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Trump administration<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163680/original/image-20170403-21966-1htznjn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/perspective/481293482/in/photolist-JwKMu-87NNJY-5ToRGh-d2Km-dYfsLP-9i65p1-awi32Z-33n1-qDJMhf-cQr1zL-cRKrr3-9udLYw-9uanSc-fJNyMY-4f5ndt-ej2RKo-6kxddV-6wZ2cQ-bX3PQ6-cRJUtJ-9TFPqQ-dVCDt8-cz2LHq-4MxMwY-6cL529-5ZAUwn-v8k1A-SdLY8z-52JCH5-ej2XW3-5ghwDp-5ghcTv-ej2BWA-cTWSxy-eiVUHP-fvEQjw-eaB6Uy-fvEPX1-eiW2NT-4zxmoy-ej2Rro-7rZRD-5ghJBR-7bAZzJ-5gmxoE-5gnfiY-5gmzBo-JQ9ww-bBkuwZ-2mHuTc">Elvert Barnes</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/?utm_term=.7bc706cd74aa">said</a> Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/?utm_term=.7bc706cd74aa">cited</a> Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trump’s pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/?utm_term=.7bc706cd74aa">revealed</a> that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.</p>
<p>Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan-revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html">made</a> his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/?utm_term=.2c86b5d9fc9e">he’s a “fan” of Rand</a> and “identifies” with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rand’s novel, “The Fountainhead,” “an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.”</p>
<p>As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rand’s influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rand’s dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.</p>
<h2>What’s in common with Ayn Rand?</h2>
<p>Recently, historian and Rand expert <a href="https://history.stanford.edu/people/jennifer-burns">Jennifer Burns</a> wrote how Rand’s sway over the Republican Party is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/ayn-rand-is-dead-liberals-are-going-to-miss-her/?utm_term=.3753ff7d205c">diminishing</a>. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand. </p>
<p>That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-budget-20170315-story.html">greatly slashes</a> nonmilitary government spending – and before Paul Ryan’s Obamacare reform, which promised to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/budget-office-republican-healthcare-coverage-deficit-costs">strip health coverage</a> from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations. </p>
<p>These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor. </p>
<p>Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rand’s thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445255/thoughts-about-spinning-our-president">Central</a> to the Trump’s ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.</p>
<p>Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/jon-stewart-shreds-gop-hypocrites-who-overlook-trumps-flaws-i-see-you-and-i-see-your-bullsht/">put</a> it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.</p>
<p>Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.</p>
<h2>What is Ayn Rand’s philosophy?</h2>
<p>How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand – elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163685/original/image-20170403-21976-1a3qgo1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this 1962 file photo Ayn Rand, Russian-born American novelist, is photographed in New York with Grand Central Terminal in the background.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ayn Rand’s philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into “makers” and “takers.” But, in her view, the real makers are a select few – a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.</p>
<p>Rand’s thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.</p>
<p>Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=eWZbq29waP8C&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=the+exceptional+men,+the+innovators,+the+intellectual+giants,+are+not+held+down+by+the+majority.+In+fact,+it+is+the+members+of+this+exceptional+minority+who+lift+the+whole+of+a+fre">says</a> we must ensure that “the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.”</p>
<p>Mitt Romney <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/04/why-mitt-romneys-47-percent-comment-was-so-bad/?utm_term=.feb0071af4be">captured</a> Rand’s philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.</p>
<h2>No sympathy for the poor</h2>
<p>In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rand’s language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, “Atlas Shrugged,” she <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=bVyCd7da8OcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=atlas+shrugged&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-j46L6O_SAhUIbiYKHaNtBkAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=brains&f=false">says</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rand’s is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html">Progressio Populorum</a>, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.</p>
<p>Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she <a href="http://en.liberpedia.org/Requiem_for_Man">says</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride – or pride and gratitude – the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Telling it like it is</h2>
<p>Why doesn’t Rand’s elitism turn off Republican voters? – or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone – like Trump – identifies with Rand’s protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope. </p>
<p>Why hasn’t news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?</p>
<p>The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2004-09-17-benedetto_x.htm">lauded</a> as “someone you could have a beer with.”</p>
<p>Trump has succeeded even better in this respect – he famously “tells it like it is,” his supporters like to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/halim-shebaya/trump-tells-it-like-it-is_b_9836974.html">say</a>. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trump’s relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly – if at all.</p>
<h2>Building one’s fortune</h2>
<p>This gets us closer to what’s going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they won’t change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way. </p>
<p>The principal virtue of a free market, Rand <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=bVyCd7da8OcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=atlas+shrugged&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-j46L6O_SAhUIbiYKHaNtBkAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=brains&f=false">explains</a>, is “that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements…” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163677/original/image-20170403-21960-ll8pim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ayn Rand opposed welfare for the poor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rationalthought/3447039194/in/photolist-6fAYEf-2LHfox-q2pXTF-gjjhVJ-bWWqA2-nRiJhR-5mVuLy-5XzZGN-nNgues-9uc559-9hctvL-vEQuL-7XApuC-cmAR6m-auGb3Q-aw56pr-9u8hac-q1RAFX-5VoL8M-9uauU6-7NfTkX-dX6zSh-8kjZ2o-87pbGm-6GjTr5-iGKia-fn4ft-6tn5y1-9u9Djg-5gn7jS-9hC4Li-6uZdMo-azhFHE-7AZbBp-dhh6C5-dfrMXk-aE7n5T-2n1eo-99TH2K-gZkBS-9amayy-5xdaz6-W2J7F-4pezyh-dhfTxr-qXDjr8-8FL8C3-rU6n6h-7vWBwJ-qnWmD">Kevin Copps</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But they don’t lift the masses willingly or easily, she <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=bVyCd7da8OcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=atlas+shrugged&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-j46L6O_SAhUIbiYKHaNtBkAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=brains&f=false">says</a>: “While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.”</p>
<p>Like Rand, her followers – who populate the Trump administration – are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=eWZbq29waP8C&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=while+those+who+produce+and+provided+it+had+not+The+welfare+and+rights+of+the+producers+were+not+regarded+as+worthy+of+consideration+or+recognition.+This+is+the+most+damning+indictment+of+the+present+state+of+our+culture&source=bl&ots=NSWzyE6H5d&sig=TsH0VITbSHkdNfJHeBnflN0_bBY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij2PXcyoHTAhXD5CYKHXxSBWoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=damning&f=false">complains</a> about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist – despite their allegiance to Rand – while Democrats are stuck with this title?</p>
<p>I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic.
They are more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/20/human-nature-politics-left-right">optimistic</a> about human nature – they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.</p>
<p>Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/political_correctness_as_a_tool_of_the_liberal_inquisition.html">feel bad</a> for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.</p>
<p>Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded naïve optimism. For in Rand’s world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She <a href="http://en.liberpedia.org/Requiem_for_Man">heaps scorn</a> on the poor billions, whom “civilized men” are prodded to help.</p>
<p>The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery. </p>
<p>To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rand’s thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74739/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite promises to rural working class, a philosopher argues, the Republican Party is still under the influence of the elitism of novelist Ayn Rand.Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727152017-02-13T14:26:23Z2017-02-13T14:26:23ZWhat Plato can teach you about finding a soulmate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156392/original/image-20170210-23350-1mxd5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>In the beginning, humans were androgynous. So says Aristophanes in his fantastical account of the origins of love in Plato’s <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VV2wFhaVDBsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">Symposium.</a></p>
<p>Not only did early humans have both sets of sexual organs, Aristophanes reports, but they were outfitted with two faces, four hands, and four legs. These monstrosities were very fast – moving by way of cartwheels – and they were also quite powerful. So powerful, in fact, that the gods were nervous for their dominion.</p>
<p>Wanting to weaken the humans, Zeus, Greek king of Gods, decided to cut each in two, and commanded his son Apollo “to turn its face…towards the wound so that each person would see that he’d been cut and keep better order.” If, however, the humans continued to pose a threat, Zeus <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VV2wFhaVDBsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=hopping&f=false">promised</a> to cut them again – “and they’ll have to make their way on one leg, hopping!”</p>
<p>The severed humans were a miserable lot, Aristophanes <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VV2wFhaVDBsC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=longed&f=false">says</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[Each] one longed for its other half, and so they would throw their arms about each other, weaving themselves together, wanting to grow together.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, Zeus, moved by pity, decided to turn their sexual organs to the front, so they might achieve some satisfaction in embracing.</p>
<p>Apparently, he initially neglected to do so, and, Aristophanes <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VV2wFhaVDBsC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=cicadas&f=false">explains</a>, the severed humans had “cast seed and made children, not in one another, but in the ground, like cicadas.” (a family of insects)</p>
<p>So goes Aristophanes’ contribution to the Symposium, where Plato’s characters take turns composing speeches about love – interspersed with heavy drinking.</p>
<p>It is no mistake that Plato gives Aristophanes the most outlandish of speeches. He was the famous comic playwright of Athens, responsible for bawdy fare like <a href="http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Lysistrata.htm">Lysistrata</a>, where the women of Greece “go on strike” and refuse sex to their husbands until they stop warring.</p>
<p>What does Aristophanes’ speech have to do with love?</p>
<h2>Is love a cure for our “wound?”</h2>
<p>Aristophanes says his speech explains “the source of our desire to love each other.” He <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=VV2wFhaVDBsC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=tries%20to%20make%20one%20out%20of%20two%20and%20heal%20the%20wound%20of%20human%20nature&f=false">says</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Love is born into every human being; it calls back the halves of our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two and heal the wound of human nature. Each of us, then, is a ‘matching half’ of a human whole…and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This diagnosis should sound familiar to our ears. It’s the notion of love engrained deep in the American consciousness, inspiring Hallmark writers and Hollywood producers alike – imparted with each Romantic Comedy on offer.</p>
<p>Love is the discovery of one’s soulmate, we like to say; it is to find your other half – the person who completes me, as <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-towering-narcissism-of-jerry-maguire">Jerry Maguire</a>, Tom Cruise’s smitten sports agent, so famously put it.</p>
<p>As a philosopher, I am always amazed how Plato’s account here, uttered by Aristophanes, uncannily evokes our very modern view of love. It is a profoundly moving, beautiful, and wistful account. </p>
<p>As Aristophanes depicts it, we may see love as the cure for our wound, or the “wound of human nature.” So, what is this wound? On one hand, of course, Aristophanes means something quite literal: the wound perpetrated by Zeus. But for philosophers, talk of a “wound of human nature” suggests so much more.</p>
<h2>Why do we seek love?</h2>
<p>Humans are inherently wounded, the Greek philosophers agreed. At the very least, they concluded, we are prone to fatal habits, seemingly engrained in our nature.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156396/original/image-20170210-23337-1qkxr89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greek Goddess of Love, Aphrodite.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=gMIiM5p57KbIUNYvKKiSgw-1-33">Aphrodite image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Humans insist on looking for satisfaction in things that cannot provide real or lasting fulfillment. These false lures include material goods, also power, and fame, Aristotle <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html">explained</a>. A life devoted to any of these goals becomes quite miserable and empty.</p>
<p>Christian philosophers, led by Augustine, accepted this diagnosis, and <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3296/3296-h/3296-h.htm">added</a> a theological twist. Pursuit of material goods is evidence of the Fall, and symptomatic of our sinful nature. Thus, we are like aliens here in this world – or as the Medievals would put it, pilgrims, on the way to a supernatural destination.</p>
<p>Humans seek to satisfy desire in worldly things, Augustine <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3296/3296-h/3296-h.htm">says</a>, but are doomed, because we bear a kernel of the infinite within us. Thus, finite things cannot fulfill. We are made in the image of God, and our infinite desire can only be satisfied by the infinite nature of God.</p>
<p>In the 17th century, French philosopher Blaise Pascal <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm">offered</a> an account of the wound of our nature more in tune with secular sensibilities. He claimed that the source of our sins and vices lay in our inability to sit still, be alone with ourselves, and ponder the unknowable.</p>
<p>We seek out troublesome diversions like war, inebriation or gambling to preoccupy the mind and block out distressing thoughts that seep in: perhaps we are alone in the universe – perhaps we are adrift on this tiny rock, in an infinite expanse of space and time, with no friendly forces looking down on us.</p>
<p>The wound of our nature is the existential condition, Pascal suggests: thanks to the utter uncertainty of our situation, which no science can answer or resolve, we perpetually teeter on the brink of anxiety – or despair.</p>
<h2>Is love an answer to life’s problems?</h2>
<p>Returning to Plato’s proposition, issued through Aristophanes: how many view romantic love as the answer to life’s problems? How many expect or hope that love will heal the “wound” of our nature and give meaning to life?</p>
<p>I suspect many do: our culture practically decrees it.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156397/original/image-20170210-23361-kk2eee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is romantic love an answer to life’s problems?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnylcy/8522901355/in/photolist-dZ96D6-PAJsY-3f9uAJ-d1D8rL-aoJVAg-4mP5Zo-9mcakh-9fTvLD-64pY5E-nDSPHj-c6yJ1s-ddtcfy-3oYpMW-HjCjC-asuKVc-8M91YC-9HVwAr-N23oZ-64sSdo-a2QrC8-6mrQB7-bo96ni-9mca9Q-38Y23J-aqRUju-7xwhqp-76DFrq-dMAWYZ-9zLxe-n9uF9o-kY2SX-arGAJn-9vpW1g-6Z84yk-4kqXga-7Lukut-5L2kwM-fuzerY-8hWM3c-2Qwvso-emWdnu-hnnUvt-7LyBV9-8M91N5-8Ck3qM-7LyiPS-ajWo2i-imaoJP-qCTDuM-3f7Ws7">Johnny Lai</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Your soulmate, Hollywood says, may take a surprising, unexpected form – she may seem your opposite, but you are inexplicably attracted nonetheless. Alternately, your beloved may appear to be initially boorish or aloof. But you find him to be secretly sweet.</p>
<p>Hollywood films typically ends once the romantic heroes find their soulmates, offering no glimpse of life post-wedding bliss, when kids and work close in – the real test of love.</p>
<p>Aristophanes places demands and expectations on love that are quite extreme.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[When] a person meets the half that is his very own,” he exclaims, “something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don’t want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment. These are people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is they want from one another.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This sounds miraculous and alluring, but Plato doesn’t believe it. Which is why he couches it in Aristophanes’ satirical story. In short: it’s all quite mythical.</p>
<h2>Does true love exist?</h2>
<p>The notion of “soulmate,” implies that there is but one person in the universe who is your match, one person in creation who completes you – whom you will recognize in a flash of lightening. </p>
<p>What if in your search for true love, you cast about waiting or expecting to be star-struck – in vain? What if there isn’t a perfect partner that you’re waiting for? </p>
<p>Is this one reason why, as the Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/">reports</a>, we see a record number of unmarried Americans?</p>
<p>Alternately, what if you dive into a relationship, marriage even, expecting the luster and satiation to endure, but it does not, and gives way to…ordinary life, where the ordinary questions and doubts and dissatisfactions of life reemerge and linger?</p>
<p>In his book <a href="http://thepenguinpress.com/book/modern-romance/">Modern Romance</a>, actor and comedian <a href="http://azizansari.com/">Aziz Ansari</a> tells of a wedding he attended that could have been staged by Aristophanes himself:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The vows…were powerful. They were saying the most remarkable things about each other. Things like ‘You are a prism that takes the light of life and turns it into a rainbow’…” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The vows, Ansari explains, were so exultant, so lofty and transcendent, that “four different couples broke up, supposedly because they didn’t feel they had the love that was expressed in those vows.”</p>
<h2>Enduring love is more mundane</h2>
<p>Love is not the solution to life’s problems, as anyone who has been in love can attest. Romance is often the start of many headaches and heartaches. And why put such a burden on another person in the first place?</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156422/original/image-20170210-23347-dbeqzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">True love is more mundane.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/556423318?src=4HvJd4XDMU2SfB-va30bQg-2-54&size=huge_jpg">Couple image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It seems unfair. Why look to your partner to heal an existential wound – to heal your soul? This is an immense responsibility no mere mortal can address. </p>
<p>I accept the backhanded critique Plato offers here through Aristophanes. Though I am hardly an expert on the matter, I have found his message quite accurate in this respect: true love is far more mundane.</p>
<p>I should specify: true love is mundane in its origins, if not in its conclusion. That is to say, true love is not discovered all of a sudden, at first sight, but rather, it’s the product of immense work, constant attention, and sacrifice.</p>
<p>Love is not the solution to life’s problems, but it certainly makes them more bearable, and the entire process more enjoyable. If soulmates exist, they are made and fashioned, after a lifetime partnership, a lifetime shared dealing with common duties, enduring pain, and of course, knowing joy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Romantic love is seen as the answer to life’s problems, when it could often be the start of many headaches and heartaches. So, what is true love?Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/708962017-01-10T02:00:48Z2017-01-10T02:00:48ZRule by the lowest common denominator? It’s baked into democracy’s design<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152249/original/image-20170110-29003-1ikmaby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thousands of people listen to President-elect Donald Trump speak in Orlando, Florida on Dec. 16, 2016. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Willie J. Allen Jr.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump victory, and the general disaster for Democrats this year, was the victory of ignorance, critics moan. </p>
<p>Writing in <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/">Foreign Policy</a>, Georgetown’s Jason Brennan called it “the dance of the dunces” and wrote that “Trump owes his victory to the uninformed.” </p>
<p>New York Times columnist Neil Irwin noted the unprecedented list of inexperts and political novices filling out Trump’s administration. These include Chicago Cubs owner Todd Ricketts as deputy secretary of the Commerce Department. Irwin <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/upshot/donald-trump-is-betting-that-policy-expertise-doesnt-matter.html">observes</a> that “the Trump transition’s news release announcing the appointment cites the Ricketts family’s success in building the Cubs into a World Series winner.” This has led to a steady stream of apocalyptic warnings from Irwin’s colleague, the esteemed economist Paul Krugman, who, among other things, has declared this is “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html">How Republics End.</a>” </p>
<p>For liberals, Trump’s victory was the triumph of prejudice, bigotry and forces allied against truth and expertise in politics, science and culture at large. Trump brandishes unconcern for traditional political wisdom and protocol – much less facts – like a badge of honor, and his admirers roar with glee. His now famous rallies, the chastened media report, are often scary, sometimes giving way to violence, sometimes threatening to spark broader recriminations and social mayhem. This is a glimpse of how tyrants rise to power, some political minds worry; this is how tyrants enlist the support of rabid masses, and get them to do their bidding. </p>
<p>For the contemporary French philosopher Jacques Rancière, however, the Trump victory provides a useful reminder of the essential nature of democracy – a reminder of what precisely makes it vibrant. And liable to lapse into tyranny at once. </p>
<h2>Rule by the rabble</h2>
<p>In “The Republic,” Plato says that democracy and tyranny are <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html">natural bedfellows</a>. Among the various types of political constitutions he ranks, aristocracy is at the top – specifically, a government ruled by philosopher kings. A more realistic goal is timocracy, or military rule, which is preferable to oligarchy, or rule by the rich. At the bottom of Plato’s list are democracy and tyranny. Democracy giving way to tyranny is the logical transition – and constant flirtation, according to Plato.</p>
<p>Democracy is rule by the rabble, in Plato’s view. It is the rule by the lowest common denominator. In a democracy, passions are inflamed and proliferate. Certain individuals may take advantage of and channel the storm of ignorance, Plato feared, and consolidate power out of a desire to serve their own interests.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152028/original/image-20170107-18650-1kaf3ir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jacques Rancière.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Ranciere,_Jacques_-UV_fRF02.jpg">Rodrigo Fernández</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Rancière <a href="http://www.oddweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ranci%C4%8Dre-Hatred-of-Democracy.pdf">explains</a>, there is a “scandal of democracy” for Plato: The best and the high born “must bow before the law of chance” and submit to the rule of the inexpert, the commoner, who knows little about politics or much else. </p>
<p>Merit ought to decide who rules, in Plato’s account. But democracy consigns such logic to the dustbin. The rabble may decide they want to be ruled by one of their own – and electoral conditions may favor them. Democracy makes it possible that someone who has no business ruling lands at the top. His rule may prove treacherous, and risk dooming the state. But, Rancière argues, this is a risk democracies must take. Without it, they lack legitimacy.</p>
<h2>The necessity of chance</h2>
<p>Rancière maintains people more happily suffer authority ascribed by chance than authority consigned by birth, merit or expertise. Liberals may be surprised about this last point. According to Rancière, expertise is no reliable, lasting or secure basis for authority. In fact, expertise soon loses authority, and with it, the legitimacy of the state. </p>
<p>Why? </p>
<p>For one thing, voters know that experts are not superhuman. They are liable to temptation and greed – including the desire for power. Experts still make mistakes. They should not be heeded instinctively, and unquestioningly trusted with power, but suspected because they feel entitled. </p>
<p>What abuses of power might their sense of entitlement allow, especially when they look down their noses at the boorish masses? What’s more, in a state like ours, where the people are accustomed to freedom, they will instinctively bridle at the notion that they should defer to those who know simply because they know. </p>
<p>In a state devoted to upholding the principle of equality – as a democracy does – chance is the proper and only foundation of authority. As such, Rancière maintains, liberal critics of democracy have lost faith in equality – if they had it to begin with. These critics reveal they don’t really believe in equality, and the equal chance to rule, but think themselves superior. </p>
<p>But they must deign submit to the rule of Donald Trumps, on occasion, who cavort with reality TV stars and flirt with shirtless autocrats. Ironically, Rancière maintains, if we fail to affirm our essential equality, the notion that anyone can rule – even a man with the distinctly un-American name Barack Hussein Obama – then government lacks requisite authority. That is to say, it lacks requisite respect from the people, who, in this democracy, still believe anything is possible; people who believe the system is still fluid, and not irreparably corrupted. Anyone can rise to temporarily occupy the office of the president.</p>
<p>Expertise ossifies into entitlement, if not in the eyes of officeholders, then surely in the eyes of the ruled. For many, Hillary Clinton represented such reprehensible, and corrupted, entitlement. The rule of chance built into democracy, provided it is honored and active, destroys entitlement periodically. This is the necessary lifeblood of democracy, Rancière suggests. </p>
<p>In that light, the Trump victory may prove to reaffirm our democracy – though that hardly seems his intent – by energizing all its participants, those encouraged by the election and those terrified by it. And democracy is only properly vibrant if everyone is engaged, invested and paying attention. When this is not the case, and we cede control to experts, that is aristocracy. </p>
<p>Rancière is no fan of Plato’s disdain for democracy, but he agrees that democracy necessarily runs the risk of slipping into tyranny. The point for Rancière is that there is no other option. Chance is the most enduring foundation of governmental legitimacy and authority. All other bases of authority, like violence, persuasion – wealth and expertise – wear out, and then states die. </p>
<p>Chance may deliver hungry autocrats and pliable masses, on occasion – but this is a sign that democracy is operating as it should. This is, Rancière wants us to know, its natural course. Liberals, bemoaning the triumph of ignorance, would do well to recognize this, stop their hand-wringing and double down on opposition. If some decide they cannot abide the dunces, turn away in disgust, cede control or flee the scene, then tyranny is their just desert.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70896/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is Donald Trump’s election a sign that something is wrong with our democracy? A philosopher argues that just the opposite is true.Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527392016-01-21T10:48:38Z2016-01-21T10:48:38ZThe Bundys think they are preserving democracy by occupying Oregon’s Malheur refuge, but they are undermining it<p>What’s motivating the armed protesters who occupied Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last week?</p>
<p>A local sheriff explained it <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-militia-oregon-20160103-story.html">this way:</a> they came</p>
<blockquote>
<p>claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers. In reality, [they] had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ammon Bundy, a leader of the protesters, named their group “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.” He <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ammon-bundy-ranchers-rights-protesters-occupy-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-n489311">described</a> their cause this way: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The United States Justice Department has no jurisdiction or authority within the state of Oregon, county of Harney over this type of ranch management. These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce … and Congress does not have unlimited power.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bundy and his supporters – with guns in tow – want to challenge what they see as government overreach. They believe their method of protest is firmly American and patriotic, reminiscent of armed protests against government tyranny in the Revolutionary War. Some protesters have even donned Colonial garb to underline this point. But as someone who has studied the philosophical foundations of the Second Amendment, I would argue that their actions are detrimental to our democracy.</p>
<h2>The right to shoot tyrants</h2>
<p>The protesters have been eager to play up the air of civilian rebellion. Bundy <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/">spoke</a> of liberating the land for people to use “without fear as free men and women.”</p>
<p>Ammon’s brother Ryan <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-ammon-ryan-bundy-activists-leading-oregon-standoff-n489766">called</a> the government’s restrictions on ranchers using federal land “an example of terrorism.” </p>
<p>Their firearms are what makes this an occupation and lent it that air of civilian rebellion. The Bundys and their followers are exercising the main purpose of the Second Amendment, according to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/08/176350364/fears-of-government-tyranny-push-some-to-reject-gun-control">many</a> in the gun rights movement.</p>
<p>Soon after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, when the forces of gun control were mobilizing, Washington Times commentator Andrew Napolitano <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/">wrote</a>, “the historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and … to shoot at them effectively.”</p>
<p>This notion lends a certain nobility to the gun rights movement. The movement sees itself as standing up for democracy. Widespread civilian gun ownership ensures the integrity of our democracy. It ensures that the people remain sovereign, as our founders intended. The “right to shoot tyrants,” as Napolitano put it, warns our leaders away from the temptation of governing too oppressively.</p>
<h2>Part of our DNA</h2>
<p>The modern gun rights movement cites English philosopher John Locke as an intellectual inspiration – a fortuitous link, since our Founding Fathers also drew on Locke in composing our founding documents. Guns are deeply inscribed in our nation’s DNA. </p>
<p>Gun rights advocates believe Locke is in their corner because he accords citizens a inviolable right of self-defense, which also extends to one’s property. </p>
<p>I have <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/locke-and-load-the-fatal-error-of-the-stand-your-ground-philosophy/?_r=0">argued</a> elsewhere, however, that the modern gun rights movement is too expansive in its conception of self-defense, even applying it to controversial Stand Your Ground laws. </p>
<p>Locke is clear that once government is convened by means of a social contract, individuals largely transfer their right of self-defense to the state. This is to avoid self-defense bleeding into vigilantism, and then war. Such a transfer is the very mark of civil society. </p>
<p>But gun rights advocates admire Locke because he sanctions the citizens’ right to dissolve government – and to use their guns to do it. Locke <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr11.htm">expresses a concern</a> that disarming subjects may enable the ruler to “make prey on them when he pleases.” The Oregon protesters would likely say they are doing Locke’s will – they are taking a stand, guns in hand, and will not be pushed around by the government any longer.</p>
<p>Locke <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm">sees</a> two primary cases where such a rebellion is justified: </p>
<ol>
<li>when a lawmaker alters the laws without consultation or consent of the people and “sets up his own Arbitrary will in place of laws,” and </li>
<li>when he aims to destroy or lay claim to their property or persons. </li>
</ol>
<h2>A tremendous risk</h2>
<p>The Oregon protesters would likely see their protest as fitting Locke’s criteria.</p>
<p>Ammon Bundy says the government is not abiding by the laws that the people have approved. His allies also believe the government, in mandating a slew of onerous regulations over federal land management, is denying them their livelihood, threatening their persons and well-being. </p>
<p>Of course, people may say that a lot of complaints against the government meet Locke’s conditions. They might – and do – call any number of government actions “tyranny.” Locke would not be surprised. He anticipated that critics would say his “hypothesis lays the ferment for frequent rebellion.”</p>
<p>But Locke was not worried. He <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm">explained</a> that people will not be quick to rebel over every little complaint, but only for “a long train of abuses.” Why? Because rebellion is no trivial matter; it carries tremendous risks, including the demise of the state and civil society, and a possible return to the anarchy of a state of nature. </p>
<p>Locke <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm">maintained</a> the right to rebellion is itself “the best fence against rebellion.” Simply knowing that the people retain this right, our elected officials will resist bad behavior. </p>
<p>More importantly, Locke said, the people must be careful in how they wield the right to rebel. It is treacherous and foolish for citizens to invoke the threat of rebellion often, or casually, or for minor and isolated complaints. Locke <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm">warned</a> those in power have the “temptation of force … and the flattery of those around them.” </p>
<p>Threats of rebellion may cause our leaders to worry about their self-preservation and provoke a violent response.</p>
<h2>Tempting a tiger</h2>
<p>These are somber words for gun rights advocates eager to justify the Second Amendment on the basis of supposed government tyranny, especially considering the “temptation of force” in the hands of the U.S. government.</p>
<p>Indeed, we have seen the government succumb to this temptation when police forces, whom the Department of Homeland Security has showered with military-grade equipment, deployed equipment to dispel protests in heavy-handed fashion, as in <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-the-shocking-nature-of-us-police-militarization">Ferguson</a>, Missouri and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-clear-zuccotti-park-with-show-of-force-bright-lights-and-loudspeakers.html?_r=0">Zuccotti Park</a> in Manhattan.</p>
<p>Recurring threats of rebellion tell the government that a portion of the electorate is seriously contemplating violence – and it must be prepared to respond in turn. After all, Timothy McVeigh acted on his antigovernment sentiments. Our government cannot afford to take the threats of insurrectionists and antigovernment folk lightly. </p>
<p>The gun rights advocates may make their predictions come true. They fret about tyrannical government, but by waving their guns threateningly, by frequently citing the right to rebel, they invite the government to respond with force. The government has been restrained thus far in dealing with Malheur, but as Locke argues, insurrection encourages the government to be oppressive and act outside the law. </p>
<p>Martin Luther King Jr. understood democracy far better when, from the Birmingham jail, he <a href="https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html">wrote</a>, “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly,” for in so doing, he expresses “the highest regard for law.” </p>
<p>The genius of unarmed protest is that it compels our leaders to behave and respond lawfully. King proved how effective nonviolent protest can be. The Oregon protesters would do well to ponder his example.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52739/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Firmin DeBrabander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The notion of civil rebellion – like the one at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge – is at the heart of the Second Amendment. But so is the idea that such rebellions should not be undertaken lightly.Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of ArtLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.