Unless you have been living under a rock, the mass media have been lamenting the “death” of democracy since President Donald J. Trump’s ascendancy to the White House in 2016. While I agree that Trump has repeatedly tested the constitutional limits of presidential authority, and his administration has attempted to shift powers traditionally exercised by Congress, states, courts, independent agencies, and civil society toward the presidency, the story is far more complicated than his detractors claim. While many of my friends publicly proclaim that they will rejoice in his death, or at very least, in a Blue Wave in the November midterm elections, I assert that the decline of America’s democracy is more complicated than blaming President Trump for it. In keeping with my love of Plato and Greek philosophy, I would like to pose the following question: Is a political system good because it gives people the ability to choose their rulers, or because it reliably produces competent, virtuous rulers who govern in the people’s interests? If you chose the second option, you have more in common with Plato and the Chinese Communist Party than you might have realized. Modern democracy assumes that the ability to choose and remove our rulers is the foundation of good government. Still, Plato’s Republic challenges that assumption by asking a more fundamental question: what if the quality of government depends less on how rulers are chosen than on whether those who rule possess the knowledge, character, and commitment to the common good necessary to govern well? Plato’s philosopher-kings may be impossible to reproduce in the modern world. Still, their radical emphasis on competence, virtue, education, and self-denial forces us to confront an uncomfortable possibility: a political system can be democratic in procedure yet fail in its ultimate purpose if its leaders repeatedly put their own interests above those of the people they govern.

​Whether we speak of the United States of the past, currently, or Plato’s Republic, the elites who set economic and foreign policy believed that political action and democracy are not the business of ordinary people. As Thomas Jefferson asserted in his 1813 letter to John Adams, there is a natural aristocracy. Some individuals wield more authority and respect in society because of their superior intellect, bravery, or some combination of both. Of course, in Plato’s Republic, the idea that individuals lacked the intelligence, knowledge, and temperament needed to govern made the masses unfit to govern. Yet, democracy gave them the right to govern, which Plato found unacceptable. In regard to democracy, since when is majority opinion on an issue the best way to ascertain the most accurate answer? Imagine that I suddenly developed severe chest pains. I would not call everyone in my circle and ask for their opinion about what might be wrong. I would not consult my mechanic, my postman, my girlfriend, or the guy at the coffee shop. I would go to a cardiologist because the cardiologist has spent years acquiring specialized knowledge about the human heart that I do not possess. I would trust an expert precisely because I recognize the limits of my own knowledge.

In principle, representative government works on much the same idea. We cannot possibly be experts on everything required to govern a modern nation. We do not have the time or expertise to understand foreign policy, monetary policy, military strategy, constitutional law, taxation, trade, or thousands of other complicated issues. So instead of voting directly on every question, we elect people whom we believe are better equipped to study these matters, debate them, and make decisions on our behalf.

The problem is that political representatives are not cardiologists. They are human beings with ambitions, interests, egos, and weaknesses. The very people we entrust with enormous power can become corrupted by money, political influence,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)