Michael Maiello's picture

    Bloomberg, Syria and the Wisdom Of People

    On another blog I got into a bit of a dust-up on Syria.  While not really advocating for anything, I asked the writer, some one recommended high by Princeton foreign affairs pundit Anne Marie Slaughter on Twitter, why he wasn't giving much weight to the idea the fact that American voters from both parties were mildly to intensely against military intervention in Syria.  I laid out the usual concessions to the nature of a Democratic Republic and the problems inherent in foreign policy by opinion poll but still, I insisted (and insist) the public appetite for something like this should carry some weight.

    The blogger answered, with reference to American Idol, that American voters are not sufficiently informed or interested to have a legitimate opinion on the topic.  The guy is a thoughtful writer and is fun to debate with.  This was one of several friendly back and forths between us.  In this case, I would say that his response seemed both sincere but uncharacteristic.

    I've been thinking about this in light of our discussion with contributor Tim Danahey in which we confronted the issue of the American Sheeple.  There is a tendency that I freely admit to indulging, to assume that our ideological opponents are uninformed, corrupt, duped or simply not courageous enough to stand apart from whatever herd they happen to have mingled with through choice or circumstance.  I think this is a method of argument that we learn as children.  I look forward to identifying it when my son grows old enough to tell me that "I just don't understand," whatever it is I'm doing wrong.

    Deep down, this assumption lurks within our brains.  If only other people understood the world, they would see it the way I do.  If only people could see things as they should be, I would be writing a twice weekly op-ed for The New York Times and Thomas Friedman would be a midlevel marketing person at an investment boutique.  But enough about me.  Let's talk about how to think more like me.

    Jonathan Chait has a wonderful piece in New York about the national failure of Bloombergian political thought even as the man behind it has succeeded stunningly as mayor of New York City.  Bloomberg, a businessman turned politician, is an evidence-based technocrat.

    "In a valedictory interview with the Atlantic, Bloomberg uttered the single phrase that best encapsulates his worldview. Following the polls, he said, is not only “not ethical” but ineffective politics, “because people aren’t good at describing what is in their own interest.” They need the Bloombergs of the world to scrutinize the data on their behalf and figure out what is in their interest. And then, even if he does something for them that they think they don’t want, they’ll appreciate him in the end."

    This does happen.  Sometimes, we need leaders to tell us what's best for us and to be brave enough to tell us that what we want might not be what we think it is.  Before your kid tells you, "you just don't understand," they tell you that they only want to eat oatmeal, every meal, for a week straight.  You have to disabuse them of that.

    Bloomberg's chosen successor, Christine Quinn, placed third in the Democratic primary, largely because she alienated the city by helping Bloomberg temporarily change the charter so that he could have a third term (and then change it back so that nobody else ever could.  As much as New Yorkers liked Bloomberg's results, they always resented that move (even though they re-elected him a third time, in a close election).  Quinn was punished for her role in Bloomberg's maneuver.

    Chait describes Bloomberg as exasperated by questions of propriety about his third term gambit:

    "Did suspending the rules to keep the boss in power have the whiff of Huey Long? Should the process by which Bloomberg went about securing his third term be weighed at all against the potential substantive benefits? The question exasperated him. The only thing that mattered was that the city would wind up with him running it rather than an inferior successor."

    Now, Bloomberg is using his money to advance pet causes on a national scale and he is so far failing at it.  As he throws money at pro gun control candidates in states and districts where he has little if any personal connection, Bloomberg is being painted by his opponents as an outside meddler trying to buy elections and control the heartland from the Gomorra of the East.  Ironically, the Koch Brothers (also New Yorkers!) can contribute to the other side of the same races with impunity.  But the Kochs are making a Libertarian deal that people can live with (you keep your guns, we'll take the money) while Bloomberg is the stranger showing up to say, "let me tell you how to live your life."  It's as if Bloomberg were a door-to-door religious proseletyzer accept when you close the door on him he buys the house across the street so that he can keep showing up on your lawn every day.

    Cut off from politics, Bloomberg will likely move to influence the nation through his philanthropy.  It is huge, uncontrolled and possibly dangerous for democracy. Says Chait:

    "Bloomberg’s fortune is of such a massive scale that his direct campaign spending—outspending his mayoral opponents by first a three-to-one, then an eight-to-one, then a ten-to-one ratio—doesn’t even capture its full effect. Bloomberg’s charitable donations create a sector of their own, serving as a form of private patronage."

    Ultimately, what will keep Bloomberg in his place is the fact that people do not like to be told what to do and that in America, while people expect their leaders to weigh the evidence, they also believe that public opinion counts as a relevant input.

    Now, it may be that in aggregate, the priorities of people are worthy of criticism.  They might care more about their own lives than the lives of Syrians and they might rather watch entertainment programming than The News Hour on PBS.  At the same time, the reason they make different wine varietals is that you have a terrible palate.  Some people think Americans should bone up on their math and science.  Others say they should know more about world affairs and economics.  Maybe I think they don't know enough about poetry.

    None of these judgments really matter.  The people know what they know, will learn what they will learn and they will drawn conclusions.  It does little good to ignore this and no good at all to dismiss them as dupes, sheep, or hopelessly ignorant.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    What a good blog, Michael. Interesting, informative and avec the personal vignettes. A great model to follow.


    As a counter-point, I strongly applaud the Kentucky governor's decision to adopt an evolution-friendly science curriculum against the apparent will of his constituency.

    Kentucky was one of the states involved in crafting the Next Generation Science Standards, and its school board approved them earlier this year. But that approval came despite a significant public outcry, with people objecting to the standards' content on evolution on religious grounds and calling the whole approach of setting education standards both fascism and socialism.


    That's an excellent counterpoint.  What do you do when the popular will, such as it is, defies science?  We kind of know that science tends to win out in the end.  The facts on the ground, so to speak, have a way of asserting themselves.  Your unvaccinated children are not in less danger because of your fervent belief in your cause.  Evolution won't go away just because you want it to.

    There's another New York article I wanted to reference above, may as well do it here -- it's written by a TV critic looking back 20 years on their time watching The X-Files.  The takeaway is that in the 90s there was something affirming and charming about Fox Mulder's hunches, intuitions and fervent beliefs triumphing over the "science" in the show.  Science represented establishment thinking and was a tool conspirators used to hide the truth.

    In the time since The X-Files, all sorts of dangerous truth movements have spawned, from the Obama citizenship deniers to the 9/11 Truthers (weren't they once the primary hurlers of the "sheeple" accusation?) and the Glenn Beckian apocalyptic gold bugs.  Now Mulder is not so charming because we have to defend Scully against the climate change deniers, the evolution deniers, the anti-vaxxers, etc.

    So, yes, to your point, facts matter.


    I've been struggling with this issue in my book, coincidentally. My two protagonists, Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette were on opposite sides of this question.

    Senator La Follette, who was sort of a cross between Bill De Blasio and Wendy Davis, was the driving force behind the electoral primary system, ballot initiatives, recall elections, and the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. senators). He believed that under true democracy, people would naturally embrace enlightened progressive ideas.

    "This composite judgment is always safer and wiser and stronger and more unselfish than the judgment of any one individual mind," he said. "The people have never failed in any great crisis in our history. They have been betrayed by their representatives again and again. The real danger to democracy lies not in the ignorance or want of patriotism of the people, but in the corrupting influence of powerful business organizations upon the representatives of the people. The real cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."

    Roosevelt, though opposed to corporate interests, was much more elitist. "I do not represent public opinion," he said. "I represent the public. There is a wide difference between the two, between the real interests of the public and the public’s opinion of those interests."

    In reference to La Follette, he wrote, "I do most earnestly wish that he would make it clear that he does not go with those people who confound belief in the right of the majority to govern with servility toward the majority whether it goes right or wrong."

    La Follette didn't think much of a Roosevelt either. "He is not fundamentally democratic," he wrote. "His democracy is sentimental."

    I so want to side with La Follette on this matter. In his day, he was absolutely right. When the voting laws were reformed, it was like a dam broke and flooded the country with progressive reform. But in the past few years, we've seen plainly democratic institutions serve the right wing. Colorado is holding recall elections to punish gun control supporters. Ballot initiatives have been used legislate homophobic bigotry. Grassroots insurgents have tossed out party establishment favorites in true La Follette style, except that they have been scary right-wingers who would undo everything La Follette and his successors accomplished.


    I don't know if we can take a side.  La Follette makes an argument I also want to believe.  But popular opinion isn't always right.  Nothing ever is.  Rule by mob is a real possibility and the results would not be pretty.

    However, I wonder if La Follette just didn't take things too far.  It might be that the masses are not always right but that even so, they should be respected.  It might be that Roosevelt and Bloomberg are also right about their obligations to the public and not to the public's expressed desires but that they have no cause to ignore those desires and they should recognize that they at times risk assigning too little weight to public opinion.

    This is more art than science.  More often than not, progress means upending widely held beliefs.  But sometimes those who would do the upending are wrong.  Or, here's something else -- sometimes, when a group of people fervently believe something against evidence that you've determined is sound, you have to ask why they believe it.  Maybe the answer will be a surprise.  Maybe there's some unmet need.

    One way to look at this is elites vs. the hoi polloi.  So far, that's worked for Bloomberg in NYC but not nationally.  Those Colorado recalls are kind of his fault.  He's the outsider who poured antigun money into the state.  He pushed his opponents too far.  The thing about the masses is that they're hard to bully in a practical sense because they outnumber you.


    Well, we're operating from a different baseline. In LF's day, the parties were corrupt in a way that's hard to imagine now. Senators were elected by state legislatures, which were in turn elected by local caucuses overseen by the party bosses who delivered jobs to their supporters.

    On the other hand, corporate influence is still a big problem today. LF thought that if you get rid of the bosses, you defeat the corporations. But the bosses are long gone, while corporations have adapted themselves to a more democratic system. Instead of bribing state legislators, they pay for ad purchases.

    I would add that the LF took a long view. In his day, there were plenty of "hoi polloi" with conservative ideas, but he felt that education would eventually cure people of their ignorance. That was a bit simplistic, but maybe that's the way we should be thinking about this.


    Have you read Island of Vice, Theodore Roosevelt's Quest to Clean Up Sin-Loving New York, TR's years as Police Commissioner in NYC?

    The political and legal corruption in those days was huge, the GOP made TR Vice President to get rid of him, or so they thought.


    Thanks, NCD. I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with the history. The story of his path to the White House is fascinating.

    One of the interesting disagreements between TR and other progressives was his focus on "bad guys." In the NYPD, he tried to clean up the department by getting rid of the crooked cops. In the WH, he prosecuted the "bad" trusts, e.g. Standard Oil, but approved monopolies that he considered "good" trusts, e.g. U.S. Steel.

    The other progressive politicians and muckraking journalists thought his approach was misguided. They argued that the real problem was not immoral individuals but a rotten system that encouraged corruption. TR eventually came over to this way of thinking but not until his presidency was over.


    I am sorry but I cannot resist doing a Godwin's Law here! blush

    From Wikipedia "German presidential election, 1932" (the path to a nightmare voted in by "the masses" and what they did to prevent it from happening again) :

    The 1932 election was the second of only two presidential elections of the Weimar period. When the modern office of German Federal President was established in 1949, following the restoration of democracy in West Germany, it was decided that the president would be chosen indirectly by means of a Federal Convention consisting of parliamentarians and state delegates. To date, therefore, the 1932 election was the last occasion on which a direct presidential election has occurred in Germany.

    Other lovely things like Jim Crow were the result of "majority rules," too.

    Another much less serious example to lighten up this comment a bit. I watched parts of "Bride of Frankenstein" the other night. What I learned was that those townspeople,  though clearly unedujumcated about most things, seemed to know how to form a pretty wild mob in short order when they wanted to see some action on community standards. They were also highly prejudiced against the latest progressive science experiments going on nearby. Furthermore, local law enforcement worked in cahoots with and manipulated their mobs. wink


    Fair enough. Similar problems are also facing the Middle East today.

    To fair to LF, he certainly supported the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional protections against the tyranny of the majority. It was the outsized influence of powerful interests--mainly corporate interests--that disturbed him. He also believed that education would eventually cure the ignorance of the masses.


    It's Fronk-un-steen.

    Man, I'd like to go for a roll in the hay...


    Well yes Mike, that is all true. 

    There was no discussion with Danahey, he did not participate at all in his blog. He referred to us as sheeple and split the scene. I take that to mean he has no real defense of his thesis.  

    When Bloomberg and his pal Quinn decided to somehow circumvent the term limits attached to being mayor of NY, why did you all vote for him again? I still to this day don't get that.

    The labeling of elites, corporatists, sheeple, technocrats, etc and so on, is no place with which to begin a conversation. It is a great way to have a fight though! Did we learn that in elementary school? I don't know about that. These aren't names you would call someone you knew, to their face.  It's easy on the internet because you don't know people personally, so you can imagine all kinds of reasons to dislike them and it makes it easy to sling shit in their direction.


    OK, so I can't stand not participating and you can all make fun of me for not backing up my red line.  If I don't know who you are I really don't care what an avatar thinks of me.

    But, for the record, this sheeple proudly supported Bill Thompson when he ran against Bloomberg.  Bloomberg disrespects working people and was a lousy administrator to boot.  

    Next week I begin my third day of an impasse hearing on behalf of over 8,000 city registered nurses who haven't had a raise in more than seven years--and they treat everyone, even if they walk in with no identification.  Bloomberg leaves--the big shot--with more expired collective bargaining agreements than all of his predecessors combined. 

    Lots of folks love the dude--not me.  Good riddance Bloomberg.  Plus he's a Red Sox fan.


    NOT A RED SOX FAN! 

    Glad you stopped by! I am sure many people didn't vote for him, but sheesh, he should have been penalized by voters for breaking the term limit rules, but they didn't, it's weird.

    I hope those nurses get their raise Bruce, fight, fight, fight. Eight years without a raise, geez how many nurses quit working there because of that one sad fact. 


    I wrote more than I should have TMC, but it's all public record.  I cannot tell you how grateful I am that you stood with me, publicly and in private, last week.  I do not forget a friend.


    Mostly, I think people were afraid to change horses in the midst of the Financial Crisis. It's ironic -- Giuliani offered to stay on for more time after 9/11, a "favor" that Bloomberg rightly declined, but Bloomberg used the economic crisis to do the exact same thing and for a whole other term.  Again, these are the inconsistencies that don't bother Bloomberg.  He is all about results.


    Great post Michael, you have opened the door, however slightly,  on the failings  of a system that relies on a Capitalist  Ruling Class and an electoral system completely corrupted by Big Money. The Liberal Technocrats that direct our system barely recognize the people under them as human and laugh at the idea of them ruling themselves or even having much to with anything important besides lining up to fight their wars or vote for the pre-selected minders. Any time someone attempts to expose this degenerate system the straw-men march to the fore to obscure the forest and deflect the discussion. The evolution and gun control examples above are excellent examples even though they actually show how small well funded groups have outsized influence in our so called democracy.  No one should support policy dictated by polls, this is another straw-man, but if we could develop some form of direct democracy we could actually vote on critical issues like going to war or not going to war.


    The people know what they know, will learn what they will learn and they will drawn conclusions.  It does little good to ignore this and no good at all to dismiss them as dupes, sheep, or hopelessly ignorant.

    Who is 'ignoring this'? Exploiting them can be the principle scheme of a very profitable corporate business plan.


    Latest Comments