Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

This issue came up in an earlier thread. I found a description of Athenian democracy in Polybius recently, where he compares the Roman political system to that of several others from the Mediterranean world, all unfavorably, and thought I might quote it here as a possible device to start a thread on the pros and cons of grass-roots-dominated democracy...

[Ya-ta Boy]

The success of any form of government depends on the best minds rising to leadership positions.

The Athenians had the radically democratic notion that every citizen was just as capable as any other, so drew names out of a jar: a crap-shoot solution to the problem of government. On the other hand, monarchies and aristocracies leave the responsibility of selecting leaders up to the crap-shoot of genetics to produce the best possible leader. Then there's the ever-popular tyranny where the most ambitious shoot their way into power.

Conclusion: There is no Intelligent Design.

[Kuros]

That's a great selection from Polybius. The Athenians were a resilient people, and managed to stave off disaster after the fiasco of the Sicilian Expedition. But, when they prosecuted their commanders at the battle of Arginusae (406), the general populus behaved exactly as Polybius describes towards the generals.

Socrates served on the trial, and Plato's Gorgias obliquely references Socrates' 'blunder' with politics. But everyone should have listened to Socrates, as the best generals were forced to flee, and the Athenians lost their fleet while it was beached at Aegospotami (according to Xenophon's account).

The Athenians were always their own worst enemies.

Fast forward 25 hundred years to Iraq. We have here a fiasco, but I would argue that the generals are complicit, although the real blame lies with the civilian leadership. In this case, the American system is structured differently. There is no direct voting, and even Congress in their representative capacity is limited in their tactical mandates towards the Executive.

During the 2004 election, it was widely noted that the American people have always returned an incumbent during wartime to office. Bush was returned to office, although already evidence was beginning to emerge about the inefficacy and general incompetence of their leadership.

I don't know what to make of this, but it seems that Americans are very different from the description Polybius made of Athenians, and also that each democratic institution is very different.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Gopher]

[cerulean808]

Ya-ta Boy

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Gopher]

[Manner of Speaking]

I think the biggest problem with modern democracy - and I mean 'problem' in the sense of things that interfere with its efficient functioning - is the proliferation of agencies and and organizations whose sole purpose is to interfere with the smooth communication of ideas between the electorate and elected officials. In the time of athenian democracy, there were no advertising agencies, no media conglomerates, no 'research organizations' funded by wealthy ideologues, no mass-marketing organizations, no public opinion and market research companies. Elected leaders communicated much more directly with their electorate, and the electorate developed their ideas and came to a consensus on issues through common public debate...not by sitting down in front of a TV and letting someone else do their thinking for them.

And I'm not picking on the US here. I think this is a common problem in all liberal democracies. Yes, in Athenian times there were manipulators who were especially skilled in oratory and rhetoric, who could talk their fellow citizens into doing something. But at the same time, having good oratory skills was considered a desirable trait for any citizen to have. Oratory and rhetoric were essental components of the education of every citizen.

Let's face it: in all western democracies, nowadays there are countless cohorts of professional manipulators whose dedicated purpose is to prevent and surpress as much public discussion and participation in the public policy process as much as possible. Both on the right and on the left.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Manner of Speaking]

And by making people cynical about the whole process, the average citizen is made to feel there's not much point in participating, so they "drop out". And the more these professional spin doctors can persuade average people to drop out, the more they can accomplish their goals.

[Gopher]

All I might be able to add to what you two are saying is that I think we should not forget that, for lack of better words, if the people are being seduced by the "professional manipulators," etc., then that is certainly part of the dynamic which creates what might indeed be the negative spiral Ya-ta has referenced, above.

But it also seems to me that the people are willing participants in this, seeking opportunities to be seduced, as well as to seduce others -- even if they are disappointed with the process when it is explicitly pointed out to them.

Speaking of "professional manipulation," did anyone see the recent stories (barely getting airplay) on the photos of Rice in Rome?

Apparently, she was very recently featured in several papers and cable news networks in a photo that showed her to be tired, frustrated, and with her head bowed and her hand at her forehead, as if she were totally exhausted.

And that was the story that many media outlets ran: this is exhausting her and, by extension, the govt, and, by implication, we are all getting in way over our heads with the current crisis, which many in the media have been building up as the Third World War for some time now.

But when someone located and then showed video of her making this "frustrated" gesture on the stage, while speaking in Rome, it turns out that, in the video, she is alert and energetic the whole time, only, for a fraction of a second, she brushes her hair out of her face and, of course, everyone snaps photos anytime someone like her moves, in any direction -- thus, this "frustrated" Rice image appeared and was selected over many others for the headline story on the negotiations in Rome.

CNN showed the video next to several of the headline stories, featuring the photo, to several people walking in the street, and asked them how they felt about it. "Press manipulation" was the most common phrase I heard.

In response, media like USA Today and CNN.com, and others, explained that the public buys dramatic imagery and that is what they look for when shopping for news photography...and they said that the photo captured how they viewed and interpreted the story anyway...

But that begs the question: who gets to decide what we should think about what is going on in high-level meetings like these in Rome (and a million other things that we need to know about and discuss)? So if these spin-doctors are "preventing" or "suppressing" data-based discusions, as Manner of Speaking suggests, I would add that they are also actively shaping the very data -- even superimposing imagery in some cases -- to ensure their point is clear.