• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revolt of the Masses

Is the Revolt of the Masses an Accurate Picture of Society

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • No

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • Other/In Between

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Total voters
    21
I absolutely agree. I'm frankly not even an especially great fan of "Democracy" as a general concept in the way it is currently practiced by the Western World. It basically revolves entirely around hordes of ignorant louts who can't see six inches beyond their own noses shouting "gimme!" up at government officials, and voting for whichever demagogue looks prettiest on TV and promises to give them the heftiest handout (regardless of whether they actually deliver on it or not).

There should really be some sort mechanism in place to hone the electorate down to (mostly) only those individuals who are actually qualified to intelligently discuss and understand the issues affecting national level policy; a licensing or accrediation process, of sorts.

The issue with that type of process is tha those who are deemed to be qualified tend to ensure they have benifits from the government or restrict the rights of other groups they may not like. This has been seen in the US, the rights of women, blacks (and other minorities) have been restricted during thimes when voting rights have been restricted. Womens rights have been quite restictive in the past, only to expand after they gained the right to vote. How long have african americans rights been restricted, how long have their voting rights been resticted? When did the rights of Blacks start to improve, around the same time as the ability to vote was improved.

In China the people who get to vote on the government (Communist party members of which there are I believe around 6 million perhaps double that, tend to use that power to enrich themselves through the power that they hold. In Russia a nominal democracy it is the same case.

Overall with out the right to an actual meaningfull vote the rights of people can and often will be restricted, it may be specific groups of society that have their rights restricted along with the restrictioin of the right to vote. Or it just might mean that economic benifits will be provided to those with the ability to vote, while government expenditures are removed from areas where people do not vote.

Just because someone might be more informed and knowledgable does not mean they will not take advantage of the system to enrich themselves or hold others down
 
I absolutely agree. I'm frankly not even an especially great fan of "Democracy" as a general concept in the way it is currently practiced by the Western World. It basically revolves entirely around hordes of ignorant louts who can't see six inches beyond their own noses shouting "gimme!" up at government officials, and voting for whichever demagogue looks prettiest on TV and promises to give them the heftiest handout (regardless of whether they actually deliver on it or not).

There should really be some sort mechanism in place to hone the electorate down to (mostly) only those individuals who are actually qualified to intelligently discuss and understand the issues affecting national level policy; a licensing or accrediation process, of sorts.

education is that counter balance.
 
The issue with that type of process is tha those who are deemed to be qualified tend to ensure they have benifits from the government or restrict the rights of other groups they may not like. This has been seen in the US, the rights of women, blacks (and other minorities) have been restricted during thimes when voting rights have been restricted. Womens rights have been quite restictive in the past, only to expand after they gained the right to vote. How long have african americans rights been restricted, how long have their voting rights been resticted? When did the rights of Blacks start to improve, around the same time as the ability to vote was improved.

I wasn't suggesting anything so discriminatory; only that putting some sort of test or brief course in place that a person must pass before being allowed to vote might not be a bad idea. The process could conceivably be handled in a fashion somewhat similar to obtaining a driver's license or citizenship without unduly limiting any particular group's presence in the electorate.

Requiring that a person actually demonstrate some level of knowledge and initiative concerning the political process before taking part in shaping any of a given nation's policies could do wonders for cutting down on the "low information" riff-raff, so to speak.

In China the people who get to vote on the government (Communist party members of which there are I believe around 6 million perhaps double that, tend to use that power to enrich themselves through the power that they hold. In Russia a nominal democracy it is the same case.

Overall with out the right to an actual meaningfull vote the rights of people can and often will be restricted, it may be specific groups of society that have their rights restricted along with the restrictioin of the right to vote. Or it just might mean that economic benifits will be provided to those with the ability to vote, while government expenditures are removed from areas where people do not vote.

Just because someone might be more informed and knowledgable does not mean they will not take advantage of the system to enrich themselves or hold others down

Perhaps, but is that really all that big a problem in comparison to what we see today? I'd take a highly competent oligarchy elevating a nation's fortunes over an unruly mob running things into the ground any day.

China is hardly "democratic" and it has seen more growth, development, and modernization over the course of the last few decades than most Western nations have seen in their entire histories.

education is that counter balance.

It has rather clearly failed.
 
I think the OP just describes how people fall into a bell curve, and then complains about it. People fancying themselves to be more exceptional than they really are seems like a much bigger problem than the fact that geniuses are rare. Of course, all geniuses are just smarter relative to everyone else. Every one of us on this forum knows more than Isaac Newton did and tackles problems that would boggle his mind. Hawking would be left behind by school children three hundred years from now. I don't think the fact that we fall on a bell curve is a problem. I think the fact that we glamorize exploiting people is a problem.
 
I think his view is generally right, and that democracy itself is superior to some other forms of political systems, but it is not the answer to class warfare, as the concept of equal rights doesn't make people actually feel equal, and in some cases, fuels class envy. It's about the best model we have, but it is wrought with problems all its own. What it eventually leads to is economic weakening of society, as people come to believe they have a right to the private property of others.
 
I just finished reading Jose Ortega y Gasset's book, The Revolt of the Masses. He basically contends that there are two types of people in the world, the mass and the minority. The minority are the truly talented people who also put great demand on themselves to make advancements in science, philosophy, and politics. The mass are those without the talent or drive to do such. He's quick to point out that this has nothing to do with class, as there is minority and mass in both the upper and lower classes.

Ortega sees a growing problem among the masses due to the rise of democracy. With the growing belief that everyone is equal comes a belief among the masses that their unexamined opinions are inherently equal in many areas to the minority. Those who have spent little time thinking about or studying politics believe that their political opinions carry as much intellectual weight as those who have been doing so for thirty years. They don't recognize that there are people in some areas who know better than they do. The problem that Ortega sees with this is that because the masses greatly outnumber the minority, politicians wanting power will begin to appeal to these unexamined opinions of the minority, leading to people who don't really know what they're doing to direct the political conversation. Writing in the 1930's Ortega sees this as the reason behind the rise of power of fascism in Italy and Bolshevism in Russia, condemning both movements. He definitely does not reject democracy and is a strong proponent of that political system over all others, but he does see this as a serious problem with it that needs to be addressed.

Especially a problem for Ortega are those that he calls the specialists. These are the people who are legitimately knowledgeable in one area. They are usually college educated people who really are experts in their narrow field. However, this knowledge generally leads to them believing they are experts in other fields, not usually deferring to those who are actually experts in them. Ortega sees them as often more stubborn and more arrogant than the regular masses in projecting their opinions in fields they are clearly ignorant of. Ortega writes the book specifically to challenge these people to examine their political ideals the same way they examine knowledge in their own narrow field of work.

So my question is, do you think that Ortega's work is a generally accurate view of society? Is he correct about the categories of mass and minority and the relationship between them? Do most people stubbornly view their opinions as inherently equal to those who know better than them?

pretty much. That is what we have in Washington today, a minority who belives they know what is best for the majority. The problem is we have a bunch of lawyers, college educated people in one field trying to run every other field available. They are no more an expert in those other fields than you or I. Theirs is always a top down approach with little to no field testing. They reside in the field of theory and not in reality. They are there to please the lobbyist and those who donate all the money to them with the American people as the guinea pigs whether they like it or not.

We could change all of this, but we won't. We have become fans of political parties and back them no matter what whether it is good for the masses or not.
 
I don't think a handful of Tea Party/FOXNews whiner types equates to any "Revolt of the Masses."
 
I see the "masses" as becoming totally emotionally dependent submissive sheeple who believe the goal in life is to best figure all the ways life is unfair, excuses for failure, and to determine all the things emotionally and physically wrong with themselves as part of those excuses - all self-degradation, self-pity and self-victimized people determined to remain nobodies.
 
Autocracy: One man tells everyone what to do.

Oligarchy: A small group of men tell everyone what to do.

Plutocracy: The richest people tell everyone what to do.

Democracy: A show of hands tells everyone what to do.



Liberty: Everyone decides for themselves what to do.
 
I think the OP just describes how people fall into a bell curve, and then complains about it. People fancying themselves to be more exceptional than they really are seems like a much bigger problem than the fact that geniuses are rare.

Well that seems to me to be part of what Ortega is arguing. People have a higher opinion of themselves and their opinions than they really are, and that this causes problems.
 
I think if there ever was a time it is now under the Obama Administration....To pull it off you would need the military and I believe there are powers there that just might go for it. That said I hope it never happens but I feel the frustration our military feels in the way Obama treats them.
 
OMG! The masses are so revolting. :mrgreen:
 
That is precisely how liberals are viewed, and a lot of why I disagree with them. Frankly I think it's mostly true by the Left's support for income redistribution and the movement in schools to play to self-esteem instead of achievement. If you really support equal opportunity, then you have to put an end to the notion that everyone must have the same. Equal opportunity is not about having the same, but earning it. There's a big difference in my book.

I really do see the support for equality of outcome in schools, liberals believe that minorities and the poor are disenfranchised, therefore we need to cater to them in testing and expectations, such that a C-level minority may be equivalent to a B-level or higher non-minority. I've seen that suggested several times before.
 
I wasn't suggesting anything so discriminatory; only that putting some sort of test or brief course in place that a person must pass before being allowed to vote might not be a bad idea. The process could conceivably be handled in a fashion somewhat similar to obtaining a driver's license or citizenship without unduly limiting any particular group's presence in the electorate.
I know you were not suggesting something so discriminatory, but given human nature it is what I expect it would fall to. Re the literacy tests for voting that prevented primarily blacks from voting in the US. Require such tests today, and the people in charge could certainly direct those administering the vote to ensure group A is prevented from voting as much as possible. Over time Group A would be ignored by the government as they would not effect the vote to any real degree

Requiring that a person actually demonstrate some level of knowledge and initiative concerning the political process before taking part in shaping any of a given nation's policies could do wonders for cutting down on the "low information" riff-raff, so to speak.
And what is to stop the tests becoming a farce designed to limit the vote of certain groups. The integrity of the politicians? The integrity of those in charge of the voting system. History has shown that such tests have been used by politicians without integrity to push their own agenda rather then ensure the best people vote, but only their people vote

Perhaps, but is that really all that big a problem in comparison to what we see today? I'd take a highly competent oligarchy elevating a nation's fortunes over an unruly mob running things into the ground any day.

China is hardly "democratic" and it has seen more growth, development, and modernization over the course of the last few decades than most Western nations have seen in their entire histories.

A highly competent oligarchy in a ethno/cultural homogenous state could work provided corruption among that group was contained (see china to a degree), but any minority groups are likely to be discriminated against, by the politicians, the public and the government. A strong constitution and bill of rights would not protect them. See China and history in the US among other historical examples
 
So my question is, do you think that Ortega's work is a generally accurate view of society? Is he correct about the categories of mass and minority and the relationship between them? Do most people stubbornly view their opinions as inherently equal to those who know better than them?

Yes to the first question.
No to the second question.
No to the third question.

This is a pretty accurate picture of society but not completely incompatible with democracy. The United States has survived 237 years with a democratic rule of the masses. Those intelligent people who have studied for 30 years are often the ones that are elected to office or at least excel to bureaucratic positions. These people end up serving in the positions to shape society and the masses do not complain. Politicians are brutally criticized but it isn't from the majority. The majority have no reason to speak up. Things are going their way. If they had anything to say it would be very boring and wouldn't get any media coverage.

I think the masses know very well that they are morons and willingly yield responsibility to others. A good example would be to measure the population against the number of registered voters. Not everybody thinks their opinion is worthy to be heard.
 
there are those who believe that reading a few wikipedia articles makes them qualified to debate economics with Paul Krugman or Alan Greenspan and that nobody could tell them otherwise or that they are wrong because all opinions are equal.

The average person doesn't think this at all. Only a few kooks would attempt this. Yes, they are out there but don't accurately represent what is normal.
 
There should really be some sort mechanism in place to hone the electorate down to (mostly) only those individuals who are actually qualified to intelligently discuss and understand the issues affecting national level policy; a licensing or accrediation process, of sorts.

Why not? We do it for judges. This sounds like a reasonable solution.
 
People fancying themselves to be more exceptional than they really are seems like a much bigger problem than the fact that geniuses are rare.

A true genius could work around the limitations of any societal structure even democracy. If he needs the force of the military to obtain his goals he isn't really that smart after all.
 
I absolutely agree. I'm frankly not even an especially great fan of "Democracy" as a general concept in the way it is currently practiced by the Western World. It basically revolves entirely around hordes of ignorant louts who can't see six inches beyond their own noses shouting "gimme!" up at government officials, and voting for whichever demagogue looks prettiest on TV and promises to give them the heftiest handout (regardless of whether they actually deliver on it or not).

There should really be some sort mechanism in place to hone the electorate down to (mostly) only those individuals who are actually qualified to intelligently discuss and understand the issues affecting national level policy; a licensing or accrediation process, of sorts.

Why not? We do it for judges. This sounds like a reasonable solution.

I've said for years that we should simply require the same kind of testing that immigrants are given to obtain citizenship. Pass it once and you're certified not to be a political vegetable. (Of course, many of the Demos would have to be taught to read complete sentences with long words first, the sort of sentences that don't fit on bumper stickers.)
 
I see the "masses" as becoming totally emotionally dependent submissive sheeple who believe the goal in life is to best figure all the ways life is unfair, excuses for failure, and to determine all the things emotionally and physically wrong with themselves as part of those excuses - all self-degradation, self-pity and self-victimized people determined to remain nobodies.

You described me pretty accurately. Is this a problem? If so, what is the solution to responding to life in this manner?
 
Back
Top Bottom