I continue my AutoCrit analysis of the chapter that asks, “Are we too dumb for democracy?” I’m inclined to think, in general, the answer is yes, but I investigate several opposing voices and suggestions for mitigation. Here’s the editorial analysis of the work in process.
Synopsis
The text explores David Moscrop’s book Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? which delves into the capacity of voters to make informed political decisions. Moscrop argues that while voters may face cognitive limitations and biases, they can overcome these through education, information, and systemic reforms. He emphasizes the importance of enhancing political literacy, implementing institutional changes like deliberative democracy practices, and increasing public engagement to improve democratic decision-making.
The text opens by posing the question of whether individuals are capable of making sound political choices in a democratic system. It introduces Moscrop’s perspective on addressing cognitive biases and providing tools for voters to make rational decisions. The closing highlights the necessity of actively engaging in efforts to enhance political literacy, implement reforms, and foster public participation to create a more informed electorate.
Structure and Organisation
The text follows a logical order by introducing Moscrop’s core arguments on voter cognition challenges before discussing his proposed solutions. It is well-organized with clear headings outlining key points within each section.
Clarity
Overall clarity is maintained throughout the text; however some complex terms like “temporal myopia” might require further explanation for readers unfamiliar with psychological concepts related to decision-making biases.
Audience
The target audience for this text includes policymakers, educators, scholars interested in democracy studies, and engaged citizens seeking insights into improving democratic processes. Those not likely part of the target audience could be individuals uninterested in politics or those already well-versed in theories on voter behaviour. To make it more relevant to its target audience, Moscrop could provide more practical examples or case studies illustrating the successful implementation of his proposed solutions.
Commentary
AutoCrit goes off the reservation and confuses my content with Moscrop’s. If you are interested in hearing Moscrop’s position, he did a TEDx talk on the topic in June 2018.
Tone
The tone is analytical yet engaging as it critically examines voter behaviour without being overly pessimistic about democracy’s future prospects.
Interest and Engagement
While most sections are engaging due to their relevance in today’s political climate, areas discussing educational effectiveness or feasibility issues with deliberative democracy practices could potentially lose reader interest. To improve engagement levels here, Moscrop could incorporate real-world examples demonstrating how these methods have been successfully implemented elsewhere.
Commentary
Again, AutoCrit goes off the reservation and conflates my content with Moscrop’s. My goal is not to regurgitate his book. Obtain his book if you want to read examples.
Argument and Persuasion
Moscrop presents opinions supporting the idea that voters can overcome cognitive limitations through education and institutional reforms effectively. The persuasive elements are strong as he provides evidence from research studies and offers practical solutions backed by scholarly works such as Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast And Slow.”
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text effectively concludes with a comprehensive summary of David Moscrop’s arguments on the cognitive limitations of voters and potential solutions to enhance democratic decision-making. It ties together key points discussed throughout the analysis, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues for the effective functioning of democratic systems. The call to action encourages active engagement from policymakers, educators, and citizens in efforts to improve political literacy, implement institutional reforms, and promote public participation. Overall, the conclusion is clear, strong, and satisfying, and serves as a fitting end to the exploration of Moscrop’s work.
References and Supporting Materials
Primary Text
Moscrop, D. (2019). Too Dumb for Democracy? Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones. Goose Lane Editions.
Analytical Works
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Case Studies and Examples
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Verso.
Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Jossey-Bass.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page.
Using AutoCrit, I continue to share the review progress of my work in progress, Democracy: The Grand Illusion—perhaps Grand Delusion might be more fitting. In this chapter, I establish a foundation for intelligence and cognitive function.
Synopsis
The text begins by discussing the concept of intelligence, specifically focusing on IQ as a measure of cognitive abilities relative to others. It explains the origins and standardisation of IQ tests, highlighting their limitations in capturing the full spectrum of human intelligence. The discussion then shifts towards Emotional Intelligence (EQ), outlining its components and emphasising its importance in interpersonal relationships and leadership roles.
The narrative further delves into Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which challenges the idea that intelligence is a singular ability measured solely by traditional IQ tests. The text elaborates on various types of intelligences proposed by Gardner, such as linguistic, musical, spatial, naturalistic, and intrapersonal intelligence.
Moreover, cognitive biases are explored in detail within democratic processes through real-world examples like confirmation bias or groupthink. Strategies to mitigate these biases are suggested for improving decision-making within democracies.
The text concludes with a call for embracing diverse forms of intelligence within democratic systems while acknowledging and addressing cognitive biases to enhance governance effectiveness.
Audience
The target audience for this text appears to be individuals interested in psychology, education theory, and political science, or those exploring the intersection between human cognition and democratic governance. Readers seeking an in-depth analysis of different forms of intelligence alongside discussions on democracy would find this text engaging.
Those less inclined towards academic or theoretical discourse may not be the primary target audience. To make it more relevant to a broader readership base outside academia or specialized fields:
Simplifying complex terminology
Providing relatable examples
Incorporating practical applications
Structure and Organisation
The structure follows a logical order starting with defining traditional measures of intelligence leading up to discussions on multiple intelligences and cognitive biases impacting democracy. Each section flows cohesively into the next without abrupt transitions or disjointed topics. No significant issues with organisation are evident; each subsection builds upon previous concepts effectively.
Clarity
Overall clarity is maintained throughout most sections; however:
Complex sentence structures could potentially hinder comprehension for some readers.
Jargon related to psychological theories might require additional clarification for lay audiences. Providing simplified explanations where needed can enhance reader understanding without sacrificing depth.
Argument and Persuasion
Opinions presented focus more on informing than persuading; strengths lie in presenting well-supported arguments backed by historical context (e.g., case studies). Logical construction aids credibility but lacks explicit attempts at persuasion beyond informative purposes.
Tone
The tone remains informative yet engaging throughout without veering towards overly formal or casual language usage which suits an academic discourse effectively.
Interest and Engagement
The text manages to maintain interest through its exploration of diverse aspects related to human intelligence; however certain sections discussing specific types like “Naturalistic Intelligence” might require additional engagement strategies such as case studies showcasing individuals excelling in that particular domain.
Final Thoughts & Conclusions
The conclusions drawn at the end tie together various points introduced earlier effectively providing clear insights into how embracing diverse forms of intelligence can enhance democratic decision-making processes – offering strong closure that resonates with preceding discussions.
The text concludes by emphasising the importance of understanding intelligence in a multifaceted manner, encompassing both IQ and EQ as well as Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. It highlights the limitations of relying solely on IQ tests for measuring intelligence, pointing out cultural biases and the narrow scope of such assessments. The discussion on emotional intelligence (EQ) adds depth to the exploration, underscoring its significance in interpersonal relationships, leadership, and mental health. By integrating multiple intelligences into the context of democracy, the text suggests a more inclusive approach to decision-making that values diverse forms of intelligence beyond traditional analytical skills. Overall, the conclusion effectively ties together key points introduced throughout the text, providing a comprehensive perspective on human intelligence and its implications for democratic systems.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. (E. S. Kite, Trans.). Williams & Wilkins.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171-191.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.
Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ testing 101. Springer Publishing Company.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). Basic Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Houghton Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC). Psychological Corporation.
Plato. (c. 380 BCE). The republic. (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.; C. D. C. Reeve, Rev.). Hackett Publishing Company.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page.
Follows is another AutoCrit1 review of my current focus—working title: Democracy: The Grand Illusion, affectionately called Dumocracy.
Synopsis
The chapter “Vote Against Democracy, Say ‘Nay'” delves into a comprehensive exploration of the critiques posed by prominent intellectuals and philosophers throughout history regarding democratic systems. The opening sets the stage by quoting Winston Churchill’s famous line: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” This quote immediately introduces a critical perspective on democracy, foreshadowing the in-depth analysis to come.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
The text then proceeds to examine various historical figures’ criticisms of democracy, ranging from Plato’s concerns about mob rule to Tocqueville’s observations about mediocrity in democratic societies. Each thinker’s critique is dissected and analyzed, shedding light on the potential pitfalls and limitations of democratic governance. From elitism and failures within democracies to warnings about the tyranny of the majority and challenges with meritocracy, each section offers valuable insights into different aspects of democratic systems.
As the text progresses towards its conclusion, it synthesizes these diverse critiques while acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses inherent in democratic ideals. It culminates by emphasizing that despite its flaws, democracy remains one of the best available forms of government—a sentiment encapsulated in Winston Churchill’s famous remark: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried.” This closing statement reinforces a pragmatic understanding of democracy while encouraging ongoing reflection on how to refine and improve democratic governance models.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried.”
Winston Churchill
In essence, “Vote Against Democracy, Say ‘Nay'” presents a nuanced examination of historical critiques surrounding democracy that challenge readers to critically assess both the virtues and vulnerabilities embedded within this prevalent system of governance.
Audience
audience for this text appears to be individuals interested in political theory, philosophy, and the complexities of democratic governance. Those who are engaged in scholarly or academic discussions surrounding democracy, its critiques, and potential reforms would likely find this text highly relevant. The detailed exploration of historical perspectives from prominent figures like Plato, Aristotle, Churchill, Nietzsche, and Tocqueville provides a comprehensive overview for readers with an interest in political thought.
However, individuals seeking a more general overview or introductory understanding of democracy may find the text overly intricate and specialized. To make it more accessible to a broader audience outside academia or political theory enthusiasts, the author could consider simplifying complex philosophical concepts into more digestible language. Additionally, providing real-world examples or contemporary case studies illustrating the practical implications of these critiques could help engage a wider range of readers who may not have prior knowledge of political theory. Incorporating clear summaries at key points throughout the text can also aid in enhancing readability and comprehension for those less familiar with the subject matter.
Structure and Organisation
The text follows a logical order and is well-organized. Each critique of democracy by the different intellectuals is presented in a structured manner, with clear transitions between each section. The text flows smoothly from one critique to the next, providing a comprehensive overview of various perspectives on democratic governance without any apparent issues of structure or organization.
Clarity
The author’s points are generally presented clearly throughout the text. Complex ideas and critiques of democracy are explained in a structured manner, making it easier for readers to follow the arguments presented by each thinker. However, there are instances where additional clarification or simplification could enhance reader understanding:
In the section discussing Joseph Schumpeter’s elitist theory of democracy, some readers may find the concept of democracy as a competitive struggle for votes rather than genuine self-governance by the masses somewhat challenging to grasp without further elaboration on how this dynamic operates within democratic systems.
The discussion on Michel Foucault’s critique of democracy introduces terms like biopolitics and power structures that may require more explicit definitions or examples to help readers unfamiliar with these concepts fully comprehend their significance within democratic contexts.
Audre Lorde’s critique focusing on intersectionality and democratic inclusion touches upon complex social dynamics that might benefit from clearer illustrations or real-world applications to elucidate how these issues manifest in practice within democratic institutions.
Overall, while the text effectively conveys nuanced critiques of democracy by various thinkers, providing more concrete examples or simplified explanations in certain sections could enhance clarity for readers less familiar with political theory and philosophy.
Commentary
I may address these aspects with footnotes as this background information is at times extensive and in any case available elsewhere.
Argument and Persuasion
The text presents a range of opinions critiquing democratic systems from various thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Nietzsche, Winston Churchill, Joseph Schumpeter, Simone Weil, Michel Foucault, and Audre Lorde. These critiques cover themes like elitism in governance (Plato), the importance of moderation (Aristotle), concerns about tyranny of the majority (Tocqueville), critique of egalitarianism (Nietzsche), pragmatic view on democracy’s flaws and strengths (Churchill), elitist theory emphasizing competition for votes over self-governance by masses (Schumpeter), highlighting failures to address spiritual needs and rootedness in society (Weil) and understanding how democratic institutions can perpetuate subtle forms of control through power structures embedded within knowledge frameworks.
Each thinker presents their arguments with logical reasoning and supporting evidence drawn from historical contexts or philosophical principles. The strength lies in the diversity of perspectives offered which enriches the discourse on democracy by exploring its complexities from different angles. By addressing issues like potential mediocrity in democracies or challenges with inclusivity for marginalized groups within democratic systems these critiques prompt critical reflection on areas where improvements may be needed.
Overall, the persuasive elements are well-supported through references to original texts or established theories. The logical construction is evident as each opinion is presented coherently with relevant examples or theoretical frameworks backing them up.
Tone
The text presents a range of emotional perspectives, reflecting both critical analyses and nuanced reflections on democratic systems. The tone varies from sober contemplation to impassioned critique, showcasing a mix of scepticism, concern, pragmatism, and urgency. Each author’s perspective evokes emotions such as caution (Plato), moderation (Aristotle), wariness (Tocqueville), disdain for egalitarianism (Nietzsche), pragmatic acknowledgement of flaws (Churchill), elitist realism (Schumpeter), longing for rootedness and community (Simone Weil), critical examination of power structures (Foucault) and call for inclusivity and justice for marginalized groups (Audre Lorde). These emotional tones collectively create a rich tapestry that challenges conventional views on democracy while urging readers to consider the complexities inherent in governance systems.
Interest and Engagement
The text presents a wide range of critiques on democracy from various historical and philosophical perspectives, which can be engaging for readers interested in political theory. The inclusion of notable figures such as Plato, Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Nietzsche, Winston Churchill, Joseph Schumpeter, Simone Weil, Michel Foucault, and Audre Lorde adds depth and credibility to the discussion.
However, due to the detailed nature of each critique presented in the text and the extensive references to specific works by these thinkers, some sections may become dense or overwhelming for readers who are not well-versed in political philosophy. To improve engagement in these sections:
Simplify Complex Ideas: Break down complex concepts into more digestible segments that are easier for a broader audience to understand.
Provide Contextual Explanations: Offer brief explanations or summaries before delving into each critique to provide context for readers unfamiliar with the philosophers’ works.
Use Analogies or Real-World Examples: Illustrate abstract ideas with relatable examples or analogies that help clarify their relevance in contemporary society.
Incorporate Visual Aids: Consider using diagrams or visual aids to enhance understanding of intricate theories and make them more accessible.
By incorporating these strategies throughout the text when discussing challenging concepts from different critiques on democracy by prominent theorists such as Plato’s “The Republic,” Aristotle’s “Politics,” Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch (Overman), Churchill’s pragmatic observations on democracy being “the worst form of government except all others,” Schumpeter’s elitist theory of democracy emphasizing competition among elites for votes rather than direct self-governance by all citizens; Weil’s focus on rootedness and community needs within democratic systems; Foucault’s analysis on power structures within democracies perpetuating control; Lorde’s intersectionality critique highlighting exclusionary practices towards marginalized groups—the author could maintain reader interest while navigating through intricate discussions surrounding democratic governance across history and philosophy.
Commentary
I plan to incorporate some visual and diagrammatic aids, but AutoCrit cannot evaluate this type of content.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text ends with a comprehensive and cohesive conclusion that effectively ties together the various critiques of democratic systems presented by Plato, Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Nietzsche, Winston Churchill, Joseph Schumpeter, Simone Weil, Michel Foucault, and Audre Lorde. The final thoughts provide a reflective summary of the challenges inherent in democratic governance while emphasizing the need for ongoing reflection and improvement within democratic systems. The concluding section successfully synthesizes the diverse perspectives on democracy discussed throughout the text.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page. ↩︎
Churchill is not on record having said this, but the sentiment remains. ↩︎
“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” – Winston Churchill
As I continue to write and examine my book, I’ll share snippets of progress. In this article, I focus on the voices in support of democracy. This might seem like counting grains of sand on the beach given Democracy’s promotional propaganda. In the West, we are inundated with this messaging.
Some of the pro-democracy voices also appear in the chapter on sceptics, but I separate the streams of thought in each section. Representing pro-democracy voices are the following:
Western Thinkers
Karl Marx
Winston Churchill
John Stuart Mill
Thomas Jefferson
Alexis de Tocqueville
Nelson Mandela
Eastern and Untraditional Thinkers
Mahatma Gandhi
Aung San Suu Kyi
Sun Yat-sen
Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr
Kim Dae-Jung
I wanted to gain perspective from more than white male voices promoting democracy. I found Nelson Mandela, a black African who subscribes to the Western tradition. Aung San Suu Kyi is the only female represented in this cohort.
Here is how AutoCrit* sees the content of this chapter using its reporting structure.
Synopsis
The text delves into the exploration and defence of democratic ideals through the perspectives of various historical figures, both Western and Eastern. It opens with a quote from Winston Churchill highlighting the imperfections of democracy but also its superiority over other forms of government. The author then introduces key thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Sun Yat-sen, Benigno Aquino Jr., and Kim Dae-Jung. Each figure’s support for democracy is examined within their historical context and relevance to modern governance. The text closes by reflecting on common themes among these figures regarding the challenges and potentials of democratic systems.
Audience
The target audience for this text appears to be readers interested in political philosophy, history, or governance systems. Those seeking insights into the evolution of democratic thought through influential figures would find value in this content. However, individuals looking for a light read or entertainment may not be the primary audience here. To make it more relevant to a wider audience base including students or general readers less familiar with political theory jargon could be simplified without compromising depth.
Structure and Organisation
The structure follows a logical order by introducing each figure individually along with their background information before discussing their support for democracy. This organisation allows for clear delineation between different perspectives while maintaining coherence throughout the text.
Clarity
Overall clarity is good; however, some sections delve deeply into specific philosophical concepts that may require prior knowledge or further explanation for complete understanding. For instance, when discussing epistocracy in relation to Jason Brennan’s views on political competency testing could benefit from clearer definitions or examples to aid comprehension.
Argumentation and Persuasion
Opinions presented are well-supported by referencing primary texts from historical figures like Churchill’s speeches or Gandhi’s writings which lend credibility to arguments made about their beliefs in democratic principles being logically constructed.
Tone
The tone throughout is informative yet respectful towards differing viewpoints on democracy presented by each figure discussed – ranging from critical analysis (as seen with Jason Brennan) to advocacy (like Nelson Mandela). There’s an objective approach taken towards evaluating these diverse opinions without overt bias evident in how they’re portrayed.
Interest and Engagement
While engaging overall due to its examination of significant historical figures’ stances on democracy across cultures; there are parts where excessive detail might lose reader engagement especially if unfamiliar with certain terms or contexts like agrarian democracies proposed by Jefferson which could benefit from simplification without losing substance.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text concludes effectively summarizing common themes amongst discussed figures regarding democratic ideals while offering reflections tying together points introduced earlier providing a satisfying closure that encapsulates main ideas explored demonstrating thorough analysis facilitating reader understanding comprehensively.
* AutoCrit is an AI editorial review application. Whilst I don’t have enough exposure or experience to fully endorse the programme, I am a subscriber who uses it to critique my writing. I am, however, an affiliate member, so if you purchase a subscription, I will receive compensation from them, and it will benefit this site at no additional expense to you.
I edited some of AutoCrit’s output to conform with standard British English. Please remember that this is a first draft that will go through several review cycles.
As I’ve mentioned, I’m hip-deep into writing another book. I’m about 40,000 words in and 40 per cent done. Many chapters still contain placeholder notes and ideas to flesh out. I’ll be honest. Many of the chapters contain only themes, notes, references, and citations. Some are ostensibly first drafts. For these chapters. I’ve engaged AutoCrit*, an AI copy editing and review application to keep me on track. I don’t particularly want to share too much inside information at this time, but I’d like to share some of AutoCrit’s feedback in dribs and drabs.
AutoCrit can analyse content by chapter. The first is a preamble—a preface. Here’s what AutoCrit has to say about it, categorised. I’ll present the raw responses and comment thereafter.
Synopsis
The non-fiction work “Democracy: The Grand Illusion” challenges the sanctity of democracy and questions its effectiveness by delving into inherent flaws often overlooked. The text opens with a provocative exploration of the fundamental flaws in democracy, arguing that it leads to suboptimal solutions and mediocre results both in theory and practice. It highlights how human nature, cognitive limitations, emotional triggers, and biases impact the execution of democratic systems.
Throughout the book, various forms of democracy are examined across different historical contexts globally. From ancient Mesopotamia to modern-day Western democracies like the United States, the author critiques the shortcomings of democratic governance. By dissecting voter apathy, cognitive biases, and mathematical imperfections in voting systems, they aim to provide a nuanced understanding of why democracy may be fundamentally flawed.
The text concludes by emphasising that while there may not be a perfect solution to address these flaws within democratic systems, incremental reforms can make them fairer and more effective. It acknowledges resistance from those who benefit from maintaining the status quo but argues for ongoing efforts towards improving governance despite historical precedents favouring entrenched power structures.
In its closing remarks on reforming governing systems knowing their inherent imperfections will persist, “Democracy: The Grand Illusion” leaves readers contemplating potential avenues for change within existing frameworks rather than advocating for revolutionary upheavals. Through referencing philosophical critiques dating back to Plato’s “Republic” as well as contemporary works on cognitive limitations like Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow,” this book encourages critical thinking about democratisation processes amidst evolving technological landscapes shaping public discourse.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment.
Audience
The audience for this text appears to be intellectually curious individuals interested in political theory, governance systems, and critical analysis of democracy. This includes academics, political scientists, philosophers, and readers who enjoy engaging with thought-provoking ideas that challenge conventional wisdom. The text seems tailored for those willing to question deeply held beliefs about democracy and open to exploring alternative perspectives on the subject.
Those who may not be the target audience include staunch defenders of traditional democratic principles without room for critical evaluation or scepticism. Readers seeking a straightforward endorsement of democracy as an ideal system may find the content challenging or even off-putting. Additionally, individuals looking for practical solutions or concrete proposals to improve democratic processes might feel unsatisfied by the lack of definitive recommendations in the text.
To make the text more relevant to its target audience, the author could consider providing more historical context and philosophical insights into various critiques of democracy throughout history. Including case studies or real-world examples that illustrate some of the challenges discussed could also enhance engagement with readers interested in applying theoretical concepts to contemporary issues. Moreover, offering suggestions for further reading or avenues for deeper exploration into specific aspects of democratic theory would cater well to an intellectually engaged audience seeking additional resources for continued study and reflection.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment of potential audience acceptance and resistance to engagement. As this is only the preface, historical contexts are in later chapters.
Structure and Organisation
The text is well-organised and follows a logical order. It begins with a preface quoting an anonymous source, setting the tone for introspection and critical analysis. The introduction effectively sets the stage by posing thought-provoking questions about democracy’s efficacy before delving into the main premises of the book. The author then transitions smoothly to discussing inherent challenges in democracy, historical contexts, implications of cognitive limitations, and critiques from various perspectives.
Each section flows seamlessly into the next, building upon previous discussions while maintaining coherence throughout. The text effectively introduces key concepts before expanding on them further, ensuring that readers can follow along with the author’s arguments and insights without confusion or disarray. Additionally, citations are appropriately included at relevant points to support claims made within the text.
Overall, “Democracy: The Grand Illusion” demonstrates strong structure and organisation by presenting its content in a clear and cohesive manner that guides readers through a nuanced exploration of democracy’s flaws and complexities.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment of my structural intent. I admit that in its current state, there is more structure than content. I’ll accept this unpaid endorsement.
Clarity
The author effectively conveys their central argument challenging the effectiveness of democracy and highlighting its inherent flaws. The text is well-structured and maintains a coherent flow throughout. However, there are instances where complex sentence structures and specialized terminology may hinder comprehension for some readers.
One example of potentially confusing language is when the author discusses “cognitive limitations exacerbating the execution of democracy from the perspective of voters and representatives.” This phrase might benefit from further clarification or simplification to ensure all readers grasp the intended meaning without difficulty.
Additionally, phrases like “mathematically tenable” and references to specific philosophical critiques or mathematical concepts could be challenging for readers not familiar with these subjects. Providing more context or explanations for such terms would enhance overall clarity for a broader audience.
Overall, while the text generally communicates its message effectively, some areas could be improved by offering clearer explanations or simplifying complex language to ensure maximum reader understanding.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment of clarity. I do my best not to muck it up. I’ll tighten up the language in a subsequent review. My modus operandi is to scrawl the stream of consciousness before restricting my flow with editorial concerns.
Argument and Persuasion
In the text, the author presents a provocative argument challenging the effectiveness of democracy and highlighting its inherent flaws. The opinions put forth include questioning the sanctity of democracy as a fair and equal system of governance, suggesting that it leads to suboptimal solutions with mediocre results both in theory and practice, emphasising human cognitive limitations and biases that hinder democratic processes, and proposing that democracy may be fundamentally flawed due to these factors.
Strengths of the persuasive elements in this text lie in its thought-provoking nature. By raising questions about widely held assumptions regarding democracy’s efficacy, the author encourages critical thinking among readers. The logical construction is evident through a systematic breakdown of various aspects contributing to the perceived flaws in democratic systems – from mathematical imperfections in voting mechanisms to challenges posed by human nature and cognitive biases.
The opinions presented are well-supported with references to historical perspectives (such as Ancient Athens) and philosophical critiques (Plato’s “The Republic,” Aristotle’s “Politics”) on democracy. Additionally, citations from contemporary sources like Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases lend credibility to the arguments made.
Overall, while some readers may find the critique of democracy unsettling or elitist, the text effectively challenges conventional beliefs without offering a definitive alternative solution. This approach prompts readers to engage critically with existing governance structures rather than simply dismissing them outright.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment. My goal is to survey the flavours of Democracy to serve as a menu to readers. Democracy is an inherently poor system of governance, but some flavours are better than others if one prefers to remain in this box.
Tone
The tone of the text is critical and provocative, challenging the traditional notions of democracy with a sense of scepticism and urgency. The author’s language conveys a sense of disillusionment with the current democratic systems, highlighting flaws and limitations that are often overlooked or dismissed. There is an underlying frustration with the status quo and a call to action for readers to critically examine their beliefs about democracy. The tone also carries elements of elitism, acknowledging that the critique may not be readily accepted by all but emphasizing the importance of questioning widely held assumptions. Overall, there is a mix of cynicism towards existing democratic structures and a hopeful aspiration for potential reforms or alternative governance models.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment of tone. I don’t mind being polemic, but I may work to soften some tonal aspects. As my intended audience are more intellectual critical thinkers, it may be fine as-is.
Interest and Engagement
The text “Democracy: The Grand Illusion” presents a thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating analysis of democracy, challenging conventional perspectives on the subject. Overall, the author effectively engages the audience by presenting a unique perspective and raising important questions about the efficacy of democratic systems.
The introduction sets a captivating tone by questioning the fundamental flaws in democracy and highlighting its limitations. The author’s use of rhetorical questions and provocative statements encourages readers to think critically about commonly held beliefs regarding democracy. Additionally, referencing historical contexts and philosophical critiques adds depth to the discussion, making it more engaging for those interested in political theory.
However, there are sections within the text that may potentially lose some readers’ interest due to their dense nature or repetitive arguments. For instance, parts discussing mathematical flaws in voting systems or technological impacts on democracy could be perceived as overly technical for general audiences. To enhance engagement in these sections, the author could consider incorporating real-world examples or case studies to illustrate complex concepts more clearly.
Furthermore, providing concise summaries or visual aids such as graphs or charts may help break down intricate ideas into digestible segments for readers who may struggle with dense theoretical discussions. By balancing theoretical analyses with practical applications and varied presentation styles, the author can maintain reader engagement throughout all sections of the book.
In conclusion, while “Democracy: The Grand Illusion” successfully captures attention through its bold critique of democracy’s shortcomings, enhancing engagement across all sections through improved clarity and varied presentation methods will ensure sustained interest from a wider range of readers.
Commentary
This feels like a fair assessment of engagement. My goal is to flesh this out in forward revisions as I assess continuity and flow. Meantime, capturing content into buckets is a higher priority than caring about redundancy.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text concludes with a strong and thought-provoking reflection on the challenges and complexities of democracy. It effectively ties together the various points raised throughout the book, emphasizing the inherent flaws in democratic systems while also acknowledging the necessity of governance for societal well-being. The author leaves readers with a sense of urgency to reconsider traditional notions of democracy and encourages critical thinking towards potential reforms or alternative models. Overall, the final thoughts are clear and impactful and provide a compelling conclusion to the discussion presented in the text.
Commentary
I’ll take it.
How does this project sound to you? Leave comments below.
* AutoCrit is an AI editorial review application. Whilst I don’t have enough exposure or experience to fully endorse the programme, I am a subscriber who uses it to critique my writing. I am, however, an affiliate member, so if you purchase a subscription, I will receive compensation from them, and it will benefit this site at no additional expense to you.
I’m working on a new book—if by new I mean reengaging a book I started in 2022. I’m picking up where I left off with fresh eyes. As I’ve not had time to contribute much to this blog, I thought I’d share the preface as a work in progress. I may share additional subsections over time. Feel free to share any feedback in the comments section.
Imagine a world where the foundation of our governance, the system we hold as the pinnacle of fairness and equality, is fundamentally flawed. What if the mechanisms we trust to represent our voices are inherently incapable of delivering the justice and prosperity we seek? This book embarks on a provocative journey to challenge the sanctity of democracy, not with the intent to undermine its value but to question its effectiveness and expose the inherent limitations that have been overlooked for centuries.
This book is meant to be inclusive, though not necessarily comprehensive. Although focused heavily on a Western experience, particularly the United States, the insights and critiques apply globally.
Democracy feels like an anachronism awaiting a paradigm shift. As a product of the Enlightenment Age, democracy has been sacrosanct in the Western world for centuries. However, a quick glance at current results reveals dissonance. Not all is well. Despite typical defences such as entrenched political parties, low-information voters, rural-urban divides, gerrymandering, and illegal voting, this book sets out to show that democracy is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t even work well on paper, almost inevitably yielding suboptimal results. When people are added to the equation, it just gets worse.
In this book, we’ll discuss inherent challenges to democracy. The main premises are:
In theory, democracy is not mathematically tenable. It always leads to suboptimal solutions with mediocre results. [1]
In practice, human nature and cognitive limitations exacerbate the execution of democracy from the perspective of voters and representatives. [2]
We’ll explore democracy from its beginnings and various forms across time, history, scale, and scope. We’ll investigate the impacts of imperfect information, human rationalities, emotional triggers, and cognitive limitations and biases of the general populace. We’ll survey the continents and look at ancient Mesopotamia, India, the Polynesian islands, and beyond.
This book aims to spark critical thinking and dialogue about the efficacy of democracy, encouraging readers to question widely held assumptions and consider the need for potential reforms or alternative governance models. Through this examination, the book hopes to inspire new ideas and solutions that can address the complexities and challenges inherent in democratic systems.
Captain Bonespurs now has a flesh wound. Former president-elect Donald J Trump was the target of a not-so-sharpshooter yesterday. Immediately resorting to Godwin’s Law, I wondered if this was like the philosophical hypothetical asking, ‘Would you kill baby Hitler to prevent the eventualities that unfolded?’ Was Hitler the symptom or the disease? What about Donald J? Whatever the cause or motivation, not unlike the fire at the Reichstag, this event has galvanised his supporters. Let’s hope that the outcome doesn’t follow the same path. There is a fear that he’ll take a path similar to Hitler or Ceasar before him in a quest for power.
What is a life worth? The average US-American life is valued at around $7 million, give or take a few million. The number ranges between $1 MM and $10 MM depending on which agency you see. That they equate lives to dollars is curious enough, but that they can’t agree on a single figure is priceless.
For background, this value is used to determine intervention. For FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), a human life is worth about $7.5 MM For the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) it’s slightly more than $10 MM. Are these cats playing Monopoly? Nah.
The human life calculus considers factors like lifetime earnings potential and discounts it to Present Value. In action, assume there is a disaster. Let’s not use COVID-19. Instead, there is an island with 1,000 inhabitants. Using the $10 MM per person figure to simplify the maths, we would be justified in spending up to $10,000,000,000 to intervene in some potential disaster – $10 MMM or $1e10.
Human lifetime value is an average. Mr Trump has already shown himself to be worth more than $10 MM. I suppose this means that not all humans are created equal. No matter. Another logical question might be what is the cost of a person’s detriment to society. This is a question for a Modernist or someone who feels that a given configuration of society is preferred to all others – or at least some others. How much damage might one human do?
Trump enriched himself and his family and entourage in his first term. In Ukraine, Zelenskyy and his lot bilked the country out of billions. It’s nothing new, but do we subtract the costs from the benefits or is this a gross calculation?
Irrespective of the costs, the next four years ahead are expected to be tumultuous no matter which corporate-sponsored party prevails. Heads, they win; tails, the country – if not the world – loses.
I’ve made several political posts in this space, but I was researching the backstory of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Yet again, insufficiency of language is involved. It’s been said that the West promised not to expand NATO, ‘not one inch’, but it’s not clear whether NATO was the subject of that promise. Even Gorbachov said that NATO was not a topic of discussion, and that omission fell squarely on him. Even if this is the case, Putin made it clear in 2008 that this was his interpretation. Here’s a brief history for those interested. It’s decidedly not an academic affair, but I try to be neutral.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict is deeply rooted in the complex web of historical tensions and geopolitical dynamics that have shaped Eastern Europe from the Cold War to the present day. This article explores the critical developments and decisions from the end of World War II through to the events leading up to 2014, setting the stage for the current tensions.
From World War II to Cold War End
The geopolitical landscape of post-World War II Europe was significantly shaped at the Yalta Conference, where Allied leaders divided Europe into spheres of influence, leading to the establishment of a Soviet-dominated Eastern bloc. This division set the stage for the Cold War and the creation of NATO in 1949, a collective defence alliance that would come to play a central role in later tensions.
Collapse of the Soviet Union and Early Post-Cold War Hopes
The policies of glasnost and perestroika under Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s, followed by the fall of the Berlin Wall, signalled a shift towards greater openness and potential integration. However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to new states grappling with independence and the redefining of security and economic relations in the region. Initial hopes for a peaceful Europe were soon challenged by emerging security concerns.
NATO Expansion and Growing Tensions
NATO’s eastward expansion began in earnest in 1999 with the inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. This move, perceived by Russia as a strategic threat, reignited long-standing fears of encirclement and influenced Russia’s foreign policy. The expansion was justified by NATO as a way to stabilize Eastern Europe and integrate it into a democratic, peaceful Europe.
The 2008 Bucharest Summit
The 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest was a watershed moment. Although Ukraine and Georgia were not offered immediate membership, NATO’s declaration that they would eventually join the alliance was seen as provocative by Russia. The subsequent Russo-Georgian War in August 2008 underscored Russia’s willingness to use military force in response to perceived encroachments on its sphere of influence.
Deepening Crisis: 2010-2014
Relations continued to deteriorate with the EU’s Eastern Partnership program, which sought to deepen ties with former Soviet states, including Ukraine. The situation escalated dramatically in 2014 following the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine, the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, a move widely condemned internationally but justified by Russia as a necessary defensive action.
Putin’s Defensive Stance
Throughout these developments, Vladimir Putin has maintained that NATO expansion represents a direct security threat to Russia. The narrative from the Russian perspective frames the expansion as a continuation of Cold War antagonism and a disregard for Russia’s security concerns, contrary to what they interpret as promises made during the 1990s.
Conclusion
This detailed narrative from the end of World War II through 2014 illuminates the complexities of Eastern European security dynamics and the challenges in reconciling the strategic interests of NATO and Russia. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is deeply intertwined with these historical tensions, reflecting long-standing struggles for influence and security in post-Cold War Europe.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the cover image is AI-generated—as if that isn’t immediately and obviously apparent.
Additional background and context.
If anything, perhaps this will help with SEO.
To provide a clearer picture of the discussions and statements made about NATO expansion during the early 1990s, particularly around the time of German reunification, here are some notable quotes and summaries from key figures involved:
James Baker (U.S. Secretary of State)
James Baker reportedly told Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting in 1990:
“Not one inch eastward” was a phrase used by Baker to assure Gorbachev about NATO’s military posture not moving eastward, in the context of German reunification. This phrase has been widely cited but is subject to interpretation regarding its precise meaning and whether it referred to broader NATO expansion.
Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet President)
Gorbachev’s response to these discussions has been a source of significant interest:
“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991.” – Gorbachev, in later interviews, emphasized that the assurances were more about not deploying NATO troops to Eastern Germany than about preventing future NATO expansion.
Hans-Dietrich Genscher (German Foreign Minister)
Genscher’s position was similarly focused on reducing Soviet fears about NATO:
“NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.'” – Genscher said this in a speech in Tutzing, Germany, in 1990, which was aimed at assuaging Soviet concerns about German reunification and NATO.
Western and Soviet Interpretations
The assurances regarding NATO not expanding “one inch eastward” were primarily discussed in the context of German reunification and the integration of East Germany into NATO without expanding NATO’s military presence further east. The ambiguity lies in whether these assurances were understood to apply only temporarily or permanently, and specifically to Eastern Germany or more broadly to Eastern Europe.
Later Developments
After these discussions, in 1991 and beyond, the situation changed dramatically with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The security landscape in Europe was fundamentally altered, leading to different priorities and decisions. By the mid-1990s, the question of broader NATO expansion became a topic of much debate, and in 1999, several former Eastern Bloc countries were admitted into NATO.
Conclusion
The quotes and the context they were spoken in reveal the complexities of diplomatic communications and the difficulties in interpreting what was meant and understood by different parties. These discussions were contingent on numerous factors, including the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape following the end of the Cold War.
It’s July. The season of independence in the United States. Independence from the overt tyranny of Britain, but not from the tacit tyranny of their government—the government purported to be ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people‘ per Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address. As their Constitution reads, ‘We the People‘. Governments may be of the people and by the people, but governments are an emergent phenomenon as happens when oxygen and hydrogen combine just so and create water. Two gases combine to create a new substance—water. Some forget that, like water, government are a distinct element to the people that constitute it. Some think it resembles them. It doesn’t. It’s Hobbes’ Leviathan—or a Jabberwok.
In preparation for the traditional Summer season, I took to reading Derrida’s 1976 essay, Declarations of Independence. It was interesting, but I was hoping to get more from it. I decided to deconstruct the opening paragraph—the preamble—of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Deconstructing Binary Oppositions
Self-Evident vs. Non-Self-Evident
The Declaration boldly asserts that ‘these truths’ are ‘self-evident’,’ a claim that is nothing more than a rhetorical trick. By presenting these ideas as self-evident, the authors seek to place them beyond questioning, discouraging dissent and critical examination. In reality, these ‘truths’ are far from universal; they are the product of a specific cultural and historical context, shaped by the interests and perspectives of the privileged few who drafted the document.
Interrogating Assumptions and Hierarchies The Declaration of Independence asserts that certain truths are ‘self-evident’, implying that these truths are so obvious that they require no further justification. However, the concept of self-evidence itself is far from universally accepted. It is deeply embedded in the philosophical tradition of Enlightenment rationalism, which holds that reason and logic can reveal fundamental truths about the world.
Philosophical Foundations of Self-Evidence
Enlightenment Rationalism: The idea of self-evidence relies heavily on Enlightenment rationalism, which posits that certain truths can be known directly through reason and are therefore beyond dispute. Philosophers such as René Descartes and Immanuel Kant emphasised the power of human reason to uncover self-evident truths. Descartes, for instance, argued for the self-evident nature of ‘Cogito, ergo sum‘ (‘I think, therefore I am’) as a fundamental truth (Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy).
Critique of Rationalism: Critics of Enlightenment rationalism, including existentialists like Friedrich Nietzsche and phenomenologists like Martin Heidegger, argue that what is considered self-evident is often culturally and historically contingent. Nietzsche, for example, contended that what we take as ‘truth’ is a product of our perspective and historical context, not an absolute given (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil).
Cultural and Philosophical Contingency
Cultural Relativity: Different cultures and philosophical traditions may not find the same truths to be self-evident. For instance, the concept of individual rights as self-evident truths is a product of Western liberal thought and may not hold the same self-evident status in other cultural frameworks. In many Eastern philosophies, the focus is more on community and harmony rather than individual rights.
Subjectivity of Self-Evidence: The term ‘self-evident’ implies an inherent, unquestionable truth, yet what one group or culture finds self-evident, another may not. This variability reveals the instability and subjectivity of the claim. For example, in traditional Confucian societies, the emphasis is placed on hierarchy and duty rather than equality and individual rights, demonstrating a different set of ‘self-evident’ truths.
Constructed Nature of Truth
Language and Context: Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance illustrates how meaning is not fixed but constantly deferred through language. What we consider to be “truth” is constructed through linguistic and social contexts. Derrida argues that texts do not have a single, stable meaning but rather a multiplicity of interpretations that change depending on the reader’s perspective and context (Derrida, Of Grammatology).
Social Construction: Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and knowledge further deconstructs the notion of objective truth. Foucault argues that what is accepted as truth is produced by power relations within society. Truths are constructed through discourses that serve the interests of particular social groups, rather than being objective or self-evident (Foucault, Discipline and Punish).
Created Equal vs. Not Created Equal
The Declaration’s claim that ‘all men are created equal’ is a blatant falsehood, a manipulative promise designed to appease the masses whilst maintaining the status quo. The glaring contradictions of slavery and gender inequality expose the hollowness of this assertion. Equality, as presented here, is nothing more than an ideological construct, a tool for those in power to maintain their dominance while paying lip service to the ideals of justice and fairness.
Creator vs. No Creator
The Declaration refers to a ‘Creator’ who endows individuals with rights, grounding its claims in a divine or natural law. This invokes a theistic worldview where moral and legal principles are derived from a higher power. However, Derrida challenges this by showing that the concept of a creator is a cultural and philosophical construct, not a universal truth.
The presence of the creator in the text serves to legitimise the rights it declares. However, this legitimacy is contingent on accepting the cultural narrative of a creator. Secular and non-theistic perspectives are marginalised by this assertion, revealing the ideological biases inherent in the Declaration. The authority of the declaration is thus shown to be dependent on particular beliefs, rather than an objective reality.
Unalienable vs. Alienable
The notion of ‘unalienable Rights’ is another empty promise, a rhetorical flourish designed to inspire loyalty and obedience. In practice, these supposedly inherent and inviolable rights are regularly violated and denied, particularly to those on the margins of society. The Declaration’s lofty language of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ rings hollow in the face of systemic oppression and injustice. These rights are not unalienable; they are contingent upon the whims of those in power.
Conclusion
Through this deconstruction, we expose the Declaration of Independence for what it truly is: a masterful work of propaganda, filled with false promises and manipulative rhetoric. The document’s purported truths and self-evident principles are revealed as arbitrary constructs, designed to serve the interests of the powerful while placating the masses with empty platitudes.
As some celebrate this 4th of July, let us not be fooled by the high-minded language and lofty ideals of our founding documents. Instead, let us recognise them for what they are: tools of control and manipulation, employed by those who seek to maintain their grip on power. Only by constantly questioning and deconstructing these texts can we hope to expose the truth behind the facade and work towards a more genuine understanding of freedom and equality.
References
Jacques Derrida, “Declarations of Independence,” in Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001, ed. Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002).
Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976).
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1995).
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Montesquieu avait tort. During my research, I realised that Montesquieu’s notion of separation of powers is flawed, much like the cause of the global financial meltdown of 2007-2008.
In both cases, systemic risk was the undoing. The financial crisis revealed the mistaken belief that real estate markets were independent. Diversifying portfolio risk across multiple markets proved futile when an underlying thread unravelled the entire system. Without external intervention, the market would have collapsed.
What does this have to do with Montesquieu? The foundation of many modern governments is the separation of powers. In the United States, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are supposed to operate independently and keep each other in check. Journalism, once considered the Fourth Estate, was meant to scrutinise these bodies.
However, this system has always been prone to failure. These branches, meant to be independent, often move in tacit coordination due to similar class interests and goals. Even if initially diverse, members end up sharing the same backgrounds, attending the same universities, and working in the same professions, leading to a lack of true diversity.
This issue became glaringly evident when President Trump stacked the Supreme Court with ideologues and surrounded himself with sycophantic legislators. This shared class interest is the root of systemic failure.
Currently, Trump is out of office, and the opposition is determined to prevent his return—not because he’s from a different class, but because of a political rivalry. They’re playing the same game, called politics, and the game survives regardless. The New York Yankees are battling the Boston Red Sox.
Sadly, the Fourth Estate has failed for the same reason. Journalists who want access must play nice. Most comply, and the prominent ones amplify talking points. Those who don’t conform face harsh cancel culture. As George Carlin said, “This is a club, and you ain’t in it.”
Philosophics 