Majority Rule, Part II

In the American system, based on the concept of "checks and balances," it is ultimately important that there are always checks and balances. No one should be able to grab and keep power unchallenged. The challenge is supposed to be built into the system, which is why so many American systems are self-defeating. For example, the uncontrolled "will of the people," represented in the House, is supposed to be limited and directed into useful channels by a staid and reserved Senate. The goal of the American system is to "muddle through," which implies upsetting as few apple carts as possible. The further consequence is that change can be glacially slow, even when gross injustices continue to perpetrated. Checks and balances make the system stable, which is to say conservative in the sense of resisting any change.
 

In effect, the American system is also an implementation of the Utilitarian principle, "the greatest good for the greatest number." (Jeremy Bentham invented the principle around the time of the beginning of the United States, and was familiar to some of the Founding Fathers.) In the American system, what is the "greatest good" is left undefined, while the "greatest number' is somewhat clearer. Over time, the "greatest number" has become more and more inclusive, probably because no one wants to be left out. Today, we generally interpret the greatest number as meaning almost everyone. Perhaps the genius of the system is in leaving the other half, the "greatest good," ambiguous. What is good, at least in the English empirical tradition, is a matter of opinion, which might change from time to time. The Founding Fathers left it to each generation to decide the question for themselves. Jefferson in his younger days even went as far as suggesting a revolution every generation. A fundamental assumption of the American political system is the "greatest good" means something or other, which will be settled now and then. That premise is relativistic and democratic; as such, it is inconsistent with absolutist ideas.
 

The implication is that the system is not really intended to allow full-throttle majority rule. It is commonly known that unrestrained majority rule almost always becomes tyranny. There's something about human social interactions that pushes mobs headlong into an unthinking frenzy. It doesn't matter whether mobbed people wear silk pants or no pants; it is the mobbing which produces the effect (so, it is probably "built-in" or genetic). The horror of Dickens' Madame LaFarge is just that, given the opportunity, she turns into a heartless, relentless monster, as would most suddenly powerful people nursing a grudge. So did more puritanical leaders like Cromwell. The United States had a dose of majoritarian oppression in the 1950s in the form of McCarthyism, and previously in the 17th century during the Salem Witch Trials. No matter how hard we try to be otherwise, human socialization is based on feelings of belonging to a family or tribe, which leads to a sense of self-righteousness, and that leads to outright persecution of those who are different. (Witness Ireland and the Middle East.) So, given "human nature," it is important to prevent situations leading to a Reign of Terror, since little can be done to stop terror once it starts. (For example, consider the present Administration's use of "terrorism" to spread fear and paranoia.)
 

The first answer to the question - 'how to get rid of the majority?' - is to prevent them from doing too much or going too far. (Once the majority gets a strangehold, they cannot be displaced.) Right away, this implies the existence of the 'rights of the minority.' It has to be "illegal" to ride roughshod over the minority. "Illegal" must mean more than some abstract obeisance to the minority; the existence and abilities of the minority must be protected in fact. The minority has to be a visible, if annoying, element of everyday society. When minorities disappear, freedom for the rest of us is threatened as well. (The majority continues its rule by constantly shaving away those on the edge.)

The second answer is, practically, having a minority is a Good Thing. Most of our works of art have been created by those in the minority, although majoritarian artists (Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Hemingway) can be great as well. The computer revolution was shepherded into the mainstream by counter-culture people and geeks. Even The Bombs - both the American and Russian versions - were created by nerdy scientists profoundly distrusted by their governments and ostracized by ordinary people. In addition, most entrepreneurs tend to be quirky people, but we dispense with them at the expense of a failed economy. Most people are uncomfortable around minority people, whether it is the minority of intellect, creativity, business or race and color. But, without black people such as George Washington Carver, Jimmie Carter would never have been a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, and George Washington probably would never have been our first President. There is an intimate connection between the minority and the well-being of the majority.
 

Perhaps one of the most ironic episodes of the 20^th century was Hitler's pogrom against the Jews. He denounced everything about the Jewish (and Gypsy, gay, Communist ...) minority, and even declared modern physics "Jewish Science." Jews who understood that Hitler was sincere guessed what was coming, so they left Germany. Most of them ended up in Britain and the United States, where many of them were recruited into various wartime efforts such as the Manhattan Project. "Jewish Science" was the critical factor in building the American A-Bomb. America might have won WWII without help from Jewish expatriates, but it would have taken a lot longer.
 

What's clear in reviewing the history of minorities everywhere is that they are indispensable. Under the Utilitarian Principle, minorities can be protected to the extent that they are essential to the "greatest good," which is simply to say again they are indispensable. But, needing minorities is not a sound basis for granting them rights, as the minorities will only gain such privileges as their services require or they can leverage.

"Majorities," however defined or perceived, have always trampled minorities. It is difficult to stop the abuses, because the whole notion of majority rule is based indirectly on 'might makes right.' This is an essential problem of democracy because appeal to the democratic principle is based on the notion that everyone is equal. The premise of democracy is that no one is better or worse than anyone else ("on the average"), and that there is no better standard for making choices than personal opinion. If there is no surpassing - in 19^th century language, transcendental - ideal, then it comes down to counting bodies, which, on the average, means the most numerous, hence the mightiest, win. The count substitutes for the actual tug of war, or the actual war. Therein lies a curious anomaly, because what is one to do with the losing side of a vote? If democracy amounts to a symbolic trial of strength, what protects the minority? 'Might makes right' implies the weak are wrong, so subject to sanctions. So, leaving things to the vote may be an inadequate answer to the problem of the minority. At best, democracies might treat minorities well as a form of noblesse oblige, or on account of Utilitarian considerations, or for fear of revenge when the worm turns. If one denies there is any standard beyond might, then the greatest defense of the minority is merely the mercy of the majority.

I think a better, partial solution lies in another horn of the "equality" premise: if everyone is essentially equal, then there is no reason to defame, debilitate or destroy the minority. This amounts to an uncertainty of decision principle: we have no way of knowing the majority decided correctly, because everything is a matter of opinion, and opinions change. Minorities should be protected because they might be right, which acknowledges that 'might makes right' is at best a partial and temporary solution More basically, if the minority might be right, then in principle might is not always right. To make that distinction requires a further standard of "right," beyond might and votes.
 

Is there any reason to think there is standard - an ethic - beyond might? If so, doesn't that create yet another problem of autocracy or tyranny? If there is some sort of absolute standard of right, then might and votes are irrelevant. This is a fundamental argument made by absolutists of every sort, religious, social and political. Again, if such principles, commandments, documents ... embody the correct, universal ethical principles, then opinion does not matter. It is right to do what those principles indicate, whether the minority or majority agree. The absolutist view does not protect any group or democracy, because it rises above any other economic, political or social consideration. But, why should I believe that? I don't know of any argument or proof that there is an absolute anything (excepting, possibly, tautologies and my belief in my being alive - cogito ergo sum). Every assertion of absolute principle comes down to being just that: an assertion, a loud, bullying claim.
 

If we reject such an overarching scheme, as I do, what are we to do?
 

Maybe it is the tenor of modernism that inhabits my mind, but it does seem at most we can write down some generalities which we think will be "true" for a time. Of course, truths are supposed to be for all time, so maybe it is better to use a phrase like "statistically validiated hypothesis x% of the time." That phrase and its qualifiers could get pretty long, so I hope it will be acceptable to use "true" or "empirically true" as substitute language.
 

I think it possible to reject absolutism and all that implies, while at the same time refusing to abide by the decision of combat. My grounding of that in-between state is the Kantian notion that each sentient being is an end in itself. I don't think this requires any appeal to souls, heaven, gods or anything like that. Rather, I think the claim of sentient being status is something each sentient being puts forward for itself. As I wrote in my "War" essay, there is a "Turing Test" for being a moral agent just as there is one for being intelligent. I know of no way anyone can be proved to be intelligent or morally capable; this is not a matter of premises, deductions and theorems. What we do have is an experience of being intelligent, moral agents, and a suspicion that the two things are closely related. Because I am sure of those things for myself, and I hypothesize the existence of other beings like me in respect of those things, then I am justified to act as if others are independent, moral agents worthy of the same respect I give myself. In this formulation, it does not matter what is the basis of intelligence or moral capability; it only matters that I can generalize from myself to others. Put another way, I can associate myself with a class of beings who are like me.
 

If I have privileges and rights because I accorded them to myself, it is reasonable to suppose others like me have done the same thing. Formulating matters this way puts democracy on a different footing than 'might makes right' alone, even if 'might makes right' is a factor in its justification. This sort of ethical foundation requires the majority to treat the minority as it does itself, for there is no useful ethical distinction between the majority and minority. The rights of the minority are guaranteed by the rights of the majority, because ethical considerations apply to them all equally. It doesn't matter that the ethical priniples I invented for myself are not absolute or grounded in some external reality. It only matters that I imagine myself as similar to others (or vice versa), and that our essential capabilites (whether imagined or real) are the same.
 

It's not required to adopt my ethical guidelines, and I think conservatives do not. The reason for the Tory Hobbes' Leviathan is the mutual desire of men for protection. The Hobbesian State is not the result of any moral choice by those in the state of nature. So, conservatives need not feel guilt when imposing pain and suffering, even death, on their enemies at home and abroad. They should feel shame, however, when trying to disguise their practices with some high-sounding religious incantations We should recognize things for what they are; anything else is a lie.

While there are practical reasons for sustaining the rights of the minority, there is a more basic ethical reason for doing so: the notion that each person should be treated as an end in himself. This reason limits the abuse a powerful majority can heap on the minority without fear of condemnation and the ensuing right of retaliation.