More thoughts from Jason Stanley’s “How Propaganda Works”.
The idea that inequality poses a threat to democracy is not new in political philosophy. Stanley points us to Madison’s thoughts in Federalist No. 10 where it becomes clear that Madison views material inequality as a central source of flawed ideology.
Quoting Stanley at length here because it’s a well stated point:
The point of Federalist No. 10 is to argue that, given the existence and inevitability of what are (in my terminology) flawed ideologies, what Madison calls “pure democracy” is impossible. Madison believes a representative democracy will provide the requisite safeguards against the illiberal effects of flawed ideologies. Representatives are supposed to solve the illiberal effects of flawed ideologies, because they are supposed to be impartial. However, it is safe to say that representative democracies have not invariably been composed of impartial representatives. On the level of examples, many of the cases I discuss suggest that the problems flawed ideology raises for a “pure democracy”, problems that Madison astutely worried about, do arise in the case of representative democracies; representatives are not immune from flawed ideological belief, or from using it to propagate propaganda. More generally, in the United States, the undermining of campaign finance reform laws has led to clear partiality on the side of representatives. Given the need to raise immense funds for reelection in campaigns that now feature open avenues to corporate donations, representatives are beholden to the clearly partial motives of big business and high-wealth individuals. So, while a great deal of this work is devoted to vindicating Madison’s concerns about the illiberal and antidemocratic effects of flawed ideology, I do not share his optimism that the solution is to be found in replacing a pure democracy with a representative one, especially in a context in which the safeguards have been removed. Flawed ideology is an obstacle to realizing one’s goals. On the one hand, those benefiting from large material inequalities will tend to adopt flawed ideologies in the form of false legitimation narratives. These false legitimation narratives will blind them to injustice, and hence from realizing their ethical goals. On the other hand, those suffering materially from large inequalities, via lack of land, access to high-status positions, or other obstacles to equality of opportunity and attainment, will be led to adopt a flawed ideology of their own inferiority. This will prevent them from realizing their material interests.
The effects of the “big businesses” and “wealthy individuals” are obvious (and occasionally synonymous - see Musk, X, and the creation of DOGE). That example actually takes it a setup further. Musk has bought himself a role that allows him to gut the agencies that regulate him. The foxes are not just IN the hen house, but have been contracted to remodel it, and rather than recognizing that they are on the menu, a bunch of the hens are over here like “our liberator has arrived!!!”
So if the structure that was supposed to mitigate the effects of inequality and protect us from flawed ideologies is effectively amplifying those ideologies what does that leave us? What democratic tools do we actually have?
Ending with one last quote that I’ll pick up later with some more thoughts Plato and managerial societies.
A society ruled by technocrats who make decisions on behalf of the masses is, since Plato’s time, regarded as a system that is opposed to democracy, rather than one exemplifying it.