Aristotle and Democracy

Aristotle in his Politics lays out a thorough discussion of the various forms of government – monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. His focus is the character of men and their ability to govern rather than identifying the best political system.

In Book 2, he is harshly critical of Plato and his Republic. Plato envisioned a communist society where all citizens are alike. To Aristotle this is impossible because the differentiation of functions is a law of nature. Moreover, the abolition of property will produce dissention and not harmony. As Aristotle pointed out, the advantages expected from the communism of property would be better secured if private property were used in a liberal spirit to relieve the wants of others. Private property makes men happier and enables them to cultivate generosity.

In Book 3, Aristotle tackles the aims of the state and how they are represented in the various governmental models.

“A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a state, especially of the highest of all. The government is everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in fact the government. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say that these two forms of government also are different: and so in other cases.” No matter what the form of government, knowledge of its true forms is essential to be able to understand its perversions.

“The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.”

It’s not a great leap to see how this statement applies to the United States today, where the Congress and the people have gravitated to their own parochial interests and away from the common good.

Aristotle goes on (Book 3 Chapter 7) to describe the perversion of Democracy as the needy. What does he mean by this? When Democracy becomes extreme and the numerous poor control the state, they will not be good rulers because they do not have the skill. Better to limit their function to a deliberative one, such as participation in the courts.

“Our conclusion, then, is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. Hence they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue; or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.”

This means that a successful political system must employ those possessing the greatest skill in its most important roles. But skill in itself is not enough, because power must be used for good.

“There is also a doubt as to what is to be the supreme power in the state: Is it the multitude, or the wealthy, or the good, or the one best man, or a tyrant? Any of these alternatives seems to involve disagreeable consequences.

If the poor, for example, because they are more in number, divide among themselves the property of the rich- is not this unjust? No, by heaven (will be the reply), for the supreme authority justly willed it. But if this is not injustice, pray what is? Again, when in the first division all has been taken, and the majority divide anew the property of the minority, is it not evident, if this goes on, that they will ruin the state? Yet surely, virtue is not the ruin of those who possess her, nor is justice destructive of a state; and therefore this law of confiscation clearly cannot be just. If it were, all the acts of a tyrant must of necessity be just; for he only coerces other men by superior power, just as the multitude coerce the rich. But is it just then that the few and the wealthy should be the rulers? And what if they, in like manner, rob and plunder the people- is this just? If so, the other case will likewise be just. But there can be no doubt that all these things are wrong and unjust.”

Doesn’t this property confiscation sound amazingly similar to the Progressive agenda before us today in the United States – the leveling of wealth the current administration seeks? We must take care that social agendas do not break down our society for the wrong reasons. At the end of the day, human beings have behaviors that cannot be re-programmed into some kind of utopian construct.

What is the difference between Political Parties and Political Ideology?

This is another important question that leads to confusion.

As most people understand, political parties are defined across a spectrum. On the left, sit the Progressives and next to them on their right are the Liberals. Moving farther to the right, we see the independents who have no strong affiliation with either party. At the extreme right are the Conservatives. Most people, when asked, would say they are "on the Right" or "on the Left" or "in the Middle" politically; a shorthand way of describing their political beliefs.

The ideology spectrum is much different. Politics, since the Enlightenment, has been a battle between Collectivists and Individualists, meaning those who believe society should emphasize the group versus those who believe society should emphasize the individual. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are examples of Collectivist models. Classical Liberalism is an example of a individualist model.

During the development of Collectivist thinking, a split occurred. One group embraced Collectivism by group management of a society (Socialists), and the other embraced Collectivism as an Authoritarian management of society (Fascists). As you can imagine, Socialism has government controlling the economy to achieve equality. Fascism has a single political party with an Authoritarian structure controlling the society. Fascism is a group model because the whole society is considered one large group. Fascists believe that their structure is the best to avoid society's problems because the state will solve them. They also believe that theirs is the best form to protect people from outside interference or attack.

As you can see on the chart, Socialists are on the left of the ideology spectrum and Fascists are on the right. Liberalism sits in the middle because it is an individualism model and not a group model like the other two.

People create confusion when they mix up ideology and politics. For example, some on the Left call Trump a Fascist. That's wrong. He is not interested in becoming a dictator, but he is interested in exercising the full power of the presidency. He actually isn't a Conservative either because many of this beliefs are not a part of the Conservative ideology. Trump is most correctly labelled a "populist", meaning he has tailored his programs to his major constituencies. He won the election by convincing blue collar men that he would look out for their interests (jobs). They voted for him instead of the Democratic Party because they felt abandoned.

What is Liberalism?

There are three kinds of Liberalism, which causes confusion in applying their definitions. Each describes a different economic system.

Classical Liberalism was one of the key objectives of the Enlightenment (1650-1800). It defined a world were individuals had the freedom to make their own way in the world to achieve success. They could either sell themselves to a corporation and be paid or start their own business. Government would be designed to not interfere with the individual and would protect his rights.

During the New Deal years of the 1930s, the Democratic Party changed the definition of Liberalism to describe the Welfare State, in which big government would create social programs to alleviate the plight of the disadvantaged. This use of or the word has been labelled Modern (or American) Liberalism to avoid confusion with the original term.

In the 1970s, Neoliberalism came into being as an political ideology. Neoliberals sought to fight back against the failed welfare state by implementing a variation of Classical Liberalism. Neoliberals believe that the purpose of government should be to support the Capitalist system rather than create social programs. All the activities in a society should be designed to support a stable market. Neoliberals see Globalism as a goal because it promotes world Capitalism and prevents Nationalism from interfering with markets.