The Tyranny of Democracy

"Democracy passes into despotism." - Plato's "Republic," Book VIII

Liberal Democracy has often been hailed as the pinnacle of human political achievement and the “final form of human government.” However, what is rarely discussed is how democracy itself paradoxically paves the way to outright tyranny. This is not a new revelation, yet its reality has been obfuscated due to incessant propaganda from both left and right liberals who seek to exploit democracy for political gain at home and use it as a basis for expanding the Global American Empire abroad.

We often hear the statement, "America is a Republic, not a democracy,” a distinction we will discuss later; however, the left cares little for this as they relentlessly attempt to introduce more instances of direct democracy into our system while eroding all societal morals and norms that are required to keep a society cohesive and peaceful. 

We’ve all seen the protests on television, filled with people marching through streets chanting, “Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” 

Ironically, a mob is exactly what democracy looks like.

But why does democracy devolve into mob rule and ultimately lead to tyranny? We begin to answer this question by first looking at the trial of Socrates. 

Socrates was put on trial to determine the philosopher's guilt on two charges: a lack of reverence for authority and corrupting the city's youth. Socrates was quite controversial, and I'd imagine if he were alive today, he'd probably be banned from social media, though he might still have a home on Twitter…err I mean X.

During the trial of Socrates, out of the 500 Athenian jurors summoned, 280 jurors voted to find Socrates guilty, and 220 jurors voted for acquittal. Fast forward to the penalty phase, and those same jurors got to vote on whether Socrates deserved a mere fine for his transgressions or deserved to die. One would think that since 220 jurors voted to acquit Socrates of all charges, the same number, if not more, would vote for the fine over sentencing him to death. 

Unfortunately for Socrates, that was not the case. During the penalty phase, a whopping 360 jurors voted for death, and only 140 voted for a fine. This means some jurors who voted to acquit Socrates then turned around and sentenced him to die.

Under Athenian law, the execution was carried out by drinking a cup of poison hemlock. Socrates drank the poison and subsequently died of gradual paralysis of the central nervous system. But it wasn’t just the poison that killed Socrates; it was democracy. I say that because, in our legal system, criminal cases like this require a unanimous jury for conviction, not a simple majority. But in ancient Athens, a simple majority, i.e., democracy, was able to find Socrates guilty and sentence him to death. 

Plato, who was Socrates's most famous student, discussed five regimes in “Republic,” beginning with Aristocracy. As one progressed through the regimes, and each deteriorated into the next, one eventually arrived at tyranny. The last stage before tyranny? Democracy. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement from a very wise man.

Plato argued in “Republic” that a just society can be created by establishing a harmonious "Kallipolis" or beautiful city. This city consists of three social classes: philosopher-kings as rulers, guardians as warriors, and producers as workers. Plato believed that the most just state was one where philosopher-kings ruled. Possessed with a love for wisdom and undergoing rigorous philosophical training, they would govern with the state's and its citizens' well-being as their top priority.

This is in stark contrast to Plato’s views on democracy, which he believed would lead to the rise of popular leaders who would exploit people's emotions for their own gain instead of making decisions that benefited the common good. The allure of instant gratification and giving the masses what they want in exchange for votes is far more attractive to unvirtuous leaders than the risk of losing an election by doing the hard work of stewarding a country to lasting prosperity.

However, the situation is more complex than that. Democracy is often painted as a system where people hold debates in the "marketplace of ideas" until the best ones win and a consensus is reached. But that's not how democracy actually works.

Plato never had to contend with the machine that is the modern mainstream media. Today, “what the people want” is shaped by a propaganda apparatus that has spent decades conditioning the hearts and minds of the people it was entrusted to inform.

Of course, the media has always had an agenda, as even George Washington once referred to journalists as "infamous scribblers.” However, in contemporary times, the media's reach and influence have infiltrated almost every aspect of our daily lives and now function as a de facto public relations firm for the Democratic Party. In many ways, we now live in a media-controlled state, where it is the narrative that drives public opinion rather than the actual news.

Patronage and Parchment.

One way for political leadership to obtain power is through the ever-expanding universe of “individual rights.” As demands for more rights increase, the government must grow to protect these rights. As such, politicians then campaign on protecting and handing out even more rights and privileges. This patronage involves the exchange of favors and resources in return for political and financial support. Patronage is then used to garner votes, consolidate even more power, expand the bureaucracy, and secure loyalty from constituents or interest groups as reliable voting blocs. This practice morphs genuine representation into mass manipulation, compromising the democratic process by prioritizing personal gain over the public good.

But what about our written constitution, hailed by conservatives as the lone backstop against tyranny? Sadly, mere parchment is incapable of being a bulwark against tyranny as it inevitably becomes vulnerable to evolving legal interpretations, changing societal norms, and political maneuvering. Moreover, the effectiveness of a written constitution heavily relies on the willingness of those in power to uphold its principles. As society transforms, so does the understanding and enforcement of constitutional “rights,” leading to their erosion (and the invention of new ones) despite the document's existence. Ultimately, a constitution cannot hold a nation together; only shared traditions and customs can hope to accomplish this daunting task.

The rise and fall of the Roman Republic is a good example of this fact, especially because for all the successes of their civilization, it was done without much in the way of written laws. The cohesive force that united all Romans lay in the unspoken norms of social and political behavior. Despite the absence of a written constitution or extensive body of laws, the Romans relied on unwritten rules, traditions, and mutual expectations, collectively referred to as "Mos Maiorum," meaning "the way of the elders." But as the Republic entered its decline, it was not the Roman law itself that weakened, but rather the erosion of respect for the mutually accepted bonds of "Mos Maiorum." The erosion of tradition and mutual expectations was also aided by the expansion of citizenship, which was awarded to people from newly acquired territories, further undermining cultural and social cohesion.

Of course, the fall of the Roman Republic cannot be explained in just a few paragraphs, but the Roman Aristocracy (patricians) provided great stability and stewardship of their civilization. As more and more power was awarded to the plebeian (commoner) class, more instability arose. As such, ambitious politicians often sought to undermine republican institutions to further their own power and agendas, while civic virtue was all but abandoned, along with concern for the “common good.”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

Polybius, an ancient Greek historian, sought to explain the rise of Rome to global dominance. He emphasized factors like its mixed constitution, which was a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The founding fathers studied both ancient Rome and Ancient Greece and constructed a republican government with many similarities to what Polybius described.

• Monarchy: ruled by the one. This is the Office of the President

• Aristocracy: ruled by the few. This is the U.S. Senate

• Democracy: ruled by the many. This is the U.S. House of Representatives

Add in federalism, which is supposed to divide power between the federal government and state governments, along with a separate judicial branch, topped off with a written Constitution and Bill of Rights, and you’ll see that the checks and balances championed by the founders were, at least structurally, put in place to try and prevent the slide into despotism.

Unfortunately, no structural safeguards are effective when the bonds of “Mos Maiorum” are eroded, and democracy expands unconstrained within a population whose education system is devoid of virtue, is failing its children academically, and is ultimately designed to undermine the Republic itself. It’s hard to “keep a Republic” when only 1 in 3 Americans can actually pass a U.S. Citizenship Test, and only 55% feel compelled to stay and fight for their country if America were ever invaded.

The trajectory of the United States very much mirrors the fall of the Roman Republic. We are somewhere between the great wars of conquest (Rome’s final victory over Carthage is akin to the US Cold War victory over the Soviet Union) and the rise of the Caesars.

Much like at the tail end of the Roman Republic, widespread corruption is now commonplace in the United States. Our ruling elite cloaks itself in the “virtues” of democracy while only caring about the privileges they can secure for themselves and their political patrons. We are experiencing deep-rooted social issues, disputes over immigration and citizenship, military quagmires, the use of violence as a political tactic, and most recently, the complete weaponization of the regime's Justice Department against its political opponents. Will the unprecedented arrest and prosecution of a former President and his political allies be a “crossing the Rubicon” moment for America? I fear the worst is yet to come.