The Surgical Demolition of Public Trust & Societal Maturity
A Textbook Strategy for Upending Democracy
Aristotle and Plato warned that democracies are inherently fragile, always teetering on the brink of tyranny. Today, their insights feel almost prophetic as we witness the backsliding of modern democracies around the world. Venezuela, Georgia, Hungary, Peru, Russia, all serve as grim examples of societies unraveling under the weight of internal corruption. Those who voted for Vladimir Putin in the year 2000 could not have foreseen that their choice would result in the last true election they would ever participate in. The president they had put into power would never again release his grip, only ever tightening his choke-hold.
Aristotle argued that democracy is a fundamentally flawed form of governance, as numbers are the only governing metric. If you have sufficient numbers, what is right & rational matters naught. "The rule of law be damned," he might have said. If you have the power to rally the public towards the cliff, they are tied together at the waist, and as one falls, so begin the others. The average distribution is the deciding factor. Corrode it sufficiently, and the abyss awaits the masses. The heights of wisdom and reason are rarely possessed by the majority, so all democracies will forever sit below the mark. They will only ever be as good as their education system, as their ethical & epistemological center of gravity determines their directionality and potentialities.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were acutely aware of the challenges inherent in democratic governance. Immersed in Greek and Roman political philosophy, they understood the potential pitfalls that could destabilize such systems. In The Federalist Papers, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton drew on these classical insights to advocate for a federal republic, which is a form of democracy, but with crucial safeguards. Their vision for the U.S. Constitution was to harness the strengths of democracy while mitigating its vulnerabilities. One key safeguard was the establishment of a representative system, designed to ensure that elected officials, presumably more adept in governance, would refine and moderate the public's demands. This approach aimed to prevent impulsive, ill-conceived ideas from becoming law. Additionally, the Constitution, fortified by the Bill of Rights, set clear boundaries on legislative power, further protecting against potential overreach by those representative bodies.
The true strength of the United States stems from the exceptional vision and intellect of its founders. Their maturity laid the bedrock upon which the nation was built, shaped by a profound education and life experience. Such individuals are rare in today's world. Yet, despite their diligent efforts to safeguard the system, democracies remain only as resilient as the collective maturity of their citizenry. Without an informed and vigilant public, capable of comprehending both the immediate and far-reaching impacts of political actions, even the most well-constructed democratic systems are at risk of collapse.
Milton Mayer, in They Thought They Were Free (1955), pleads to be understood, telling of just how subtle and insidious the corruption of a nation is from the inside.
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”
The trouble is, the political landscape is vastly complex and the majority lack the educational foundations to parse its events. As Milton writes, to notice this unfolding, one must have a “much greater political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.” If someone lacks the educational foundations to notice “what the whole thing was in principle,” then the weight of events will never register, until it’s too late. For facts to gain gravity in the mind of the observer, the observer must first have the conceptual framing that would allow them to comprehend what something is, in principle.
Public Trust
Here is an example of how this lack of political awareness manifests in real-time. Imagine someone were to make this seemingly simple claim: An elected official is deliberately eroding public trust.
While it might appear basic at first glance, fully understanding the implications requires a nuanced grasp of multiple fields. One must consider political systems, the psychological effects of leadership behavior on public perception, and the legal standards governing public officials. Additionally, social and cultural contexts determine the norms which heavily influence how citizens interpret the actions of their leaders. Without this broad range of knowledge, the claim remains inoperable.
To be hit by the full weight of this claim, one needs insights from political theory, sociology, history, and ethics. Understanding how public trust influences civic behavior and institutional integrity is critical. The erosion of public trust can have dire consequences for the health of a democracy. Trust acts as the bedrock of democratic systems. It fosters civic engagement, encourages open dialogue, and facilitates cooperation between the government and its citizens. When trust diminishes, so does the willingness of the public to participate in the democratic process, leading to apathy, disengagement, and ultimately, an anti-patriotic population.
Over time, this can create a feedback loop that can quickly turn into a death-spiral: as trust wanes, citizens become more cynical, making it even harder for officials to regain that trust. When citizens perceive their leaders as dishonest or corrupt, they may withdraw their support for government institutions as whole, or refuse to engage with the political process altogether. This disengagement weakens the very foundations of democracy, allowing for the rise of authoritarianism or corrupt governance.
When an official’s actions are not only eroding this trust but doing so with deliberate intent, it signals something far more troubling. It suggests strategic motivations that could aim to consolidate power, manipulate public perception, or undermine democratic norms to serve personal or ideological ends.
Now, consider a scenario where the seriousness of the claim is downplayed. Imagine segments of the population or media dismissing the impacts of a leader’s questionable actions. They might argue that such behavior is simply part of the political landscape or that it doesn’t affect the official’s ability to govern. This stance is not necessarily born from malicious intent. Rather, it often arises from being undereducated about the broader implications of leadership conduct. If individuals fail to recognize the significant role public trust plays in governance, they may mistakenly conclude that an official’s behavior is inconsequential.
The ignorance of these detractors is not benign. When these misconceptions become widespread, they can limit scrutiny of public officials, weakening the checks and balances essential to democratic governance. Over time, this normalization of questionable behavior can erode the accountability that keeps democratic institutions functioning effectively. The absence of public trust creates an environment where misinformation and disinformation can flourish, further complicating efforts to restore faith in government.
It's crucial to notice that expertise in a specific areas does not inherently translate to an understanding of the overarching issue. A political figure may excel in legal or administrative matters yet be ignorant of public trust dynamics. These pseudo-experts can overconfidently misguide the public by mistakenly claiming the official’s conduct is a non-issue. This begins to influence the narrative surrounding an official’s behavior, misdirecting society, ultimately undermining the trust necessary for the survival of democratic institutions.
Societal Maturity
Now, let us consider a claim that many find even more esoteric: An elected official is fostering societal immaturity. Ubiquitous moral confusion has rendered what should be an alarming assertion insignificant, failing to register as a concern for many.
Immaturity is not merely an individual failing but a foundational vice that can influence an entire society’s moral and intellectual trajectory. Maturity is the pinnacle virtue, of which all other virtues comprise. Virtue: A particular behavioral pattern of a system that tends to promote well-being. A vice is its antonym: A particular behavioral pattern that tends to promote suffering. This framing provides contact with the fact that immaturity is the utmost damning state any being can occupy. It is the supreme vice, facilitated by all others. A person that is immature will cause suffering. Give that person power, and that suffering is proportionately exacerbated.
When leaders embody and promote immaturity, they compromise not only their own efficacy but also condition the populace to accept, emulate, and normalize that state of being. This normalization has profound implications, weakening the moral and intellectual fabric of society and perpetuating a cycle that undermines collective progress. The deliberate showcasing of immaturity by a public official can manifest as impulsive decision-making, a disregard for wisdom, a lack of self-reflection, and hypocritical behavior. When leaders exhibit these traits, they send a signal to society that such behaviors are acceptable, even aspirational. In an immature society, integrity is replaced by convenience, prudence is overshadowed by momentary gains, and will devolves into stubbornness or self-gratification.
Consider a leader who consistently shifts blame, reacts to challenges with emotional outbursts, or prioritizes personal gain over collective wellbeing. Such behavior encourages citizens to see immaturity as a viable approach to power, fostering a culture of cruelty, divisiveness, short-sightedness, and self-serving ethics. This undermines maturity, which embodies patience, critical-thinking, and actions that prioritize the long-term health and growth of society.
When societal leaders project and normalize immaturity, the implications are dire. The collective mindset shifts from striving toward the highest virtues to indulging in the path of least resistance. Public discourse becomes reactionary, constructive criticism is replaced by defensiveness, and immediate gratification overshadows long-term progress. A society led by immature figures becomes ill-equipped to confront existential threats. Its members, guided by a myopic paradigm, lack the foresight needed to face challenges with character. Such normalization feeds the void that stunts societal growth, resulting in decisions that exacerbate division and misunderstanding. An immature society, led by an immature leader, becomes one that resists its own potential for growth and self-actualization, hindering not just current progress but future potential. An elected official’s deliberate normalization of societal immaturity is a catalyst for cultural decline. Such behavior establishes vice as the standard, blinds society of its profound potential, and perpetuates a cycle of fragmentation and stagnation.
This is all to say, if one is not mature, they are not one to lead.
The resilience of a democracy hinges on more than its foundational documents or institutions. It rests on the trust and maturity of its citizens and leaders. When public officials engage in deliberate actions that destroy trust and maturity, the implications go beyond mere political missteps. They point to a calculated effort to manipulate and consolidate power, undermining democratic norms for personal or ideological gain. Such erosion triggers a cycle of cynicism and disengagement, weakening the democratic fabric and paving the way for authoritarian practices to take root. The normalization of these behaviors, especially when downplayed by segments of society or media, further erodes accountability and fosters an environment ripe for corruption.
Let us not arrogantly assume that we are immune to that which has befallen countless nations before us. This is not Nazi Germany, but this is a corroding democracy. If we cannot come to see what is unfolding, in principle, we are destined to fall beside the rest. One day, instead of Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free, someone will be writing a book titled, They Thought They Were Different.