The inversion of majority and minority in modern politics, as a focus for how we understand both politics and…

The inversion of majority and minority in modern politics, as a focus for how we understand both politics and society. A thread. /1 https://t.co/bx410Fao0T

The worshipping of the majority in modern democracies paradoxically stems from the great neoliberal and libertarian (what I call N=1 politics) push of the past 50 years. The fact those have occurred together should yell to us that something is not right here. /2

How does a political philosophy that kneels before the altar of individuality and personal responsibility, come to be the greatest fan of majority decision-making? And so dismissive of minorities? Unravel this and you unravel the heart of modern conservative.../3

...politics. You can be a conservative without being a libertarian. In fact and as an aside, conservatism without the N=1 trappings is probably the soundest of all political philosophies,.../4

...the idea that custom and tradition are our best guides. Custom and tradition guide us well because they represent a sort of survival of the fittest of human belief. They help us avoid the politics of short-term populism. Aside over. /5

Anyway, modern conservatives push majority politics because they're marketing men (they're mostly men). They know a majority is really just a market, to be built and manipulated. They do that all the time in business. Humans imitate, copy, the root of society. Peer pressure. /6

Unfortunately at the same time we think democracy is the rule of the majority. The libertarians have carefully marketed that view, over the past 50 years. We think it's also how our elections and parliaments work, so they get away with it. In fact it's true of neither. /7

Yes you need a majority in an election or parliament, to win the vote. But with preferential voting for example that's far from being some simple numerical sum. And there are multiple checks and balances built into parliamentary votes too, including having to pass 2 houses. /8

A 'majority' is just the compromise most people will support. And because people don't vote on specific decisions or issues, but rather on a general 'mandate' for somebody to govern for a few years - they delegate authority to be led - it's built right into the DNA of our.../9

...political processes that for nearly every decision that gets made in government, not only is a majority of the public not required, but in fact the public is not even involved. That's fine, that's what representative governance means. But when a conservative government.../10

...then talks endlessly about their 'mandate' to do whatever they like, the bullshit comes into view. Their only mandate is to govern, it's completely separate to most of the specific decisions they'll be asked to make. Representative government requires a huge number of.../11

...checks and balances to arrive at those decisions. But once you start saying the mandate was to do whatever they liked, governments are free to ignore all of those checks and balances, their departmental advice, their negotiation with opposing parties etc. /12

They can even close the parliament altogether and set up a 'National Cabinet', with zero representation from representatives who nearly 50% of the population voted for. This is populism, the sibling of majority politics. What is popular is the new God. /13

(This is actually high school, which I've Tweeted about a lot, but that's another issue.) Now provided a government is popular, they can literally do whatever they like, all requirement to meet any checks and balances at all is removed. Departmental heads are replaced by.../14

...hand-picked political advisers. (We remember the turf wars between these even in Yes Minister, which was written when these changes were in their infancy.) But to bring this back to majorities and why they're such a weapon for modern conservatism.../15

Obviously firstly because of the populist way it allows due process to be swept away, as above. But it goes further, because it also says the right thing to do, is the thing most people want you to do. 'Majority rules'. This is so embedded in popular understanding of how.../16

...democracy works that many I'm sure would even use it as the definition of democracy. But it isn't. Democracy is government of the people, by the people. There's ZERO reference to head counting. The origin of democracy was to replace monarchs as the ultimate.../18

...justification for authority, with the people being ruled over themselves. There's not one reference to how they will enact this; it's a delegation thing, not a maths thing. And historically, the main impetus for the design of democratic methodology was actually about.../19

...protecting *minority* beliefs and peoples. That's what much of the checks and balances are about. Senates, as 'States' houses', protect smaller States from larger States. Etc. A clear recognition that the majority tends to look after itself, and the main reason to .../20

...bother with government at all is to protect those who aren't part of that majority. A democracy is fundamentally a mechanism for protecting minorities. Modern conservatives generally dislike minorities, and thus we can see they also fundamentally dislike democracy itself. /21

Modern populist politics is the old monarchical way of ruling, dressed up in democratic clothes. It's their sleight of hand, that has gradually reinstated the old monarchical ways, over the top of democratic mechanisms. N=1 folk don't give a fig about the individual,.../22

...they care about hierarchy. They use majority politics to reinstate old hierarchies, using the language of new ones. The individuals who benefit from their rule are themselves, and the wealthy and powerful they represent. /23

I'll end by saying that while we tend to assume democracy is the best way to do things, it's still quite arguable that it may not be. Look how easily they've succumbed to populism, to the restoration of 'kings'. Like Trump. Halfwit but imperial. It is very possible that.../24

...some form of monarchy is the most stable form of government. History actually says this is true, overwhelmingly it's dominated by monarchies. Graber and Sahlins both suggested the same. So I think we need to be at least agnostic about the merits of democracy. And.../25 https://t.co/Z4vPR1XWWv

...try to get at least the best kings and queens we can find. Not reality TV stars, pentecostal zealots, sports and rock stars, or suburban accountants and lawyers. /end