Businessman and Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to trail former US secretary of state and Democratic US presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in national polls.
A well-known billionaire who never held public office, Trump has garnered supporters with a distinct brand of self-promotion and blunt language that contradict traditional political rhetoric and resonate strongly with potential voters.
Yet observers from both sides of the political divide have dismissed his candidacy as a “joke” for his outrageous and invective remarks, lack of a coherent governing philosophy, and superficial acquaintance with policy issues. How the US might address such a pernicious outburst of populism while retaining a belief in some form of political democracy is of concern not only for Americans, but also for observers and stakeholders around the world.
While the concept of democracy had its origins in ancient Greece, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle agreed that the rational part of the soul should rule over the irrational.
In The Republic, for example, Plato argues that the ideal city would most easily be realized if a king became a philosopher or a philosopher became king. This is because philosophers rule by reason and virtues and are free from the influences of false ideology.
In Nicomachean Ethics, on the other hand, Aristotle views reason as the key to the best human life. He contended that happiness can be achieved when one employs their best human capacities and engages in deep philosophical contemplation.
The rise of Trump and populism in this election cycle can be compared to Plato’s discussion of the sophists in The Republic. The sophist exploits his knowledge of the majority’s desires and dispositions and imparts that false knowledge as a formal philosophy. Hence people might understand populism as a doctrine that appeals to the prejudices of the general population in which the irrational part of the soul supersedes reason as a basis for political judgment.
In other words, populism clouds rational judgement and serves to weaken the function of existing systems and institutions designed to enforce order and promote the public interest. The perceived interests of a majority, possibly prejudiced by the charm and psychological domination of a leader like Trump, take over a society and its political rule.
Civic education can correct the prevalent populism in democratic politics. Education bolsters democracy by preparing people for life-long involvement and responsible leadership in political society.
In The Republic, the fundamental goal of education is to change people’s desires and turn them toward the pursuit of true happiness. Notably, the allegory of the cave illustrates the effects of education on citizenry, and everyone in the city travels as far out of the cave as education can take them.
Aristotle believed that the citizen should value reciprocity and act appropriately. Emphasizing civic education would thus reinforce liberal democratic institutions by enabling the citizenry and help them better identify leaders based on merit, which might include qualities such as knowledge, character and experience.
More participation and deliberation are necessary in US democracy. Certainly, a degree of passion and spirit is instrumental to a healthy political society.
However, as Plato and Aristotle would argue, the irrational tendencies should not supplant reason and principle in the formulation of public policies. Political activity should appreciate reason and promote the greater good. The development of a participatory and deliberative democracy would serve to encourage a more robust political culture and remove those conditions, which are the fertile soil in which the seeds of populism grow and develop.
As long as it stays within lawfully acceptable boundaries, Trump’s political expressions will continue to be protected as free speech. This underscores the significance of inclusion and tolerance long established in US democracy. Yet Trump’s populist candidacy remains a political dilemma, and his positions on issues like immigration, trade and strategic alliances present tremendous risks to the world order.
The US electorate will need to spell out exactly why decency and statesmanship are important to democracy and why a populist candidacy like Trump’s is harmful to the US and the world.
Alfred E. Tsai is a student at Columbia University, where he is studying economics and political science.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS