Status Updates From The Phantom Public (The Lib...

THE REALMS OF DISORDER

Centralizers: must extend control over all factors in a problem or the problem can't be solved

Lloyd George's appeal

Dem. dilemma: depend on assent, unable to find solutions except via centralized control

Attempt to tame power by offsetting it with power
Solution: Break down the fiction of identity: quarrel of two men is theirs, not the quarrel of the nation
Constant assault of propaganda

Village opinions of outside may be strange but facts about village not in dispute. Elders bring events under precedent of law.

Absentee governments lack these checks.

"we must see what Paris is going to do"
French minister's boast

Distantly imposed rules lack the sanction of consent, they rest on force
Here the force of public opinion is ineffective.
Either frustrate own purpose or frustrate pretender purpose.

Role of speculation

Discipline of craftsman, virtues of thrift are not complete guides to success
Lately more about visions: projecting the mind over an invisible environment.

Tendency to standardize to one's convenience the context of one's activity
Bringing more and more men under one custom and law.
Decision makers further from men they govern than before.
Governed see vivid aspects of a whole they can't imagine

Liberalism: vague unwordliness: escape from particular purposes into universal purpose
All men desire perfect adjustment - but on their own terms

Problem becomes soluble if we don't personify society - name of all adjustments b/w individuals -> Individuals who act, not society

ABSENTEE RULERS
Monoistic theories -> centralization of power
Today all the world constitutes one system
Individuals only see part of it

Pretense that all is being told.

Monoistic vs. pluralistic theory, "hint of anarchy"

Liberalism: men are finite, prejudiced, no absolute certainty, bias in all opinion

M. Yevreynoff's monodrama, drunken hero, but author stands outside him
Flight into generalities.
Liberalism still important in disembodied state.
Liberals spoke to all mankind.

Other philosophies always address themselves to a SPECIFIC GROUP.

Democracy made a mass of amateur executives

Masterful few vs. ignorant many: fundamental difference is outsiders vs. insiders
Force of public opinion is partisan, needs its own intellectual methods.

SOCIETY IN ITS PLACE
Society a bewildered herd - due to ascribing it organic unity and purpose.
Leaders maintain this deception -> puts truth in "second place".
Nothing wrong with a frank refusal to tell.

THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC OPINION

Not for the Public:
1. Executive action
2. Merits of a question
3. Analysis of the solution
4. Criteria for handling the question

For the Public:
5. Judge if actors are following settled rule of behavior
6. Criteria suitable to nature of Public opinion for #5
7. Reasonable behavior follows settled course in handling a rule

Democratic ideal never defined the function of the Public.

What if all submit to inquiry? Then the test reveals nothing.

A rule should be organized so that experience reveals its defects.
A rule must involve means of clarification, amendment, and due notice.
Amendment should not be continual or unforeseen.
These are not exhaustive or definitive criteria. To some they cannot be applied. Then the public best not act at all.

Limit of public intervention by judgement capacity.

Test of public inquiry surest clue to sincerity and confidence of the claimant.
In absence of law, is he willing to abide by forms by which law may be made?
We are maintaining a society based on the principle that all controversies are soluble by peaceable agreement, even if this is not true, to confirm the habit of reason.

Test of inquiry is the master test to extend frontiers of reason.

Particular reformers must look for support among ruling insiders.
Public can be refined by breaking up wholesale judgments.

Locate objective tests which actor is worthy of support.
Public support is like bank's gold reserve.
During crisis arguments are lost in fog of propaganda.

These most difficult problems are when the public is called upon.

TEST: Which party is willing to submit to inquiry and abide by result?

If choices were profound, elections would be catastrophic.
Instead assumption is the opposite.

Nation is stable when nothing of radical consequence is determined by its elections.

Real difference: Ins become entangled w/ interests, Outs take power, restore balance due to not being committed to those interests.

Ins are effective = absence of disturbing problems
Can't back each reformer, judgment must be cumulative

THE CRITERIA OF REFORM

Most issues dealt with by ruling elite, public only catches echoes of debate.

Settlements made continually -> ruling party has confidence, outsiders arrayed behind dominant insiders.
If interested parties cannot agree, there is crisis.

Essence of popular government is support Ins when going well, Outs when going badly.
No choice = no popular government

STABLE SOCIETIES = differences not big

Test is not if objectors are right, but merely that the leader can commit his constituents.
Criticizes but does not rebel = no concern.

Man willing to pay the price for heresy probably has an arguable case.

By measuring assent and conformity, the public can detect the presence of a defect in a rule. But it can only detect the presence of a defect, not the merits of the defect.

THE DEFECTIVE RULE

How rule violations are justified
A new rule requires assent, no matter how wise, otherwise there would be no rules.

How to know if sufficient assent is given?
Assent is lacking if there is protest or disobedience. How to measure?

Only public matter if public tribunal is attacked. How to know if a protest is made: Is the spokesman authorized? Burden of proof on those who deny leadership.

TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC

The public only deals with failures.

1. Is the rule defective?
2. How shall the agency be recognized which is most likely to mend it?
A member of the public can only usefully concern himself w/ these.

THE MAIN VALUE OF PUBLIC DEBATE
Not the merits of the arguments, interested advocates likely to expose each other if free discussion is insisted on. Betray the partisan is the purpose.

Public interest: There shall be rules
Individual's business is not public concern, that the individual obey the rules is.
Interested in law, not in laws.

Public is not dispenser or rules or morals, but a reserve force to be mobilized on behalf.

Public must recognize that system of rights is necessary, but no particular system is sacred, and not meddle in merits.

Modus vivendi historically acquires religious/ideal sanction.
Always slightly antiquated formulation, there is lag.

System of rights is a system of promises that public sentiment supports.
Enforcement of promises.

Questions about answered by dominant interests in the society, arguments as weapons. Appeal to reason -> to support/desert

Public cannot intervene on merits - objection = problem, no objection = solution

Economists deal with scarcity.

SOCIAL CONTRACTS
Sacrifice to one end all conflicting others. Tree fruit, insect example.
No account of disharmony for flies.

All measurements of value are part of the universe. We must measure by human values, or pov of specific men.

Invention of social organisms.
Instead of unity of purpose, we look for accommodation of purposes.
Solution = competing interests find modus vivendi

THE NATURE OF A PROBLEM

Explanation of perceptions changing with increasing time horizons

Disharmonies of uneven evolution.
Problems arise from change, an altered relationship between two connected variables.
Automobile, military peace. Ratio by treaty etc., Canada vs. USA unevenness not a problem because we don't compare them -> variables not connected

THE QUESTION ARISTOTLE ASKED

The public is a phantom, different w/ respect to different groups.
Public = interested in affair, affect only by supporting or opposing actors.

Can't expect to deal w/ merits, need recognizable signs to follow.
Guides to reasonable action for use of uninformed people.
Acting effectively on complex affairs by simple means.

Illustrations which may be developed on later.

Only when crises arise is public opinion concerned - habitual process of life disrupted, workable adjustment made. Morality, details irrelevant.

Coarse signs for which side holds a workable social rule.
Irrational force, must be led by institutions.

Function of government = will of the people is a fiction

Public opinion checks the use of force, drive sides to make terms.

Justification found in pragmatism.
Voting a substitute for fighting, today voting represents all kinds of force, not just physical.

Public intervenes only occasionally.

THE NEUTRALIZATION OF ARBITRARY FORCE
Ideal that conforms to public action
Coarse signs for where sympathies ought to turn.

Assume public stays only short time, short time horizon.
Events melodramatized as conflict.
Quote: The public will arrive...

Macaulay quote on industry vs. government

Prussian bureaucracy demonstrates no such difference,
contrast is b/w specific things and general results.

Public is always external.

WHAT THE PUBLIC DOES
Role determined by fact that it's external.
Election vote NOT expression of opinion. Public doesn't choose candidate
Absurdity of popular sovereignty shown in codes of rights, elaborate subsidies.

Actionable info available to one person is limited. Private citizen does not understand of direct the functioning of government.
Politicians accountable only to others, not to public.

Two types of opinion: specific & direct, general & indirect
General opinions of large masses confusing -> must be down to small # of options
Alternative not executed by masses
More people -> more ambiguous unity, simpler common ideas

Another quiz on this tomorrow! Here's hoping I do better than on the last one