Philosophers

What might Socrates think of this year's presidential election?

Comments

I’ll focus on the Socrates we

I’ll focus on the Socrates we see in Plato, because that is the Socrates we know of who produces the most extended and theoretical discussions of politics.

In general the Platonic Socrates expresses very little affection for democracy. At his trial, as that is reported in Plato’s APOLOGY, he speaks insultingly toward the jury that represents that democracy. At many points he voices his respect for the very un-democratic enemy Sparta. References to “the many” (never in a good sense) appear throughout the dialogues.

The distaste for democracy is not merely abstract. Pericles was by far the most successful and talented political leader of the Athens that Socrates lived in, and was repeatedly elected to the post of general; yet in Plato’s GORGIAS Socrates dismisses him as having corrupted the people of Athens and as accomplishing no more than to fill the city with “garbage” – evidently a reference to the Parthenon and other buildings.

So before asking Socrates’ opinion about our election, bear in mind that it will be the opinion of a non-democratic, even anti-democratic thinker.

That said, the analysis of democracy that appears in REPUBLIC Book 8 might seem to speak specially to the election at hand. It has been cited in that connection, for instance by Andrew Sullivan in the May 1 issue of NEW YORK MAGAZINE, in an article titled “America has never been so Ripe for Tyranny.” Sullivan appeals to Plato’s prediction that democracy becomes excessively democratic, to the point at which a strong man promises to lead the city, and thus establishes himself as tyrant. As others have recently done, Sullivan draws comparisons between the democratic spirit of US Presidential elections and ultra-democratic Athens, and then between the candidate Donald Trump and the REPUBLIC’s hypothetical tyrant who takes over democracy.

Those opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy might find Plato prescient in this passage. But aside from specific crucial differences between the Platonic tyrant and Donald Trump, there is the greater problem that the REPUBLIC is producing quite un-historical claims about democracy and tyranny, fueled no doubt by Plato’s antipathy toward democracy and every classical Greek’s antipathy toward tyranny. For starters, tyranny was a prevalent form of government in Greek cities some centuries before the first democracy appeared. How could tyranny arise out of democracy with all those examples of tyrannies that obviously did not?

While it may be tempting to use the REPUBLIC as a theoretical tool for understanding this year’s election, the main problem is that its picture of democracy is so distorted and so tendentious as to obscure more than it clarifies. Socrates may look at one candidate for the Presidency and see tyranny in the making, but only because he already finds democracy the closest thing to tyranny.

For a more elaborate analysis of the ways in which Plato distorts democracy in order to make it seem closer to tyranny, watch for Cinzia Arruzza’s book WOLF IN THE CITY (forthcoming, Oxford University Press).

It is worth adding that in dialogues other than the REPUBLIC democracy is not condemned in the same terms. For instance, Plato’s STATESMAN identifies two forms of democracy, a lawful one and a lawless one (mob rule). When democracy loses its respect for law it becomes mob rule, but in that dialogue no one says that it collapses into tyranny. Nor does the STATESMAN portray any political type that one could easily identify with a politician in the US today.

Read another response by Nickolas Pappas

Read another response about Philosophers