The rather conservative, as in careful, line that one finds in some European thinkers, say, up to the Second World War, is puzzling:What is it about Modern Democracy that they find unattractive or even subversive ? And how to put it in a way that will not paint them as inflexible and intolerant sectarians or hateful bigots? This question is very difficult to tease out. However, given the weight of such thinkers, there is a desire to bring out the general elements of the critique.
Leaving the entire ‘individualism’ vs. ‘the whole’ morass behind, one element seems to be the inherent style of a democratic culture, notably its ‘political discourse’, to use a tired yet expedient phrase, to play to the most common; to hold up and validate hackneyed and mediocre opinions and practices, and reinforce them by giving them a disproportionate say, at least in terms of negotiating the political relations of the cultural/social hierarchy.
That is to say, Modern Western Democracy has an inherent disposition to play to the crowd. And it is this trait which seems to be cause for concern, as in playing to the lowest common denominator and its biased passions – in fact, throwing oil on the fire of these simplistic fictions – Modern Democracy engenders a general dumbing-down, abandons meaningful differences and puts popular superstitions in their place. Seemingly passionate, it is really dispassionate. This seems to be one of the large pitfalls of Modern Democracy.
Another dilemma of Modern Democracy seems to be the keystone on which the whole paradigm turns: the supposed rational, self-interest individual acting in their own enlightened self-interest. In short, the modern ‘subject’ or individual, running from the rational individual to Nietzsche’s waderlust, morphing, willing ‘will’ gorging on its experiences. Or, in common political terms, the ‘citizen’. There seems to be general distaste of this individual, as the subjective model does not ‘capture’ what it is to be as we are, and, as with the vapid political discourse, the model tends to dumb down any understanding of what and how it is to be as we are.
Here, it seems, one arrives at the first thread of their trepidation vis-à-vis Modern Democratic culture: It does not nourish what and how it is to be as we are. Or, it holds up a defective and incomplete model that is flawed, one that will encourage practices that will take us farther away from ourselves and our world, yet all the while providing us with some type of filler (economic speculation, mass production and consumption or viral mediatization, inter alia) that keeps things going along, at least until large-scale problems become too pressing to ignore, such as general malaise or environmental destruction. Here, a very deep question comes into perspective.
This is not to say, though, that democracy is completely misguided. Perhaps its Modern form is wanting? It is safe, that seems to be clear. Leo Strauss wrote that the Moderns built on low and common ground as it was the safest. It seems, so far, that this ground is ‘safe’. Yet, is it really? That returns to the critique of the paradigm of who and what we are that sustains Modern Democracy, and from here, to the understanding of what and how anything that ‘is’ is, which would be a Heidegerrian theme, which aims deeper than the conceptual dilemmas or theoretical arguments. For others worried about Modern Democracy, the regime is certainly ‘safe’, but does it cultivate a life worth living? Or, does it tend to make this ‘goal’ doubtful? Are there in fact rather insidious effects happening below the tranquil surface?
