Hannah Frisch

Final Essay
Chasing an Imagined Democracy
Leadership, democracy, and a more thoughtful public; three
entities that concern everyone in the western world. These three things
have defined the progressivism and have been at the forefront of the
minds of democratic nations for several hundred years, as a new age
of governance has emerged and developed. Though democracy and
the structures within it have been in place for hundreds of years and
defined our culture as it is today, it has yet to be a fully functioning
system. Creating and sustaining these conditions has proven to be
excruciatingly difficult. There are many parts to the puzzle of
government that must work in tandem to achieve the dream of a
perfect democratic society and trying to force these components to
work in the way necessary to produce the functioning civil society we
find appealing is extremely messy. One must wonder whether pursuing
such a seemingly impossible system is what is really best for people.
In Honors 230, the class considered six interrelated propositions
concerning leadership, democracy, and a more thoughtful public and
the implications attached to each. The following nine pages discuss the
considerations of the class that I found to be most compelling,
formatted in the primary categories for which I interpreted the
material. I will discuss all six propositions covered in the class but
some components of the propositions, namely recovering and
reconstituting and information seeking, I have chosen to forgo for sake
of clarity and to center on the issues that particularly piqued my
interest. I focused on the active parts of leadership, which are most
visible from a citizens point of view and by proxy most relevant to me.
This stream of understanding and consciousness is not structured to
clearly follow the propositions, but rather organized in four chapters
that align with how I processed the information presented in the
readings and discussions. These chapters include the ethics and
ecology of persuasion a leader must consider, the role of education in
creating and sustaining a more thoughtful public, the connection
between understanding human nature and sustaining a democracy,
and the importance of a strong sense of self in a leader. Lets get
cooking.
Persuasion
In any endeavor humans undertake, persuasion is an essential
element to achieving success. Most people in the world are not selfsufficient. As social creatures we have evolved to rely on communities
to provide us with the things we want and need, and man is

biologically predisposed to not do anything for another that does not

benefit him in return.
There are three ways in which to approach persuasion: to appeal
to others through character, logic, and emotion. For every situation
there is a form of persuasion that is more appropriate than another.
The effectiveness of an argument often stems from the basic choice of
approach. No matter which approach a person chooses to take, it is
imperative that the argument is formed in an ethically and ecologically
sound manner. By phrasing something wrong, organizing an argument
poorly, or speaking in unclear terms, the speaker risks his or her
argument to an unintended reception. In democratic leadership it is
essential that what is said accurately reflects what is meant in
persuasion because the audience ideally plays a critical role in the
direction of the government.
There is a very different culture between persuasion in a despotic
society and in a democracy. In a despotic culture, a persuaded
audience is preferable because this simply means the public will take a
leaders word. A thoughtful public, ideal in a democratic culture, is one
that analyzes a leaders words critically and decides independently
whether the leader is worth their agreement. A merely persuaded
audience completely undermines the core of democratic society.
Without an educated and involved public, a democracy cannot function
properly and a democratic leader is forced to lead in ways that do not
adhere to democratic principles. Conversely, if a leader does not
practice honest persuasion that caters to the public he or she is
speaking to, the system is also undermined.
Ethical and ecological persuasion is the presentation of an
argument that is fair to the speaker and the audience. This means that
the speakers message is clearly conveyed and received as intended
(fair to the speakers ideas) while simultaneously the public is catered
to with honesty, effective style, and the most appropriate form of
argument for the situation (fair to the circumstances of the audience).
Both the speaker and the audience are responsible for exercising ethics
and ecology because both are empowered with choice. With every
choice there is an opportunity to support or reject something on
unethical grounds. For the speaker unethical behavior may be trying to
conceal the true message of his or her persuasive argument in order to
make it more favorable with the crowd. This is different from putting an
argument in the best possible light and involves trickery that does not
allow for proper review from a more thoughtful public. For the audience
members it is unethical to react in a way that does not correspond with
the their true opinion of the argument. Both parties must uphold their
responsibilities to execute ethical persuasion. For this to happen
however, it is necessary that society has fostered a deliberate, honest,
and thoughtful public. This is the check and balance feature in
persuasion because it is not easy for such a public to be taken

advantage of by an unethical speaker. Persuasion in its purest form is

an offering of a worldview and the acceptance or rejection of the
offering by the public. For this to happen, society as a whole must have
integrity and be more dedicated to ideas than external motivations. As
Soder reflects on in the third chapter of The Language of Leadership,
you do not say you love your grandma because she will write you into
her will or send you money in the mail if you do. You love your
grandma because she is your grandma. There is no external
motivation, just a human connection and responsibility. The same
should be expected of ethical persuasion.
The peoples engagement is critical to the success of a
democracy and without such engagement it is easy to slip into a
despotic-like leadership model. In despotism a single person makes all
the decisions and expects the people to obey the requests made from
office. If thoughtfulness escaped the public in America, the people
would be persuaded by the leaders decisions out of ignorance, for
they would be incapable of disagreeing. While there is a fundamental
difference between an audience persuaded by fear and an audience
persuaded by relief of mental responsibility, the leadership model
results in the same thing: despotism.
Education and a More Thoughtful Public
The reality of American democracy is different from an ideal
democracy. We expect a lot more from our system than we receive.
Much of this is due to a public underprepared for the commitment of
democracy. To participate in a democratic system a person must have
a base line education of how to be a good participant; one who puts
their personal situation in context of society as a whole, researches the
people they vote for, and demands rights and uses them. A thoughtful
public is critical in sustaining a true democracy but how can a
democratic society ensure that every person is equipped to play such a
large role? The most controlled and appropriate setting for creating an
engaged and thoughtful public is the public education system.
The qualities of a more thoughtful citizen are most easily instilled
at a young age. Though there is some debate over whether youth are
the most suited to learn the moral and critical components of
participating in a democratic society, it makes sense to begin the
process of teaching democratic thoughtfulness at an age which people
are most receptive. Youth is this receptive demographic and the earlier
a democratic mindset is engrained in behavior and thought process,
the more likely it will emerge as the norm in adulthood.
Schools play an instrumental role in preparing societys youth for
successful participation in a democracy. There is too much variability in
each household, church, and Girl Scout troop to ensure that all citizens
of a democratic country embody the characteristics necessary for

upholding the conditions of a fluid democracy. Some people would

argue that spending time teaching children morals and how to be a
good member of society is a waste of valuable time that could
otherwise be spent educating. This argument is short sighted because
many of the core conditions of a good democracy can be taught in
tandem with traditional schooling. Though there are hints of moral
education in Americas school system, teaching to improve society is
not the main focus of the countrys educators and is thus an
unintentional byproduct if anything at all. Every classroom is the
beginning of a moral and political community in which people can learn
how to talk, think and consider, and disagree with others without trying
to kill them. The classroom, especially for children in earlier stages of
their education, is an intrinsically social learning environment. When
the primary mission of a school is to produce the next generation of a
more thoughtful public rather than a more book-smart public, the
moral aspect of developing democratic character becomes entwined
with and enhanced by the curriculum and creates a more well-rounded
student body. A well-rounded student body translates to a more wellrounded and educated public.
In Chapter 6 of Democracy in America, Tocqueville discusses the
issues with running a true democracy when people wish to be both free
and supported. The type of despotism that democracies have to fear is
the type that includes both the comfort of support and guidance as
well as room for individual freedom. This sounds wonderful, however
this soft form of despotism easily degrades to a system that is only a
reflection of an ideal one. The substance of the system is a completely
corrupted form of our idealized democracy, for it robs the individual of
a clear idea of what he or she wants and the ability to think for himself.
The danger of this governance is that it spirals into an oppressive
system in which the population is kept in a kind of perpetual childhood.
The people are happy but do not participate in a real democracy.
To further the analogy of the public in a state of perpetual
childhood, parents are there to protect the interests of their children.
They want their children to take their own path, but at the same time
have such a firm rule over the child that even if the child were to have
the ability to elect a new set of parents, they would not have the
capacity to make an educated decision on what kind of person they
want to take care of them. Most likely, if given the chance, the child
would choose another guardian similar to the one they had before. The
central problem is that while Americans are set on the ideas of
democracy and freedom, we do not actually like the prospect of being
completely free and left to fend for ourselves. We prefer to have the
illusion of freedom in participating in superficial issues and choosing
our leaders but remain babied by the government. Because this kind of
despotism is so mild, it is difficult for democracies to identify it before
it is too late. The cloudiness is so subtle and gradual that we fall into

the comfort of feeling taken care of without noticing. People are

content to let to government do whatever it wants as long as it leaves
them free to pursue the American Dream and reap the benefits of a
liberal society, such as getting a new BMW or having 20 cats just for
kicks.
The school system is critical to the development of a functioning
democratic society. The argument for moving away from calculating
worth and intelligence by test scores receives yet another level of
legitimacy when comparing the teaching methods of despotic and
democratic societies. In despotic society, an education instills
compliance and produces an obedient public. In a democracy the
purpose of education is to prepare the next generation to think
critically and make informed decisions. The success of despotic
teaching methods can be quantified much easier in a test than the
methods of democratic teachers because the individual thought
process is eliminated from despotic culture. No two people think
exactly alike, therefore if we are trying to measure a persons ability to
participate effectively in a democratic society, a test, in which each
taker is expected to answer the same way, is the wrong method of
assessing aptitude. Test taking is much more inherent to despotism
than democracy. The information provided by test scores does not
align with what we claim to value as a democratic society.
What truly matters in sustaining a functioning democracy is the
character of the people involved in the democracy. In small settings
this is easier to control than in a large country. Instilling values and
character suited to maintaining democracy in every member of society
is a major undertaking and will likely never be accomplished. There are
too many variables; a common theme in running any kind of group in
which the ratio of the number governed to the power of the central
governing body is not proportional. Putting the publics moral wellbeing in the hands of the public schools is much more likely to turn out
well prepared citizens than if education is left to each individual
household, the church, or any other smaller group. Though I hate to
use the word standardize in this context (it feels wrong to
standardize quality of character), putting democratic preparation in the
hands of schools lessens the gap of interpretation of each condition
and standardizes the set of morals instilled within the up and coming
population in a democratic society.
Understanding Human Nature and Sustaining A Democracy
To sustain anything a leader must keep people engaged. When
starting a project people have momentum, a fresh excitement about
working to accomplish something. As time goes on however,
momentum naturally fizzles because the tasks at hand are not as new
and exciting, especially if little progress has been made. In the case of

America during Lincolns presidency, the public had accepted slavery

as an integral party of the countrys economy. By the time Lincoln
came into office, few people had arrived at their opinions on slavery
via critical thinking. Parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents
passed opinions on to their children and analyzing the laws and
opinions of the current leader was not as necessary as it was when the
country was founded. The people involved with the creation of the new
democratic nation were required to make their own decisions about
who to side with and what to support. As time progressed, the active
formulation of opinions made way to the assumption of trusted
predecessors opinions. Lincoln revamped the notion of a more
thoughtful public by returning the origins of these deep seeded
opinions to the front of the publics mind, thus returning the
responsibility of critical analysis to the people. By overhauling the
thought processes of the public Lincoln was able to persuade people to
agree with his policy. Had he not succeeded in changing how people
thought and convincing them of the moral rightness of emancipation,
his presidency may have not been so fruitful or historic. When people
commit to one opinion it is difficult to change their minds unless you
change how they think.
Haste and the Business Mindset
A persons attention span is outrageously short, especially now
when something has to change within eight seconds on a television
screen or a person will begin thinking about something else. If a project
stays too much the same for too long with little progress, the
momentum people may have had when first starting the project is lost.
Maintaining engagement among members of a group, company,
country, or other entity, requires the leader to constantly look for ways
to keep a goal relevant. In Lincolns quest for emancipation, he
returned the responsibility of maintaining the country back to the
people, implementing a new thought process without forcing too much
change. This balance of tradition and innovation made his suggestions
reasonable enough for the public to accept his position and get excited
about the changes it would bring. The key to sustenance is
engagement but when engagement slips away, as it likely will at some
point, returning to original goals and reapplying those goals to the
current state of the entity is necessary. When working on a project for a
long period of time the primary motive for starting the project can be
forgotten or disregarded. When engagement dwindles, returning to the
original core purpose of the project reminds people of why they are
working. By applying the original motive to the current condition of
progress, the change necessary for keeping the project relevant and
capturing the energy of those working on it is applied and the mission
is sustained.

Everything is more connected than a short-term outlook allows

us to see. In The Clock of the Long Now, Stewart Brand reflects on the
haste involved in the western world and the lack of dynamic contrast in
societies that cannot balance fast and slow. There is so much more to
the world than what meets the eye, and that which attracts the eye
first is often not what is most important to look at. People are acutely
aware of how short the amount of time they have on Earth is and, as a
result feel the need to move as fast as possible to live their lives to the
fullest. This awareness of mortality, even though statistically people
are living longer these days, lends to short term thinking because
worrying about what will happen in 100 years does not seem to apply
to those living now. A fatal flaw of humanity is that if something does
not directly affect a person it is difficult to care about it, no matter how
important it is on a broader scale. The problem is that because
everything is so connected in the world, we are affected by everything
and it takes a very disciplined and mature view of life and history to
recognize this.
In politics, especially in an officials first term, there is a race to
get things done that will please the public. People like to see results
and see them fast. Barack Obama stepped into office in the midst of
one of the worst financial crises of the nations history and yet after
only six months people were already complaining about how he had
not fixed the problem. The pressure to perform in todays society
crushes opportunities for long-term investments. A business model has
taken hold of many industrial societies and discourages allotting time
to dreaming about the future and reflecting on the past.
When a government is run like a business, the dynamic of
leadership and policy making is skewed. The people best suited for
leadership positions are not involved in government service because
the kind of person we ideally want to analyze situations and create
policies does not have the skill set to move up in the established
American hierarchy. As a capitalist society we treasure business and
place a mind with business efficiency on a pedestal. People who can do
an adequate job in a timely manner are more likely to be promoted
than people who do an extremely thoughtful and thorough job but take
more time. As they say in the business world, Time is money, and if
our government is run by businessmen, as Kissinger claims it to be, it
is no surprise that the former people are preferred over the latter. The
advising committee for the policymaker should ideally be comprised of
the more intentional and less active persona. Advisors do not
necessarily have to move up the ranks as policymakers would and are
chosen for their wisdom at the policymakers discretion. The problem
that arises here is that there is such a great demand for the intellectual
to supply information that the intellectual is forced to make the same
hasty and subpar decisions as the policymaker. The union between the
two then only plays to weakness. The system pigeonholes both the

policymaker and the intellectual into complying with the traditional

method of coming up with solutions as fast as possible, sacrificing
substance for flow. Though such superficial policymaking is not
inherent to democracy, we would have to completely overhaul our
system to escape the rut we dug for ourselves with these methods.
Such practice leads to stagnation, as it results in the inability to think
long-term. All solutions presently being made account only for what
will happen in the near future. Our stagnation is that we will not be
able to get ahead with the methods we presently use and will forever,
as far as we can tell, be stuck in this hasty decision making process.
A leader of any kind of group must be aware of the publics
desire for haste and balance it with the necessity for thoroughness.
Though it was not until relatively recently that people became so
obsessed with speed and thinking in the short-term, a leader must
account for the fact that human nature prefers things to be done in
more timely manners than untimely. A leader that wishes to solely
invest in future endeavors will lose the support of the public because
some will not have the capacity to think far enough ahead to
understand the importance of what the leader is doing.
Ability to Manage Freedom
The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov addresses
problems with giving people too much freedom when humanity is not
equipped to deal with so much responsibility. The Grand Inquisitor
argues that mankind is far better off with the security and comfort of
living under one omnipotent power. The Grand Inquisitor berates Jesus
for resisting the Devils temptations and guaranteeing humanity free
will because the people are left too unstructured.
There is not a single society that does not require limitations to
freedom in some capacity. To look at our country for example, there are
hundreds of laws and government programs and support systems to
keep people in check and help them manage the freedom promised
in the Constitution. If people were truly free they could do whatever
they wanted without hindrance or restraint. The problem with this is
that unless people restrain themselves (which brings a whole other
level of freedom into playare you really free if you are restricting
your own freedom?) the public will fall into complete disarray. Rarely
can people coexist unless there is a set of ground rules that are laid
down and enforced. No two people start life in the same place;
therefore we cannot expect all people to have the same morals to keep
order. Some people may be able to thrive in such an environment but it
is unquestionable that there will be people who are unable to function
without help and rules to guide them. In strictly general terms, it
makes far more sense to promise comfort than freedom.

The kiss Jesus gives to The Grand Inquisitor is a kind of

assurance that people are not as bad as they seem. Though they may
not all be responsible with their freedom, will make mistakes, and
struggle to be self-sufficient, it is better for people to be free than
limited by a central power like the Church or government. The
implications of granting freedom are well illustrated by the relationship
between parent and child. As children get older parents have to decide
whether to trust their teachings to holdfast and allow their child a little
independence or to maintain their protective ways. All the young
adults I know who grew up in suppressive households have some anger
directed toward their parents for not trusting them when they felt
capable of making their own decisions. Removing freedom undermines
humanitys greatness. People need room to be creative and
independent, and even though mistakes and variability in moral
programming present problems and irregularities, freedom is what
makes people the happiest, even if it is somewhat limited. Like parents
put faith into the values they raised their children with, we must put
faith into education to produce a population capable of thinking for
themselves and managing the freedom to which they are entitled in a
democracy. Though restricting freedom makes the most logical sense
but allowing people freedom is what is right. To preserve the integrity
of the people and allow them to rise to their full potential it is
necessary to trust their judgment, even if it is more painful at times for
both the authority and the individual and more difficult to maintain.
Just as you love your grandma because she is your grandma, people
should be free because they are people, not animals or material
objects or slaves.
Strong Sense of Self
In leadership and life in general, it is imperative that a person
have a strong awareness of his or her morals, opinions, and
personality. Countless contrasting opinions, information, and points of
interest are presented to leaders and the leader is tasked with sorting
through all of these to make decisions. There is no inherently right
answer though. A leader must be grounded and have an acute
awareness of his or her center to deal with the pushes and pulls of the
high-pressure setting of leadership.
In George Orwells Shooting an Elephant, Orwell must decide
whether or not to shoot a rogue domestic elephant that killed a man
and terrorized the town in which he is stationed as a British soldier.
Orwell says several times that he would rather not shoot the elephant,
but he does anyway because the townspeople expect him to. Orwell is
young and demonstrates a clear lack of self-identity. Orwell does not
know whether to invest in his allegiance to the British Empire or to
humor the people surrounding him as he makes his decision. He

eventually succumbs to the greatest and most immediate pressure, the

crowd. He has no good reason for shooting the elephant other than to
avoid looking like a fool and later admits that he was glad that the
elephant killed someone in its escapade so his decision could be
validated.
To seek validation following decision-making is extremely poor
leadership. A leader must have solid reasons for doing anything or
there will be no structure to his or her realm and people will find him or
her too unpredictable to trust. A leader must know what he is doing
beforehand. Though Orwell was lucky and had enough support after
the fact to protect him from any real ramifications, such decisions on
whim can be detrimental to a leaders reputation and trust factor.
Orwell is left fully aware of his moral weakness and inability to follow
through with what he believes is right.
The issues associated with lack of self-knowledge are also
illustrated in Philoctetes. Neoptolemus knows where his morals lie and
has a sense of who he is and what he believes in, but he second
guesses his conscience and goes against his gut to acquiesce the
requests of Odysseus. Neoptolemus later realizes that he made a
mistake in betraying his moral compass and tries to reconcile with
Philoctetes for treating him poorly, but he is unsuccessful in regaining
trust and good relations. Had Heracles not descended from Olympus to
explain the importance of Philoctetes engagement in the war, the
prophesy would not have been fulfilled and the mission would have
failed, resulting in Greek defeat in the Trojan war.
An example of strong sense of self is Bill Mester. Bill Mester took
over the Snohomish School District in a time of unrest but was able to
pull the district together because he was so in tune with his morals and
where his loyalties were. Bill made an effort to meet with people in the
district because his primary concern was people in the district; not the
government, not the state, and not other school districts. He listened
to teachers, parents, and students alike to rebuild the district and
serve them to the best of his ability. When the Washington State
Governor asked every superintendent to sign a government deal, Bill
Mester resisted because the people in his district did not want it and he
made it his responsibility represent their opinions. To make such a bold
move against a high entity requires an extremely strong center. By
saying no, Bill Mester risked good relations with the Governor but was
steadfast in his commitment to be first and foremost a voice for the
education community. Bill Mester knows who he is and what he
believes in. Instead of championing test scores, Bill champions
learning; something that cannot be as easily quantified statistically
which risks how his district is perceived externally. Because he has
such a strong understanding of himself and the leader he wants to be,
Bill is empowered with the ability to make unpopular decisions and do

what he thinks is right. His resilient sense of self makes him a solid and
effective leader.
Conclusion
The world is messy and trying to organize humanity into a fully
functioning governmental system is virtually impossible. It is possible,
however, to create a semi-functional system, with some speed bumps
along the way but still able to get the job done. It is the responsibility
of a leader to provide the glue that holds the system together. The
stronger the leader, the stronger the governed entity. Even on smaller
levels in school systems, companies, and musical performance groups,
the quality of a leader can be the difference between a very successful,
high functioning group and a group that is constantly trying to rebuild
and remain viable. Above all else, recognizing every individual as an
imperative player in the system will lay the foundation for a functional
democracy. Though the ideal may be unattainable, demanding
involvement from every capable member of a democratic group and
interacting with each in an ethical and ecological manner, will result in
a dynamic ripe for democratic endeavors. No person is perfect and
multiplying individual imperfections by every other individual involved
in a group adds up to a massive amount of irregularity. Amidst the
mess though, a democratic culture remains the healthiest culture for
humanity to live and thrive. A despotic system may be more
comfortable and conceptually easier to maintain but mankind deserves
to be free, despite occasional pain and strife. The true key to unlocking
a working democratic society is trust; Trust that each member of the
public will uphold his responsibility to the democracy by being
engaged, to trust that a leader will lead with the peoples best interest
in mind; trust that those in leadership positions are qualified to be
there; and trust that the foundation of the group is built on solid ethics
and good intent. Even if we cannot achieve a perfect democratic
society due to extenuating circumstances and variability, we can get
close if these fundamentals hold strong.