Sergeant, Tocqueville & democracy

John Sergeant’s performance on Strictly Come Dancing has reminded me of Alexis de Tocqueville.
Despite having the elegance of a spastic in a magnet factory (c. Gene Hunt), viewers have voted in droves for him - so much so that he’s withdrawn from the contest rather than make a continued mockery of it.
This is where Tocqueville comes in. He would not have been at all surprised by Sergeant’s popularity, as he knew that democracy rarely elects the best men:

The natural instincts of democracy lead the people to keep men of distinction from power…When one enters the House of Representatives in Washington, one is struck by the vulgar demeanour of that great assembly…Its laws are almost always defective or untimely.

Nevertheless, Tocqueville thought democracy conferred great long-term advantages upon a nation, by improving the public’s character:

A man of the people, when asked to share the task of governing society, acquires a certain self-esteem…He may not be more virtuous or happier than his forebears, but he is more enlightened and active…Democracy does nor provide a people with the most skilful of governments, but it does that which the most skilful government often cannot do ; it spreads throughout the body social a restless activity, superabundant force, and energy never found elsewhere, which, however little favoured by circumstance, can do wonders. Those are its true advantages. 

Here, though, is my concern. Do our current managerialist-democratic institutions really have the benefits Tocqueville thought?
I fear not. For one thing, being asked merely to put a cross in a box every four years, or to ring a number, is not sufficient to engender a superabundant energy. Quite the opposite, it can merely breed apathetic sense that our rulers must bow to our prejudices, however ill-informed they are.
It can also lead to an exaggerated sense of entitlement. We saw this in the witch hunt against Brand and Ross, with the elderly right-wing middle class thinking that the BBC should cater only to their own particular tastes.
It can also, as Mill noted in his warning against the tyranny of the majority, prompt the belief that we should meddle everywhere. The complaints that led to the sacking of Jon Gaunt were a manifestation of this; the proper response to him should be merely to ignore the fat, bumptious, oleaginous, simple twat, not to demand his firing.
Now, whether I’m right or wrong in seeing and decrying these effects is perhaps a secondary issue. What matters is the fact that we overlook the extent to which institutions shape character.

Comments

[kardinalbirkutski]

What a berkish comment regarding the BBC! If you want toilet humour then their are any amount of media outlets for you to indulge yourself. Just don't expect the taxpayers to wedge you up.
It's clear that this blog is often misguided
and embittered due to entrenched political bias but this ridiculous, juvenile dig at an apparent object of your hate really takes the biscuit. You clearly value your own intellect but do you believe that illustrates or proves a point?

[Luis Enrique]

This is not really relevant to your point here but .... you thought the response to Ross/Brand cleaved along class lines like that? Where did you get that idea? If anything, I'd have thought it was the educated/wealthy who were more likely to think it a fuss over nothing. Who was more outraged, the tabloids or the broadsheets? Which class reads which?

[Anton Vowl]

Spot on over Gaunty. They employed him in the first place to be a controversial prick, then act up all surprised when he turns out to be a controversial prick. I'm no fan of the hateful turd but I can't see what he's done that's so out of character.

[Libertarian Thinker]

I didn't write this piece, but it is the best post I have read in a long time. I am sharing it with my readers, I'm passing it along to you. It is pure mind candy. One commenter wrote:

If this were an essay on economics, it would be the best essay on economics I’ve read in a year or more.

If this were an essay on social structures, it would be the best essay on social structures I’ve read on a year or more.

If this were an essay on conservative versus reformer mindsets, it would be the best essay on *that* that I’ve read in a year or more.

In fact, it was all three of those things, and I’m frankly stunned at how excellently you’ve made so many points in such a short space.

Bravo.

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/

[Mike O'Donnell]

.....having the elegance of a spastic in a magnet factory.

Cruel, but priceless.

[Blissex]

«the elderly right-wing middle class»

runs the UK, as it has become the median voter. All the ugly bits of government and opposition policy (from ASBOs to inheritance tax cuts) are designed to please and appease this crucial voter segment.

It is not dictatorship of the proletariat, it is dictatorship of elderly aunts...

[Bob B]

"It is not dictatorship of the proletariat, it is dictatorship of elderly aunts..."

Quite so and all 'cause of that Benthamite principle: the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

"For the first time, the UK has more people of pensionable age than children under 16, the Office for National Statistics revealed yesterday."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/population.socialtrends

Besides, the elderly are more likely to vote.

[jameshigham]

Hardly the same thing, is it?

[Chris]

>Despite having the elegance of a spastic in a magnet factory (c. Gene Hunt), viewers have voted in droves for him

Is the misplaced modifier supposed to be an analogue of Sergeant's clumsiness, or just evidence of yours?

[ejh]

"They employed him in the first place to be a controversial prick, then act up all surprised when he turns out to be a controversial prick. "

Indeed. And this applies to practically all these shock-horror media stories: why not sack the people who engaged people to work for them precisely because they obnoxious loudmouths, rather than act as if it were something completely out of the blue?

[Paulie]

Chris,

Two points:

1. Surely it's not that big a deal that we don't pick MPs that have the wisdom of Solomon. I recall you linking approvingly Tony McWalter's view that the strength of Parliament lies in it's distributed moral wisdom - something that I think is implied by Tocqueville in that quote, and something that can't be totally diminished by the dead-hand of managerialism (though I'm with you at least part of the way on that one)

2. Is Boris Johnson's success in the London Mayoral Election at least in part, a result of the same sentiment that kept John Sargeant's popularity up? There was a delight among the public to create a story. I think a fair few Londoners voted for Boris in the hope that he'll brighten our day up for us at some point by making a spectacle of himself?

[john cramer]

The elderly middle class can still pack a punch smarty.

[James Schneider]

You are right in raising the point Chris but how would we measure the effects? We can state theoretically how institutions affect civic mentalities but these theories are likely to be merely based on our own preconcpetions and prejudices (see your point about the "elderly middles class"