07
To begin, Elisabeth Anker of George Washington University discusses the infamous video of Trump saying “Grab ‘em by the Pussy” and its purposeful effect on the rise of anarchism. For many previous democrats and women who were debating which party to vote for, this was the solidifying remark Trump made that secured thousands of votes for Hilary (click video below). Trump’s campaign, she argues, was driven not by policy platforms but rather by provocations and racist incentive. Statements like calling Mexicans “rapists”, refusing to pay taxes, and building a wall to glorify anti-immigration, were strategic concepts promoted by Trump’s campaign to advocate for all things provocative. Trump is different, he is quirky, he will do what politicians cannot. Elisabeth proposes that Trump purposely promoted anarchy to get to the White House. Anarchism is essentially a term which means an absence of government, and Trump certainly promoted decreasing government when he emphatically claimed that will “drain the swamp”. In a perfectly utopian anarchy, Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin promoted “destroying everything” so that society could be eliminated. Bakunin’s simple message inspired thousands of bomb-throwers, assassins, and terrorists everywhere to eventually assassinate many heads of states. Clearly, anarchism has little to offer other than destruction. As a result, Elisabeth urges for more democracy, not less, where the rules are made by and for people who govern themselves. To start, she believes that more voter participation needs to be enforced through a voting holiday, and that the anti-democratic Electoral College should be demolished. Only then she says, can people “fight back against those who aim to grab us by the pussy”.
Further delving into democratic theory, Jason Brennan of Georgetown University discusses the difference between what philosophers say, and what actually happens in real life. According to Aristotle, the founder of the discipline of logic, something can only be true if it follows the three laws of suit, where A is A, A cannot be both A and not A, and A must be either A or not A. Therefore, in order for true democratic theory to be implemented into society it must correspond exactly with what philosophers define democratic theory as. In other words, a democracy cannot be called a democracy unless it actually is a democracy. Using Aristotle’s three laws of suit, Jason argues that recent events should not alter how people think of democracy since the “democratic system” in place is not true democracy. For example, it does not make sense to say “this hammer sucks” if you are using a screwdriver. Since it is virtually impossible to enforce a perfectly true system of anything, Jason proposes that philosophers should approach writing about democracy differently. No matter how much theorists teach Poli Sci 101 or Econ 101 classes, the material learned will not be applicable to real life scenarios since they work differently from how they are taught. If philosophers have any hope of promoting democracy, then they should approach their writings and theories in ways that do not require perfect environments to function. Additionally, the public should not give up on theories like democracy until they are implemented properly. It only makes sense logically!