Democracy and Deference
Many concerned Zionists wonder why the various non-parliamentary groups composing the nationalist camp cannot unite to form a broad-based political party, one that could readily win hundreds of thousands of floating votes. After all, polls indicate that as much as 90% of the public regards the Knesset as a mere haven for job-seekers. So what prevents the groups composing the nationalist camp from uniting behind a coherent and resolute national strategy?
A basic reason will be found in Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic, Democracy in America. Although Israel’s system of government is oligarchic, the mentality of Israelis has been shaped by Democracy, the religion of our times, above all, by the democratic principle of equality. Egalitarianism is the paramount principle of the democratic mind.
Given this egalitarianism, each individual becomes his own source of truth. All opinions on how man should live, how societies should be governed, or what should be done—say, to save Israel—become equal. When egalitarianism permeates the intellect, it undermines deference. This is a basic reason why the non-parliamentary nationalist groups cannot unite to form a broad based political party, even though Israel’s survival is at stake.
Knowing this, I proposed the formation of a team of at least seven individuals representing diverse professions and diverse sectors of Israeli society to seek out a person possessing the qualities required of a prime minister: courage, wisdom, and affability—qualities that would endear him to both religious and non-religious Jews.
Only such a person can overcome the egalitarianism (or egoism) that undermines deference. All this was well known to the Sages of Israel. Mishna Sotah points out that arrogance will characterize the end of days, and that scholars will be despised. This is the inevitable consequence of universities that propagate the doctrine that all lifestyles or opinions as to how man should live are equal. Egalitarianism therefore underlies the social sciences and the humanities: far from being “morally neutral,” these disciplines are engines of egalitarianism.
Even the religious are not immune to this egalitarianism. Electronic mail magnifies egalitarianism. People with hardly any education in political science or in the study of history can now express themselves or “opinionate” on complex political problems—and why not? Democracy is based on the egalitarian principle of one adult/one vote, which endows every individual a right to express his own opinion. Before the printing press, when few people could read and write, ordinary people sought the advice of the wise. But now, since everyone can read and write, everyone is wise.
Of course electronic mail is also a blessing. It enables us to circumvent the established press and television media, dominated today by the Left. But electronic mail has its down side. Its “rush to publish” tendency militates against careful and disciplined thought. More so than other media, the deluge of electronic mail is subject to Greshem’s Law: the bad drives out the good.
This is another way of saying that the democratic flood of electronic mail undermines deference. To say this via e-mail is of course ironic and perhaps precarious. But if it helps us understand why the nationalist camp has been impotent, the effort and the risk may be worthwhile.
