Center for American Progress Cannibalizes Sanders

Think Progress, the commentary arm of the Democratic Center for American Progress, has levelled an ad hominem attack on Bernie Sanders.

Harold Myerson, of The American Prospect, muses that this is exactly how the right-wing attacked FDR. You can read Myerson's remarks HERE.

Just what we need: the Hillary Clinton arm of the Democratic establishment attacking the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- not on the basis of his policies, but because he has made money on his very popular writing. 

Enlightened Monarch or Democracy

Supposedly, many "millennials" who work in "Hi-Tech" have decided, on the basis of their work experience with successful startups, that having an all-powerful genius leader is the way to produce fast and effective results. They then extend this "principle" to national affairs and push for "strong executives" -- i.e. national autocrats -- who will lead the country to greatness.  Here is an article from Salon magazine discussing (somewhat lightly) these ideas:

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/13/why-some-in-silicon-valley-are-advocating-for-monarchy/

Here's my take.

People who work or have worked in successful startups (no one talks about unsuccessful ones -- see below) have observed that a hierarchical structure seems to be the way to go. The Originator of the idea or prodect knows best -- at least at first -- what it's all about. Decisions must be made quickly and, of course, correctly. There is no time for voting and even if there were, it's the Originator who most likely knows best. Democracy is probably not the best way to procede at the "startup" stage.

Already one begins to see that the argument here has a bit of a hole. No one talks about the unsuccessful startups -- maybe they are not even remembered. In these, the Originator may not be, in fact, that smart and imaginative -- maybe just lucky. Since the structure is autocratic, there is no way to correct the Originator who errs, and so the enterprise fails. And no one remembers why.

Once we turn to endeavors other than startups we see that the autocratic structure is far more likely to fail. The important example is the nation-state. Here there is not just a single process or invention, as in a startup, but a complicated mesh of economics, power, and special and general interests. It almost never happens that there is a One Person who understands every strand in this mesh and can consistently make correct decisions. One needs a lot of ideas and a way of choosing among them that has the highest odds of being correct. I think that history has shown that democracy and division of powers is the best (though not infallible) way to come up with these ideas and to choose among them. The more power a single autocrat has in a nation, the more chance there is that he/she will make a terrible decision. Look at the list: kings, czars, tyrants; Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin. Even in a near democracy, when (presidential) power is too concentrated or unchallenged or secretive, disasters occur: Lyndon Baines Johnson (Vietnam), George Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan), Trump (everything). It is exacly when there are no checks and no openness that disaster is likely to occur, and when it does, is most likely to be most costly.

In complex life, Democracy is a far better way of solving problems than autocracy. Think of the lines from Shelley:

"And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my works ye Mighty and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away"

See what I mean?

(Here's the rest of the poem.)