Is understanding Plato's "Republic" the key to understanding the left's need to have power? (vanity)

[Benjamin Harrison]

I was just teaching Plato's "The Republic" in school and a terrifying thought occurred to me

[PapaBear3625]

A planned economy is very attractive to somebody with the hubris to think he would be a member of the planning class.

The Left is all about planning for the rest of us, whether we like it or not. They have a visceral hatred of the idea of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

[PapaBear3625]

I was telling my students that the founding fathers set up a wonderful system where democracy and a republic could succeed because they believed that masses would not be ignorant like Plato argued.

Keep in mind that in the time of the founders, in most states you needed to be some sort of property owner in order to vote. This didn't exclude as many people as one might think, since land was cheap enough that anybody arriving penniless could have his own land within a few years. It did try to ensure that those too incompetent to make it on their own were excluded from the franchise.

[PapaBear3625]

And to the elite, the notion of freedom for non-elites is frightening, because it means they are subject to those that would rise up from among the ‘masses’ and challenge their power.

In their hearts, the elites are oligarchs. They wish to ensure that their positions are secure from smart, energetic climbers. Many are the children of inherited wealth, who don't really have the intelligence that enabled their fathers to make it.

[ModelBreaker]

“I’m a philosopher king,” is what they tell themselves when they are looking in the mirror and blowdrying their hair (if they know what “philosopher king” actually refers to. “I’m so smart and have such a wide perspective. If those stupid, close-minded rubes would only do what I told them . . . “ is probably closer to the real thought.

But the real driver is lust for power and babes and greed for money. Human nature does not change. The ancient Jews were closer to the mark than the Greeks.

[onedoug]

Is this how the left sees us?

And a significant aspect of the right, too.

[STE=Q]

"does the left think that they are Plato's Philosopher-Kings?"

Yes... something like that.

Unfortunately, their "thinking" they are philosopher kings doesn't make them so.

The great and renowned philosopher, Confucius -- or Kong (king) fuzi (teacher)-- was acualy very humble.

"Plato basically argues that democracy cannot work because the masses are not educated enough to make an informed vote on any issue."

Judging by the last election I'd say maybe Plato was on to something!

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

typo: acualy = actually

[jveritas]

Plato Republic is one of the most dangerous books ever written. You are correct in your analysis.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

huh? I love the Republic. One of the greatest works ever written.

[x]

You might take a look at the September 7th issue of National Review. Michael Knox Beran has an article about "The Revenge of the Castle People." He doesn't mention Plato, but discusses the hostility between the marketplace and the "castle" -- between commerce and non-commercial elites. The "castle people" -- the established rich and the non-profit sectors -- are often contemptuous of commerce and money-making and seek power, ostensibly to act in the public interest or for the greater good.

You can draw a straight line from British Victorian thinkers like Ruskin and Arnold, British and American private schools, and someone like Franklin D. Roosevelt who attended Groton and Harvard. As someone who never really had to work, Roosevelt found the position of guardian of the public interest against the market place flattering and pleasant.

But I don't think we can really make this an all or nothing conflict as Quigley or Skousen did. You need the marketplace to keep people working and to create wealth. But "guardian" or "castle" institutions like national parks, or environmental and financial regulation serve a purpose and shouldn't simply be dismissed either.