Of Democracy and Mobs

For the last 100 years the United States has promoted the ideals of this great form of government: Democracy. This word was most profoundly used during the Cold War, when establishing a clear difference between the Democracies of the West and the Communists of the East. The Democracies of the West, standing strong for capitalism, free-markets, and liberty, while the evil Communists stood for communalism, state-control, and tyranny. This was a severe turn from the Founder’s view of the form of government that is Democracy; different, even from the US Army Training Manual published in 1928, which describes Democracy as, “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in [demagoguism], license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

There have been many different descriptions about the present Occupy Name-that-City protests occurring all across the United States. Similar to the Tea Party movement, one political party lauds the movement as a true grassroots expression of patriotism; the other derides the movement as “Astroturf,” a fraud. The source of the protests may or may not have been organic, however, there is no denying the growth of each is. The Occupy Movement and the Tea Party present an interesting dichotomy. Two movements, identifying largely similar issues of policy, namely, opposition to the Washington Bail-Outs of Large Banks and other businesses, government corruption, and a destructive lack of jobs. The solutions differ. The Tea Party promotes a return to limited government and an emphasis on Constitutional Principles. The Occupy Movement promotes increased governmental power and authority to regulate big business.

When Representative John Lewis asked to speak to the Occupy Atlanta crowd, he was denied through one of the most bizarre Assembly Meeting Procedures I’ve ever seen. Just as the Army Training Manual stated, this was the clear definition of mobocracy. In the purest forms of mob government there would be a true vote with a majority rule or a 2/3rds vote. In this Assembly, the requirement for decision-making is “Consensus.”  From the video of the event, which can be viewed on YouTube, it is clear that well over the majority of the crowd was in favor of letting Rep. Lewis speak. The leader of the so-called egalitarian group clearly did not.

History has shown that in mob decision-making, it is rare for the will of the mob to actually win out; instead, it is the will of the leader, the person who is not elevated above anybody else, that is adopted. That non-leader has played a masterful political game in order to achieve his goal of not allowing Rep. Lewis to speak. Rather than taking a true vote, he repeatedly checked the crowd’s “temperature” until he got the result he wanted, a denial. His focus on the decision-making process all but assured that the decision would match his desired outcome.

The exercise in itself is reminiscent of the sheep in Animal House by George Orwell, bleating “Two feet bad, four feet good.” This communication through repetition is frightening. Tim Cavanaugh on reason.com wrote about this event noting the eerie similarity to a clip from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, where the protagonist cannot shift the thinking of his followers, proclaiming them to be individuals with many differences, the crowd below only repeat his statements, crying out for more “wisdom.” Monty Python was funny, Atlanta was not. “Monty Python was funny, Atlanta was not.”