Democratic Realism

The “Folk Theory of Democracy” says, in essence, that voters within democratic systems tend to elect politicians who run on policies and ideas that “the people” (loosely defined) support, and whose actions then align with the policies and ideas they supported (so they generally do what they say they’ll do after attaining office).

The contra conception to the Folk Theory of Democracy is that of “Democratic Realism,” which is a big idea that encompasses many different sub-theories, but the voting-relevant component of it is that while liberal democracy is a wonderful concept that is useful and desirable, in most cases it’s not practical.

So while we go through the song and dance of elections and policy proposing and all of that, ultimately elections are about personality and saying the right combination of words to the right people (and looking the right way in photos, sounding the right way on debate stages, etc), not about aligning one’s platform with the interests of the electorate and then putting that platform into practice.

Through this lens, democracy is a veneer over a more complex (and at times, brutal) reality: societies are controlled by elites, democracy is important until it’s not, and a lot of what we call liberalism in the modern world is actually premised on a post-WWII order that’s maintained, in part, by the military and economic supremacy of the United States (and its also rich and mighty allies).

Democratic Realism says, in other words, that aspects of democracy (as it’s usually discussed) work pretty well, but the whole thing falls apart lacking the central authorities that democracies supposedly render obsolete. And while it can be useful to promote the idea of democracy as a rallying cry on one hand and a justification for conflict (and violence) on the other, it’s more vital as a symbol than a practical operating structure.