Against the Noble Lies of Democracy

Suppose you’re crafting a Noble Lie to motivate people to defend democracy. What will you tell them?

First, that actually-existing democracy is wonderful.

Second, that democracy faces an existential threat.

If you convincingly and charismatically spread your Noble Lie, listeners won’t just be motivated. They’ll be hysterical: “We’re in heaven, yet hell is at our gates.” Sure, a few strange listeners who combine gullibility and cynicism will shrug, “That’s terrible, but my personal ability to sway the outcome is trivial, so I’ll just keep my head down and hope for the best.” But most people who fall for your Noble Lie will live in a state of panic — and unless they’re extremely introverted, they’ll spread their panic to others.

The main problem with pushing Noble Lies is that skeptics will start asking obvious questions. Most notably: “How wonderful is actually-existing democracy, really?” and “Does democracy actually face an existential threat?” If you lack good answers to these questions, the Noble Liar’s best response is to simultaneously dodge and beg the question: “That’s the mentality that’s going to lead to the destruction of our wonderful democracy!”

It’s possible, of course, that actually-existing democracy really is wonderful and really does face an existential threat. How can we tell the difference between the real McCoy and the Noble Lie?

The quickest tell: Faced with skeptical questions, is your first response, “That’s the mentality that’s going to lead to the destruction of our wonderful democracy!”? If so, you’re probably just a Noble Liar, spreading falsehoods for the allegedly greater good.

If you think the facts are actually on your side, in contrast, you’ll calmly stay on point. But that’s unstable. As long as you stay calm, you’ll quickly tone down your position.

How so?

First, democracy plainly isn’t wonderful. Not just according to me, but according to a simple observation that almost everyone shares. Namely: Even if you love one of the two main political sides, your beloved side is only in power about half the time. Seriously, how “wonderful” is that? And few people actually love either of the two main political sides. Best-case scenario: They’re both tolerable. That’s what I call damning with faint praise.*

Second, while democracy has definitely faced existential threats, it has faced vastly more false alarms of existential threats. Read (or re-read) Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgment and Superforecasting. Meaningful prediction is hard. Anyone can open a newspaper and announce, “Exactly as I predicted.” It’s a big world, so horrible stuff happens routinely even in the best of times. The real test of insight is a well-established track record of accurately predicting non-obvious events before they happen. The cleanest way to do so is with public bets against people who seriously disagree with you.

Suppose, for example, you claim that democracy faces an existential threat because Trump is going to order the military to start killing protesters. You could just wait for one soldier to kill one protester, then proclaim vindication. But frankly, this shows next to nothing. Highly-ranked democracies have killed dozens of protesters since 1945: Chat sets a lower bound of 7 for the U.S., 14 for the UK, 42 for France, and 10 for Italy. If you really foresee a massive shift, you have to publicly make a specific prediction well outside the previously observed range. Such as: “100 or more protesters will be killed by the U.S. military by January 1, 2027.”

If you’re well-known, this is already an impressive test of your insight. Better yet, however, is a public bet with someone who seriously disagrees, because it reduces ambiguity about what’s “non-obvious.” If people with a very different worldview agree that your prediction would be amazing if it happened, you deserve ample credit if your prediction comes to pass.

Why speak these timeless truths today? Because many people, including quite a few of my friends, are routinely spreading what look to me like Noble Lies about democracy and its imminent demise. While I freely admit that there is a non-zero probability that they’re correct, I think the probability is quite low. Yes, you could denounce me for being oblivious. But frankly, the more you denounce me, the lower my probability gets. People who see the future speak calmly and bet with alacrity.

Am I not horrified by many of Trump’s actions? Of course, especially on immigration and trade. But insofar as I pay attention to current events, I’ve been horrified by all of his predecessors as well. Am I not currently more horrified than normal? Only marginally. In my lifetime, American democracy has embraced more monstrous policies than Trump has so far. Starting with conscription. All things considered, my best bet is that we’ll muddle through once again, as we have for centuries.

A bitter realization, I know. But before you tell yourself that you can’t get through life without the crutch of Noble Lies, I suggest you instead seek comfort in your intellectual honesty. While your ability to change society is trivial, your own merit is ever in your hands.

* The only strong reply to my simple observation is just, “While I don’t love either of the two main political sides, I love the policies that result from their democratic rivalry.” If you think the modern welfare state is wonderful, if “getting to Denmark” is your idea of utopia, then this is a coherent position. My recently-finished Unbeatable argues otherwise, but if that’s where you stand, I doubt I’ll change your mind.