Brexit, elitism, and democracy
[Context: After the UK voted, in a referendum, to leave the EU, a lot of folks are saying not "How have we so thoroughly failed to present our ideas?" but rather "See, this is what happens when you let PEOPLE decide things."]
At a basic level, you either trust people to govern themselves without a ruling class, or you don't. The kind of intellectual elitism that liberals so fervently deny is alive and well every time you dismiss your fellow citizens as ignorant rednecks and bigots instead of listening to their concerns. I've met plenty of people who say they value keeping an open mind - and yet, not only are they rarely persuaded by people who disagree with them, they refuse to believe it's possible to honestly disagree with them. What if someone with just as much intellectual, emotional, and moral agency as you thought about issue X and came to a different conclusion? That would be pretty scary, right? That would mean you would have to really stop and think about what they're saying, even if their values and priorities are different from yours.
I've seen this even from people I otherwise have great respect for. Instead of wondering why someone would possibly hold X opinion, or assuming it must be because they're something-ist, why don't you go up and ask them what's important to them and why? You may well find that they're not against what you're for, but they're prioritizing some need that you hadn't thought of or aren't prioritizing.
None of which is to say that racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. aren't powerful forces in our society and in individual decision-making. But consider Alice, Bob, and Carol.
Bob: "Wow, I expressed an opinion, and Alice just called me names and walked away."
Carol: "Wow, I expressed an opinion, and Alice asked me for more details about my stance and really listened to how I got there and what I'm trying to achieve before sharing her position, including some concerns she has about how mine might have some unintended consequences."
Between Bob and Carol, which of them is more likely to take Alice's priorities into account in the future, do you suppose?
At a basic level, you either trust people to govern themselves without a ruling class, or you don't. The kind of intellectual elitism that liberals so fervently deny is alive and well every time you dismiss your fellow citizens as ignorant rednecks and bigots instead of listening to their concerns. I've met plenty of people who say they value keeping an open mind - and yet, not only are they rarely persuaded by people who disagree with them, they refuse to believe it's possible to honestly disagree with them. What if someone with just as much intellectual, emotional, and moral agency as you thought about issue X and came to a different conclusion? That would be pretty scary, right? That would mean you would have to really stop and think about what they're saying, even if their values and priorities are different from yours.
I've seen this even from people I otherwise have great respect for. Instead of wondering why someone would possibly hold X opinion, or assuming it must be because they're something-ist, why don't you go up and ask them what's important to them and why? You may well find that they're not against what you're for, but they're prioritizing some need that you hadn't thought of or aren't prioritizing.
None of which is to say that racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. aren't powerful forces in our society and in individual decision-making. But consider Alice, Bob, and Carol.
Bob: "Wow, I expressed an opinion, and Alice just called me names and walked away."
Carol: "Wow, I expressed an opinion, and Alice asked me for more details about my stance and really listened to how I got there and what I'm trying to achieve before sharing her position, including some concerns she has about how mine might have some unintended consequences."
Between Bob and Carol, which of them is more likely to take Alice's priorities into account in the future, do you suppose?