Rationalizing Politics

Abstract

The discussion regarding the political role of the intellectuals (the intelligentsia) is enduring. George Orwell said, intellectuals often favor violent systems, including Fascism and Stalinism. Julien Benda wrote a classic lay sermon, Le trahison des clerkes, The Betrayal of the Intellectuals (1926). The commonest current view is that at best intellectuals do not care sufficiently for the quality of current politics. Let us observe those intellectuals who do care, then. Some of them are outstanding watchdogs defending public morality. The general view is that they should contribute by their expertise. This is an error. Improving politics need not involve experts in government and there is little hope that their involvement would rationalize politics. Current views regarding the role of experts are in conflict. This enables governments to misuse their service. Hence, the right question is not who can expertly make government more rational; it is, what will make governments wish to behave more rationally. The most difficult and paradoxical problem in this context is, should a politician not pass qualifying exams like physicians and lawyers and accountants. If yes, which, and if not, why not. Though this question is familiar, it is seldom under discussion. There is almost no debate between advocates of the two leading ideologies, democracy and technocracy. Most intellectuals are indifferent to the conflict between these two political philosophies. Is this indifference legitimate? The popular answer is that it is not, that intellectuals are obliged to partake in the improvement of politics. This opinion is false and dangerous.