A Monday guest essay in the New York Times proposed doing away with elections in order to save democracy. If that sounds absurd to you, then it won’t make any more sense to you after reading the column. Since the New York Times poses as the pseudo-intellectual mouthpiece of the Democrat Party’s thinking, we can now say Rush Limbaugh was right: the left wants to ban elections. Although it may take a few years still for the idea to really gain steam in the mainstream of their party.
The column written by contributing opinion writer Adam Grant, is titled: The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way. Grant starts off rather innocently noting “On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity.”
He then goes full radical: “But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.”
If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.
Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.
Not only is this plot by Grant unconstitutional, but it’s also un-American! Having leaders chosen from some lottery isn’t a democracy.
“When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well,” Grant explains.
The solution to this would be to place a greater emphasis on civic education in schools and allow school choice and homeschooling, so children are educated and not indoctrinated.
Our leaders are a reflection of American society and the education system as a whole. These are both institutions the left has corrupted.
As if this piece wasn’t bad enough, Grant misinterprets what William F. Buckley Jr. meant when he said “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
Grant thought Buckley meant “That’s because the people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it.” In reality, he was talking about not wanting to be governed by elitists like Grant who think they’re smart enough to completely reengineer society.