Guidepost Two: The Power of Definition and Belief (Aka Episode 45)

“Democracy is an idea that requires trust to flourish,” I added. “If people don’t trust their fellow citizens, then why would they trust the idea of democracy?”

Photo by Chris Sabor on Unsplash

“What is the difference between an autocrat and a dictator?” she asked unexpectedly.

I thought for a second and snorted, “Semantics?”

“Yeah, right,” she replied seriously, ignoring my sarcasm “I mean because autocrats and dictators basically do the same thing, right? They control the justice system. They control the government. They outlaw public gatherings and protests. They control the media, the schools, the businesses, the military.”

“I suppose, if you really want to get technical,” I said, changing my answer. “A dictator is dictator for life, while an autocrat faces reelection every few years. Of course, when autocrats control elections, they are pretty much an autocrat for life. So yeah, it’s semantics.”

“But why would anyone vote for living in an autocracy?” she asked. “Who would want to live where only a few people run everything?”

“Perhaps the people who run everything?” I snorted again.

“Please be serious,” she pleaded.

I sat back and looked into her eyes. “What makes you think people chose autocracies? Lots of people are born into autocracies, and they really didn’t have much of a choice?”

“Yeah, but others do have a choice, and they choose an autocracy. My sociology teacher has been showing us these documentaries. One was about the Arab Spring. How one protester in Tunisia lit himself on fire rather than live with the corruption of his government, and how that action sparked protests and reforms in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, but like a year later every country but Tunisia went back to the old autocracies. And then there was this other documentary about the Philippines and how they elected the son of their ex-dictator as their President because they wanted a dictator who could protect them. Plus, she’s shown us video of Americans saying that they would rather live in an autocracy run by Trump, than a democracy run by Biden. I just don’t get it.”

“First,” I interrupted. “When people asks if you would rather live in an autocracy run by Trump, or a democracy run by Biden, they are presenting you with a false dilemma.”

“A false dilemma?”

“Remember the book we wrote together about logical fallacies?” She nodded, so I continued. “The false dilemma is the one where I present only two choices when there are really several other options.”

“I remember now. It’s like if I ask whether you want vanilla ice cream, or chocolate ice cream; and I leave out the options of neither, or both.” She looked up curious, and added, “So is there a second thing?”

“Yes,” I replied. “The thing is, democracies are hard. They require civic engagement. They require an educated electorate. They require a willingness to compromise and work with people you might not even like. They require people to listen, learn, and be able to accept the will of the majority over their own. They require that people trust their fellow citizens. It’s like E.B. White wrote, ‘Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.’ Although, these days, I might change the word suspicion to the word hope.”

“Whose E.B. White?”

“Are you kidding me?’ I sat back startled. “He co-wrote the first book we ever read together. Remember?"”

“What?” Her brows scrunched up.

“The Elements of Style,” I threw out my hands. “The world’s best book on English grammar and style. The reason I refuse to let you utilize the word utilize in your essays when you could easily utilize the word use.”

“Oh yeah,” she nodded, remembering. “Didn’t he also write Charlotte’s Web, and that other one?”

“You mean Stewart Little? Or maybe The Trump of the Swan? Or maybe the many other books and essays he produced over a lifetime. He was also a contributing writer at the New Yorker for many years. He produced hundreds of articles about daily life. Some of them were quite profound. There’s a really famous one that he wrote during World War II. He called it, ‘The Meaning of Democracy.’ Supposedly, President Roosevelt loved to quote it over drinks.”

“What did it say?”

“Look it up,” I said pointing to her phone. “Type in E.B. White The meaning of democracy full article. See what pops up.” She found it just a few minutes on the New Yorker Website. It was dated July 3, 1943:

We received a letter from the Writers’ War Board the other day asking for a statement on “The Meaning of Democracy.” It presumably is our duty to comply with such a request, and it is certainly our pleasure.

Surely the Board knows what democracy is. It is the line that forms on the right. It is the don’t in don’t shove. It is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles; it is the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of privacy in the voting booths, the feeling of communion in the libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere. Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea which hasn’t been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad. It’s the mustard on the hot dog and the cream in the rationed coffee. Democracy is a request from a War Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what democracy is.

— by E. B. White, Author of Charlotte’s Web, Stewart Little, The Trumpet of the Swan, The Elements of Style, and numerous humors pieces for The New Yorker.

This piece originally appeared in the Notes and Comment section of the July 3, 1943, issue of The New Yorker.

She sat back thoughtfully, “So according to him, democracy is an idea? A belief?”

“And it is an idea that requires trust to flourish,” I added. “If people don’t trust their fellow citizens, then why would they trust the idea of democracy?”

I could see her trying to chose her words carefully as she replied. “So people chose autocracy because they trust the autocrat more than each other?”

It took me some time to chose my answer. “Yes,” I began slowly. “In order for democracy to work, we have to trust our system of government; we have to trust our justice system; we have to trust the sources of our information. But most of all, we have to trust our fellow citizens. Trust is something autocracies tend to discourage. They thrive in propaganda, chaos, fear, anger and revenge. It’s easier to stay in power when you pit people against each other, and make them distrust their own government. It makes people want a strong man who they trust will fix things.”

“So if someone wants to destroy a democracy, all they have to do is to get people to trust the autocrat more than their fellow citizens. It’s like, they divide us and conquer,” she finally concluded.

“E pluribus unum,” I murmured to myself. She look uncertain, so I added, “It’s our country’s motto. ‘Of many, one.’ Democracy ‘is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time,’ and when more than half of the people disagree with you, you trust them enough to move forward with them as one nation united instead of rising up in revolt against them because you demand your own way.”

“So, where do you think the trust went?”

“Well, I suspect that many Americans never had trust in the first place. Why would Indigenous Americans trust a Nation that believed it had a Manifest Destiny to take over their land? Why would ex-slaves trust an America that gave them the right to vote, only to create laws that made it impossible for them to vote a few years later?”

“But what about the regular Americans?”

“Excuse me!” I sat up straighter. “The regular Americans? Have I taught you nothing?”

“No, no, I didn’t mean it that way,” she exclaimed, flapping her hands. “I meant like, where did the Mayberry R.F.D. Americans go?”

“Oh, those Americans?” I snorted. “I am not sure if they were ever real.”

“Yeah, but people did once trust American democracy, right?”

“I suppose many of them did.”

“So where did they go?”

“You ask that as if you think nobody trusts our government any more. I don’t think that’s true. People may not trust some of the people running the government. They might not trust certain media outlets. They might even question some judicial decisions, but they still have faith in the Constitution.”

“But didn’t Trump say that he wanted to tear up the Constitution?”

“I believe the exact quote was…,” I pulled out my iPad to show her,

In December 2022, Donald Trump was pushing the baseless claim that he lost the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud. On December 3, 2022, Trump wrote on Truth Social:

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"…

…Trump later attempted to walk back his statement, writing via Truth Social on December 5 that: "The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to 'terminate' the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES."

"What I said was that when there is 'MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,' as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG," Trump added. "Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!"

Source: FACT CHECK BY Newsweek's Fact Check team

“Mumm,” she mused. “He could definitely use a few lessons from The Elements of Style, but I get your point. Even he got in trouble for suggesting it would be acceptable to terminate the Constitution. But still, he is trying to get people to trust less.”

“Or he is fermenting the mistrust people already have in the systems and each other?” I suggested.

“So how do we build trust back?”

“Call me old fashion,’” I shrugged, “but I’ve always thought that people gain trust by earning it.”

“That’s not much of an answer,” she sent me a sidewise glare. “Sounds more like a meme.”

“Okay, how about this,” I tried again. “Trust takes a long time to build, but takes one act to destroy.”

“That’s just another meme,” she declared.

“What do you want me to say?” I threw up my hands. “Shoot girl, what makes you trust people? You go out and meet them. You work with them. You listen to them. You laugh together. You discover what you have in common. You build a relationship. A friendship.”

“But what if you are dealing with someone you know is untrustworthy?”

“Well,” I sighed. “I suppose that’s where Game Theory could come in.”

“What’s Game Theory?”

“It’s a branch of mathematics which analyses strategies for dealing effectively in competitive situations. Situations where people may not be able to trust each other.”

“Mathematics,” she repeated distastefully.

I had to laugh at the look on her face. “Well you did ask.”

“Doesn’t mean I have to like the answer.”

“How about this? I will attempt to explain one of simpler concepts in Game theory, and then post a link so you can read more about it's other aspects when you get home.” She looked uncertain, so I added, “If you want.”

“Okay,” she agreed darkly.

“The concept is called tit for tat. It basically means that when you are facing a competitive situation, or negotiation, you be the first to offer an open hand. You be the first to cooperate. This will more likely cause your opponent to cooperate, and so long as they continue to cooperate, you continue to cooperate. If they make a concession, you make a concession. However, if they begin to pull back, you pull back. If they push back, you push back. See, tit for tat.”

“I think I need an example,” she said carefully.

I thought for a moment. “Let’s say I have a difficult co-worker. I might reach out first by saying, ‘I realize that we have a tough time working together.’ At which point, I simply mirror my co-worker’s responses. If they start to open up, I open up. If they start looking for solutions, I start looking for solutions. What ever reaction they send to me, I reflect back to them until we reach an understanding. However, I do the same thing if they fail to open up. If they start lying, I don’t need to lie back, but I need to let them know I see through the lie. If they start getting snarky, I don’t need to get snarking, I just need to let them know I don’t tolerate snark. If they pull back, I pull back. Understand?”

“I think so, and it works?”

“Read the article at the end of the link I am about to share, and you tell me. And don’t worry. It’s kind of a Game Theory for Dummies kind of article. There is also a better explanation of tit for tat on Wikipedia if you are interested. It even has a section on tit for double tat.”

“Humm,” she murmured, and began packing up her notebooks.

“You know,” I said. “There is one more thing that’s important to remember.”

“What?” she said, slinging her backpack over her shoulder.

“The 80/20 rule. It is important to spend eighty percent of your time cultivating the people who are wonderful, and don’t let the twenty percent of people who are difficult take up more than twenty percent of your time. We tend to see what we look for, and we miss the things we don’t look for; so spend some time looking for the good in people. You’ll be more likely to find it.” She still looked sad, so I added. “Before you go, let me show you some wonderful people who are working to heal the world through music. I think it will cheer you up.”

I stood up, so she could take my place behind the computer. “What is it?” she asked as I cued it up.

“It’s a song about choosing peace, sung by musicians from around the world. If this does help you regain some trust in others, I’m not sure what else will.”