Both 2305 and 2306 begin with sections that attempt to justify why each class is not only offered, but required. The short answer - as we will cover in class - is that an educated electorate is supposed to be more capable than not of providing the stability necessary to secure the survival of a democratic republic.
Here are the links:
- 2305 - Why do I have to take this class?
- 2306 - Why do I have to take this class?
It's not a guarantee of course, but the uneducated are argued to be more prone to decision making based on passion rather than reason, and are felt to be more likely to succumb to the pleadings of demagogues. This leads to instability, which can potentially undermine support for the institutions designed to place meaningful limits on those in power. This in turn can allow for an ambitious leader to consolidate power.
World history is full of examples of functioning republics falling apart and then being replaced with autocratic systems headed by a tyrannical leader. The notes mention the fall of the Roman Republic, but we could also point out how the German Republic - the Weimar Republic - fell apart due to the effort of Hitler's Nazi Party. We know what happened next.
You'll note that the founding generation thought the entire enterprise of creating a republic carried risks, and it still continues to.
But this also raises an important empirical question. Is the public really as irrational as the founding generation thought? If we want to be cynical - and we can be - perhaps the founders used this assumption as a way to limit participation from populations that might challenge their authority. Some of the comments made by Hamilton and the rest were in fact demeaning to the rest of society.
Is the public really as bad off as the founder's thought?
I'll post a few separate items on this question. It's an important and ongoing one.
