Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

Pox Populi

Trump is a symptom of a disease deep within democracy’s bones.

By Jason Brennan June 19, 2016
Pox Populi 1
Photo Illustration by Mark Abramson

H ow did Donald Trump become a serious contender for president of the United States? It’s the question everyone is asking, but it’s the wrong question. Instead, given how ignorant and irrational voters tend to be, we should be asking how it is that someone like Trump — a candidate seemingly as ill-informed as he is uninterested in policy — hasn’t already made it to the Oval Office.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

H ow did Donald Trump become a serious contender for president of the United States? It’s the question everyone is asking, but it’s the wrong question. Instead, given how ignorant and irrational voters tend to be, we should be asking how it is that someone like Trump — a candidate seemingly as ill-informed as he is uninterested in policy — hasn’t already made it to the Oval Office.

Americans widely believe that democracy is a uniquely just form of government, and that political participation enlightens and ennobles citizens. Call it democratic triumphalism. It is the American creed, so ubiquitous that it goes unquestioned. Philosophers and laypeople, optimists and cynics, partisans of the left and the right, your activist aunt and your languid uncle, all take it for granted. The three most important political philosophers of the past 50 years — John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and G.A. Cohen — disagreed about almost everything. Yet all three embraced some form of democratic triumphalism. As the Yale political scientist Ian Shapiro writes, “The democratic idea is close to nonnegotiable in today’s world.”

TRUMP-cover
The Trump Issue
How did Donald Trump’s candidacy happen? What ideas has he upended? How is academe responding? What does his candidacy mean for the future of democracy? We asked scholars from a variety of disciplines to weigh in.
  • ‘Trump Syllabus’ Is as White as the Man Himself
  • The Politics of Resentment
  • Poor White Politics
  • I, Donald
  • The Clickbait Candidate
  • Make America America Again

Sure, everyone admits democracy has problems. But the problems are superficial, like acne or a bad hairdo. And despite its flaws, the argument goes, democracy is better than the alternatives. If the wrong candidate wins, it’s because of gerrymandering or the influence of rich donors. If politicians push bad policies, it’s because they’ve been bought by the special interests.

The solution to what ails democracy, nearly everyone concludes, is more democracy. In the late 1800s, 70 to 80 percent of eligible Americans voted in major elections. We now muster, at most, 60 percent for a presidential election and 40 percent for midterm, state, and local elections. Because the greatness of democracy is an axiom in American life, we’re unshakeable in our faith that if more people voted, our politics would improve. We’re like Europeans in the Middle Ages; disease and poverty don’t shake our faith in an omnibenevolent God, and we blame the Devil for everything.

But the rise of Trump should challenge our faith in democracy. That’s because the presumptive Republican nominee is not an anomaly so much as a symptom of a disease deep within democracy’s bones.

John Stuart Mill believed that we should institute whatever form of government produces the best results. He speculated that the more people got involved in politics, the more concerned they’d become about the common good. Getting a factory worker to think about politics would be like getting a fish to discover there’s a world outside the ocean. Political engagement would cause us to look beyond our immediate interests, hardening our minds but softening our hearts.

The reality is that we are bad at politics, and politics is bad for us.


Mill wrote more than 150 years ago, when few people could participate in politics. His was a reasonable but untested hypothesis. The results are now in. They are largely negative. I think Mill would agree.

For the past 60 years, political scientists and others have been studying voters — what they care about, what they know, how they process information (if they have any), and how information affects their behavior. In general, scholars have found that voters are ignorant, misinformed, and irrational. Most Americans cannot identify any congressional candidates in their district. Voters generally don’t know which party controls Congress. They don’t know how much is spent on Social Security. Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University and author of Democracy and Political Ignorance, concludes that at least 35 percent of American voters are know-nothings.

Experimental work in political psychology reveals that most people process political information in a way that is biased and partisan, not dispassionate and rational. They pay attention to evidence that confirms the views they already hold. As the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz has found, citizens who can adequately explain political opinions other than their own rarely vote or participate in politics. It’s no surprise, then, that Trump voters ignore evidence that Trump is lying, and worse, dig in their heels.

Decades of social-science research suggest that political engagement tends not only to fail to educate or ennoble us, but also often to stultify and corrupt us. Joseph Schumpeter had it right: “The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again.”

Contrary to what Mill expected, getting citizens to deliberate together typically backfires. Deliberation does not bring us together; it leads to polarization and anger. The model Mill imagined — of citizens solving problems together like dispassionate scientists — is mostly fantasy. The reality is that we are bad at politics, and politics is bad for us. For the sake of our characters and our country, most of us should minimize our involvement.

ADVERTISEMENT

There’s little that democracies can do to fix these problems. More education and easier access to information have not helped. In 1940 less than 40 percent of adults over age 25 had a high-school diploma; now more than 80 percent do. Though Americans are better educated, and though political information has never been easier to acquire, people are as ignorant about politics today as they were 40 years ago. As the joke goes, “I have a device in my pocket capable of accessing all information known to man. I use it to look at pictures of cats and argue with strangers.”

Voters are dumb because democracy makes them dumb. Democracy spreads power among a vast number of people; everyone gets an equal but tiny share — expressed through our vote — so small that none of us have an incentive to use our power wisely. The chance that an individual vote will make any difference in a national election is on par with the odds of winning Powerball. Voters have every incentive to remain ignorant about politics and to indulge their worst biases.

We cannot “fix” democratic ignorance, because we cannot change the incentives built into democracy. But perhaps we can mitigate the problem by changing our political system. What if instead of trying to make voters better informed and more reasonable, we tried to screen out the least reasonable and most misinformed voters? What if instead of a democracy, we had an epistocracy?

An epistocracy would look much like a modern democracy, with constitutional limits on power, a bill of rights, contests among political parties, free and open political speech, regular elections, checks and balances, division of powers, and the like. The difference is that not everyone would have equal voting power. Political power would be, by law, distributed according to competence, skill, and the good faith to act upon that skill. Suffrage would be widespread but not universal. An epistocracy would grant better-informed voters extra votes. It might require citizens to earn the right to vote by passing a test of basic political knowledge. Or it might allow panels of appointed experts to veto harmful legislation, just as the Supreme Court vetoes unconstitutional legislation.

ADVERTISEMENT

To state the obvious: Any realistic form of epistocracy will be subject to abuse. If there is a voter “exam,” special interests will try to rig the test in their favor. If getting a college degree gets you three extra votes, politicians will mess around with what counts as a degree in order to further empower their voters. Epistocracy will have warts. But so does democracy. Politicians already gerrymander districts, lie to voters, and abuse voter-ID laws. Democracies sometimes choose disastrous leaders. The question isn’t whether epistocracy would be ideal, but whether it would be better than democracy.

Epistocracy might seem repulsive or dangerous. But before dismissing it out of hand, consider that built-in epistocratic checks — the disproportionate power of elites — are what stopped us from already having a President Trump. Political parties normally run establishment candidates. However corrupt the parties might be, they are generally better informed and more forward-looking than the typical voter. They keep populism in check. What we see now, with the rise of Trump, is what happens when the party system breaks down, and the worst of We the People get what we want.

Jason Brennan is an associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University. His new book, Against Democracy, will be published by Princeton University Press in August.

A version of this article appeared in the June 24, 2016, issue.
Read other items in The Trump Issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin