The Mob’s Man of the Year
by Max Raskin What should be made of Robin Williams’s new film, Man of the Year? Should its pernicious political message be decried? Or should we rejoice at the fact that nobody could possibly stay awake for 115 of the most arduous, lid-dropping minutes of their lives? For the rare minority of people who managed to remain conscious through the film’s entirety, and for the even smaller subset of people who actually took its message seriously, a critique of Man of the Year’s mobocratic message is needed. Robin Williams stars as a comedian, modeled after a Bill Maher or Jon Stewart, who decides to run for president as an independent candidate. While his platform is ambiguous, it is clear that he embodies the 19th century populist, with a television show that creates a grassroots movement against the status quo. Much like populists and other worshippers of democracy, Williams wants to put political power back into the hands of "the people," reclaiming it from special interests and lobbyists. Naturally he ends up winning, but as it turns out, the voting machines of the satanic, capitalist pigs malfunction, and regardless of the voting, the candidate who was alphabetically first would win. The good populist that he is, Williams decides to give up power when he finds out that the people did not actually vote him into office. The overall message of the film, however, could be summed up as: Democracy trumps all. Imagine Martin van Buren running against Joseph Stalin in a modern election. Let’s say that van Buren, a staunch defender of liberty (as much as a politician could be), ends up winning, not because of he was elected, but rather because B comes before S in the alphabet. If informed that the masses seek to impose tyranny and mass starvation on the populace, would van Buren acquiesce and give Stalin reign? Or would he recognize that sometimes the masses are wrong, and take the opportunity to move the country in the right direction? Well if he was Robin Williams, then Buren would let Stalin rule, not because it was just or moral, but rather because democracy made him do it. Thus we come to the flawed message of the movie – the divinity of unbridled democracy. If we take a clear-eyed look at what democracy really is, and not the sacrosanct institution that some intellectuals purport it to be, we find that it is nothing more than one big fallacy, namely, an appeal to popularity. Simply because 51% of the population believes that Thor is the creator of lightening does not make it so, and if 89% of the population feels like killing all redheads would make us better off does not mean that the government should engage in a redheaded genocide. Democracy is nothing more than rule by the masses, which is why it is not our form of government in America. The Founding Fathers knew that we needed to have a constitutional republic with safeguards to protect our liberty. This is why they created things like the Electoral College, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. What Robin Williams seeks to do is give up what he believes is right simply because it is unpopular. What he fails to understand is that not all monarchies are bad, per se, and not all democracies are inherently good. Joseph II and other "enlightened absolutists," many of whom were influenced by Dr. Quesnay and his semi-free market physiocrats, would be far better rulers than Hamas, a democratically elected terrorist organization, or Hitler, who was supported by the majority of Germany. Any moral leader, who honestly believes that he could help his people become more free, would do well not to listen to Williams’s message, but instead have the courage to do whatever they can to further the cause of liberty. People should not take the message of this movie too seriously. What could end up happening is people accepting the notion that democracy is an end unto itself. This is not the case. While democracy may be a way to the ultimate political end of liberty, it can often be an unjust means. Behind the innocuous jokes and recycled Daily Show quips, lies a message that has lead to death, destruction, and misery. Instead of taking this opportunity to rail against the recent attack on our liberty by the Bush Administration, the movie ends with the incumbent getting re-elected because Williams is too "democratic" to prevent a bad government from flourishing. As Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe would point out, democracy is indeed the god that has failed. November 14, 2006 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |