OYLEM GOYLEM by Yosef Dayan Ha Nasi 2004

Oylem Goylem 

(the masses are asses)

 The criticism of democracy refers to democracy as a system that is always shown in the best light in theoretical writings.  In these theoretical writings, it is claimed that this system, if properly implemented in the manner intended by its originators, will guarantee "Liberty Equality Fraternity" to everyone.  Today, there are similar slogans such as "Diversity Equity Inclusion" (DEI) or "Environmental, Social, Governance" (ESG), also claiming to be protecting democracy. 

We are not discussing the many accidents that have left their mark on the idea of democracy during its course of implementation, here and in other places in the world. 

The shortcomings mentioned in these pages do not refer to the distortions or perversions of democracy, which came about because of various utilitarian reasons or because of vested interests that influenced its implementation. 

They do not refer to cases where democracy is invoked in vain as an empty label. 

They do not refer to the inability of the masses to understand what its originators had in mind. 

They do not refer to the domineering or predatory nature of politicians nor to corruption or depravity. 

These are obviously found in abundance, but our focus lies elsewhere. 

The shortcomings mentioned here refer to those things that cannot be changed, because they are an inherent, structural, or "built-in" element of the system. 

The basic idea underlying the democratic system is that the citizens hold sovereignty. 

The system is based on the assumption – a fallacious assumption as we shall prove – that all citizens are equal and free men and also that they know what is good for them; 

   ...that they possess the intellectual ability to examine the political contenders and to choose the best one among them.

Democracy is based on the concept 37 that in the contest of ideas and opinions – those that are correct and just will always be victorious. 

Democracy assumes that the majority is wise – and is always right!

Another basic assumption of democracy is that the collective aspiration is held in common by everyone, and that all the participants in the democratic game agree on the political framework and its objectives. 

None of these assumptions is correct or even approximates correctness. 

Let us put aside the first assumption, that the citizens hold sovereignty, for the end. 

This assumption contradicts Judaism, by definition. 

In Judaism, the Lord of all Worlds – He and only He – is the sovereign. 

But as I said, we shall leave this until the end of the discussion. 

After analyzing all the other elements inherent in democracy, the issue of sovereignty may become self-evident, and possibly there will be no need to clarify it at all. 

First of all, are all the citizens really equal? Of course not! 

Even according to Aharon Barak, who differentiates between "the enlightened society" and the rest of society, people are not equal, not in their capacity for understanding, or in the scope of their knowledge and neither in their intellectual capabilities. 

Therefore, the view that every citizen is entitled to the same power to influence the choice of a leader is completely unreasonable. 

People were created with differences between them, and just as their faces are different – so are their opinions, and not only their opinions. 

Each person's level of intellectual development is different. That is nature. That is creation! 

No theory of equality will change such a concrete fact of life! 

Secondly, are the citizens really free? Of course not! 

From the moment they are subjected to any form of government, they cease to be free. 

And it doesn't matter whether they accepted that government of their own free will after having elected it, or whether due to their being in the minority, the majority elected a government, which they did not want. 

38 The first to recognize the truth of this are the politicians themselves. 

When they proclaim the issue of so-called equality – they are consciously lying. 

This lie is the most permanent element of democracy, but it is convenient for all participants in this game to revive it whenever they believe it is losing ground. 

This lie is actually the magic potion of democracy. 

If it is exposed, the whole system will collapse. And it actually is collapsing, as the truth comes to light. 

In the meantime, the maintenance of this lie is essential to the preservation of the system. 

The lie of equality is the most appropriate instance of the adage "opium for the masses" that could be imagined. 

 The most telling proof that politicians are aware that the citizens are unequal to each other and are not free, is derived from the very fact that they are politicians: if they did not think that differences exist between people and that it is inadvisable that they should enjoy liberty and freedom, then they would not be striving to govern others – they would simply not be politicians. 

That is the essence of democracy in one sentence! 

The typical structure of any society is such that on one end of the spectrum there is one small group of people who think that one idea is the best of all, while at the other end of the spectrum there is another small group of people who think that the opposite is true. 

All the rest of the people find their place in the middle. 

The citizens, or voters, or the masses, however we define them – are all the rest. 

 In the democratic game governance is conferred for a certain period to one group according to the decision of "all the rest", who preferred that group to any other group. 

The decision of "all the rest" is supposed to be made on the basis of a thorough consideration, resting on a serious examination of the positions of the candidates representing one group or the other. 

In reality, a thorough consideration is impossible because of the inherent nature of "all the rest", of the voting masses. 

The masses are, by their very nature, lacking in the ability to discern or differentiate. 

This is true for all places, at any time and according to any system. 

39 Consequently their decision cannot be sound or based on serious consideration, and therefore cannot be a just or a good decision! 

 One example to illustrate the matter, although it is negligible among the myriad possible examples one could bring, but a very significant one because of its symbolic value, is the election for the Presidency of the United States, held in Florida in 2000. 

The opponents of the elected President claimed that the ballot was not sufficiently clear and that people who wanted to vote for Gore actually voted for Pat Buchanan and that is how George Bush won the elections. 

Here you have an instance of the greatness of democracy: people who aren't capable of performing a simple act of punching a hole in a card where it should be done are supposed to be able to know which of the candidates will be best qualified to manage the complex affairs of the great United States of America. 

In a nation with a population of over two hundred million, one hundred and sixty such idiots decided the vote. 

 But not only are these elderly people from Palm Beach, Miami, who made a mistake in the act of voting, devoid of any serious qualifications for making an intelligent decision on who would make the best President. 

In fact, the whole American nation, and all voters in all the states in which "democratic" elections are held, are devoid of such qualifications. 

 The masses are prepared and even want to believe any lie, deception or cynical manipulation as long as it helps them to preserve their illusions and cultivate them. 

Recognizing this truth, politicians have acquired special skills of saying and doing anything that promotes their popularity. 

In his heart, every politician knows his supporters will regard anything he says as a great truth of divine proportions. 

Politicians are aware of the need of the masses to worship someone and they take advantage of this fact without the slightest sense of shame. 

 The masses are, in all aspects, mediocre, and mediocrity does not point to a high degree of rationality. 

 They are not rational beings. At most, they are gray shadows 40 repeating what others say with a deep conviction that they themselves were authors of it. 

Alexander Hamilton, one of the most brilliant of the founding fathers of the United States coined a memorable aphorism: "The masses are asses". 

Rabbi Kahane suggested that this could be rendered in Hebrew (Yiddishized??) as: Oylem Goylem. 

Indeed, the majority of people throughout the world behave like automatons, or like the legendary "golem", that stupid, irrational creature that was incapable of any independent thought, that acted only in accordance with its master's will. 

Hamilton knew what every politician knows, but Hamilton had the courage to speak his mind. 

 In a pure democracy a random majority decides what is good. When the majority changes, the good changes also. 

A greater perversion of rationality can hardly be conceived. 

It is not that the majority decision is not necessarily always the right decision. Rather, the majority decision is, in most cases, not the right decision. 

Henry David Thoreau said, correctly: "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one". 

In our own tradition this is expressed even more persuasively: "And told Abram the Hebrew" (Bereshit 14, 13). 

Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire world is on one side and he – on the other side. (Midrash Rabba, Bereshit 42) 

 The whole world believed, at the time, in a multiplicity of gods or idols. 

Abram the Hebrew, the nation's forefather, believed in one God. And who was right? 

 During the exodus from Egypt, an overwhelming majority of 80% did not want to be redeemed. 

Only a minority of 20% was liberated, as Rashi comments: 

"… and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 13, 18): Chamushim – mechumashim. One of five left, while four out of five died during the three days of darkness". 

 Of the twelve spies, the majority of ten were wrong while a minority of two – Kalev and Joshua - were right. 

 41 The U.N. General Assembly decided by a vast majority, that Zionism is a form of racism, just like Nazism. Are we to think that the majority was right? 

 These are just a few examples. We could fill up volumes with similar examples proving not only that the majority is not always right but rather, that in fact the majority is almost always wrong, by definition. 

 At any rate, if anyone insists on believing that the majority is always right – he had better join the Buddhist faith, because the Buddhists are the majority in the world, or at least convert to Islam or Christianity. 

Jews, at any rate, are a tiny minority. 

And it is worthwhile to remember, 

"The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples."

We have seen, therefore, that the majority does not always side with a moral position. 

We have seen that the majority does not necessarily always empower the righteous or the wise. 

There is nothing more foolish than the assumption that there is some kind of collective wisdom that originates in the masses. 

And there could be nothing more dangerous than the situation whereby leaders follow the whims of the masses. 

This, ultimately, is democracy in a nutshell. 

 At times, even the most cautious politicians admit their opinion regarding the majority, or the masses. 

How many times have we heard some arrogant politician declaring, "the leaders should lead, and not be dragged along"? To be dragged? After whom? After the people, of course! 

When a decision he opposes is made, the politician instantly comes up with an overwhelming argument: "That is a populistic decision (that panders to the masses)!" he says scornfully. 

What does this mean? If the decision is "populistic", it probably stems from the will of the "populo" – the people. 

So suddenly those same people that elected him don't understand anything? 

The reason for this attitude is that the politician considers himself to be the only one who truly understands, he thinks of himself as select, having special qualities that are above those of the common folk. 

That is what we said: The politician knows that the citizens are not equal; he knows that they are not liberated; he knows that they are not wise. 

So why does he pretend to praise democracy? 

This arrogant condescension leads us directly to the last part of the discussion: Who is the sovereign? 

 They say that the people, the masses, are the sovereign, represented by their delegates, the people are the sovereign. 

But is this actually so? 

 We shall digress here from the line of argument we have so far taken, of discussing only the theoretical side of democracy, and examine those who actually are the sovereign in Israeli reality. 

 Without introducing the issue of the separation of powers, another one of the mantras of democracy, we shall mention that in quite a few instances, the Israeli High Court of Justice has disqualified laws that the Knesset legislated. 

Based on what? 

Who gave it the authority to disqualify laws? 

What has made it become a super-sovereign that can tell the Knesset what is permissible to legislate and what is not? 

Judicial activism. 

The claim that everything is subject to judicial scrutiny! 

 We shall repeat Barak's words about the test of the enlightened person. 

These are so important and so relevant, that they are worthy of a second perusal: The metaphor of "the enlightened society" focuses attention on a part of the public. 

Attention is directed… to the educated and advanced part (of society). And what differentiates the enlightened society from the rest of the "five" (chamesh). 43 public? … The enlightened society represents that community whose values are universal, and it belongs to the family of enlightened nations". 

 Again the lie of equality is revealed in all its hypocrisy. 

All the citizens are not equal. Some of them are considered to be worth more than others. They are considered the enlightened part of society, the educated and "progressive" part! I am flushed with satisfaction. 

I have worked hard over six pages in order to prove that there is no equality, and now, finally, I have the authority of the honorable Judge Barak, President of Israel's Supreme Court. Oh, how good I feel!