Greshamite Democracy in Israel (and here)

Entropy is the rule of the universe save, it has always been my feeling, for brief moments of conscious life. 

Life and society, too, eventually devolve, but for a little time, there is an organizing pattern. History shows this pattern follows upon clear moral understanding and "virtu" or the personal will to abide by truth. Greek and Roman empires declined upon the moral decline of the indivual.  Americans, for the first two centuries, religious or not, believed in the sanctity of individual life and in something beyond this moral coil.  Ten of thousands died to protect ideals such as freedom.

The West is now in decline because morality is in decline, which is, in turn, in decline as most individuals no longer have religion, in any of its forms, or respect for individual life and property. We are in a pig pen and entropy has arrived to reclaim us. Moral relativism is the abscence of morality.

Below is an excerpt giving comment on Israel's condition, which sound very much like that of Europe and, now, the United States

...Gresham’s Law rules in politics, where falsehood and half-truths drive out full-truths.  The reason is this.  Full-truths impose greater demands on the integrity and courage of politicians.  The norm of democratic politics is compromise punctuated by deviousness.           
Contemporary political scientists never tire of saying that politics means power. To gain power in a democracy one must appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Contemporary democracy is “Greshamite” democracy. Greshamite democracy entails, at best, a politics of half-truths, but very often of falsehoods. To utter full-truths in such democracies is to risk being labeled an “extremist,” an “ideologue,” an “absolutist.” As one high-ranking Israeli official confided to me: “We can’t lie as well as the Arabs.”
The political as well as the intellectual elites of Greshamite democracies insist on being seen as a “moderate,” a “centrist,” a “pragmatist” Why? Because there are no moral truths in this democratic age wherein everything is “relative.” It’s precisely because there is no truth that public opinion polls -- but therefore opinion-makers or manipulators -- play a decisive role in politics. 

Given the eclipse of truth -- which is to say, given the ascendancy of opinion over reason and knowledge -- to refute an opponent nowadays you don’t have to examine his opinions on logical or empirical grounds. It’s enough to label him a “right-winger” or a “hawk.” I say “right-winger” and “hawk” rather than “left-winger” and “dove” because the latter dominate the mass media, as well as the media of education, including political science. Thus, if you are a critic of Greshamite democracy, its mandarins will call you a “fascist,” just as critics of the Oslo “peace process” were labeled “hawks.”      

   
This dishonest way of dealing with matters of life and death is the staple of “value-free” political science, which prevails even in Israel (the only country in the world threatened with annihilation).  Thus, in a Jerusalem Post op-ed piece, one Hebrew University political scientist calls it “Kahanism” to require more than 51% in a popular referendum on whether Israel should withdraw from the Golan Heights. His “reason”?  A 51% requirement would render nugatory the votes of Israel’s Arab citizens!  No elaboration on such intellectual dishonesty is necessary. 

Political scientists foster falsehood by never referring to any politician as “mendacious.” Such politicians abound in Israel. Almost all encourage people to believe in “peaceful coexistence” between Jews and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria knowing well enough that militancy is deeply ingrained in Arab-Islamic culture. Indeed, for Israeli Prime Ministers to speak of peaceful coexistence with the Arabs of Judea and Samaria is nothing less than expecting those Arabs to forsake their 1,400-year culture and cease being Muslims! But to call such politicians liars is to make a “value-judgment,” something “value-free” or morally neutral political scientists must never do if they are to be “objective” or “scientific.” An “objective” political science must therefore be either a trivial or a “truth-free” political science! 

Since morally neutral political scientists preclude themselves from moral criticism of democracy’s political elites, they tend to reinforce the power of these elites, which means they perpetuate the reign of lies and liars. Confronted, however, by despotic Islam, of which academics must also obscure the truth­, it follows that morally neutral political scientists are subversive of democracy. Gresham’s Law is deadly.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, author and lecturer; Founder and President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He is a valued contributor to JewishIndy. 
His books are available at Lightcatcher Books, http://www.lightcatcherbooks.com. His most recent book is: Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America. His recent books are: A Jewish Philosophy of History and The Myth of Israeli Democracy: Toward a Truly Jewish Israel. His previous book, Jewish Statesmanship:  Lest Israel Fall, provides the philosophical and institutional foundations for reconstructing the State of Israel.  It has been translated into Hebrew and Russian. He is the author of Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America (Lightcatcher Books, 2009).

The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy 
POB 23702, Jerusalem 91236
E-Mail: Eidelberg@foundation1.org;
Tel. 02-586-9208; Cell phone 0544-407581
Visit his Web site:  http://www.foundation1.org