Citizens Governing Themselves

Can ordinary citizens be trusted to govern themselves? This question is centuries old and the answer to it usually determines one’s position towards democracy.

Plato in his “Republic” expressed profound distrust in citizens' ability to govern. He had watched the Peloponnesian War, the instability of Athenian democracy, and ultimately the execution of his teacher Socrates.

His conclusion was that political decisions were too important to be left to the masses, and so he proposed a governance of the wise, or in his words, "philosophers should become kings.” This view at that time stood in opposition to the democratic tradition of Athens.

A similar crucial debate emerged at the turn of the 20th century between two political philosophers named John Dewey (1859-1952) and Walter Lippmann (1889-1974). As opposed to Plato, both men advocated for democracy, but feared its viability. As they witnessed the emergence of modern society through mass immigration, industrialization, the rise of mass media and World War I, they worried that modern society had become too complex for ordinary citizens to understand.

In his book Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann (who was Jewish) wrote that people were not experiencing political reality directly, but rather, only through ”pictures in their heads.” The enormous complexity of wars, economics, foreign policy, climate, and government were being presented through media representations that could never communicate the nuanced reality. This resulted in public opinion often being uninformed, emotionally manipulated, and fragmented. Sound familiar?

Lippmann’s solution was to manage democratic governance through an agency of expert professionals. Like Plato, he advocated for governance of the wise. However, he proposed this be implemented within the democratic system rather than replacing it.

John Dewey disagreed wholeheartedly. His most direct response to Lippmann was in The Public and Its Problems (1927.) Dewey shared Lippmann’s concern about the stability of democracy in the modern world — though his solution was not to have less democracy, but more. Instead of thrusting management in the hands of experts, like Lippmann suggested, Dewey proposed to educate everyone to share in the knowledge collectively.  For Dewey, democracy was not only a form of governance, but a way of life. If citizens were educated and practiced in democracy from a young age, the knowledge and expertise received would naturally result in the citizens’ participation in a democratic society and governance. 

I would like to bring a third person into this famous debate: none other than Moses.

In our portion this week, Behaalotecha, surprise, surprise, the Israelites complained again. Not only do they complain, but they elaborate on it, describing in detail all the types of fruit, veggies and meat that they had in Egypt and no longer have…Moses, who at this point has had enough, turns to God saying:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־יְהֹוָ֗ה לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי׃

“And Moses said to God, “Why have You dealt ill with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor, that You have laid the burden of all these people upon me?”

In other words – do you hate me that much that you gave me these people to lead?

Moses wants to quit his job, telling God that he’d rather be killed than continue this way.

God’s response is practical. He instructs Moses to gather 70 wise representatives to share Moses’ burden. God would actually communicate with them, so they, too, become prophets like Moses.

Moses agrees and arrangements are made. Everything happened according to plan, but then the Torah brings us a curious anecdote: two men named Eldad and Medad remained in the camp and continued to prophesize while all the other elders had ceased prophesying and communicating with God. 

An assistant runs to tell Moses and Joshua. Joshua hears it and immediately tells Moses to arrest the two men. Moses’ response to Joshua is very surprising:

“וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה הַֽמְקַנֵּ֥א אַתָּ֖ה לִ֑י וּמִ֨י יִתֵּ֜ן כׇּל־עַ֤ם יְהֹוָה֙ נְבִיאִ֔ים כִּי־יִתֵּ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־רוּח֖וֹ עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃

“But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all of God’s people were prophets and that God would put his Spirit on them!”

So what do you think? Was Moses on Lippmann or on Dewey’s side? 

At first, Moses’ answer can be read as an outburst due to a situation which Moses was fed up with. It can almost be read as “Let all of them communicate directly with God, so I don’t have to anymore! You want me to arrest two people who are communicating? I wish they had all done so.”

But a deeper look into Jewish tradition and many other Jewish texts reveals that Moses at that moment raised an issue which our sages would debate for years to come.

Is everyone in our community worthy of the word of God? Is everyone worthy of knowledge and access to knowledge? Is everyone worthy of education? 

Moses’ answer can be read as nothing short of moving as he thrusts faith in every one of the Israelites despite their pettiness, complaints and narrow-mindedness. 

The Talmud in Bava Batra praises Yehoshua ben Gamla for opening schools so all children, especially the poor, can study Torah:

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּרַם, זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב – וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא, נִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁבִּתְחִלָּה, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָב – מְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָב – לֹא הָיָה לָמֵד תּוֹרָה. מַאי דְּרוּשׁ? ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם״ – וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אַתֶּם.

What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him, the Torah would have been forgotten by the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all.

Jewish tradition and Moses would indeed side with Dewey. Knowledge in our tradition is created from the bottom up, through participation, through debate and through the creation of new knowledge in the community.

Our tradition would side with Lippmann on other things, such as hierarchy, and passing down knowledge and expertise.

Both Lippmann and Dewey wrote due to concern about a need to protect democracy in a changing world. I fear that both their visions are failing to manifest today, putting our democracies in a weak state.

In the age of the internet and AI, every one of us has an enormous amount of knowledge and expertise at our fingertips. AI helps us sift through this knowledge at an unimaginable speed and communicate it back to us in a way that we can understand. However, none of us are really experts. What's worse, some of us question those who spent their lives actually becoming one.

As for Dewey’s vision of participation? Access to real investigative and research-based studies, one where someone can learn with peers and from experts, at least in this country, is reserved for a privileged class, and it is entirely out of reach to so many.   

Lippmann and Dewey were right to be concerned. Both were right in putting emphasis on education in their theories. 

Let Moses’ wish come true for us soon. Let us find within us the understanding that every one of us, even the most lowly, is worthy, like Moses suggested “that God would put his Spirit on them!”