In their efforts to prevent democratic backsliding, militant democrats have traditionally been sympathetic to technocratic arrangements. Does this sympathy imply a logical congruence? Comparing theories of militant democracy and epistemic technocracy (aka epistocracy), I discover a common approach to basic aspects of representative democracy. Both theories see voters as fallible or ignorant instead of capable political agents; and they both understand political parties to be channels of state rule rather than democratic expression. This shared suspicion of grassroots (...) political agency explains why they employ non-democratic means to pursue their goals. But the two theories appear to be also analytically co-extensive. Like militant democrats, epistemic technocrats polemicize antidemocrats inasmuch as the latter are proxies for epistemically foul decision-making. Conversely, militant democrats try to block ‘incorrect’ decisions as long as these lead to democratic subversion, thereby producing a distinct type of militant technocracy. The article ends by drawing the implications of this symbiosis of epistemic and militant democratic ideas for contemporary democratic theory. (shrink)

In “The Waldo Moment,” a virtual bear becomes a successful politician through disrespecting, abusing, and dismissing his political rivals. In 2016, the presidency of the United States was won by Donald Trump, a candidate who took disrespect, abuse, and dismissal of his rivals to heights unprecedented in modern first‐world democracies. Meanwhile, Americans on different sides of the political aisle increasingly see each other as enemies to be denounced and fought, rather than allies to be listened to and engaged with. The (...) chapter is an examination of the role of disrespect and dismissal in modern politics, with explanatory examples drawn from parallels in “The Waldo Moment.” It addresses the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate to be disrespectful or dismissive of an individual or their political views. Saying that it is never appropriate would seem to rule out legitimate political satire and protest. Yet the politics of disrespect and disengagement undermine our ability to learn from those who have a different point of view. It is concluded that on both sides of the political aisle, we too often prioritize expressing our feelings over making positive political progress through difficult engagement with those who disagree with us. (shrink)