How to Escape the Democratic Doom Loop

It starts with escaping democracy and ends with embracing healthy metapolitics.

Gary Meulemans

Consider a world where 80% of people are Conformists, 10% of people are Righteous, and 10% are Reprobates. The Conformists are epistemically and morally neutral, so they believe and support whatever is popular. The Righteous are epistemically and morally virtuous, so they believe and support whatever is true and right. The Reprobates are epistemically and morally vicious, so they believe and support the opposite of what the Righteous believe and support. - Bryan Caplan

Let’s follow

Bryan Caplan

’s framing in the epigraph above. If I had to guess, I’d say this is a pretty accurate representation of society's distribution of moral commitments. It’s not science, just a thought experiment. But if we’re in the ballpark, it means that the long tails of this distribution—the Righteous and the Reprobates—are constantly pulling at the Conformist middle.

The trouble is that the Righteous and the Reprobates see each other as The Other. In other words, each imagines they are the Righteous, which justifies “war by other means.” Worse still, due to a political system that instantiates a great tug-of-war that prompts people to confuse politics with morality, political activism replaces conscious moral practice—an absurd result.

What’s more absurd is that “democracy” selects for sociopaths, which means the worst of the Righteous and the Reprobates control a perverse power-sharing cartel.

There are parliamentary variants on this theme, but at the end of the day, most politics amounts to wild electoral mood swings between the poles, where each side seeks to impose the One True Way on everyone—that is, until the next election. Rentier incentives mean they must sell their souls and auction power between each cycle. Legal shale layers of these mood swings add up over time, amounting to a set of byzantine laws, rules, and regulations that accumulate over time and rarely disappear. Favor-seekers guard old laws, making reform nigh impossible. The result is an increasingly incoherent order that makes the rest of us less and less able to reckon with the world’s increasing complexity.

This is the world we live in.

The Doom Loop

Our vaunted democracies are partisan mafias wrapped up in the illusion of electoral choice. We will stay trapped in a doom loop if we stay locked in politics.

That’s one of the many lessons of metapolitics:

If politics is supposed to be the set of processes by which groups make decisions—despite competing interests, beliefs, and values—metapolitics is a way of questioning the assumptions behind those processes. Metapolitics can also help us to explain why reforming a political system is so hard. Some might even suggest different design protocols for superior systems of human organization. 

In practical terms, if we want to change the social operating system, we pretty much have only the amendment process or expatriation. Otherwise, we are more or less trapped in politics, which makes metapolitics a high-cost proposition.

A curve like Caplan’s above applies to metapolitics, too. Unfortunately, the distribution for those capable of metapolitics is even less promising. Compared to 10/80/10, the metapolitical distribution of Righteous/Conformists/Reprobates is more like 1/98/1. The status quo creates incentives that keep most people trapped in a mental box.

That means it’s been harder than you would think to give away $25,000. But I digress.

Obviously, I think my own metapolitical reforms are Righteous. Perhaps, as a subscriber, you are persuaded of that to some degree. What’s cool about our decidedly Righteous System is that it maximizes anyone’s right to join a civil association that realizes her conception of the good—whether she is Righteous, Reprobate, or something in between. A system that allows people to spawn new moral-political niches helps them live in peace while experimenting with new ways to live and make meaning.

Maybe, just maybe, I can persuade more people that it is possible to get out of the democratic Doom Loop.

Matrix: Garden of Forking Paths

Despite being terrible at math, I’m fond of matrices. And despite not being into woo, I like to evoke concepts from esotericism—mainly because these can be useful for priming our intuition pumps.

Imagine a metapolitical matrix that is created by an axis that goes from the Left-hand path of esoteric practice to the Right-hand path, crossing and an axis that goes from applying coercion to applying choice as the primary mechanisms of change. Consider the following definitions:

1. Right-Hand Path: A term that describes spiritual pathways emphasizing selflessness, conformity to societal norms, and unity with the divine.

2. Left-Hand Path: A term used to describe spiritual paths that emphasize individualism, nonconformity, and the pursuit of personal sovereignty.

3. Coercion: The practice of forcing someone to act in a certain way by using threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure. (Politics, Crime)

4. Choice: The act of selecting freely and, after consideration, deciding based on one's own volition or independent judgment. (Markets, Community)

Because of associations between the Left-hand path and black magic, many people think of these concepts as a satanic practice. They can be, of course, but most of that is sensationalism or gothic cosplay. In using these concepts as approaches to life and society, try to keep such biases at bay.

Right-Hand Path + Coercion

This quadrant might seem contradictory as the Right-Hand Path generally focuses on selflessness, moralism, and adhering to societal norms. However, according to esotericists, coercion on the right-hand path should never be confused with the “good” path. In this context, dogmatic, fundamentalist, or political figures who believe they are morally justified will find ways to coerce others into their way of thinking or living.

Right-Hand Path + Choice

This would represent traditional religious or spiritual practices that aim to promote societal good and individual growth through benevolent means. Think of a wise sage or a community spiritual leader who uses his understanding of esoteric principles to guide and uplift his community, relying on persuasion rather than coercion to inspire change.

Left-Hand Path + Coercion

This quadrant represents practices that focus on self-interest, rebellion against conventional morality, and using esoteric skills for malevolent or coercive purposes. Individuals in this quadrant might use magical or ritualistic practices to manipulate or harm others. Think of Machiavellians, dark sorcerers, or "black magic" practitioners who want to achieve their goals at others’ expense.

Left-Hand Path + Choice

Here, practices would still focus on individualism and might challenge societal norms, but they would do so to create positive change or enable personal growth. Practitioners might use their esoteric techniques to persuade or guide others towards a perceived good, without imposing their will through fraud or coercion. Imagine a modern-day "chaos magician" using unconventional means to bring about a condition of harmony, prosperity, and interpersonal flourishing.

It should be obvious by now that I put the locus of societal malevolence on coercion. We can add five more to these Six Offenses: corruption, callousness, monomania, negligence, and casuistry.

Perhaps my interlocutors will argue that I’m being Manichaean, or reductionist, or simplistic. I am being “manichae-ish” because principles are not only patterns of pragmatism but also a basic requirement when forming any moral community. Most importantly, good protocols, aim to ensure people can form and enter different moral communities without going to war. Even if war is a necessary evil, it is still evil. Conflict is to be avoided.

The Shamanoid’s Menu

Some will take the Right-hand Path. Others will take the Left-hand Path. When strategy and tactics are employed in service of the good, we need both.

A few rare practitioners, whom the polymath Alexander Bard calls “shamanoids,” can walk among worlds:

The shamanoid are go-betweens BETWEEN TRIBES the same way as the 4 percent who are androgynous are go-betweens BETWEEN SEXES. I saw the pattern clearly while working as an anthropologist in Brazil, northern Canada and Papua. We then matched the numbers against contemporary populations and found evidence the distributions are universal. So, a shamanoid has a monopoly on living and walking between worlds. (Emphasis mine.)

With due respect to Bard’s evocation of sexology, I would like to steal the term “shamanoid,” take some liberties with it, and hope that my dear Bard doesn’t castigate me for it.

Indeed, Bard’s shamanoids are probably a real anthropological grouping, literally a subset of androgyns, with many displaying gender non-conforming behaviors. I wish to evoke an adjacent categorization scheme in what I have termed the Four Forces, which are perhaps more reminiscent of Freudian psychology than Kinseyan sexology:

• Eros Masculine - (earth) - Exert control.

• Thanatos Masculine - (fire) - End it now.

• Eros Feminine - (water) - Let things flow.

• Thanatos Feminine - (air) - Let things go.

An even shorter mnemonic might be fuck, fight, flow, or forget.

“Each quadrant in this matrix of human energies and drives has healthy and unhealthy expressions,” I wrote in “Freedom is Feminine.” (Yes, another matrix.)

Shamanoids, under my metaphorical construal, should be able to walk among the Four Forces, too, that is, to mediate when they are not tinkering with subversive innovations or creating counterculture. As the philosopher and esotericist

Andrew Sweeny

put the matter: “Their job is to keep the tribes in harmony, to act as go-betweens, and to negotiate tribal issues.”

I think protocol design that helps negotiate tribal issues is the dharma of healthy metapolitics, a doctrine of doctrines—or a la Robert Nozick, a utopia of utopias. My fragile prayer is that the shamanoids of non-coercive metapolitics prevail. After all, in a condition of true pluralism, the Righteous and the Reprobates both become practitioners of persuasion, which is to say, “sweet talk,” a term coined by one who is, I suspect, herself a shamanoid and is undoubtedly a true liberal.

The following is now out from behind its original paywall: