Poe and Democracy

Welcome back to Celebrate Poe - This is episode 254 - Poe’s Views on Democracy.  Today I would like to talk with Mr. Poe about his views of government - and especially about what he might have thought about the specter of Donald Trump.   I had previously been under the impression that Edgar Allan Poe was somewhat reactionary in his political views - coming from a wealthy and rather privileged background in the South -  but after doing a great deal of research, I was surprised at how nuanced his views actually were.

Enjoy this pre-July 4th episode.

Transcript

Edgar Allan Poe - Italics
George - plain text

Welcome back to Celebrate Poe - This is episode 254 - Poe’s Views on Democracy.  Today I would like to talk with Mr. Poe about his views of government - and especially about what he might have thought about the specter of Donald Trump.   I had previously been under the impression that Edgar Allan Poe was somewhat reactionary in his political views - coming from a wealthy and rather privileged background in the South -  but after doing a great deal of research, I was surprised

Greetings, Mr. Bartley.

Mr. Poe - welcome back.  As you may know, this July 4th, 2024  I am beginning a podcast called Celebrate Whitman - somewhat similar to Celebrate Poe - a podcast that currently has had well over 14,000 downloads in 84  countries.  I must admit that I enjoyed doing research regarding Mr. Whitman for pride month so much that my goal is try and release a podcast episode each Thursday.

But Mr. Bartley, you have passed the milestone of 250 episodes for Celebrate Poe, and now you desire to discontinue Celebrate Poe - the podcast  for which I bestowed the idea upon you three years ago while you were asleep at the Alderman Library of the University of Virginia.  We have basically reached the half-way point in my earthly life, and you decide to cease releasing any more episodes.  I believed in you and have given you so much support and information about my life and times.  How can you be so ungrateful!

Oh no, Mr. Poe - you completely misunderstand.  My plans are to also continue Celebrate Poe and release an episode at the beginning of the week.  I am certainly well aware that we have much left to cover - your time in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and of course, your works written in Richmond, Virginia.

That is a genuine relief.  I have never had this much  - as you call it - media exposure in a podcast before.  And I must admit that Mr. Whitman - while we were frequently what you might label as polar opposites in our beliefs and attitudes - is certainly a worthy subject for a podcast.  Perhaps you might find it of interest to compare our contrasting attitudes.

That thought has certainly occurred to me. Now, Mr. Poe - this 4th of July, I plan to have the inaugural episode of Celebrate Whitman and later ask him about his views regarding democracy and demagogues.  While I am cognizant of the fact that Mr Whitman and you often seemed to have opposing views, I would like to ask you about YOUR opinion of democracy.
I know it was somewhat nuanced.

Mr. Bartley, I appreciate the fact that you recognize that my beliefs regarding politics could definitely be nuanced - that despite the often stimulating nature of government, I was not actively interested in politics. But please do not assume that I was immune to the political problems of my day.   As you know, I consider myself a most sensitive individual.  Some have said that I felt hurt at the callous indifference showed me by a relatively new nation which prided itself on its political awareness. I was unfortunate enough to be a lonely, poverty-stricken genius, even though I was far more talented than many of my fellow writers.  I was largely rejected by my American contemporaries, while I later received ecstatic acceptance by the French - but I was deceased by then.

I can understand that non-acceptance of your works would genuinely hurt, but how could that have anything to do with your thoughts regarding democracy?

Ah, Mr. Bartley, as I am sure you realize, I was brought up by an almost aristocratic family where wealth and breeding were all important. To be candid, I believed that democracy was an outmoded, exploded political doctrine; for me it was a word that was continually making people weaker.

But perhaps most importantly, I believed that politics was the engagement, rather the entertainment of the rich - that only wealthy individuals should be involved in politics.

Yes, you do seem rather reactionary in your beliefs.

Mr. Bartley, I also held a deep skepticism towards democracy and the notion of political equality. I believed that the masses were inherently irrational and prone to being swayed by demagogues and mob mentality.

What about the basic principle that all men are created equal?

The idea that all men are created equal was, to me, an absurd fiction that flew in the face of the natural order and hierarchy evident in the universe.

Well, then, Mr. Poe - how DID you see democracy?

I viewed the American experiment in democracy as doomed to failure from its Jeffersonian foundations. And I must admit that my aristocratic upbringing and disdain for the vulgar masses colored my worldview. I believed that only a natural aristocracy of intellect and refinement should govern, not the uncultured rabble. While I did not explicitly advocate for a dictatorship, my writings convey a deep suspicion of egalitarian ideals and a preference for governance by a cultured elite over the folly of popular democracy.

Mr. Poe - knowing what I do about your political beliefs, I am not surprised.
But what might you have said about a politician like Donald Trump - I am sure you have encountered him via the media - and I am not trying to be partisan in any way.

I would have viewed a demagogic figure such as Mr. Donald Trump with utter disdain and contempt. His populist pandering to the baser instincts of the unwashed masses is precisely the sort of "mobocracy" I warned about in my writings. That a man of such low character and vulgar tastes could attain high political office would have struck me as the inevitable result of America's flawed experiment with democracy.  I find his self-serving destruction of basic facts to be both appalling and childish.  Again, it appears that he is only interested in what he perceives as his own self-interest.  An individual or group might be hurt, but his perceived self interest - and sometimes he behaves like a spoiled child - is only what matters.  Such overt selfishness is NOT government.

But last time I checked, Mr. Donald Trump was a member of the Republican Party.

Then he is all the more reprehensible.  A demagogue of any belief is intolerable.

Well, how DO you feel that voters should react to an individual such as Donald Trump?

Mr. Bartley, I firmly believed that true leadership and governance should be the province of a refined, cultured elite - not a loudmouthed charlatan who inflames the passions of the ignorant rabble. Mr. Trump’s jingoistic appeals to nativist sentiments and his utter lack of intellectual heft or philosophical depth would have appalled my aristocratic sensibilities. I saw democracy as a path to chaos, with demagogues such as Mr. Trump manipulating the mob through empty sloganeering rather than reasoned discourse.

Wow!  Your reaction somewhat surprises me.

There is no reason you should be amazed. While I did not live to see the rise of such a figure, my writings expressed a clear skepticism that the American democratic system might descend into despotism under a populist usurper who channeled the irrational whims of the masses. A Trump presidency would have confirmed my worst fears about the folly of universal suffrage and egalitarian ideals. I would have viewed him as the inevitable product of a debased political system that elevates showmanship over substance and wisdom.

Mr. Poe, I am somewhat amazed at your critique - if that is the right word- of democracy. 

Ah, Mr. Bartley - I viewed democracy during my earthly existence as potentially leading to a form of "mobocracy" or rule by the masses, which is most detrimental - potentially leading to despotism.

Mr. Poe - I have one simple question.  Why?

Ah, Mr. Bartley - two elements that formed my beliefs - as you may know - were my personal experiences of neglect and poverty despite my literary talents. which may have influenced my view of a system that claimed to reward merit. I also believed  that democracy was an outdated political doctrine that weakened people over time.



Mr. Poe - let’s slightly change the subject.  I know that the first televised presidential debate in American history took place on September 26, 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Yes, Mr. Bartley - I believe that would have been 111 years after my earthly demise. 

Yes, Mr. Poe - logically one could assume that you would not have had any direct experience of opinion of presidential debaters as we know them today.

That is a logical - but overwhelmingly obvious - conclusion.

Now recently, there was a presidential debate in the United States. And, Mr. Poe, based your views of democracy and your skepticism towards populist politics, would one be able to speculate on what YOU might have said about modern day presidential debates:

Ah, Mr. Bartley, I would likely have viewed presidential debates as a manifestation of the democratic system that I criticized. I might have seen them as spectacles that appeal to the masses rather than substantive discussions of governance. Given my disdain for "mobocracy" and the idea that "what is everybody's business is nobody's," I might have argued that debates pander to the lowest common denominator rather than elevating political discourse.

Mr. Poe - is it fair to conclude that you consider presidential debates just political theatre.

Mr. Bartley - political theatre - that is an excellent and most descriptive phrase.  In fact, I might have drawn parallels between presidential debates and the "perpetual and unhealthy excitement about the forms and machinery" of government that I criticized. I  preferred a focus on the actual "results of government" and "the happiness of a people" rather than political theater.  You realize that I had a firm skepticism towards universal suffrage and my belief that it could lead to "fraudulent schemes” and the predominance of "rascality," The theatrical nature of debates might result in a dishonest demagogue attempting to manipulate public opinion rather than as forums for genuine policy discussion.  Please do not forget the possibility that political debates can easily become another way for the masses to meddle in affairs beyond their comprehension.

Mr. Poe, I know you had more of a cosmopolitan outlook with inclinations towards European and British traditions.  Could you comment on how debates are an extension of what you considered the flaws of democracy?

Certainly, Mr. Bartley, I would have probably seen presidential debates as spectacles that appeal to the masses rather than serious discussions of governance.  One might well argue that the format, with its time limits and interruptions, reduces complex political issues to simplistic soundbites and encourages shallow rhetoric over thoughtful discourse - in some cases giving an advantage to the debater who is the biggest blusterer?

Mr. Poe - could you explain the word “blusterer?”

Ah, Mr. Bartley - I believe the equivalent word for blusterer in your century is bully.

Mr. Poe, you are no doubt familiar with the the media spectacle surrounding debates. 

Ah, Mr. Bartley - your focus on post-debate analysis, polls, and "winning" or "losing" a debate would have struck me as trivial and detrimental to serious political thought.

Mr. Poe - I honesty am surprised at your comments.

Yes, Mr. Bartley - and ultimately, in all possibility, I would have seen presidential debates as symptomatic of the broader problems that I perceived in democratic systems - a pandering to the masses that I believed led to mediocrity in leadership and governance. I would likely have preferred a more restrained, intellectual approach to political discourse, perhaps favoring written exchanges or more formal debates among a select group of educated and fair-minded - and most important - honest individuals.

Mr. Poe - your use of the word honest prompts me to ask you about the parallels between your stories and the spread of misinformation in far too many modern debates.   

Ah, Mr. Bartley - that is a most interesting observation.

I was thinking, for example, of stories such as your Balloon Hoax about a non-existent Balloon journey.

Ah yes, Mr. Bartley - in my story “The Balloon Hoax,” I attempted to demonstrate how easily the public can be misled by sensational stories. Similarly, modern presidential debates often feature candidates making exaggerated or false claims that gain traction because they appeal to people's desires or fears. In both cases, there's an exploitation of the audience's willingness to believe extraordinary claims - or statements and stories that are far from true.

Mr. Poe - could you comment on whether your hoax in the story spread rapidly?

Ah, Mr. Bartley, the story spread at an amazing rate - much like false stories spread today.  And just as my hoax created intense excitement and left a lasting impression on the public, I have come to observe that misinformation from modern debates tends to remain in people's minds.

Mr. Poe, unfortunately, it seems that personal attacks and claims about election integrity are the most prevalent topics across media streams and in voters' recollections, suggesting that sensational or controversial claims have staying power.

I strongly agree, Mr. Bartley.  And I must add that some of my work often blurred the lines between reality and fiction, much like how misinformation in debates can make it difficult for voters to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Yes, but Mr. Poe, such misinformation in your stories was largely for entertainment purposes - not dishonest political information that affects individual LIVES.

Yes, I agree, Mr. Bartley, that any misinformation in my stories was intended to be entertaining, and not as a distraction from substantive issues.  I can see how misinformation in debates often overshadows honest and serious policy discussions, with topics like personal attacks gaining more attention than complex issues such as taxes or climate change.

Ok, Mr. Poe - I can see how any entertaining hoaxes or misinformation in your stories cannot even be compared to the damage that political misinformation poses.

Yes, Mr. Bartley, there is far more serious consequences for the governing processes.

Mr. Poe, I think it is rather obvious now that you do have a certain amount of skepticism towards democracy.   How would this have affected your views on the fairness of debates.

Ah, Mr. Bartley,  I would probably view your “so-called” debates as opportunities for skilled orators to manipulate public opinion rather than forums for substantive policy discussions - in other words, as extensions of the "mobocracy"  that I feared in democracy.

Mr. Poe, I DO know that you enjoyed good intellectual discourse.

Ah, yes, Mr. Bartley, but it seems to me that your current debates encourage soundbites and rhetorical flourishes over in-depth analysis of complex issues.   Why in a recent presidential debate, the candidates compared their golf scores - what does that have to do with the process of governing?

And furthermore, I am disappointed at the tendency of debates to encourage soundbites and rhetorical flourishes over the in-depth analysis of complex issues.   But the worst part of all, is the brazen offering of false statements as facts - issues that have a definite influence upon the lives of real, human beings.

Mr. Poe - do you feel that political debates can reinforce pre-existing beliefs.

Oh, most definitely, Mr. Bartley - in all honesty, I am most skeptical about the public's ability to discern truth, and I firmly believe that debates simply reinforce pre-existing beliefs rather than encouraging critical thinking.  And I firmly believe that factors such as perceived charisma, appearance, and oratorical skills can unfairly advantage certain candidates over others, regardless of their qualifications or ideas.

Overall, I would tend to view debates as symptomatic of the broader problems that I perceived in democratic systems, potentially exacerbating rather than mitigating the flaws of popular governance.

Mr. Poe, Let’s slightly change the subject. What do you think about the decisions in recent hush money trials involving Donald Trump and a porn star in New York City?

Mr. Bartley, I would have viewed the recent hush money trials and legal troubles of Mr. Trump with a mixture of disdain and vindication. As a staunch critic of democracy and egalitarian ideals, I believed the masses can be easily swayed by demagogues and charlatans like Mr. Trump who inflame their basest passions. His rise to power would have confirmed my fears about the folly of universal suffrage and the inevitability of "mobocracy" under republican institutions. There is no way that I could support such a selfish and totally self-serving individual at the helm of a delicate government.

Do you have anything GOOD to say about democracy?

Ah, Mr. Bartley - I would like to think that my opinions were more nuanced that that.  For example, Mr. Trump's legal woes and potential downfall also exemplify the built-in checks and balances of the American system that I often derided. The rule of law prevailing over a would-be populist usurper channeling the irrational whims of the mob would be a testament to the enduring strengths of the republic, despite its flawed Jeffersonian foundations.

I personally don’t view our Jeffersonian foundations as flawed.

But be that as it may, Mr. Bartley, while I definitely held democracy in contempt, I was not an outright anarchist. I believed that a natural aristocracy of intellect and refinement should govern in its stead. Mr. Trump’s crass vulgarity and lack of philosophical depth make him the antithesis of the cultured elite I envisioned as true leaders. His potential downfall at the hands of the legal system would be a reassertion of reasoned governance over the folly of pandering to the masses that I so vehemently criticized.

Interesting, Mr. Poe - when I first read your opinions regarding governing, I thought that we would vehemently disagree.  Now I see that we probably agree more than we disagree - just for different reasons.

Ah, Mr. Bartley - that is a most interesting concept - and I would like to point out that I would have viewed Mr. Trump’s legal troubles as both an indictment of democracy's failures in elevating a demagogue, but also an affirmation that the American republic still possessed the capacity to restrain the excesses of populism through the rule of law.

So, Mr. Poe - it appears you believe that Mr. Trump does not really care about the people he claims he wishes to govern, as exemplified by his statement to a crowd that “I don’t care about you.  I just want your votes.”

Exactly, Mr. Bartley, I warned of a possible mobocracy - an oppressive form of government where the common people exert control through intimidation, often bypassing legitimate authorities.  And that "mobocracy" I warned of, where demagogues manipulate the irrational passions of the masses, has indeed come to pass in the modern democratic spectacle. I believe that my writings foresaw how universal suffrage would elevate vulgar charlatans over reasoned discourse and true leadership.

However, I believed in governance by a cultured elite steeped in philosophy, not the whims of an ignorant public easily swayed by empty sloganeering. And I must admit that the American republic's system of checks and balances offer a glimmer of hope that the excesses of democracy could be restrained by the rule of law and reasoned governance.

Mr. Bartley, in conclusion, let me point out that my writings simply expressed a longing for an aristocracy of the mind and soul to elevate society - an aristocracy of individuals who are mentally and emotionally  qualified - rather than pandering to humanity's basest impulses.

Mr. Poe - there is a lot there to unpack.

Yes, and let me conclude by repeating that I hope that  in the future your country will continue to have that form of government comprised of individuals who are mentally and emotionally qualified, rather than pandering to the aforesaid basest impulses of humanity.

Farewell, Mr. Bartley

Goodbye, Mr. Poe.

GHOST LEAVES SOUND

Join Celebrate Poe for Episode 255 next Monday for the first of a two part series about what life for Poe might have been like if he had not decided to be a writer..   And don’t forget to listen to Celebrate Whitman - beginning July 4, 2024.

Sources include: perplexity.ai, Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography by Arthur Hobson Quinn, The Poe Log: A Documentary Life of Edgar Allan Poe by Dwight R. Thomas and David K. Jackson, and the Baltimore Edgar Allan Poe website.

Thank you for listening to Celebrate Poe.