Author: Kailey DeLorenzo
Politics in America have become increasingly polarized within the last decade. The two main parties have distinct beliefs and will die on any hill “supporting” their side – even if that
means backing their opinions with false information. In effect, the two parties are moving further apart as each seems to be pandering to their more extreme contingents. In today’s world, it is difficult to see any sort of compromise in politics. If more people practiced Aristotle’s “potluck argument” and opened their minds, we would see less polarization and more understanding and consensus-build- ing in politics.
In Book 3, Chapter 11 of “Aristotle’s Politics,” Aristotle states, “The many, of whom none is individually an excellent man, nevertheless can when joined together be better- not as individuals but all together- than those [who are best], just as dinners contributed by many can be better than those equipped from a single expenditure” (page 79). Aristotle argues that if people were to come together and discuss their viewpoints, they could reach a proper conclusion that addresses significant con- cerns or problems with the issue at hand. It may take some time to conclude, but eventually, through meaningful discourse, a compromise could be achieved. Having an open mind is crucial for this idea to work, for to reach consensus many boxes must be checked. The main problem with using these techniques in today’s politics is that many people believe their opinion is the only valid opinion. They then find others who agree with them and surround themselves with similar thinkers, further cement- ing their views and preventing the exploration of alternate view- points. Without challenge and debate, it is impossible to gain an understanding of an opposing side. How can one ever expect to improve if they never allow themselves to be challenged?
Sadly, politics are no longer concerned with the good of the people, but rather focusing entirely on the good of a view- point or ideology. While the United States is still a democracy of sorts, as it is considered a federal republic, sometimes it feels more like Aristotle’s definition of an oligarchy. Aristotle stress- es the importance of knowing the difference between regimes, and the citizens that live within them. All regimes have different politeia, or goals for their regime, and the citizens within these regimes work to achieve them. In a democracy, Aristotle states the citizens hold the majority of the power, while in an oligar- chy only a few hold the power, although he considers both to be deviations from the ideal type of rule. The line between these two regimes is becoming increasingly thin regarding controversial positions today.
A past president of the University of Houston’s Student Government Association (SGA) participated in some actions that correspond with Thrasymachus’ definition of justice. Thra- symachus claimed that the definition of justice was the “advan- tage of the stronger” in “Plato’s Republic” (Book 1, 338c, Plato’s Republic). This definition is consistent with Aristotle’s definition of an oligarchy, in which the stronger (regarding social status) have a greater amount of power. The SGA is intended to repli- cate the structure of the Texas legislature. Democracy, according to Aristotle, means that the people have the majority of the pow- er, and whomever they elect should be working in their favor. However, the former SGA president changed the policy for the president’s term to be indefinite and had the donation cap raised to $10,000 instead of the previous $1,200. Some may argue that he was just playing the game, and got away with these actions because that is just how politics work. However, according to Aristotle, in terms of a government that is supposed to operate in the interests of the people, his actions did not represent the will of the people, but rather his own self-interests.
The biggest problem with his actions was the dishonest way he went about them. He snuck these amendments into other bills that the SGA was planning to pass, and they all signed it without diligently reviewing all the details. A more appropriate approach would have been to raise questions about the term limit and donation limit and debate with his colleagues so they could jointly reach a decision. He would have likely been more positively received during the recent election, and his chances of being re-elected would have been higher. By doing this, he would have implemented the lesson from the potluck argument, show- ing that the strategy is the best to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
The issue of leaders putting their own interests first is occurring not just on our campus but throughout America. For instance, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill in 2023 banning drag queen performances in public, after making their issues with drag queens one of their main focuses. Meanwhile, during this time frame, there was a shooting at a private Catholic
school in Tennessee. It is evident that elected officials are more concerned with their own personal beliefs, rather than what is best for the citizens. If they had spent more time discussing gun control and having open minds about the subject, perhaps this recent shooting could have been prevented. That is the issue with those who only care about power being in office, they just care about how they can drive their personal agendas rather than acting in the best interest of their citizens.
An important question to ask as Americans is why this polarization has happened in the first place. Why have we become so strong in our opinions, so much so to the point where we won’t even listen to the other side’s argument? Aristotle would say that the extreme division of classes is a factor. These days, the classes have become so separated, it is no longer lower, middle, or upper class. Rather, the classes have become nar- rower, and these classes require specific needs. That in itself is
so complicated, it only makes sense for all of the classes to have their opinions of how the country should work. Each class has its own needs and they all think theirs matter the most. A similar stratification has occurred regarding left vs. right ideologies in American politics today.
Along with the potluck argument, Aristotle states, “… the middling sort is best is evident. It alone is without factional conflict, for where the middling element is numerous, factional conflicts and splits over the regimes occur least of all.” (page 116). Here, he is arguing citizens from the middle class are better fit to lead since they understand the daily life of the average citi- zen. This way, they can achieve things their citizens want, rather than pursuing their own agenda which could lead to factional splitting.
Aristotle handles the class idea differently than other philosophers, namely Plato. In “Plato’s Republic”, Socrates be- lieves dividing the classes by the myth of the metals is the most logical and fair form of hierarchy to implement. He claims those who appear to be the most physically, intellectually, and musi- cally fit and pass certain tests should be the ones in charge, and there should be citizens under them. This idea doesn’t sound too outlandish, but it is based on a myth and built within an impossible utopia, so it is not practical. Aristotle believes that the true middle class has the best potential to lead and be involved in politics, specifically a class of farmers. He believes this because they spend most of their time farming, so when it comes time to think about politics, they think of exactly what they need and don’t have time to think too deeply about little things that are not as important. Hypothetically, this idea is much more practical because the middle class used to take up the majority of people. There weren’t many extremely rich citizens and not as many destitute citizens. Nowadays, with the divergence of classes and ideologies, this is a harder strategy to practice. So, the best solution to this polarization is to merge these ideas and make them modern. Keep the Aristotelian democracy and keep an open mind toward all classes, working together to come to a consensus.
The prime use of dialect in this way is by people who are called to jury duty. These citizens are supposed to have no background information on the crime at hand, and they are to discuss it after observing the trial until they reach a decision. People called for jury duty come from different classes, and more than likely hold different opinions and values, but it is their duty to reach a conclusion together. That is a perfect example of a potluck discussion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is an institution that Aristotle would approve of. The court is made up of nine constitutionally experienced justices who are able to come together and discuss issues at a constitutional level and reach a conclusion that has the well-being of the citizens as their primary concern. They all come from different backgrounds and occupy different spaces on the political spectrum. Using their experiences, they can come together and have a true potluck discussion, reach a solid conclusion. Also, the importance of having nine justices means they won’t ever encounter a tie in a case, allowing the majority to rule, just as Aristotle originally stated.
This system seems like an almost perfect solution, ex- cept that issues have still risen from the Supreme Court, and the people on the court are not very representative of the average American. All but one of the current Supreme Court Justices attended at least one Ivy League school, something most citizens have not experienced. This does not follow Aristotle’s idea of having a middle-class rule, especially since their entire job is to pay attention to politics. But, on the other hand, it is hard to ask for a true middle-class representative in today’s world, because the definition of the middle class has completely changed from Aristotle’s time.
So, where would Aristotle suggest we go from here? Of course, it is hard to say because of the vast differences in society, but he would still stand by the idea of the potluck argument and middle-class rule. Hopefully, more citizens will recognize the extreme polarization in American politics today and choose to become more open-minded. It is important that all voices
are heard, and that political parties are not hijacked by their more extreme viewpoints. Anyone in power should be able to recognize and accommodate different opinions to the best of their ability. There is no way to make everyone happy, but it is possible to reach consensus. It is also important for citizens to be educated about those they are voting for. It is so easy to
be persuaded by propaganda and the opinions of others, but if everyone were to do their own research on those in power, they would elect better representatives. Politics today have been distorted and no longer focus on the good of the majority, but pandering to the far ends of the political spectrum. By electing politicians with open minds who are willing to participate in pot- luck discussions, and politicians who truly care for their citizens, America could go back to being an Aristotelian democracy.