The myth of the need to embrace the irrational voter

Via Arnold Kling at EconLog, here's Louis Menand's review of The Myth of the Rational Voter. His summary indicates that he read and understood the book just fine, but his conclusion troubles me:

In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.

Basically, for some reason the losing group must regard the wishes of the prejudiced majority as legitimate by being made to feel that its voice hasn't been ignored even if it really has and if everyone knows this fact.

Pragmatists and their democracy fetish. Jeez.

Share this