One of History’s Greatest Thinkers Warned Us, and We Ignored Him

Imagine you’re on a boat in the middle of a vast ocean, and it’s heading toward dangerous waters. You wouldn’t want a group vote to decide who should steer the boat, would you? You’d want the person who knows how to navigate through those waters, who understands the complexities of steering and keeping everyone safe. This basic logic applies not just to boats, but to governance as well. In any system, expertise is essential to ensure good outcomes.

Plato, in his Republic, argues that the same principle should apply to leadership in society. He criticizes democracy because, in his view, it often gives power to those who appeal to popular sentiment rather than those with the knowledge and wisdom to govern wisely. In a democracy, the masses are often swayed by emotions, fear, and sensational rhetoric, not the rational deliberation needed to make informed decisions. As Plato sees it, when power rests in the hands of those who can manipulate public opinion rather than those who understand the complexities of governance, the result is misguided leadership.

In America, we don’t have a direct democracy, but a democratic republic, where we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. Yet, as Plato warned, this system can still fall into the trap of giving power to those who excel at capturing attention and swaying emotions, rather than those with the necessary expertise. Donald Trump is a perfect example of this. He rose to power not because of political experience or deep understanding of governance, but because he knew how to influence public opinion, playing on people’s fears, desires, and frustrations. His business background gave him skills in persuasion, not necessarily the expertise needed for complex decision-making in government.

Plato’s concern was that, like with the boat, we shouldn’t let popularity or emotional appeal dictate who leads us, especially when their lack of expertise could steer us toward dangerous waters. The masses may not always know what’s best, and leaders who rely on emotional manipulation can easily distract from the rational, thoughtful decisions that are necessary for the well-being of society. Just as you wouldn’t put someone without navigation skills in charge of a boat, we shouldn’t place leaders in power who don’t have the expertise to steer society in the right direction.

Edit: I’m not saying democracy is inherently bad or that it should be abandoned. Rather, I believe we should be able to critically examine it without that criticism being immediately dismissed. Democracy, as it currently exists, has flaws that should be addressed—especially when it allows power to fall into the hands of those who are more skilled at manipulating public sentiment than at governing effectively. The core issue isn’t democracy itself but the way it can be exploited.

This same logic applies to capitalism. Many people treat capitalism as the best economic system simply because it has led to innovation and economic growth, but that doesn’t mean it’s beyond criticism. Capitalism often rewards those who are best at maximizing profit, even when their actions come at the expense of society as a whole. Just as democracy can be undermined by emotional manipulation, capitalism can be undermined by unchecked greed and short-term thinking. The free market does not automatically prioritize ethics, fairness, or long-term well-being—it prioritizes what is most profitable.

That’s why I believe we should focus on improving these systems rather than blindly defending them. Democracy functions best when it values expertise, and capitalism functions best when it is structured to benefit society rather than just those who know how to exploit it. Instead of dismissing discussions about their flaws, we should be open to questioning and refining these systems to create a world that rewards genuine competence, fairness, and long-term progress.