Lance Phillips • October 28, 2025
Do you believe in the power of democracy? Do you believe in the power of love? Do you believe in the power of money? Odds are that most people would say “yes” to each of the previous questions. If many people can, and do, agree on some of the fundamental principles of civic and familial life, why does so much get lost in translation when policies and practices are implemented based on generally shared values? Of course, the answer is complicated and, frankly, disappointing. I think part of the answer is rooted in HOW and WHY we value: democracy, love, and money; but part of the answer is the way, as “Americans,” we choose leaders to represent our interests.
Socrates wasn’t a fan of universal voting rights and democracy in general. He feared, as many others have similarly feared, what has come to be known as the Tyranny of the Majority. Simply put, this is the idea that in a diverse society, that includes many small, disenfranchised groups, majority rule through direct or representational democracy can NEVER address the needs of those not part of that majority. This is a complex idea that deserves a full treatment by thinkers more qualified than me, but in the opinion of Socrates and others, without proper training on how to elect leaders that TRY to meet the needs of the entire electorate, voting is simply a popularity contest. Given that schema, leaders often work to serve only those who elected them.
Here is where the aforementioned HOW and WHY come into play. How can people work for a better society if they can’t agree on what that society should look like, or which values will be prioritized, or where attention should be trained? I’ll be the first to say that the notion of “properly trained” voters is highly problematic, and it introduces the idea of a frighteningly slippery slope; but as long as politicians are in the business of pandering to the hopes and the fears of their electorate, any remedies for the root causes of societal ills will fall by the wayside, hurting people.
Is it realistic to ask people to think beyond their own self-interests? Absolutely, in fact, I think most people believe they are doing just that. The problem is when your self-interest has historically aligned with the self-interests of the majority, you’re reinforcing policies and practices that, often, infringe on the self-interests of smaller, disenfranchised groups. So to say, “YES, I want the world to be a better place” is tantamount to saying, “YES, I want MY VERSION of the world to be a better place,” thus excluding large swaths of society.
Love is greater than money. I repeat that equation to students, friends and family, often. When thinking about whether something makes the world a better place, our first thought should be: is it based on love or is it based on money? Of course, I’m speaking in generalities here, but often deciding whether something is in YOUR self-interest or it is in SOCIETY’S self-interest can be reduced to this simple equation: ❤️>$.
If a decision is made out of love — then kindness, mutual respect, and a growth mindset are often part of that decision.
If a decision is made for money — then callousness, exploitation, and a fixed mindset are often part of that decision.
Whether we arrive at making changes for the better through actively educating voters, thus electing leaders who will address the ways that society fails people, or letting love guide our choices, doesn’t really matter, so long as we make choices that uplift everybody.
Recent Comments