What do you think?
The Phantom Public
In an era disgusted with politicians and the various instruments of "direct democracy," Walter Lippmann's The Phantom Public remains as relevant as ever. It reveals Lippmann at a time when he was most critical of the ills of American democracy. Antipopulist in sentiment, this volume defends elitism as a serious and distinctive intellectual option, one with considerable precursors in the American past. Lippmann's demythologized view of the American system of government resonates today.
The Phantom Public discusses the "disenchanted man" who has become disillusioned not only with democracy, but also with reform. According to Lippmann, the average voter is incapable of governance; what is called the public is merely a "phantom." In terms of policy-making, the distinction should not be experts versus amateurs, but insiders versus outsiders. Lippmann challenges the core assumption of Progressive politics as well as any theory that pretends to leave political decision making in the hands of the people as a whole.
In his biography Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Ronald Steel praised The Phantom Public as "one of Lippmann's most powerfully argued and revealing books. In it he came fully to terms with the inadequacy of traditional democratic theory." This volume is part of a continuing series on the major works of Walter Lippmann. As more and more Americans are inclined to become apathetic to the political system, this classic will be essential reading for students, teachers, and researchers of political science and history.
The Phantom Public discusses the "disenchanted man" who has become disillusioned not only with democracy, but also with reform. According to Lippmann, the average voter is incapable of governance; what is called the public is merely a "phantom." In terms of policy-making, the distinction should not be experts versus amateurs, but insiders versus outsiders. Lippmann challenges the core assumption of Progressive politics as well as any theory that pretends to leave political decision making in the hands of the people as a whole.
In his biography Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Ronald Steel praised The Phantom Public as "one of Lippmann's most powerfully argued and revealing books. In it he came fully to terms with the inadequacy of traditional democratic theory." This volume is part of a continuing series on the major works of Walter Lippmann. As more and more Americans are inclined to become apathetic to the political system, this classic will be essential reading for students, teachers, and researchers of political science and history.
244 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1927
About the author
Walter Lippmann
171 books186 followersWalter Lippmann was an American intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator who gained notoriety for being among the first to introduce the concept of Cold War. Lippmann was twice awarded (1958 and 1962) a Pulitzer Prize for his syndicated newspaper column, "Today and Tomorrow."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 6, 2015
Walter Lippmann argues that members of the public are but “spectators of action,” (93) not the omnicompetent, sovereign beings assumed in democratic theory; nor is it possible for them to be. This, Lippmann argues, is a false ideal. (28) There are simply too many things to know and too little time to come to know them for anyone — average citizen, empowered elite — to become expert in everything. (28, among others) The make-up of the public varies from issue to issue; a person might be an expert/participant on one issue, and a member of the public on another. (100) He dismantles various approaches that might improve the situation — science (eugenics), morals (ethics), education, populism, socialism. (25-28) The public assumed in theories of democratic governance is “a phantom.” (67) Lacking the necessary knowledge or expertise, they cannot intervene based on the merits of cases. They must judge externally, based on symbols and signs, and can act only by throwing their support behind one of the interests involved. (93) Lippmann relies on a construct and series of assumptions about the differences between “insiders” and “outsiders”, and firmly believes that only insiders are positioned to act. (140)
For the source of the “false ideal”, Lippmann points to the attempt to “ascribe organic unity and purpose to society.” (145-146)
The author provides a crystalline synopsis of his views on 134-135 and restates them on 162 and 187.
The public is tremendously limited in its abilities, energies, capacities, and capabilities. The public, unable to understand the merits of each and every case, must rely on readily inteligible signs and symbols to direct their alignments. (64-65) “Since it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever it considers, and is interested only when events have been melodramatize as a conflict. The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece.” (55) The public only becomes involved in moments of crisis, and the purpose of its involvement is “to help allay the crisis.” (56) The most that public opinion can do is to come to the assistance of someone challenging arbitrary power. (60) “When power, however absolute and unaccountable, reigns without provoking a crisis, public opinion does not challenge it.” (60) “It is the function of public opinion to check the use of force in a crisis, so that men, driven to make terms, may live and let live.” (64) In the democratic process, citizens align themselves with or against proposals. They do not direct continuously political affairs; instead, they occasionally mobilize in majorities to support or oppose the people who actually govern. (50-52)
The public need address itself to only two questions, when a problem warranting its involvement emerges: 1) Is the rule [thing] defective? 2) How do I figure out who can fix it, thereby identifying to whom to give my support? (98) To determine whether a rule is defective, Lippmann proposes two tests: assent and conformity. Assent refers to an obvious lack of agreement among interested parties. Conformity follows logically — if an interested party feels it has not assented to a rule, its followers are likely not to conform to the rule. Evidence of nonconformity can therefore be indicative of a need for public involvement. (105-110) To determine which party to support, the public can apply the test of inquiry: the disputant willing to submit to a process of inquiry is likely in the right and deserves support. (122-125) In formulating new rules, Lippmann proposes another three tests: 1) does it provide for its own clarification? Amendment by consent? Due notice that amendment will be proposed? (128)
He concludes by saying that he sets “no great store on what can be done by public opinion and the action of the masses.” (189) For anyone skimming, this comment and several others throughout the text make Lippmann easier to dismiss as elite/conservative/condescending. The force of the ideas he develops make him not so easily dismissed.
Interesting Tidbits
Lippmann sees little real difference between competing political groups. (116-117) If there were actual, sharp differences, election loss might mean actual rebellion. (116-117)
“Nor does the public rouse itself normally at the existence of evil. It is aroused at evil made manifest by the interruption of a habitual process of life.” (57)
“When the public attempts to deal with the substance it merely becomes the dupe or unconscious ally of a special interest.” (96)
“…he would wish for a world in which he could fight perfectly, with enemies fleet enough to extend him and not too fleet to elude him. All men desire their own perfect adjustment, but they desire it, being finite men, on their own terms.” (161) [Clearly related to the idea of mastery, for example in the workplace; people find work satisfying when it is sufficiently challenging, but not impossible. See Daniel Pink, among others]
Historiography
This work forms part of the material that John Dewey responded to in The Public and Its Problems (1927). (xviii)
For the source of the “false ideal”, Lippmann points to the attempt to “ascribe organic unity and purpose to society.” (145-146)
The author provides a crystalline synopsis of his views on 134-135 and restates them on 162 and 187.
The public is tremendously limited in its abilities, energies, capacities, and capabilities. The public, unable to understand the merits of each and every case, must rely on readily inteligible signs and symbols to direct their alignments. (64-65) “Since it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever it considers, and is interested only when events have been melodramatize as a conflict. The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece.” (55) The public only becomes involved in moments of crisis, and the purpose of its involvement is “to help allay the crisis.” (56) The most that public opinion can do is to come to the assistance of someone challenging arbitrary power. (60) “When power, however absolute and unaccountable, reigns without provoking a crisis, public opinion does not challenge it.” (60) “It is the function of public opinion to check the use of force in a crisis, so that men, driven to make terms, may live and let live.” (64) In the democratic process, citizens align themselves with or against proposals. They do not direct continuously political affairs; instead, they occasionally mobilize in majorities to support or oppose the people who actually govern. (50-52)
The public need address itself to only two questions, when a problem warranting its involvement emerges: 1) Is the rule [thing] defective? 2) How do I figure out who can fix it, thereby identifying to whom to give my support? (98) To determine whether a rule is defective, Lippmann proposes two tests: assent and conformity. Assent refers to an obvious lack of agreement among interested parties. Conformity follows logically — if an interested party feels it has not assented to a rule, its followers are likely not to conform to the rule. Evidence of nonconformity can therefore be indicative of a need for public involvement. (105-110) To determine which party to support, the public can apply the test of inquiry: the disputant willing to submit to a process of inquiry is likely in the right and deserves support. (122-125) In formulating new rules, Lippmann proposes another three tests: 1) does it provide for its own clarification? Amendment by consent? Due notice that amendment will be proposed? (128)
He concludes by saying that he sets “no great store on what can be done by public opinion and the action of the masses.” (189) For anyone skimming, this comment and several others throughout the text make Lippmann easier to dismiss as elite/conservative/condescending. The force of the ideas he develops make him not so easily dismissed.
Interesting Tidbits
Lippmann sees little real difference between competing political groups. (116-117) If there were actual, sharp differences, election loss might mean actual rebellion. (116-117)
“Nor does the public rouse itself normally at the existence of evil. It is aroused at evil made manifest by the interruption of a habitual process of life.” (57)
“When the public attempts to deal with the substance it merely becomes the dupe or unconscious ally of a special interest.” (96)
“…he would wish for a world in which he could fight perfectly, with enemies fleet enough to extend him and not too fleet to elude him. All men desire their own perfect adjustment, but they desire it, being finite men, on their own terms.” (161) [Clearly related to the idea of mastery, for example in the workplace; people find work satisfying when it is sufficiently challenging, but not impossible. See Daniel Pink, among others]
Historiography
This work forms part of the material that John Dewey responded to in The Public and Its Problems (1927). (xviii)
March 27, 2025
2✰
Well, that's time of my life that I'm never getting back.
Well, that's time of my life that I'm never getting back.
July 12, 2026
“Traditional, Democratic role of public is based on false conception of public opinion and a false conception of the way the public acts.”
No scheme of education can equip him in advance for all the problems of mankind.”
Accepted theory of government rests upon the belief that there is a public which directs the course of events. This public is a mere phantom.
Can simple criteria be formulated which will show the bystander where to align himself in complex affairs?
When power, however absolute and unaccountable, reigns without provoking a crisis, public opinion does not challenge it. Somebody must challenge arbitrary power first. The public can only come to his assistance.”
The ideal of public opinion is to align men during the crisis of a problem in such a way as to favor the action of those individuals who may be able to compose the crisis. The power to discern those individuals is the end of the effort to educate public opinion.”
The aim of research designed to facilitate public action is the discovery of clear signs by which these individuals may be discerned.”
It merely places its force at the disposal of the side which, according to objective signs, seems to be standing for human adjustments according to a clear rule of behavior and against the side which appears to stand for settlement in accordance with its own unaccountable will.”
Public opinion in its highest ideal will defend those who are prepared to act on their reason against the interrupting force of those who merely assert their will.”
Nor does the public rouse itself normally at the existence of evil. It is aroused at evil made manifest by the interruption of a habitual process of life.”
Our public opinions are always and forever by their very nature an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside.”
If eugenics cannot produce the ideal Democratic citizen; if education cannot equine the citizen; if morality cannot direct him because cases depend upon the perception of true or false and the universal moral codes does not in fact exist,where else shall we look for the method of making a competent citizen?
It was assumed that the popular will was wise and good if only you could get at it.”
Rules and regulations continually, taxes annually, and wars occasionally remind him that he is being swept along by great drifts of circumstance.
He lives in a world which he cannot see, does not understand, and is unable to direct.
In the cold light of experience he knows that his sovereignty is a fiction.
Realistic thinkers in Europe long ago abandoned the notion that collective mass of people direct the course of public affairs.
The majority is permanently incapable of self-government.” Robert Michels
I have not happened to meet anybody, from a President of the United States to a professor of political science, who came anywhere near to embodying the accepted ideal of the sovereign and omnicompetent citizen.
The citizen gives but a little of his time to public affairs, had but a casual interest in facts and a poor appetite for theory.”
The problems of the modern world appear and change faster than any set of teachers can grasp them, much faster than they can convey their substance to a population of children.”
The number of mice and monkeys known to have been deceived in laboratories is surpassed only by te hopeful citizens of a democracy.”
The order which we recognize as good is an order suited to our needs and hopes and habits.”
If the voter cannot grasp the details of the problems of the day because he has not the time, the interest, or the knowledge, he will not have a better public opinion because he is asked to express his opinion more often.”
There is not the least reason for thinking , as mystical democrats have thought, that the compounding of individual ignorances in masses of people can produce a continuous directing force in public affairs.”
The actual governing is made up of a multitude of arrangements on specific questions by particular individuals.”
Not in any exact and literal sense are those who conduct the daily business of government accountable after the fact to the great mass of the voters.”
The making of one general will out of a multitude is an art. It consists in the use of symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas. The process consists of an intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance. Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate in executive action, the choice is narrowed Dow to a few alternatives. The victorious alternative is executed by the individuals in control of its energy.”
The work of the world is carried on by men in their executive capacity. Persons uttering public opinions may now and then be able to define the acts of men, but their opinions do not execute these acts. To te realm of executive acts, each of us as a member of the public, always remains external.”
It was often said in the 19th century that there was a deep wisdom in majorities which was fe voice of God. The inherent absurdity of making virtue and wisdom dependent on 51% of any collection of men has always been apparent.”
The justification of majority rule in politics is to be found in the sheer necessity of finding a place in civilized society for the force which resides in the weight of numbers. A ballot was a civilized substitute for a bullet.”
The principle of majority rule is a purely practical principle. If one wants to avoid a civil war, one lets those rule who in any case would obtain the upper hand if there should be a struggle; and they are the superior numbers.”
We must assume a public is inexpert in its curiosity, intermittent, that it discerns only gross distinctions, is slow to be aroused and quickly diverted; that since it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever it considers, and is interested only when events have been melodramatized as a conflict.”
A problem ceases to occupy attention not when Justice has been done but when a workable adjustment that overcomes the crisis has been made.
Coarse, simple and objective tests which side in a controversy upholds a workable social rule or which is attacking an unworkable rule or which proposes a promising new rule.”
When public opinion attempts to govern directly it is either a failure or a tyranny. The theory of democracy has not recognized this truth because it has identified the functioning of government with the will of the people. This is fiction.
Where the parties directly responsible do not work out an adjustment, public officials intervene. When the officials fail, public opinion is brought to bear on the issue.”
In the light of eternity and from the point of view of the universe as a whole nothing can be what we call good or bad, better or worse. All ideas of value are measurements of some part of this universe with some other part.
In so far as we have power over him, he must submit to the harmonies we seek to establish. We may as a sporting matter admit his theoretical right to establish his own harmonies against us if he can and to call them better if he likes.
An opinion of the right and the wrong, the good and truth bad, the pleasant and the unpleasant, is dated, localized, is relative. It only applies to some men at some time in some place under some circumstances.”
The question of whether any particular right or duty shall be enforced will be answered by the dominant interests in society, each imposing to the limit of its powers the system of rights and duties which most nearly approximate the kind of social harmony it finds convenient and desirable. The system will be a reflection of the power that each interest is able to exert.”
In this theory the public is not the dispenser of law or morals but at best a reserve force that may be mobilized on behalf of the method and spirit of law and morals.”
When the public attempts to deal with the substance it merely becomes the dupe or unconscious ally of a special interest.”
There is only one common interest: that all special interests shall act according to settled rule. The moment you ask what rule you invade the realm of competing interests of special points of view, of personal and class and sectional, and national bias.
The multitude of untroubled rules that men live by are of not concern to the public. It has to deal only with failures. (1) is the rule defective? (2) how shall the agency be recognized which is most likely to mend it?
There is a twilight zone where it is hard to say whether a man is acting executively on his opinions or merely acting to influence the opinion of some one else who is acting executively.
The public point of view is muddied by the presence in the public of spurious members, persons who are really acting to bend the rule in their favor while pretending or imagining that they are moved only by the common public need that there shall be an acceptable rule.”
Private interests cannot successfully be adjusted to each other if any one of them acquires a counterfeit strength.”
No ordinary bystander is equipped to analyze the propaganda by which a private interest seeks to associate itself with the disinterested public. The bystanders only recourse is public debate. He is not able to judge the merit of arguments but the advocates are very likely to expose each other. If it has identified them for the true public, debate will have served its main purpose.”
The right of innovation by fiat cannot be defended as a working principle. A new rule, however excellent in intention, cannot be expected to work unless in some degree it has been first understood and approved by all who must live according to it.”
A workable rule which has assent will not evoke protest or much disobedience.
Unless a people is to engage in the hopeless task of playing politics inside another’s frontiers, there is no course but to hold that a nation is committed by the officials it fails to discharge.”
Problems exists where rule of action is defective. Use test of assent and test of conformity.
Test of Assent
Test of Conformity
Test of Inquiry for confused controversies
For reforms: test of interpretation, test of amendment, test of due notice
Where the public cannot use tests as a guide to action, the wisest course for them is not to act at all. They had better be neutral.
Their argument may be wrong, the remedy may be foolish, but the fact that they openly criticize at some personal risk is a sign that the rule is not working well.”
When a rule is broken not occasionally but very often the rule is defective. It simply does not define the conduct which normally may be expected of men who live under it.”
In what way the rule is defective the public cannot specifically determine.
Normally they leave their proxies to a kind of professional public consisting of more or less eminent persons. Most issues are never carried beyond this ruling group; the lat publics catch only echoes of the debate.”
In stable and mature societies, the differences between the insiders and the outsiders is not profound. If they were profound, the defeated minority would be constantly on verge of rebellion.”
One might say that a nation is politically stable when nothing of radical consequence is determined by its elections.”
The hardest problems are those which institutions cannot handle. They are the public’s problems.”
Where the public is forced to intervene in a strange and complex affair, the test of public inquiry is the surest clue to the sincerity of the claimant, to his confidence in his ability to stand the ordeal of examination, to his willingness to accept risks for the sake of us faith in the possibility of rational human adjustments.”
The Test of Inquiry- value only where one party refuses inquiry.
A rule must include the means of its own clarification, so that a breach shall be undeniably overt. Revision must be possible by consent. (3) does it provide for due notice that amendment will be proposed?
In order that deadlock shall be dissoluble a rule should provide that subject to a certain formal procedure the controversy over revision shall be public. This will often break up the obstruction.”
We of the public outside say that those who are quarreling must act as if there were a law to cover the case. We demand method and spirit of reason. We are maintaining a society based on the principle that all controversies are soluble by peaceable agreement.”
Public CANNOT intervene in all public questions. Their duty is to keep an open mind and wait to see.”
Proper limits of intervention by the public in affairs is determined by its capacity to make judgements.
Principles of Public Opinion:
(1)executive action is not for the public. Public acts only by aligning itself as the partisan of some one in a position to act executively.
(2) Intrinsic merits of a question are not for the public. The public intervenes from the outside using the work of the insiders.
(3) the anticipation, analysis , and solution of a question are not for the public. The publics judgement rests on a small sample of the facts at issue.
(4) the specific, technical, intimate criteria required in the handling of a question are not for the public. The public’s criteria are generalized for many problems; they turn essentially on procedure and the overt, external forms of behavior.
(5) What is left for the public is a judgement as to whether the actors in the controversy are following a settled rule of behavior or their own arbitrary desires. This judgement must be made by sampling an external aspect of behavior of the insiders.
(6) In order that this sampling shall be pertinent, it is necessary to discover criteria, suitable to the nature of public opinion, which can be relied upon to distinguish between reasonable and arbitrary behavior.
(7) For the purposes of social action, reasonable behavior is conduct whic follows settled course whether in making a rule, in enforcing it or in amending it.
Political scientists devise the method of sampling and criteria of judgement.
Civic education trains the public to use these methods
Education for citizenship, for membership in the public is distinct fro education for public office. Citizenship requires a radically different relation to affairs, requires different intellectual habits and different methods of action.”
The deception was so generally practiced that it was often practiced sincerely.”
In so far as he has power to control the publication of truth, he manipulates it to what he considers the necessities of action, of bargaining, morale, and prestige.”
His relations with invisibly managed markets are decisively important for him; his own foresight is not dependable. He is a link in a chain that stretched beyond his horizon.”
He that gets all he can honestly and saves all he gets will certainly become rich, if that Being who governs the world, to whom all should look for a blessing on their honest endeavors, doth not in His wise providence, otherwise determine.” Ben Franklin
Trade is a visible scene of honest life supported by prudence and frugality and so prudent management will increase any fortune to any degree.” Defoe.
Under absentee government these checks upon opinion are lacking
The consequences are often so remote and long delayed that error is not promptly disclosed.”
In the interdependent world, desire, rather than custom or objective law tends to become the criterion of mens conduct.
To concentrate power at one point is to facilitate the seizure of power.” de Tocqueville
A centralized society dominated by the fiction that the governors are the spokesman of a common will tends not only to degrade initiative in the individual but to reduce to insignificance the play of public opinion.”
In the presence of danger, where swift and concerted action is required, the methods of democracy cannot be employed.”
The attempt to bring power under control by offsetting it with power was sound enough in intention. The conflicting purposes of men cannot be held under pacific control unless the tendency of all power to become arbitrary is checked by other force.”
All the machinery of conference, of peaceful negotiation, of law and the rule of reason is workable in large affairs only where the power of the negotiators is neutralized one against the other.”
Before there can be law, there must be order as order is an arrangement of power.”
I set no great store on what can be done by public opinions and the action of masses.”
No scheme of education can equip him in advance for all the problems of mankind.”
Accepted theory of government rests upon the belief that there is a public which directs the course of events. This public is a mere phantom.
Can simple criteria be formulated which will show the bystander where to align himself in complex affairs?
When power, however absolute and unaccountable, reigns without provoking a crisis, public opinion does not challenge it. Somebody must challenge arbitrary power first. The public can only come to his assistance.”
The ideal of public opinion is to align men during the crisis of a problem in such a way as to favor the action of those individuals who may be able to compose the crisis. The power to discern those individuals is the end of the effort to educate public opinion.”
The aim of research designed to facilitate public action is the discovery of clear signs by which these individuals may be discerned.”
It merely places its force at the disposal of the side which, according to objective signs, seems to be standing for human adjustments according to a clear rule of behavior and against the side which appears to stand for settlement in accordance with its own unaccountable will.”
Public opinion in its highest ideal will defend those who are prepared to act on their reason against the interrupting force of those who merely assert their will.”
Nor does the public rouse itself normally at the existence of evil. It is aroused at evil made manifest by the interruption of a habitual process of life.”
Our public opinions are always and forever by their very nature an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside.”
If eugenics cannot produce the ideal Democratic citizen; if education cannot equine the citizen; if morality cannot direct him because cases depend upon the perception of true or false and the universal moral codes does not in fact exist,where else shall we look for the method of making a competent citizen?
It was assumed that the popular will was wise and good if only you could get at it.”
Rules and regulations continually, taxes annually, and wars occasionally remind him that he is being swept along by great drifts of circumstance.
He lives in a world which he cannot see, does not understand, and is unable to direct.
In the cold light of experience he knows that his sovereignty is a fiction.
Realistic thinkers in Europe long ago abandoned the notion that collective mass of people direct the course of public affairs.
The majority is permanently incapable of self-government.” Robert Michels
I have not happened to meet anybody, from a President of the United States to a professor of political science, who came anywhere near to embodying the accepted ideal of the sovereign and omnicompetent citizen.
The citizen gives but a little of his time to public affairs, had but a casual interest in facts and a poor appetite for theory.”
The problems of the modern world appear and change faster than any set of teachers can grasp them, much faster than they can convey their substance to a population of children.”
The number of mice and monkeys known to have been deceived in laboratories is surpassed only by te hopeful citizens of a democracy.”
The order which we recognize as good is an order suited to our needs and hopes and habits.”
If the voter cannot grasp the details of the problems of the day because he has not the time, the interest, or the knowledge, he will not have a better public opinion because he is asked to express his opinion more often.”
There is not the least reason for thinking , as mystical democrats have thought, that the compounding of individual ignorances in masses of people can produce a continuous directing force in public affairs.”
The actual governing is made up of a multitude of arrangements on specific questions by particular individuals.”
Not in any exact and literal sense are those who conduct the daily business of government accountable after the fact to the great mass of the voters.”
The making of one general will out of a multitude is an art. It consists in the use of symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas. The process consists of an intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance. Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate in executive action, the choice is narrowed Dow to a few alternatives. The victorious alternative is executed by the individuals in control of its energy.”
The work of the world is carried on by men in their executive capacity. Persons uttering public opinions may now and then be able to define the acts of men, but their opinions do not execute these acts. To te realm of executive acts, each of us as a member of the public, always remains external.”
It was often said in the 19th century that there was a deep wisdom in majorities which was fe voice of God. The inherent absurdity of making virtue and wisdom dependent on 51% of any collection of men has always been apparent.”
The justification of majority rule in politics is to be found in the sheer necessity of finding a place in civilized society for the force which resides in the weight of numbers. A ballot was a civilized substitute for a bullet.”
The principle of majority rule is a purely practical principle. If one wants to avoid a civil war, one lets those rule who in any case would obtain the upper hand if there should be a struggle; and they are the superior numbers.”
We must assume a public is inexpert in its curiosity, intermittent, that it discerns only gross distinctions, is slow to be aroused and quickly diverted; that since it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever it considers, and is interested only when events have been melodramatized as a conflict.”
A problem ceases to occupy attention not when Justice has been done but when a workable adjustment that overcomes the crisis has been made.
Coarse, simple and objective tests which side in a controversy upholds a workable social rule or which is attacking an unworkable rule or which proposes a promising new rule.”
When public opinion attempts to govern directly it is either a failure or a tyranny. The theory of democracy has not recognized this truth because it has identified the functioning of government with the will of the people. This is fiction.
Where the parties directly responsible do not work out an adjustment, public officials intervene. When the officials fail, public opinion is brought to bear on the issue.”
In the light of eternity and from the point of view of the universe as a whole nothing can be what we call good or bad, better or worse. All ideas of value are measurements of some part of this universe with some other part.
In so far as we have power over him, he must submit to the harmonies we seek to establish. We may as a sporting matter admit his theoretical right to establish his own harmonies against us if he can and to call them better if he likes.
An opinion of the right and the wrong, the good and truth bad, the pleasant and the unpleasant, is dated, localized, is relative. It only applies to some men at some time in some place under some circumstances.”
The question of whether any particular right or duty shall be enforced will be answered by the dominant interests in society, each imposing to the limit of its powers the system of rights and duties which most nearly approximate the kind of social harmony it finds convenient and desirable. The system will be a reflection of the power that each interest is able to exert.”
In this theory the public is not the dispenser of law or morals but at best a reserve force that may be mobilized on behalf of the method and spirit of law and morals.”
When the public attempts to deal with the substance it merely becomes the dupe or unconscious ally of a special interest.”
There is only one common interest: that all special interests shall act according to settled rule. The moment you ask what rule you invade the realm of competing interests of special points of view, of personal and class and sectional, and national bias.
The multitude of untroubled rules that men live by are of not concern to the public. It has to deal only with failures. (1) is the rule defective? (2) how shall the agency be recognized which is most likely to mend it?
There is a twilight zone where it is hard to say whether a man is acting executively on his opinions or merely acting to influence the opinion of some one else who is acting executively.
The public point of view is muddied by the presence in the public of spurious members, persons who are really acting to bend the rule in their favor while pretending or imagining that they are moved only by the common public need that there shall be an acceptable rule.”
Private interests cannot successfully be adjusted to each other if any one of them acquires a counterfeit strength.”
No ordinary bystander is equipped to analyze the propaganda by which a private interest seeks to associate itself with the disinterested public. The bystanders only recourse is public debate. He is not able to judge the merit of arguments but the advocates are very likely to expose each other. If it has identified them for the true public, debate will have served its main purpose.”
The right of innovation by fiat cannot be defended as a working principle. A new rule, however excellent in intention, cannot be expected to work unless in some degree it has been first understood and approved by all who must live according to it.”
A workable rule which has assent will not evoke protest or much disobedience.
Unless a people is to engage in the hopeless task of playing politics inside another’s frontiers, there is no course but to hold that a nation is committed by the officials it fails to discharge.”
Problems exists where rule of action is defective. Use test of assent and test of conformity.
Test of Assent
Test of Conformity
Test of Inquiry for confused controversies
For reforms: test of interpretation, test of amendment, test of due notice
Where the public cannot use tests as a guide to action, the wisest course for them is not to act at all. They had better be neutral.
Their argument may be wrong, the remedy may be foolish, but the fact that they openly criticize at some personal risk is a sign that the rule is not working well.”
When a rule is broken not occasionally but very often the rule is defective. It simply does not define the conduct which normally may be expected of men who live under it.”
In what way the rule is defective the public cannot specifically determine.
Normally they leave their proxies to a kind of professional public consisting of more or less eminent persons. Most issues are never carried beyond this ruling group; the lat publics catch only echoes of the debate.”
In stable and mature societies, the differences between the insiders and the outsiders is not profound. If they were profound, the defeated minority would be constantly on verge of rebellion.”
One might say that a nation is politically stable when nothing of radical consequence is determined by its elections.”
The hardest problems are those which institutions cannot handle. They are the public’s problems.”
Where the public is forced to intervene in a strange and complex affair, the test of public inquiry is the surest clue to the sincerity of the claimant, to his confidence in his ability to stand the ordeal of examination, to his willingness to accept risks for the sake of us faith in the possibility of rational human adjustments.”
The Test of Inquiry- value only where one party refuses inquiry.
A rule must include the means of its own clarification, so that a breach shall be undeniably overt. Revision must be possible by consent. (3) does it provide for due notice that amendment will be proposed?
In order that deadlock shall be dissoluble a rule should provide that subject to a certain formal procedure the controversy over revision shall be public. This will often break up the obstruction.”
We of the public outside say that those who are quarreling must act as if there were a law to cover the case. We demand method and spirit of reason. We are maintaining a society based on the principle that all controversies are soluble by peaceable agreement.”
Public CANNOT intervene in all public questions. Their duty is to keep an open mind and wait to see.”
Proper limits of intervention by the public in affairs is determined by its capacity to make judgements.
Principles of Public Opinion:
(1)executive action is not for the public. Public acts only by aligning itself as the partisan of some one in a position to act executively.
(2) Intrinsic merits of a question are not for the public. The public intervenes from the outside using the work of the insiders.
(3) the anticipation, analysis , and solution of a question are not for the public. The publics judgement rests on a small sample of the facts at issue.
(4) the specific, technical, intimate criteria required in the handling of a question are not for the public. The public’s criteria are generalized for many problems; they turn essentially on procedure and the overt, external forms of behavior.
(5) What is left for the public is a judgement as to whether the actors in the controversy are following a settled rule of behavior or their own arbitrary desires. This judgement must be made by sampling an external aspect of behavior of the insiders.
(6) In order that this sampling shall be pertinent, it is necessary to discover criteria, suitable to the nature of public opinion, which can be relied upon to distinguish between reasonable and arbitrary behavior.
(7) For the purposes of social action, reasonable behavior is conduct whic follows settled course whether in making a rule, in enforcing it or in amending it.
Political scientists devise the method of sampling and criteria of judgement.
Civic education trains the public to use these methods
Education for citizenship, for membership in the public is distinct fro education for public office. Citizenship requires a radically different relation to affairs, requires different intellectual habits and different methods of action.”
The deception was so generally practiced that it was often practiced sincerely.”
In so far as he has power to control the publication of truth, he manipulates it to what he considers the necessities of action, of bargaining, morale, and prestige.”
His relations with invisibly managed markets are decisively important for him; his own foresight is not dependable. He is a link in a chain that stretched beyond his horizon.”
He that gets all he can honestly and saves all he gets will certainly become rich, if that Being who governs the world, to whom all should look for a blessing on their honest endeavors, doth not in His wise providence, otherwise determine.” Ben Franklin
Trade is a visible scene of honest life supported by prudence and frugality and so prudent management will increase any fortune to any degree.” Defoe.
Under absentee government these checks upon opinion are lacking
The consequences are often so remote and long delayed that error is not promptly disclosed.”
In the interdependent world, desire, rather than custom or objective law tends to become the criterion of mens conduct.
To concentrate power at one point is to facilitate the seizure of power.” de Tocqueville
A centralized society dominated by the fiction that the governors are the spokesman of a common will tends not only to degrade initiative in the individual but to reduce to insignificance the play of public opinion.”
In the presence of danger, where swift and concerted action is required, the methods of democracy cannot be employed.”
The attempt to bring power under control by offsetting it with power was sound enough in intention. The conflicting purposes of men cannot be held under pacific control unless the tendency of all power to become arbitrary is checked by other force.”
All the machinery of conference, of peaceful negotiation, of law and the rule of reason is workable in large affairs only where the power of the negotiators is neutralized one against the other.”
Before there can be law, there must be order as order is an arrangement of power.”
I set no great store on what can be done by public opinions and the action of masses.”
December 1, 2020
There is a recurring theme with people who see the world as it is instead of viewing the world, or attempting to view the world as they would like it to be. That is the theme of elitism. For when people do not look through rose colored glasses at the world or have some ideal Utopia, they end up calling things by their rightful names. It is unfortunate that these people in love with a stigma about them. The author of this book repeatedly lumps himself in with the public in stating that it's simply not possible for everyone to know everything at all times and therefore it is impossible to get at anything resembling the will of the people in anything but the greatest crises that a nation faces. He admits that even though his main interest in life is public affairs and it is his job to know all that goes on in a given day he still knows very little about the outside world when you take into consideration the hole in its entirety. And despite his repeat it again and again he says again and again that he himself is part of this public that cannot possibly know all the details of all of these things and should not be asked to know and comment on all these details on various policies he is still charged with elitism. It is almost as though these people who want some ideal Utopia can't stomach the fact that most people simply do not pay attention to all things at all times. These people cannot stomach the fact that the vast majority of people simply do not have the time nor the inclination to pay attention to anything more than a few things that might interest them.
At any rate this is a great book and one that I am glad to see reprinted.
At any rate this is a great book and one that I am glad to see reprinted.
February 5, 2010
I would advise people to read this, and read it slowly. Find out about the man, who he worked with and what he did in the early 1900's. I felt totally annoyed when I finished this book and I'm not sure I know why.
I read a lot but this book made me feel uneasy because I wasn't sure I was getting the intended message and for that I feel annoyed. At times his prose was brilliant, I agreed and yet I wasn't sure I was agreeing with what I would think was true, like he was a politician running for office and making his position sound good to get elected but it really was terrible for almost everyone.
I may have to get ambitious and reread it. Being linked with President Wilson as Lippman was draws immediate scorn. The ideas that came out of this era in America are dangerous to the America values we've had since the founding. However, I thinks its wise to read a view point other than your own.
I read a lot but this book made me feel uneasy because I wasn't sure I was getting the intended message and for that I feel annoyed. At times his prose was brilliant, I agreed and yet I wasn't sure I was agreeing with what I would think was true, like he was a politician running for office and making his position sound good to get elected but it really was terrible for almost everyone.
I may have to get ambitious and reread it. Being linked with President Wilson as Lippman was draws immediate scorn. The ideas that came out of this era in America are dangerous to the America values we've had since the founding. However, I thinks its wise to read a view point other than your own.
March 7, 2010
I learned about the bleak outlook with which Progressives view The People. The philosophies made me sick to my stomach because they are elitist and imply that The People don't have rights because they're too stupid to operate as a group. I found it interesting that in the movie "13 Days" that the President leaked disinformation to Lippmann because he knew Lippmann would blab it to the Russians. I thought Communism was dead in this country, but I have been brought back to the sickening reality that not only is it alive and shoving it's way into the mainstream, but that our corrupt Congress is rife with it fueled by the writings of Alinsky, Lippmann and other subversives.
April 26, 2025
The main thrust of The Phantom Public is Lippman dispensing with romantic notions of Democracy, Nationalism, Socialism and other dominating ideologies of the time, substituting them instead with what in his view is a practical and realistic model.
And so, Democracy is not "rule by the people" any more than a Monarchy is rule by the soldiers who stood behind the victorious monarch. The outcome of an election is not the "will of the people" but merely a compromise substitute (ballots for bullets) of a physically violent civil war that might otherwise result.
Indeed, the Public is not a monolithic ruler.
It does not lead. The member of the Public arrives long after the interested insider parties in any dispute already lined up against each other without outsider input, and stays only long enough to take the side of one or the other pre-existing parties in this dispute. The actual governing is then continued to be carried out by the victorious insiders.
It is not a monolith. Not only is the Public composed of different individuals with different purposes, but who is included in the Public changes depending on the dispute at hand. This is because the fundamental difference between the disputants and the Public is not "the enlightened few vs. the ignorant many", but rather then insiders to an issue vs. the interested outsiders. Whoever belongs to the outsiders in a given issue belongs to the Public with regards to that issue.
Lippmann also spends significant time critiquing the Monoisitic theory of Nationalism and Socialism, a similarly romantic notion to the Democratic "will of the people" at odds with reality. Here he explains the innumerable problems caused by the maintained illusion that the members of a society constitute an organic whole, with one will and purpose (which, of course, is determined by the ruling class). He points out that doing away with this illusion all the dilemmas and complications he so far introduced become soluble if we at once recognize that it is the individual who acts, and not the nation, and that any conflict is between individuals, and not nations.
His overall goal with the book then is to offer an alternative for the place of the Public, disabused of romantic notions that led only to catastrophe in practice. In this he lays out the following points:
Not for the Public:
1. Executive action
2. Merits of a question
3. Analysis of the solution
4. Criteria for handling the question
This is because as outsiders, they cannot be expected to fully know the merits of the question or have the expertise to evaluate a solution or put it into practice.
For the Public:
5. Judge if actors are following settled rule of behavior
6. Criteria suitable to nature of Public opinion for #5
7. Reasonable behavior follows settled course in handling a rule
Since the public is only interested in having a settled, workable rule that everyone can agree to, and are not interested in the particulars of that rule, it is this lens through which they should judge whether to take one side or the other in a dispute.
And so, Democracy is not "rule by the people" any more than a Monarchy is rule by the soldiers who stood behind the victorious monarch. The outcome of an election is not the "will of the people" but merely a compromise substitute (ballots for bullets) of a physically violent civil war that might otherwise result.
Indeed, the Public is not a monolithic ruler.
It does not lead. The member of the Public arrives long after the interested insider parties in any dispute already lined up against each other without outsider input, and stays only long enough to take the side of one or the other pre-existing parties in this dispute. The actual governing is then continued to be carried out by the victorious insiders.
It is not a monolith. Not only is the Public composed of different individuals with different purposes, but who is included in the Public changes depending on the dispute at hand. This is because the fundamental difference between the disputants and the Public is not "the enlightened few vs. the ignorant many", but rather then insiders to an issue vs. the interested outsiders. Whoever belongs to the outsiders in a given issue belongs to the Public with regards to that issue.
Lippmann also spends significant time critiquing the Monoisitic theory of Nationalism and Socialism, a similarly romantic notion to the Democratic "will of the people" at odds with reality. Here he explains the innumerable problems caused by the maintained illusion that the members of a society constitute an organic whole, with one will and purpose (which, of course, is determined by the ruling class). He points out that doing away with this illusion all the dilemmas and complications he so far introduced become soluble if we at once recognize that it is the individual who acts, and not the nation, and that any conflict is between individuals, and not nations.
His overall goal with the book then is to offer an alternative for the place of the Public, disabused of romantic notions that led only to catastrophe in practice. In this he lays out the following points:
Not for the Public:
1. Executive action
2. Merits of a question
3. Analysis of the solution
4. Criteria for handling the question
This is because as outsiders, they cannot be expected to fully know the merits of the question or have the expertise to evaluate a solution or put it into practice.
For the Public:
5. Judge if actors are following settled rule of behavior
6. Criteria suitable to nature of Public opinion for #5
7. Reasonable behavior follows settled course in handling a rule
Since the public is only interested in having a settled, workable rule that everyone can agree to, and are not interested in the particulars of that rule, it is this lens through which they should judge whether to take one side or the other in a dispute.
October 28, 2021
I read this because Dewey argues against it in The Public and its Problems
It is unfortunate that Lippmann is a more engaging writer than Dewey, because he is also incredibly anti-social and engages in terrible sophistry.
It is very funny to me that other reviewers here have tried to call Lippmann a communist, via his connection to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. In my eyes, this is a profoundly anti-communist book. This book is cynical, anti-utopian, anti-populist, anti-labor, and distrustful of all political parties claiming to act in the interest of society as being secretly controlled by selfish private interests. The confusion, I guess, is because Lippmann is a proponent of a society run by a technocratic elite, and would have been basically fine with Soviet Russia if only it had two parties instead of one and stopped claiming to believe in its ideals.
Let me outline some of Lippmann's arguments.
On Government:
1. Society is built upon a balance of power and forces (populations, productivity, regional power). However, these forces can strengthen or weaken, become larger and smaller, over time.
2. The role of government is to act as enlightened managers, helping to create rules and systems which keep the forces of society in balance and prevent disruption.
3. Political parties get slowly intwined with special interests and thereby become unable to prevent disruption and crisis. The main role of the public is to vote for the other party when this happens.
On knowledge and public action:
1. Any issue is best, and to a large extent only, understandable by the people and organizations directly involved.
2. The "public" is defined to be the people not directly involved in a conflict. The public, by definition, cannot understand the conflict.
3. Ideally, conflicts should be submitted to rules-based arbitration. Any private interest which is disruptive, and refuses to submit to a rule-based order, is inherently suspect.
4. However, sometimes the public must judge between private interests in a conflict. The public, lacking knowledge, has no way of judging the merits of the arguments made. It must therefore judge mainly based on which interest is most willing to submit to rules and bring the material forces which caused the crisis into balance.
On people and partisans:
1. People don't like reading, don't like knowing, and want to be left alone to their "private pursuits".
2. However, private interest groups use demagoguery to convince people to support these private interests above others.
3. Therefore, all organizations of people which claim to have opinions on larger societal questions on which their members do not have direct stakes are inherently suspect.
It is unfortunate that Lippmann is a more engaging writer than Dewey, because he is also incredibly anti-social and engages in terrible sophistry.
It is very funny to me that other reviewers here have tried to call Lippmann a communist, via his connection to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. In my eyes, this is a profoundly anti-communist book. This book is cynical, anti-utopian, anti-populist, anti-labor, and distrustful of all political parties claiming to act in the interest of society as being secretly controlled by selfish private interests. The confusion, I guess, is because Lippmann is a proponent of a society run by a technocratic elite, and would have been basically fine with Soviet Russia if only it had two parties instead of one and stopped claiming to believe in its ideals.
Let me outline some of Lippmann's arguments.
On Government:
1. Society is built upon a balance of power and forces (populations, productivity, regional power). However, these forces can strengthen or weaken, become larger and smaller, over time.
2. The role of government is to act as enlightened managers, helping to create rules and systems which keep the forces of society in balance and prevent disruption.
3. Political parties get slowly intwined with special interests and thereby become unable to prevent disruption and crisis. The main role of the public is to vote for the other party when this happens.
On knowledge and public action:
1. Any issue is best, and to a large extent only, understandable by the people and organizations directly involved.
2. The "public" is defined to be the people not directly involved in a conflict. The public, by definition, cannot understand the conflict.
3. Ideally, conflicts should be submitted to rules-based arbitration. Any private interest which is disruptive, and refuses to submit to a rule-based order, is inherently suspect.
4. However, sometimes the public must judge between private interests in a conflict. The public, lacking knowledge, has no way of judging the merits of the arguments made. It must therefore judge mainly based on which interest is most willing to submit to rules and bring the material forces which caused the crisis into balance.
On people and partisans:
1. People don't like reading, don't like knowing, and want to be left alone to their "private pursuits".
2. However, private interest groups use demagoguery to convince people to support these private interests above others.
3. Therefore, all organizations of people which claim to have opinions on larger societal questions on which their members do not have direct stakes are inherently suspect.
October 14, 2025
When I downloaded the 1922 version of this book from Project Gutenberg, I didn't know it was about politics (their descriptions can be pretty sparse sometimes) or I probably wouldn't have bothered. And I would have missed out. This description of the myth of what (representative) democracy is supposed to be and what it actually is and the various ways people tried to solve the lack of voter engagement back in the 20's was very informative and still relevant today.
In a nutshell, it's the modern problem of too much information and not enough time, and as it turns out, the idea that the public has any real say in government is pretty much an illusion. The cynical side of me is inclined to agree. Now I feel I need to rewatch Yes, Minister.
In a nutshell, it's the modern problem of too much information and not enough time, and as it turns out, the idea that the public has any real say in government is pretty much an illusion. The cynical side of me is inclined to agree. Now I feel I need to rewatch Yes, Minister.
March 25, 2024
“The public” is merely an abstraction. Wild stuff.
July 20, 2024
Important, fascinating read, even for this Socialist Democrat. I imagine this is where Reagan had his magnificent failure of intellect, imagination, and humanity.
February 17, 2026
An improvement to his original work, but still suffers from excessive explanation
June 14, 2026
Designing a system without taking into account how human behave is a terrible way to produce unstable systems.
January 9, 2023
Compelling and readable diatribe against liberal democracy and the idea of a self-governing public. While Lippmann's oversimplification of many things (for example, he separates "public" from "private" life absolutely, causing him to swerve into hyper-individualistic views that ignore community, etc) keeps me from being fully convinced of his main argument, I still think he raised criticisms worth addressing. The fact that this book is ~100 years old and still relevant today is impressive alone.
April 24, 2009
I first read Walter "Cranky Pants" Lippmann my freshman year in college ("Drift and Mastery"); my nocturnal adolescent self particularly cherished his line about how societal norms force intelligent people to conform to sheep-scripts in order to maintain the respect of their peers -- sweet sweet nectar to the brain of someone from a Midwestern nerd-school newly adrift on the Gothic campus of an upper-crusty liberal arts college.
In "The Phantom Public", our favorite grouch directs his ire towards, basically, everyone, stating that our bozo citizenry is too dim-witted to be entrusted with voting, that the notion of an educated populace is hogwash, and that any hope of a political process approaching anything other than dog-pooh is at best the dreaming of someone on shrooms and at worst the fast track towards a society knocking on the doors of hell.
(These are my words of course (were shrooms around in Lippman's day?) Anyway that's the gist.)
Comforting: there's always someone who is certain that the current moment in society is the worst it has ever been.
Comforting: there's always someone who feels that the knowledge base of Median Joe is substandard.
Not comforting: my lesser, more shadow-y side found myself agreeing in many ways with El Curmudgeon.
Skimworthy at the very least for anyone who often dreams of architecting a different kind of society.
In "The Phantom Public", our favorite grouch directs his ire towards, basically, everyone, stating that our bozo citizenry is too dim-witted to be entrusted with voting, that the notion of an educated populace is hogwash, and that any hope of a political process approaching anything other than dog-pooh is at best the dreaming of someone on shrooms and at worst the fast track towards a society knocking on the doors of hell.
(These are my words of course (were shrooms around in Lippman's day?) Anyway that's the gist.)
Comforting: there's always someone who is certain that the current moment in society is the worst it has ever been.
Comforting: there's always someone who feels that the knowledge base of Median Joe is substandard.
Not comforting: my lesser, more shadow-y side found myself agreeing in many ways with El Curmudgeon.
Skimworthy at the very least for anyone who often dreams of architecting a different kind of society.
Read
March 29, 2007I believe this quote from the text sums up the general framework:
“The fundamental difference which matters is that between insiders and outsiders. Their relations to a problem are radically different. Only the insiders can make decisions, not because he is inherently a better man but because he is so placed that he can understand and can act. The outsider is necessarily ignorant, usually irrelevant and often meddlesome, because he is trying to navigate the ship from dry land. – In short, like the democratic theorists, they miss the essence of the matter, which is, that competence exists only in relation to function; that men are not good, but good for something.; that men cannot be educated, but only educated for something” P.140.
“The fundamental difference which matters is that between insiders and outsiders. Their relations to a problem are radically different. Only the insiders can make decisions, not because he is inherently a better man but because he is so placed that he can understand and can act. The outsider is necessarily ignorant, usually irrelevant and often meddlesome, because he is trying to navigate the ship from dry land. – In short, like the democratic theorists, they miss the essence of the matter, which is, that competence exists only in relation to function; that men are not good, but good for something.; that men cannot be educated, but only educated for something” P.140.
June 22, 2013
I came to read this some years ago after reading Noam Chomsky reference the book numerous times. This is a more entertaining read than Public Opinion, both more clearly cynical and also written in a much more chummy style. It's at times thought provoking.
December 18, 2007
Oldie, but a goodie.
January 21, 2010
Référence indispensable pour les réflexions sur la notion de "public"; à lire en dialogue avec Dewey, Le public et ses problèmes.
wishlist
September 1, 2011I would like this in the Kindle Edition, when it comes available.
January 23, 2013
Somewhat pessimistic about democracy without really any concrete solutions for alternatives except to leave it to the 'insiders'. However, it is classic poli sci literature.
July 9, 2015
Super pessimistic about the average person. I loved every word of it.
April 2, 2024
The everyday working person is so bogged down by adult obligations that he barely understands the decisions being made in his name.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews