Michael Walzer’s Moral Minimalism seems to make a series of assumptions are not only unacceptable from a social/political science point of view, but are dangerous when applied to any theories about current or past events. In particular, when he discusses his maximal meaning of morals we see him speak in generalities about the universal meanings about the signs that were being paraded through Prague or the general understanding about the immorality of totalitarian regimes, he seems to be speaking on behalf of all people everywhere across every time in a way that is blatantly overstepping his bounds as a political scientist. His evidence for the Prague demonstration is “What they meant by the ‘justice’ inscribed on their signs, however, was simple enough: an end to arbitrary arrests, equal and impartial law enforcement, the abolition of the privileges and prerogatives of the party elite -common, garden variety justice” (Walzer, 2). However, he gives himself room to maneuver when he says that their actual understandings of “justice” may be different. In this way, he is saying that there is a universal meaning based on a shared set of morals, but there is no way to pin down exactly what that meaning is. This is similar to Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis where the author states that we are coming to the end of history and that there are no new ideas, but at the same time, he does not say when the end of history and some great convergence will actually occur.

On a more personal, and albeit biased, note, the idea of universal morals does not make sense to me as a whole. Even such fundamental moral rules in Western culture such as not taking the life of another human being (which Walzer addresses) are not a universal moral by which all humans abide as there are plenty of instances of ritual sacrifices or the killing of newborns that are part of the culture of other societies. With cases like these, the idea of a universal moral that we all understand is difficult to reconcile.

My main issue with the film Please Vote for Me, rests in the fact that while the film is set up to be a portrayal of what happens when you give children a chance at democracy and whether or not we can draw parallels to adults in democratic government, the children’s actions within this democratic framework are heavily influenced by their parents. Throughout the film there are countless instances of the parents of our three candidates influencing both their thoughts and their actions. For example, the debate between Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng was so rehearsed with the parents that the viewer essentially could have told you what each candidate was going to say before the debate began, including Luo Lei setting Cheng Cheng up to be a liar, and Cheng Cheng’s use of the term “dictator” to define his opponent. There’s also the issue of Luo Lei attempting to buy his classmates’ votes by bringing them on the train ride and giving out prizes at the end of his final speech—both of which show the influence of his parents more than himself. So, in my opinion, the arguments, tactics, and rhetoric we saw in the film were not an accurate depiction of what would happen if we handed democracy to a group that was unfamiliar with it, since there was unquantifiable influence from parents.

However, I still believe that we can gain some insights about democracy from the film. Things like the intimidation/bullying of Xiaofei, bribery by Luo Lei, and deceit, manipulation, and caustic rhetoric by Cheng Cheng all seem to fit our contemporary expectations of democracy. This is because the parents, whose preconceptions about democracy are influencing their children, see these traits as being characteristic of democracy and necessary in order to win. So, it’s not that this classroom is “democracy in action” so much as it is adult preconceptions about democracy being projected onto these children.

There are two issues that I take with Lerner’s interpretation of the intricacies of social life in Balgat. Firstly, speaking to his methodology, it was very clear that Lerner came into his observations with a bias—wanting to paint the grocer as his hero. He talks about one of the “wiser heads” speaking, “the words I was seeking” when the man calls the grocer, “the cleverest of us all” (Lerner, 56). This blatant admittance of preference casts doubts over the entire picture we have just watched Lerner pain for us. However, perhaps the underlying issue of his bias stems from his assumptions about the nature of progress. Lerner portrays the Grocer as a prophet, years ahead of his time, embracing the lifestyle of urban Ankara and attempting to incorporate elements of the more industrial society, like neckties and commercial goods, into the more traditional Balgat life. Lerner glorifies this way of life, asking, “What would happen next in Balgat if more people discovered the tingle of wondering what will happen next?” (Lerner, 51). It is clear that Lerner sees commercialism, public transportation, urban labor, and new technology as “progress” in society, and so he takes the Grocer, the only one in society brave enough to embrace these developments, as a revolutionary and a hero.

However, this progress came at a great cost, namely conformity to Ankara to the point where Balgat is scheduled to be swallowed up into the greater Ankara region. This will undoubtedly mark a great loss of tradition and identity for the Balgati people as they are now being forced to embrace everything that urbanization brings with it. Perhaps, then, this is not so much progress, but conformity. Perhaps this loss of tradition is more detrimental than the positive effects of embracing Ankara. Perhaps Lerner’s assumptions about change and progress being admirable are misguided, and blind him to the societal harms that might be inflicted on the Balgati with such rapid and compulsory change.