Compared with the discussion and public opinion of scholars in traditional society, the expression space of modern intellectual elites and even ordinary people is expanding rapidly. On the one hand, this expansion means modern citizens' awareness of expressing their rights, and at the same time, it is accompanied by a stubborn and sharp representative crisis: can the public opinion with the intellectual elite as the main body represent the broadest public opinion? How can the bottom society, which is forgotten or even abandoned by the mainstream society, be represented by intellectuals who claim to be elites? Or is it possible for the silent majority to make their own voices independently without representatives? Accompanied by this representative crisis, the masses participated extensively in political and social movements in the historical process of modern China, showing the characteristics of being active and easy to manipulate. It can be said that compared with the intellectual elite who almost monopolize the right to speak in the media, education and other cultural fields, it seems that the bottom people can only express their will and position to a certain extent in mobilized or spontaneous political practice. In this long and short 20th century China, elitism and popular democracy seem to be two hidden and obvious clues in political history. As far as the legacy of the Enlightenment is concerned, egalitarianism and popular democracy really symbolize the recognition and respect of the Enlightenment for the right of ordinary people to participate in politics, but the essence of modern politics is a highly modern and technical political form. No matter economic development, political integration or cultural innovation, it is inseparable from the extensive participation and guidance of elites. If this kind of participation is not restrained (whether external or introspective), it is likely that the elite monopolizes resources and deprives people, which is likely to form a terrible situation that Weber said, "the indulgent has no heart and the expert has no soul." Therefore, the ideal situation may be that elitism and popular democracy become two complementary historical wheels. The former forms a responsible, rational and introspective group, rather than a powerful group divorced from the people, while the latter maintains an institutional space for participation, giving a continuous pressure to the increasingly passive and bureaucratic political system, rather than degenerating into elite-hating and irrational populism. This conflict between elitism and popular democracy is particularly extensive, sharp and profound in the public opinion of modern China. Public opinion is the voice of the intellectual elite, so everyone should obey it, or is it rooted in the people and therefore "politically correct"? On this issue, public opinion has been polarized from beginning to end. This was revealed in the understanding of public opinion by the intellectual elites of the Republic of China at that time. The intellectual elites who positively affirm the value of public opinion believe that public opinion expresses rational value and rational power, which comes from the academic training and research experience of intellectual elites. Proceeding from this logic, the intellectual elite is of course the dominator of public opinion, which, in the view of the academic intellectual elite at that time, is neither logically improper nor morally indebted. Public opinion needs public discussion, which requires necessary logic training and knowledge resources. Even the discourse ethics and debate rules necessary for public discussion are the "patents" of intellectual elites. This rational ability of a few people constitutes the most important support point of public opinion. The opposition of public opinion just demonstrates the necessity of rationality from the opposite side. Opponents of public opinion believe that public opinion is a reflection of public emotions and will, and the public will superimposed by public emotions and will is a false publicity in the eyes of the intellectual elite, and may even be the tyranny of the will of the majority and individual autonomy described by the French thinker Tocqueville, which is manifested in the pressure to resist this public opinion. In this sense, the generation of public opinion can not be carried out in accordance with the popular democracy mode of one person, one vote, but must respect the rationality and judgment of the minority (that is, the intellectual elite). Deliberative democracy is particularly important, and respecting the freedom of speech of the minority has become common sense. This is reflected in the understanding of public opinion, which is the conflict between mass democracy (egalitarianism) and elitism. From the typical public opinion in the Republic of China, the public opinion represented by the Weekly of Tianjin Ta Kung Pao and the Free Talk of Shanghai Shen Bao profoundly reflected the split of the intellectual class and the split of China's traditional political heritage-elitism (that is, scholar-bureaucrat politics) in the democratic era. The "Weekly Report" of Ta Kung Pao is an extension of the rational ability of Beiping Academy. Intellectuals from Peking University, Tsinghua and Nankai became undisputed public opinion dominators. The publicity of public opinion is not based on the broadest public opinion, but on the full development of the college. Although political rule should consider the interests of the people, the people may not understand their actual interests, especially their long-term interests. Only the intellectual elite with modern scientific knowledge and discussion ability can truly understand the interests of the country and the people. Therefore, when the opinions of intellectual elites are strongly opposed at the social level, such opposition will not only weaken their confidence in their own rational ability, but will further strengthen their will to resist public opinion. The legitimacy of public opinion lies not in its superposition of the people's will (public opinion may only be the accumulation of "mob" emotions, which come and go without a trace, fleeting and unpredictable), but in its root lies in the reason and even the strength of personality of a few people. Although the rational power of a few people is not dominant in proportion, it is a more objective general will advocated by Rousseau and a rational ability to adjust politics and guide the people's will. As for the "free talk" in Shenbao of the Republic of China, the fact that a few people hold rational patent rights reflects the inequality in the production mechanism of public opinion. A few people dominate public opinion, and the value basis of public opinion will lead to a crisis of legitimacy. Public opinion should represent the broadest public opinion and public interests, and in China society at that time, the working people were the carriers of the people's will. Therefore, public opinion should respect the voice and wishes of this group, and strive to make the opinions of this group expressed, converge into the will of the public, and form the value basis of public opinion. The basis of public opinion should be based on the right of expression of every ordinary person, especially the bottom, rather than the privilege of intellectual elites, and the equality of the right to speak in public space should be pursued as the basic dignity of human beings. Although the individual's will and ability may be insignificant, the public opinion without individual will is inevitably a false "public opinion" without "publicity". Shen Bao's extensive discussion of popular languages in Free Talk reflects how to realize that every ordinary China person has the ability to speak and express words through creative transformation of language forms (some left-wing writers think that the vernacular Chinese created by the May 4th New Culture Movement is too bookish, too knowledgeable and too divorced from the daily language system of working people), thus participating in the construction of public opinion. Representing the bottom has become a moral trademark, a powerful political appeal and even an effective means of political mobilization, because it represents public opinion and people's sovereignty, and public opinion should be the most concerned object of public opinion. The legitimacy of traditional politics comes from the divine transcendence of destiny, justice and heaven to the world. Public opinion and ordinary people are only its carriers, and astrology and disaster are only its symptoms. The legitimacy of modern politics is based on public opinion (including people's consent and people's will). In a secular era, this kind of public opinion is the collective will of the people through various political gatherings, daily chats and opinion polls. Obviously, this public opinion is uncertain in nature. In the deconstruction and construction of modern China's public opinion, the public opinion has the sharpest confrontation at this level. Should it come from the public opinion of the majority or the rationality of the minority? Should public opinion be guided by reason, or should reason be based on public opinion? The value base of public opinion has been clearly divided. In traditional society, although Qing Yi is the patent of scholar-officials' speech, it represents the most extensive public opinion in value, and also represents the rationality full of moral connotation, which is intertwined with the abstract meaning world such as destiny and justice, forming the self-consistency of its own value system. However, the public opinion in modern China seems to have concealed the fire of the split between public opinion and reason from the very beginning. Public opinion, which represents public opinion, often seems to run counter to rationality, while public opinion that completely follows rationality seems to be far from public opinion. Ta Kung Pao's criticism of Weekly Essay lies in its rational conquest of arbitrary will. Whether it is violence and arbitrariness in the political field or rudeness and recklessness in the social field, it is a manifestation of losing the ability to drive slaves to their own will. Rationality becomes the key source of value. However, Shen Bao's criticism of "free talk" lies in its persistence in public opinion, which is sacred to some extent. All words and deeds that go against public opinion are morally losing money. The logic of "free talk" is that the public opinion in China was suppressed by politics and ignored by the intellectual elite of the college. Therefore, expressing public opinion, and even enabling public opinion to express itself, has become an urgent historical issue. In this process, because of this, the public opinion space formed by the "free talk" of Shenbao presents a very sharp critical character. This questioning public opinion can be named deconstruction public opinion. On the basis of resisting, disassembling and mocking the mainstream political discourse, it presents its own openness and aggression. The focus of this public opinion lies in criticism rather than construction, or in seeking a new way of construction with criticism. Weekly Essay also has a strong critical character, but this criticism is supported by a strong and mature academic body, so it often follows the rational guidance and focuses on the road of construction. So it can be called constructive public opinion. The producers of public opinion have realized that public opinion is far away from society and people, but they are still making public opinion in an inherent mode, which further strengthens their doubts and negation of the function of public opinion. There is a hidden connection between spiritual life and public opinion. The spiritual life of self-denial will naturally produce rebellious and nihilistic public opinion, while the spiritual life of self-identity will produce critical and constructive public opinion. This relationship is just like the relationship between academic identity and reproduction of public opinion. The development of academic isomorphism may not promote the strength of public opinion, but without the support of academic isomorphism, especially the contribution of knowledge resources, public opinion is often easy to fall into the self-circulation of monistic discourse and cannot create new cognitive horizons and critical energy. Public opinion may be reduced to public performance. The political power behind public opinion is closely related to political power. In principle, political power should listen to public opinion, and public opinion should represent the wishes and interests of the people. However, in China in the1930s, the connection between the three seems to have been broken. For modern China, the legitimacy of political rule no longer comes from transcendental natural principles and destiny, but must be supported by the secular world. One of the supporting points is public opinion, which is the so-called people's consent. Public opinion has become the most important carrier of public opinion. However, because people do not have enough freedom of expression and channels, how to express public opinion has become a difficult problem. In particular, the ruling party spirit is combined with ideology, and the independent expression of public opinion is squeezed by various social resources, and public opinion is facing strong challenges. Political power tries to discipline public opinion, and public opinion tries to regulate political power, showing complex fuzziness. As far as the history of public opinion in the Republic of China is concerned, both Ta Kung Pao and Shenbao are faced with the problem of striving for expression space and the challenge of how to compete with the authorities. From the two forms of public opinion in the 1930 s, it can be seen that for intellectuals at that time, the sources of social prestige and symbolic capital have been dualized, knowledge and rationality can become the value basis of public opinion, and public opinion can also become another value basis of public opinion. These two kinds of public opinions can accumulate social prestige for intellectuals. In different cultural fields, public opinion will form different cultural logic and discourse inertia. While developing its critical power, public opinion is likely to fall into another kind of manipulation. Looking back at the public opinion and enlightenment culture formed by the intellectual elites in modern China, although it played a certain role in spreading the universal values such as democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity and justice formed by the Western Enlightenment, this enlightenment culture also has its inherent crux: looking down on the people with a condescending attitude, despising the bottom with the mentality of giving up others, and despising common sense with the momentum of truth. It is supposed to lead the people to get the enlightenment of "dare to use reason openly", but it seems to be an ideological indoctrination and propaganda. Originally, it was an enlightenment movement to create equal opportunities in the right of expression, but it seems to be the enlightenment mentality with the least sense of equality and equality. Undoubtedly, this anti-enlightenment culture finally swallowed its own bitter fruit. Without public participation, how can there be public opinion? Once the production mechanism of public opinion is formed and fixed, it will form its own powerful logic and drown the rationality and judgment of the intellectual elite. First-class intellectuals have a clear analysis and conscious resistance to the discourse hegemony of public opinion. They are not only the makers of public opinion, but also try to maintain certain autonomy and independence in front of public opinion. But for other intellectuals, it may not be so calm. People follow the words, especially when there is a giant standing behind the words. Intellectuals vaguely feel that their words are too abstruse and too far away from the real people. Although thousands of people have gone, it is hard to talk.