Exerting and Resisting Power - and Populism
Exerting and Resisting Power - and Populism
When one says things are either this way or that, or that there are two or three or
four types of something or other, it's not true. Virtually all that we encounter in
nature form a spectrum of characteristics that mostly, when graphed, lie on a
normal distribution - or, as we like to call it from its shape, a bell curve because the
bulk of the characteristics are bunched in the middle with extremes on both ends.
People, for example, are tall/short, skinny/fat, intelligent/non-intelligent, etc. in such
a statistical distribution. This is not to disparage generalized groupings; they are an
ability apparently only owned by human beings, helping it to be possible for us to
make important generalized judgments.
With that brief introduction I suggest, and must naturally immediately refute, that
there are two kinds of people: those who want to exert power over others and those
who accept the power others exert over them. Obviously there is a whole spectrum
of response to exerting and resisting power with brutal dictators at one extreme and
on the other people who are content to surrender all power in exchange to being
taken care of. I have been exploring power and its application for a book, particularly
as it applies to "democracy" and became intrigued with this spectrum and its
application to populism.
The word populist is associated with population, and is used to describe politicians
or parties that are "for the people". One might perceive a contradiction there:
democracy and for the people are synonymous, are they not? The legitimacy of a
democratic government is the people. Perhaps, but no government of any nation
state is truly democratic; all are some form of democratic republicanism, meaning
democratic selection of a leadership elite that performs the function of government
in the name of the people. What then of populism? Populism is, and this is my
own definition, pandering to the perceived desires of the people in order to gain
power.
It is my very strong opinion, shared I believe by those that founded our unique form
of democratic republicanism, that those in government have two major
responsibilities: to represent the needs of those that elected them and to do what is
best for the county. The latter, of course, is tough as everyone has their own view of
what the needs of the country are, and it is influenced by the needs of
constituencies. That, incidentally, is why democratic government is so contentious:
there is only tenuous agreement (sometimes) on what is best for the country. But it
is a responsibility of the elite we elect to work that out and then educate their
constituents as to why they reached the agreement they did. That part of the
responsibility is not done well. Why not? Because the ubiquitous power of
communications, particularly television, but also advertising and polls, makes
power easier to achieve by merely pandering to the often uninformed will of the
people: populism.
The famous example, put forth by Scottish professor Tytler in the eighteenth
century, is apt: when the people realize they can vote themselves benefits from the
public treasury, they will, with possibly disastrous results. The people, by their very
animal nature, will look out for themselves first - and their viewpoint will center on
their immediate needs. They don't understand the complexities of economics; they
can't understand consequences of complex actions; and their horizon of interest is
necessarily relatively short - mostly their own lifetimes or less. So they cannot be
expected to look out for the long range best interests of the nation. That is the role
of their more educated, better informed (supposedly) representatives whom they
trust to guide them, right? Once perhaps, but no longer, at least in my opinion.
Today we live in a sound bite immediate environment where history is understood,
if at all, on a very cursory level, but more often discounted as being "irrelevant" - and
entitlement rules. Thus, the growth of populism despite disastrous historical
results. Politicians who ignore economic and historical (cultural) reality in "the
name of the people" have achieved very similar results: they have realized personal
power and ruined their nations. Well known examples: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse
Dung, Robert Mugabe, Castro, Hitler and more recently but not yet complete, Hugo
Chavez.
For the most part the motives of all were at least questionable, with personal power
more important than what was good for the people they ruled. They gained the
power by pandering to the will of the people - lying to them mostly, but sometimes
merely exaggerating expectations - and failed because they were blinded by
personal power and forced to resort to the traditional method to maintain it: violence.
So what of us? Our politicians, because of sound bite knowledge of the people,
coupled with emotional selfishness, are finding that the easiest way to power is to
give us what we want - or at least promise it. And what do we want? Low taxes and
heavy spending on whatever we want at the moment - which is pretty much
everything, along with unrestricted rights and opportunities. It doesn't compute;
resources are never unlimited.
This brings us back to the original two kinds of people. There are those who seek
power and those that want to be taken care of; and those that seek power have
found out that they are more likely to be voted into power by promising to take care of
those who want to be taken care of. But, as we observed, it's not that simple. We
think of those who want to be taken care of as the welfare set, and they are out
there. But how about health care? Social security? And lower taxes? Most of us
with our own needs require some level of support from the government, if only to get
out of our way, and will vote for those who promise it to us; not many of us are above
the populous litany as it relates to health, retirement and taxes, and too few of us
have the knowledge and patience to understand how free enterprise economics
benefits all. Well, almost all; the populists and their media minions are expert at
finding examples of those who have been left behind, despite what some might
have done to put themselves in that position. The message is always the same: it's
not fair for some to have more. The populist message that builds upon that is that
the power seeker will take care of those who need help, not only those that cannot
(or will not) take care of themselves but those who need assistance - with
retirement and health care for instance.
This is not to say that the government does not have a role in retirement and health
care; it is to say that the siren song of care "for the people" despite cost is
dangerous - but increasingly prevalent. When we want it and expect it all now, that
leaves little for tomorrow. Do we care? Do we even think about the
historical/cultural tomorrow? Or day after tomorrow? Can we even elect politicians
today that do not promise us what we want and expect now but never tell us how
they are going to pay for it? We need to be aware of where this is leading us and
think through the messages. Are they for them (the politicians and their own power)
or are they for us and our future? We need understand what is happening and
think a lot harder about the ramifications else we will destroy ourselves by our own
ignorance.
That is the road upon which we are embarked; it's not too late too change - just
very, very difficult.
(See George Will's article, "Declaration of Dependence" at articles by other writers)
When one says things are either this way or that, or that there are two or three or
four types of something or other, it's not true. Virtually all that we encounter in
nature form a spectrum of characteristics that mostly, when graphed, lie on a
normal distribution - or, as we like to call it from its shape, a bell curve because the
bulk of the characteristics are bunched in the middle with extremes on both ends.
People, for example, are tall/short, skinny/fat, intelligent/non-intelligent, etc. in such
a statistical distribution. This is not to disparage generalized groupings; they are an
ability apparently only owned by human beings, helping it to be possible for us to
make important generalized judgments.
With that brief introduction I suggest, and must naturally immediately refute, that
there are two kinds of people: those who want to exert power over others and those
who accept the power others exert over them. Obviously there is a whole spectrum
of response to exerting and resisting power with brutal dictators at one extreme and
on the other people who are content to surrender all power in exchange to being
taken care of. I have been exploring power and its application for a book, particularly
as it applies to "democracy" and became intrigued with this spectrum and its
application to populism.
The word populist is associated with population, and is used to describe politicians
or parties that are "for the people". One might perceive a contradiction there:
democracy and for the people are synonymous, are they not? The legitimacy of a
democratic government is the people. Perhaps, but no government of any nation
state is truly democratic; all are some form of democratic republicanism, meaning
democratic selection of a leadership elite that performs the function of government
in the name of the people. What then of populism? Populism is, and this is my
own definition, pandering to the perceived desires of the people in order to gain
power.
It is my very strong opinion, shared I believe by those that founded our unique form
of democratic republicanism, that those in government have two major
responsibilities: to represent the needs of those that elected them and to do what is
best for the county. The latter, of course, is tough as everyone has their own view of
what the needs of the country are, and it is influenced by the needs of
constituencies. That, incidentally, is why democratic government is so contentious:
there is only tenuous agreement (sometimes) on what is best for the country. But it
is a responsibility of the elite we elect to work that out and then educate their
constituents as to why they reached the agreement they did. That part of the
responsibility is not done well. Why not? Because the ubiquitous power of
communications, particularly television, but also advertising and polls, makes
power easier to achieve by merely pandering to the often uninformed will of the
people: populism.
The famous example, put forth by Scottish professor Tytler in the eighteenth
century, is apt: when the people realize they can vote themselves benefits from the
public treasury, they will, with possibly disastrous results. The people, by their very
animal nature, will look out for themselves first - and their viewpoint will center on
their immediate needs. They don't understand the complexities of economics; they
can't understand consequences of complex actions; and their horizon of interest is
necessarily relatively short - mostly their own lifetimes or less. So they cannot be
expected to look out for the long range best interests of the nation. That is the role
of their more educated, better informed (supposedly) representatives whom they
trust to guide them, right? Once perhaps, but no longer, at least in my opinion.
Today we live in a sound bite immediate environment where history is understood,
if at all, on a very cursory level, but more often discounted as being "irrelevant" - and
entitlement rules. Thus, the growth of populism despite disastrous historical
results. Politicians who ignore economic and historical (cultural) reality in "the
name of the people" have achieved very similar results: they have realized personal
power and ruined their nations. Well known examples: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse
Dung, Robert Mugabe, Castro, Hitler and more recently but not yet complete, Hugo
Chavez.
For the most part the motives of all were at least questionable, with personal power
more important than what was good for the people they ruled. They gained the
power by pandering to the will of the people - lying to them mostly, but sometimes
merely exaggerating expectations - and failed because they were blinded by
personal power and forced to resort to the traditional method to maintain it: violence.
So what of us? Our politicians, because of sound bite knowledge of the people,
coupled with emotional selfishness, are finding that the easiest way to power is to
give us what we want - or at least promise it. And what do we want? Low taxes and
heavy spending on whatever we want at the moment - which is pretty much
everything, along with unrestricted rights and opportunities. It doesn't compute;
resources are never unlimited.
This brings us back to the original two kinds of people. There are those who seek
power and those that want to be taken care of; and those that seek power have
found out that they are more likely to be voted into power by promising to take care of
those who want to be taken care of. But, as we observed, it's not that simple. We
think of those who want to be taken care of as the welfare set, and they are out
there. But how about health care? Social security? And lower taxes? Most of us
with our own needs require some level of support from the government, if only to get
out of our way, and will vote for those who promise it to us; not many of us are above
the populous litany as it relates to health, retirement and taxes, and too few of us
have the knowledge and patience to understand how free enterprise economics
benefits all. Well, almost all; the populists and their media minions are expert at
finding examples of those who have been left behind, despite what some might
have done to put themselves in that position. The message is always the same: it's
not fair for some to have more. The populist message that builds upon that is that
the power seeker will take care of those who need help, not only those that cannot
(or will not) take care of themselves but those who need assistance - with
retirement and health care for instance.
This is not to say that the government does not have a role in retirement and health
care; it is to say that the siren song of care "for the people" despite cost is
dangerous - but increasingly prevalent. When we want it and expect it all now, that
leaves little for tomorrow. Do we care? Do we even think about the
historical/cultural tomorrow? Or day after tomorrow? Can we even elect politicians
today that do not promise us what we want and expect now but never tell us how
they are going to pay for it? We need to be aware of where this is leading us and
think through the messages. Are they for them (the politicians and their own power)
or are they for us and our future? We need understand what is happening and
think a lot harder about the ramifications else we will destroy ourselves by our own
ignorance.
That is the road upon which we are embarked; it's not too late too change - just
very, very difficult.
(See George Will's article, "Declaration of Dependence" at articles by other writers)