The Unfortunate Common Alternative:
Patronage Dealing Populist Oligarchy
Patronage Dealing Populist Oligarchy
What do all those words mean?
Despite what they call themselves this is the
way of most of the world's nations, despite
alleged rule of law, democratic selection
(republicanism), constitutions and
sovereignty of the people.
- Oligarchy is rule of the few (elite) over
the many (masses);
- Populist: appeal to the popular
through aggressive charisma and
effective propaganda;
- Patronage: Choosing who wins and
who loses by awarding special
privileges, or favoritism.
Despite what they call themselves this is the
way of most of the world's nations, despite
alleged rule of law, democratic selection
(republicanism), constitutions and
sovereignty of the people.
The Philosophical Logic, Discussion and Explanation
Men need laws to govern relationships among them.
Many forms of government have been tried, and ultimately all entail the few to provide leadership of the many; the
difference is how sovereignty is determined, that is, how those in leadership are chosen and controlled, and by whom.
With exceptions the current most popular model includes election by "the people." Such nations are universally referred
to as republics, but they come in many hues. Functioning democratic republics feature selection of leaders by voters
through a process of free voting, that is, without coercion or manipulation. Definition, of course, of manipulation and
coercion are murky at best. Socialism, was originally ownership of all property and means of production, but that
definition has probably morphed to control of all property and means of production. Oligarchy is rule of an elite, but today
all those in governing roles are considered elite (at least by themselves), so the difference comes in the control;
oligarchic elites, at least at the extreme, are beyond control of any but the few and thus maintain power at their will; this
generally has to do with constitutions and how easily they can be changed (or ignored), with oligarchies controlling that
process. Obviously the differences among republics, oligarchies and socialist governments is as murky as definitions of
coercion and manipulation. The differences as I am attempting to use them have to do mostly with control: democratic
republics replace leadership through the sovereignty of the people with regular votes and consistent rules; oligarchies
are controlled by their elites one way or another with only cursory concern for sovereignty of the people. Socialism is a
combination of the two.
The purpose of this exercise is to discuss oligarchies as I have just tried to define them, how they are formed and
remain in power, and how and why they differ from functioning democratic republics - all, naturally, in light of my
definitions and interpretations that are open to disagreement, including disagreement with myself. As I have said before,
stating something and making the case for it in writing are entirely different exercises, which is why I pursue the latter in
these pages.
Populism is strategy and tactics. As I intend to use it it entails a means of appealing to the people for their votes
primarily by promising them what they want, and using charismatic means to do it. Where does charisma become
manipulation and coercion? We shall see, perhaps; at least we shall have the opportunity to try.
Patronage is the awarding of favors, and in the minds of many, the reason for pursuing a career in politics. Why else, it
might be asked, would one want to be a politician, save to be in a position to determine winners and bestow favors?
That is cynical; many would argue for an altruistic objective; but I would argue that altruism is in the mind of the altruizer.
In any event it all comes down to power - the power to mold government to one's desired ends, and that includes
patronage for those who are favored, for whatever reason. All forms of government include some form of patronage.
Men need laws to govern relationships among them.
- Without laws self interest will rule and the weak will be dominated by the strong.
- Initially such laws were provided by faith in a supreme being that men, encouraged by priests, feared.
- As the world modernized and secularized, and faith was no longer universally shared, states took on the
responsibility of making the laws that governed relationships: "The whole premise of the modern state, is
sovereignty - namely, that nothing is beyond its reach" (Angelo M. Codevilla, The Character of Nations,
2009, p. 173).
- If there were no laws (either religious or secular) what would be the incentive to resist the temptation to
anarchy? There would be one, and that would be that those that are weak would ban together to protect
themselves from those that are strong, and that's ultimately how modern states came to be, although
almost always under a leader who had the strength to make it happen - strength being economic and
military.
Many forms of government have been tried, and ultimately all entail the few to provide leadership of the many; the
difference is how sovereignty is determined, that is, how those in leadership are chosen and controlled, and by whom.
With exceptions the current most popular model includes election by "the people." Such nations are universally referred
to as republics, but they come in many hues. Functioning democratic republics feature selection of leaders by voters
through a process of free voting, that is, without coercion or manipulation. Definition, of course, of manipulation and
coercion are murky at best. Socialism, was originally ownership of all property and means of production, but that
definition has probably morphed to control of all property and means of production. Oligarchy is rule of an elite, but today
all those in governing roles are considered elite (at least by themselves), so the difference comes in the control;
oligarchic elites, at least at the extreme, are beyond control of any but the few and thus maintain power at their will; this
generally has to do with constitutions and how easily they can be changed (or ignored), with oligarchies controlling that
process. Obviously the differences among republics, oligarchies and socialist governments is as murky as definitions of
coercion and manipulation. The differences as I am attempting to use them have to do mostly with control: democratic
republics replace leadership through the sovereignty of the people with regular votes and consistent rules; oligarchies
are controlled by their elites one way or another with only cursory concern for sovereignty of the people. Socialism is a
combination of the two.
The purpose of this exercise is to discuss oligarchies as I have just tried to define them, how they are formed and
remain in power, and how and why they differ from functioning democratic republics - all, naturally, in light of my
definitions and interpretations that are open to disagreement, including disagreement with myself. As I have said before,
stating something and making the case for it in writing are entirely different exercises, which is why I pursue the latter in
these pages.
Populism is strategy and tactics. As I intend to use it it entails a means of appealing to the people for their votes
primarily by promising them what they want, and using charismatic means to do it. Where does charisma become
manipulation and coercion? We shall see, perhaps; at least we shall have the opportunity to try.
Patronage is the awarding of favors, and in the minds of many, the reason for pursuing a career in politics. Why else, it
might be asked, would one want to be a politician, save to be in a position to determine winners and bestow favors?
That is cynical; many would argue for an altruistic objective; but I would argue that altruism is in the mind of the altruizer.
In any event it all comes down to power - the power to mold government to one's desired ends, and that includes
patronage for those who are favored, for whatever reason. All forms of government include some form of patronage.
The Reality of oligarchy
The basis of oligarchy is the belief that the elite (however they might
identify themselves) are superior to all the rest and must lead them in a
way that is right and just, as defined by them.
One of the first things that happens in an oligarchic government is that
the elite find a way to gain and hold power, often by just changing the
constitution. It is their right to rule, and rule they must.
In many republics cum oligarchies the people and their votes are an
inconvenience, but to maintain the illusion of sovereignty of the people,
the elite must go through the motions of winning elections. Depending
on the oligarchy they do it however they must. The most democratic way
is to convince voters; another is to intimidate them; yet another is to
cheat. The end justifies the means.
"Democratic" (i.e. republican) oligarchies must create at least the fiction
of popular support, and they do so via whatever means is necessary.
Since republican oligarchies often gain power through populism, they
woo the populace with promises. But the resources to fulfill promises
are seldom adequate to satisfy them, so maintaining power often
(usually?) succumbs to force of one kind or another, since power
maintenance is always the goal.
As a result, many oligarchies are forced to resort to force, or as it has
become known, fascism.
The true test of oligarchy vis a vis republicanism is transfer of power.
Republicanism supports it; oligarchy does everything it can to preclude it.
The basis of oligarchy is the belief that the elite (however they might
identify themselves) are superior to all the rest and must lead them in a
way that is right and just, as defined by them.
One of the first things that happens in an oligarchic government is that
the elite find a way to gain and hold power, often by just changing the
constitution. It is their right to rule, and rule they must.
In many republics cum oligarchies the people and their votes are an
inconvenience, but to maintain the illusion of sovereignty of the people,
the elite must go through the motions of winning elections. Depending
on the oligarchy they do it however they must. The most democratic way
is to convince voters; another is to intimidate them; yet another is to
cheat. The end justifies the means.
"Democratic" (i.e. republican) oligarchies must create at least the fiction
of popular support, and they do so via whatever means is necessary.
Since republican oligarchies often gain power through populism, they
woo the populace with promises. But the resources to fulfill promises
are seldom adequate to satisfy them, so maintaining power often
(usually?) succumbs to force of one kind or another, since power
maintenance is always the goal.
As a result, many oligarchies are forced to resort to force, or as it has
become known, fascism.
The true test of oligarchy vis a vis republicanism is transfer of power.
Republicanism supports it; oligarchy does everything it can to preclude it.
Governing takes capability and experience, thus those
who rule must be knowledgeable and capable
(supposedly, to do it right). Therefore all rule will
ultimately be accomplished by an elite, however
selected. Rule by the inexperienced or incapable is
always a disaster.
Here is the dichotomy; the elite will rule; they must, if
governing is to be rational and successful. The ruled
need and deserve experienced rulers.
So the question is how will the ruled (voters) make the
determination of which of the elite who offer
themselves (if in fact the nation in question allows
them to do so) are the most qualified to rule?
The argument that ruling must be left to the elite is
certainly arguable but in the long run probably valid.
But since power can be corrupting, how do the people
(if sovereign) maintain control? That is the challenge
republics face.
Unfortunately, most voters are not eminently qualified
to make it, particularly when they are bombarded by
manipulative propaganda or intimidation - or bribery?
An impartial media is supposed to help, but media
can also be manipulated - or can manipulate itself.
The wrong choice may result in shifting from a
republican oligarchy to one of another stripe if power
does in fact corrupt the chosen, and becomes overly
consolidated.
who rule must be knowledgeable and capable
(supposedly, to do it right). Therefore all rule will
ultimately be accomplished by an elite, however
selected. Rule by the inexperienced or incapable is
always a disaster.
Here is the dichotomy; the elite will rule; they must, if
governing is to be rational and successful. The ruled
need and deserve experienced rulers.
So the question is how will the ruled (voters) make the
determination of which of the elite who offer
themselves (if in fact the nation in question allows
them to do so) are the most qualified to rule?
The argument that ruling must be left to the elite is
certainly arguable but in the long run probably valid.
But since power can be corrupting, how do the people
(if sovereign) maintain control? That is the challenge
republics face.
Unfortunately, most voters are not eminently qualified
to make it, particularly when they are bombarded by
manipulative propaganda or intimidation - or bribery?
An impartial media is supposed to help, but media
can also be manipulated - or can manipulate itself.
The wrong choice may result in shifting from a
republican oligarchy to one of another stripe if power
does in fact corrupt the chosen, and becomes overly
consolidated.
Power
Like it or not that's what it's all about - power, from whatever
motivation: power to create what the power seeker KNOWS is
right, power to distribute patronage - to select winners and
eliminate losers, power to provide luxury for the power seeker
(they deserve it, right? And they know their subjects expect it
for them); and they also know "the people" need them to
retain power - for their own good. This is the case regardless
of how the leader assumes power. This is elitism.
The key - always - is how power is utilized and for whom - or
what. Though it cannot be assumed that all power is used
selfishly or for personal purposes, much of it is, at least
partially, so that contingency must be guarded against to the
extent that's possible. On the other hand different power
proponents have different views of how power should be
used and for what, so it is unlikely they will agree on many
matters, including what constitutes abuse of power.
Along these lines it is useful to understand the ways in
which power can be restrained to offer possibility of any
success, rather than just for the benefit of the power holder.
Thus in a republican environment there are prerequisites,
such as rule of law, separation of powers, checks and
balances - and a significant and functioning middle class,
without which success is difficult at best. This is based on
the US model, which is certainly not the only one, and many
functioning democracies deviate from it in many ways.
Like it or not that's what it's all about - power, from whatever
motivation: power to create what the power seeker KNOWS is
right, power to distribute patronage - to select winners and
eliminate losers, power to provide luxury for the power seeker
(they deserve it, right? And they know their subjects expect it
for them); and they also know "the people" need them to
retain power - for their own good. This is the case regardless
of how the leader assumes power. This is elitism.
The key - always - is how power is utilized and for whom - or
what. Though it cannot be assumed that all power is used
selfishly or for personal purposes, much of it is, at least
partially, so that contingency must be guarded against to the
extent that's possible. On the other hand different power
proponents have different views of how power should be
used and for what, so it is unlikely they will agree on many
matters, including what constitutes abuse of power.
Along these lines it is useful to understand the ways in
which power can be restrained to offer possibility of any
success, rather than just for the benefit of the power holder.
Thus in a republican environment there are prerequisites,
such as rule of law, separation of powers, checks and
balances - and a significant and functioning middle class,
without which success is difficult at best. This is based on
the US model, which is certainly not the only one, and many
functioning democracies deviate from it in many ways.
- Rule of law creates a relatively level playing
field and consistency that leads to the
confidence that things will remain as they were
when basic economic decisions were made.
- Separation of powers helps to preclude an
individual or elite clique from cornering power
for themselves to the detriment of others.
- Checks and balances provide the capability of
each separated power to check the other, to
preclude the same power assumption.
- A functioning middle class is necessary for
several reasons. Ability to choose effective
leaders is one. Ability to support necessary
checks and balances is another. But the most
important is to provide the economic base -
and knowledge - to underpin the entire
structure. Good governance is almost
impossible with weak economics; in fact
weakening economics also weaken
government. Good finances are essential for
effective governance, particularly within a
democratic republic. Middle class provides an
important depth to elite.
My definitions, by the way.
Republic Versus Oligarchy
As anyone who might read the above readily discerns, the difference
between a "republic" and an "oligarchy" is not obvious - or clearly
defined for that matter. My initial thinking was that if oligarchy is rule of
elite then a republic is a form of oligarchy. But in presenting my subject
I immediately make argument that suggests otherwise. Which is it? I
think the definitions are murky enough that either argument can be
made depending on the intention of the arguer. This is particularly so
when a dividing line is sought because it is not a line, but a region, and
it is likely to look different with each entity observed.
For example, what about constitutions? The US developed (under
pressure) a means to change our Constitution. Many nations that
consider themselves republics are comfortable making such changes
by a majority vote in the legislature. History tells us that the latter is
susceptible to strong man pressure that tramples on the "rights" of a
minority, if an intent to protect it even exists. To argue that constitutions
can never be changed is not supportable; but to argue that they can be
changed at will is dangerous to citizen sovereignty - or can be. The US
Constitution has been changed in several significant ways. Senators
were originally elected by state legislators in the interest of protecting
federalism; now they are elected by popular ballot within the states.
There are those who would elect the president the same way,
nationally, thereby seriously undercutting federalism and state
sovereignty. What is the importance of state sovereignty? Without it,
with a majority of the population concentrated in urban areas, effectively
the country would be ruled in accordance with the interests of the half
dozen or dozen major cities, to the detriment of rural interests. What
impact would that have? Interstate commerce recognition (another
Constitutional change) has already shown some of that effect: virtually
all commerce is now interstate, giving the federal government
opportunity to insert itself into almost anything it wants to, including
schools, where it has made strong gains in that direction.
Toqueville, in his renowned tome, Democracy in America, called local
control the basis of America's strength. French politician Allain
Payrefette, in his book, The Problem With France, agreed and made
much of the fact that France lacks such distinction to its detriment. But
times change, and some might argue that the views of neither
Frenchman are any longer apt.
So, what of the differences that distinguish between a government we
would call an republic and one we would call an oligarchy?
As anyone who might read the above readily discerns, the difference
between a "republic" and an "oligarchy" is not obvious - or clearly
defined for that matter. My initial thinking was that if oligarchy is rule of
elite then a republic is a form of oligarchy. But in presenting my subject
I immediately make argument that suggests otherwise. Which is it? I
think the definitions are murky enough that either argument can be
made depending on the intention of the arguer. This is particularly so
when a dividing line is sought because it is not a line, but a region, and
it is likely to look different with each entity observed.
For example, what about constitutions? The US developed (under
pressure) a means to change our Constitution. Many nations that
consider themselves republics are comfortable making such changes
by a majority vote in the legislature. History tells us that the latter is
susceptible to strong man pressure that tramples on the "rights" of a
minority, if an intent to protect it even exists. To argue that constitutions
can never be changed is not supportable; but to argue that they can be
changed at will is dangerous to citizen sovereignty - or can be. The US
Constitution has been changed in several significant ways. Senators
were originally elected by state legislators in the interest of protecting
federalism; now they are elected by popular ballot within the states.
There are those who would elect the president the same way,
nationally, thereby seriously undercutting federalism and state
sovereignty. What is the importance of state sovereignty? Without it,
with a majority of the population concentrated in urban areas, effectively
the country would be ruled in accordance with the interests of the half
dozen or dozen major cities, to the detriment of rural interests. What
impact would that have? Interstate commerce recognition (another
Constitutional change) has already shown some of that effect: virtually
all commerce is now interstate, giving the federal government
opportunity to insert itself into almost anything it wants to, including
schools, where it has made strong gains in that direction.
Toqueville, in his renowned tome, Democracy in America, called local
control the basis of America's strength. French politician Allain
Payrefette, in his book, The Problem With France, agreed and made
much of the fact that France lacks such distinction to its detriment. But
times change, and some might argue that the views of neither
Frenchman are any longer apt.
So, what of the differences that distinguish between a government we
would call an republic and one we would call an oligarchy?
America: Republic or Oligarchy?
To keep this discussion within reasonable bounds, I need to
confine it here to the United States only, as all republics would
have to be evaluated separately each on its own merits. So,
America, Republic or Oligarchy? No question, we would say -
republic. But consider that according to several observations,
the first of which I read about in Business Week Magazine
several years ago, and since corroborated, there are only a
handful of congressional districts that can be considered
competitive anymore, since congressmen (congress persons?)
have colluded to gerrymander districts in such a way that all the
rest are predominantly of one party or the other. Why would they
do that? Because politics is a career path and those who have
achieved this pinnacle of achievement consider themselves to
be the elite of our nation. They know better than any how it
should be governed, and are convinced they should remain to
do it. Ah, you say, but they don't agree on how it should be
governed. That's all right, it is for them to wrestle with, and
together, by doing what they do; it will all turn out for the best - at
least better than any conceivable alternative: rule of the elite. So
is the United States an oligarchy or a republic? I am arguing it is
an oligarchic republic, ostensibly democratically elected,
becoming both more democratic and more oligarchic at the
same time, at different levels.
Politicians, each in their own way depending on the policies of
party, are a very arrogant group of people. By and large they are
conceited, basking in their charisma, and wallowing in their own
self worth, and they really believe they are ordained to rule.
Sounds a little like the old monarchies, doesn't it? But at least in
some cases with less feeling of responsibility. Since the people
are really not qualified to rule (through lack of knowledge - of
politics) they (we) are often relegated to a mass of statistics. Do
they listen to us? If we have the numbers to threaten their
careers, or if we donate enough to their campaigns (to support
their careers) to warrant attention they do. Agreeing with them
helps too. But if congressional districts are gerrymandered to
create safe districts the chance of that is possibly better than it
would were they more randomly drawn. Politicians are almost
always more highly respected in their own districts than
politicians are in general; we don't like politicians, but we tend to
like our own - after all we elected them and they reflect our views;
we know because they tell us they do.
I contend that we must recognize the oligarchic nature of
politicians, and the government in which they rule in such
splendor, to understand our government and the direction in
which it is moving. This is not the republic that was created in
1787, nor should we expect it to be; differences between a poor,
sparsely populated agrarian society and today's powerful, rich,
rather arrogant society are night and day. Changes are
inevitable; but what changes? Even oligarch-ism is inevitable, in
some form. So how to maintain what is good of the original but
still functional for the modern? That is the challenge for the
sovereign people. It is a powerful responsibility, requiring far
more than emotional reaction.
To keep this discussion within reasonable bounds, I need to
confine it here to the United States only, as all republics would
have to be evaluated separately each on its own merits. So,
America, Republic or Oligarchy? No question, we would say -
republic. But consider that according to several observations,
the first of which I read about in Business Week Magazine
several years ago, and since corroborated, there are only a
handful of congressional districts that can be considered
competitive anymore, since congressmen (congress persons?)
have colluded to gerrymander districts in such a way that all the
rest are predominantly of one party or the other. Why would they
do that? Because politics is a career path and those who have
achieved this pinnacle of achievement consider themselves to
be the elite of our nation. They know better than any how it
should be governed, and are convinced they should remain to
do it. Ah, you say, but they don't agree on how it should be
governed. That's all right, it is for them to wrestle with, and
together, by doing what they do; it will all turn out for the best - at
least better than any conceivable alternative: rule of the elite. So
is the United States an oligarchy or a republic? I am arguing it is
an oligarchic republic, ostensibly democratically elected,
becoming both more democratic and more oligarchic at the
same time, at different levels.
Politicians, each in their own way depending on the policies of
party, are a very arrogant group of people. By and large they are
conceited, basking in their charisma, and wallowing in their own
self worth, and they really believe they are ordained to rule.
Sounds a little like the old monarchies, doesn't it? But at least in
some cases with less feeling of responsibility. Since the people
are really not qualified to rule (through lack of knowledge - of
politics) they (we) are often relegated to a mass of statistics. Do
they listen to us? If we have the numbers to threaten their
careers, or if we donate enough to their campaigns (to support
their careers) to warrant attention they do. Agreeing with them
helps too. But if congressional districts are gerrymandered to
create safe districts the chance of that is possibly better than it
would were they more randomly drawn. Politicians are almost
always more highly respected in their own districts than
politicians are in general; we don't like politicians, but we tend to
like our own - after all we elected them and they reflect our views;
we know because they tell us they do.
I contend that we must recognize the oligarchic nature of
politicians, and the government in which they rule in such
splendor, to understand our government and the direction in
which it is moving. This is not the republic that was created in
1787, nor should we expect it to be; differences between a poor,
sparsely populated agrarian society and today's powerful, rich,
rather arrogant society are night and day. Changes are
inevitable; but what changes? Even oligarch-ism is inevitable, in
some form. So how to maintain what is good of the original but
still functional for the modern? That is the challenge for the
sovereign people. It is a powerful responsibility, requiring far
more than emotional reaction.
The Rest of the World
To oversimplify, the rest of the world is different. And each
government, as each nation, tends to reflect its history and its
culture. That is to be expected.
What is interesting is that this rest of the world is more
aware of the United States than the United States is aware of
them. And because of the rhetoric of America's politicians
which the people believe (sort of, when it is their interest to do
so) that we care and will do something about the challenges
and unfairness to which they (the rest of the world) are
subjected. One might argue that we really do care; we send
aid and development money, much of which, unfortunately, is
not used for the intended purposes and more of which is
squandered through ineptness and indifference.
This is the case for a number of reasons. One is that we
really do not understand what is going on, and why, because
we understand neither the cultures nor the facts; and we
believe most of the official statements issued, which are
often self-serving. I contend that the main reason this is so is
that we insist on viewing the world through our own prisms. If
they are "democracies" they are like us; they think like us and
conduct business much the same we do. We want to believe
this. Aid groups for example are told not to mix into politics -
even if it is the politics that generated the problem in the first
place. But that, they will contend, is not their problem.
That problem is exacerbated, however, by news coverage.
The media, always overextended and becoming more so,
tends to follow the "big" stories - those that titillate their
readership/viewership, as the stories build, as the media
shapes them. But the big draw in the West is always
television, and if there are no pictures, there tends to be no
coverage. Foreign oligarchies know this only too well, and do
their best to keep photographers away from what they don't
want known.
As a result we really don't understand, and have little
enough interest to understand because we don't know
enough about it to have the requisite curiosity to try. We send
money, right? And food? Let's face it, our compassion is in
many ways superficial; can I say that much of it is based on
making us feel good?
On the other hand it is also shaped by NGOs (non
government organizations) that, having been admonished to
stay out of politics quietly indulge in their own unique
ministrations, about which most feel strongly, if sometimes
naively. And one must never forget that NGOs are also a
career path to be pursued - and protected.
To oversimplify, the rest of the world is different. And each
government, as each nation, tends to reflect its history and its
culture. That is to be expected.
What is interesting is that this rest of the world is more
aware of the United States than the United States is aware of
them. And because of the rhetoric of America's politicians
which the people believe (sort of, when it is their interest to do
so) that we care and will do something about the challenges
and unfairness to which they (the rest of the world) are
subjected. One might argue that we really do care; we send
aid and development money, much of which, unfortunately, is
not used for the intended purposes and more of which is
squandered through ineptness and indifference.
This is the case for a number of reasons. One is that we
really do not understand what is going on, and why, because
we understand neither the cultures nor the facts; and we
believe most of the official statements issued, which are
often self-serving. I contend that the main reason this is so is
that we insist on viewing the world through our own prisms. If
they are "democracies" they are like us; they think like us and
conduct business much the same we do. We want to believe
this. Aid groups for example are told not to mix into politics -
even if it is the politics that generated the problem in the first
place. But that, they will contend, is not their problem.
That problem is exacerbated, however, by news coverage.
The media, always overextended and becoming more so,
tends to follow the "big" stories - those that titillate their
readership/viewership, as the stories build, as the media
shapes them. But the big draw in the West is always
television, and if there are no pictures, there tends to be no
coverage. Foreign oligarchies know this only too well, and do
their best to keep photographers away from what they don't
want known.
As a result we really don't understand, and have little
enough interest to understand because we don't know
enough about it to have the requisite curiosity to try. We send
money, right? And food? Let's face it, our compassion is in
many ways superficial; can I say that much of it is based on
making us feel good?
On the other hand it is also shaped by NGOs (non
government organizations) that, having been admonished to
stay out of politics quietly indulge in their own unique
ministrations, about which most feel strongly, if sometimes
naively. And one must never forget that NGOs are also a
career path to be pursued - and protected.
Following (below and next pages) is a collection of more
excerpts taken from books that discuss the world's history of
political intrigue in the name of democracy, but reflecting
oligarchy, paternalism, populism and patronage. It is not
organized, just presented as collected.
excerpts taken from books that discuss the world's history of
political intrigue in the name of democracy, but reflecting
oligarchy, paternalism, populism and patronage. It is not
organized, just presented as collected.
More Reality
Nature abhors a vacuum; that includes a power vacuum.
All indications are that a trend toward "protectionist states" -
nanny states, has been on the increase for some time, mainly
because people are having greater and greater difficulty in
handling life (economics) without help, largely (in my opinion -
at least in the US and Europe) because of the shift from being
agrarian to being urban (impacting individual survivability).
This necessarily results in bigger government - to handle all
the additional services that are demanded.
The trend has also been toward "elected" governments, but,
as I have tried to point out, truly elected governments require a
strong, knowledgeable and committed middle class. Where
that does not exist - i.e. where there is a vacuum - the elite will
assume and try to hold power - oligarchy. I think this is
happening in more and more countries across the world.
It begins with populist promises coupled with voter ignorance
of the reality of politics (and economics) - to wit, there are
inadequate resources for everyone to have everything he wants
and feels entitled to. It progresses through professional
politicians doing whatever is required to cling to power.
Historically the result has been deterioration of incentive,
reduction in standards of living, and recourse to increased use
of power to maintain order and preserve control for the elite.
I think this is already happening, and the people, either
voluntarily or through powerlessness are learning to accept it.
When there is weakness the powerful step in to that vacuum,
however they can. When the model is popular vote the means
is using the cornering of it to create an oligarchic state that is
republican in name only. Does this sound dramatic? It
shouldn't; it isn't; it is the way things are and have always been;
it has happened often, and is happening every day still. As
democracies are not all the same, neither are oligarchies. The
US oligarchy-in-process, for example has the advantage of a
$13T economy that all other nations lack. The change will be
gradual - it has been occurring for a number of decades - and
its ultimate form is neither fixed nor inevitable.
What will the American republican oligarchy look like as it
develops? It is already developing, so what does it look like?
How will it evolve? We can only wait and see; it will depend on
the citizens of our country.
Nature abhors a vacuum; that includes a power vacuum.
All indications are that a trend toward "protectionist states" -
nanny states, has been on the increase for some time, mainly
because people are having greater and greater difficulty in
handling life (economics) without help, largely (in my opinion -
at least in the US and Europe) because of the shift from being
agrarian to being urban (impacting individual survivability).
This necessarily results in bigger government - to handle all
the additional services that are demanded.
The trend has also been toward "elected" governments, but,
as I have tried to point out, truly elected governments require a
strong, knowledgeable and committed middle class. Where
that does not exist - i.e. where there is a vacuum - the elite will
assume and try to hold power - oligarchy. I think this is
happening in more and more countries across the world.
It begins with populist promises coupled with voter ignorance
of the reality of politics (and economics) - to wit, there are
inadequate resources for everyone to have everything he wants
and feels entitled to. It progresses through professional
politicians doing whatever is required to cling to power.
Historically the result has been deterioration of incentive,
reduction in standards of living, and recourse to increased use
of power to maintain order and preserve control for the elite.
I think this is already happening, and the people, either
voluntarily or through powerlessness are learning to accept it.
When there is weakness the powerful step in to that vacuum,
however they can. When the model is popular vote the means
is using the cornering of it to create an oligarchic state that is
republican in name only. Does this sound dramatic? It
shouldn't; it isn't; it is the way things are and have always been;
it has happened often, and is happening every day still. As
democracies are not all the same, neither are oligarchies. The
US oligarchy-in-process, for example has the advantage of a
$13T economy that all other nations lack. The change will be
gradual - it has been occurring for a number of decades - and
its ultimate form is neither fixed nor inevitable.
What will the American republican oligarchy look like as it
develops? It is already developing, so what does it look like?
How will it evolve? We can only wait and see; it will depend on
the citizens of our country.
The American Republic and Federalism
We are missing one thing, however, when discussing the American
Republic, the United States: even beyond rule of law, separation of
powers and checks and balances, there is Federalism. The founders
had one overriding fear, and that was of too much accumulated central
power, but they were aided by a mistrust of each of the individual
states for each other, and their unwillingness to give up their
sovereignty. From that our Constitution evolved, and within it
Federalism is a corner stone.
In the Constitution the central government only has authority over that
which has been enumerated therein, all the rest resides with the
states. But that's only the half of it, since the same basic principle
extends to within states, to cities and counties; it is that
decentralization that has made the United States such a bastion of
liberty, and so vibrantly dynamic. Tocqueville (Democracy In America),
in discussing the roll of townships, put it this way: "local assemblies of
citizens constitute the strength of free nations...A nation may establish
a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal
institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty." He went on to say,
"Those who dread the licence of the mob, and those who fear the rule
of absolute power, ought alike to desire the progressive growth of
provincial liberties."
Both Tocqueville and Alain Peyrefitte (The Trouble With France), both
French, from different eras, point to the fact that beyond local level
politics is far more likely to be political than at the ground roots, making
accomplishing things far more difficult due to wielding of the power by
creatures so employed in central government bureaucracies. It is also
readily apparent that a one size fits all approach in a country of over
300 million souls is bound to run into numerous obstacles.
Oligarchy, however, is above all that. Oligarchs are far more interested
in control for individual power (theirs) than they are in individual liberty
(others'), or for that matter getting things done at the local level; that
has little importance to oligarchs. Both Tocqueville and Peyrefitte
make it quite clear that this constitutes the difference between
American dynamism and French malaise, or sickness as it is called by
Henry IV (1599), Ernest Renan (1859), Georges Clemenceau (1913),
Henri Count of Paris (1954) and Charles de Gaulle (1966).
Modernity and urbanization have caused need to chip away at
"provincial liberties" and public indifference - or ignorance - has
allowed it to happen without significant push-back, and as a result the
republic is slowly morphing from a federalist state to an oligarchic one,
although the transformation is not yet complete. The way in which that
transformation continues should be a matter of concern. Whether it
will or not remains to be seen.
We are missing one thing, however, when discussing the American
Republic, the United States: even beyond rule of law, separation of
powers and checks and balances, there is Federalism. The founders
had one overriding fear, and that was of too much accumulated central
power, but they were aided by a mistrust of each of the individual
states for each other, and their unwillingness to give up their
sovereignty. From that our Constitution evolved, and within it
Federalism is a corner stone.
In the Constitution the central government only has authority over that
which has been enumerated therein, all the rest resides with the
states. But that's only the half of it, since the same basic principle
extends to within states, to cities and counties; it is that
decentralization that has made the United States such a bastion of
liberty, and so vibrantly dynamic. Tocqueville (Democracy In America),
in discussing the roll of townships, put it this way: "local assemblies of
citizens constitute the strength of free nations...A nation may establish
a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal
institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty." He went on to say,
"Those who dread the licence of the mob, and those who fear the rule
of absolute power, ought alike to desire the progressive growth of
provincial liberties."
Both Tocqueville and Alain Peyrefitte (The Trouble With France), both
French, from different eras, point to the fact that beyond local level
politics is far more likely to be political than at the ground roots, making
accomplishing things far more difficult due to wielding of the power by
creatures so employed in central government bureaucracies. It is also
readily apparent that a one size fits all approach in a country of over
300 million souls is bound to run into numerous obstacles.
Oligarchy, however, is above all that. Oligarchs are far more interested
in control for individual power (theirs) than they are in individual liberty
(others'), or for that matter getting things done at the local level; that
has little importance to oligarchs. Both Tocqueville and Peyrefitte
make it quite clear that this constitutes the difference between
American dynamism and French malaise, or sickness as it is called by
Henry IV (1599), Ernest Renan (1859), Georges Clemenceau (1913),
Henri Count of Paris (1954) and Charles de Gaulle (1966).
Modernity and urbanization have caused need to chip away at
"provincial liberties" and public indifference - or ignorance - has
allowed it to happen without significant push-back, and as a result the
republic is slowly morphing from a federalist state to an oligarchic one,
although the transformation is not yet complete. The way in which that
transformation continues should be a matter of concern. Whether it
will or not remains to be seen.
Michael Ignatieff, in Isaiah Berlin - A Life, discussing Berlin's
philosophies:
" The Enlightenment Philosophes, assumed that human
values could be derived from facts about human nature. They
believed that all men wanted the same things and that these
things were not in conflict."
"A person who has negative liberty - freedom of action or
thought - might none the less lack positive liberty, the capacity
to develop his or her innermost nature to the full."
"The human desire to be relieved of the burden of choice
might lead the West to hand the dilemmas of public and
private life over to experts, politicians, psychotherapists and
other 'engineers of human souls'."
philosophies:
" The Enlightenment Philosophes, assumed that human
values could be derived from facts about human nature. They
believed that all men wanted the same things and that these
things were not in conflict."
"A person who has negative liberty - freedom of action or
thought - might none the less lack positive liberty, the capacity
to develop his or her innermost nature to the full."
"The human desire to be relieved of the burden of choice
might lead the West to hand the dilemmas of public and
private life over to experts, politicians, psychotherapists and
other 'engineers of human souls'."
Paul A. Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift:
"The Nations of his (Tocqueville's) time might not be able to
escape the etat social (state social condition) but it was up to
them to determine whether 'equality is to lead them to
servitude or liberty."
"At the deepest level...the putative catastrophe identified by
Rousseau has less to do with the distribution of property and
progress in the sciences and arts per se than with the impact
on human psychology of the opportunities that social and
economic dynamism afford for men of talent to excel and the
social inequity produced thereby...such is the indictment that
Rousseau levels at what he taught us to call with contempt
and disdain bourgeois society."
"The Nations of his (Tocqueville's) time might not be able to
escape the etat social (state social condition) but it was up to
them to determine whether 'equality is to lead them to
servitude or liberty."
"At the deepest level...the putative catastrophe identified by
Rousseau has less to do with the distribution of property and
progress in the sciences and arts per se than with the impact
on human psychology of the opportunities that social and
economic dynamism afford for men of talent to excel and the
social inequity produced thereby...such is the indictment that
Rousseau levels at what he taught us to call with contempt
and disdain bourgeois society."
Liberty, Equality, Freedom,
Democracy - and Oligarchy
Democracy - and Oligarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, Warrior Politics, quoting Samuel
Huntington in Political Order in Changing Societies:
"The most important political distinction among countries
concerns not their form of government but their degree of
government. The differences between democracy and
dictatorship are less than the differences between those
countries whose politics embodies consensus, community,
legitimacy, organization, effectiveness, stability , and those
countries whose politics is deficient in those qualities."
Huntington in Political Order in Changing Societies:
"The most important political distinction among countries
concerns not their form of government but their degree of
government. The differences between democracy and
dictatorship are less than the differences between those
countries whose politics embodies consensus, community,
legitimacy, organization, effectiveness, stability , and those
countries whose politics is deficient in those qualities."
Fareed Zacharia, The Future of Freedom:
"The centuries-old method of lawmaking by legislature requires
debate and deliberation, takes opposition views into account, crafts
compromises, and thus produces laws that are regarded as
legitimate even by the people who disagree with them."
"Eventually people will define democracy by what it has become: a
system, open and accessible in theory, but ruled in reality by
organized or rich or fanatical minorities, protecting themselves for the
present and sacrificing the future."
"A relatively small group of people - perhaps 1 million or 0.5 percent of
the country - runs most of the major institutions in the United States or
has influence in other ways."
"The centuries-old method of lawmaking by legislature requires
debate and deliberation, takes opposition views into account, crafts
compromises, and thus produces laws that are regarded as
legitimate even by the people who disagree with them."
"Eventually people will define democracy by what it has become: a
system, open and accessible in theory, but ruled in reality by
organized or rich or fanatical minorities, protecting themselves for the
present and sacrificing the future."
"A relatively small group of people - perhaps 1 million or 0.5 percent of
the country - runs most of the major institutions in the United States or
has influence in other ways."
More Reality of Oligarchy
Oligarchy is the rule of a few. In 1911 Robert Michels, in a book entitled
Political Parties, put forward the theory known as “the iron law of
oligarchy (link way above).” I ran across it in another book, Albion’s
Seed, where David Hackett Fischer referred to it in discussing what he
called the cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy.
of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most
of the major institutions in the United States or has influence in other
ways.”
Charles Murray (Real Education): “The proposition is not that
America’s future should depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s future does depend
on an elite that runs the country.”
Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism): (referring to H.G. Wells) “Throughout
his work he championed the idea that special men – variously identified
as scientists, priests, warriors, or ‘samurai’ – must impose progress on
the masses in order to create a ‘New Republic’ or a ‘world theocracy.’”
There is little disagreement, except perhaps from anarchists, that a
small number of people must ultimately govern modern nation states.
The disagreement comes in how that small group of people should be
identified and selected, and of course how they should rule. The world
has lived with birth (monarchies), wealth (Italian oligarchies), military
overthrow (dictatorships), and most recently democracy (republics).
Like it or not, we are, and always will be ruled by an elite group of people
who operate the levers of government – for us, and for themselves. It is
generally believed that the democratic form is superior because the
selection is made by those who are being governed and it is for limited
duration, as there is provision for replacement if results are
unsatisfactory, although all republics are not the same, and the degree
of success and satisfaction varies from one to another. I have referred
to patriarchal degree as one of the measures of difference, and that, I
might suggest, is mainly a degree of culture.
The interesting thing about all this, from a democratic viewpoint, is that
regardless of label the tendency remains essentially the same, as does
the motive: those who consider themselves superior, and are selected
to rule, comprise an elite that feels it knows better than any what must
be done and how. Libertarians would limit government and lean toward
isolationism; socialists, or progressives, would expand government to
support broader action ostensibly in the name of the people – the
masses; conservatives would opt for traditional values. But in the end
the result is similar: the process of governing is tilted to achieve that
which the governing elite deem appropriate, and since they are human,
personal considerations cannot be eliminated. The operative word is
power, and power is a heady and potentially corrupting thing; politics
within each of the above governances ultimately comes down to power,
who wields it, how and for what purposes; Rousseau: everything is
politics, to which I add, all politics is primarily economics; and Bryon
Caplan (The Myth of the Rational Voter) points out: “the economic role
of government has greatly expanded since the New Deal, but the
percentage of congressmen with economic training remains negligible.”
And much as we would like to believe that the wisdom of the people
rules, the truth is that the wisdom of the people is a myth and selected
elites rule – and want to continue doing so, as “voter irrationality
reshapes the whole political landscape, from leadership and delegation
to propaganda and lobbying” (again Caplan). Joseph Schlumpeter put
it perhaps more succinctly: “democracy today…is the rule of the
politician.” And John Dunn (A History of Democracy): “The passage of
forms of government has been an uninterrupted struggle over who
exactly is entitled to act in the people’s name, and on what ground, over
which forms of inequality, dependence or exclusion are to survive, be
suppressed or re-created, and over who is to be subject to whom over
what.”
So, one might ask, what? Considering the “general immobility and
passivity of the masses,” not much. It is what it is, and generally
observers agree that democratic selection of the ruler elite is preferable
to any alternative, though far from perfect. And therein lies the problem:
people are not and will never be perfect, they will never be able to agree
on much of anything other than their own perceived self-interest, and
thus government will always be an imperfect power struggle among
diverse interests. Furthermore, most, although they may understand
their own immediate self-interest, are unlikely to know what policies are
in their long term interest.
A few more observations and I shall leave this for now, feeling that the
reading that led to the above has provided great insight – for me – into
the reality of that which constitutes our political environment.
Ah, enough (for now). I could go on and on (and will in this vein on
subsequent pages of this website), relating quotations from those that
are far more informed than I. There is much to ponder – if one is willing
to ponder. And much with which to be concerned. Obviously I am
referring to the direction in which our government has been shifting for
some time now, though more rapidly of late.
Middle Ground - Democratic Republic
Middle Ground - Democratic Quotations
Oligarchy Excerpts
Oligarchy is the rule of a few. In 1911 Robert Michels, in a book entitled
Political Parties, put forward the theory known as “the iron law of
oligarchy (link way above).” I ran across it in another book, Albion’s
Seed, where David Hackett Fischer referred to it in discussing what he
called the cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy.
- “All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic
or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and
inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this
are the technical indispensability of leadership, the
tendency of leaders to organize themselves and to
consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led toward
their leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of
the masses.”
“There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy:
small groups dominate every cultural system. They tend
to do so by controlling institutions and processes so that
they become ‘governors’ of a culture in both a political
and a mechanical sense.”
of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country – runs most
of the major institutions in the United States or has influence in other
ways.”
Charles Murray (Real Education): “The proposition is not that
America’s future should depend on an elite that is educated to run the
country, but that, whether we like it or not, America’s future does depend
on an elite that runs the country.”
Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism): (referring to H.G. Wells) “Throughout
his work he championed the idea that special men – variously identified
as scientists, priests, warriors, or ‘samurai’ – must impose progress on
the masses in order to create a ‘New Republic’ or a ‘world theocracy.’”
There is little disagreement, except perhaps from anarchists, that a
small number of people must ultimately govern modern nation states.
The disagreement comes in how that small group of people should be
identified and selected, and of course how they should rule. The world
has lived with birth (monarchies), wealth (Italian oligarchies), military
overthrow (dictatorships), and most recently democracy (republics).
Like it or not, we are, and always will be ruled by an elite group of people
who operate the levers of government – for us, and for themselves. It is
generally believed that the democratic form is superior because the
selection is made by those who are being governed and it is for limited
duration, as there is provision for replacement if results are
unsatisfactory, although all republics are not the same, and the degree
of success and satisfaction varies from one to another. I have referred
to patriarchal degree as one of the measures of difference, and that, I
might suggest, is mainly a degree of culture.
The interesting thing about all this, from a democratic viewpoint, is that
regardless of label the tendency remains essentially the same, as does
the motive: those who consider themselves superior, and are selected
to rule, comprise an elite that feels it knows better than any what must
be done and how. Libertarians would limit government and lean toward
isolationism; socialists, or progressives, would expand government to
support broader action ostensibly in the name of the people – the
masses; conservatives would opt for traditional values. But in the end
the result is similar: the process of governing is tilted to achieve that
which the governing elite deem appropriate, and since they are human,
personal considerations cannot be eliminated. The operative word is
power, and power is a heady and potentially corrupting thing; politics
within each of the above governances ultimately comes down to power,
who wields it, how and for what purposes; Rousseau: everything is
politics, to which I add, all politics is primarily economics; and Bryon
Caplan (The Myth of the Rational Voter) points out: “the economic role
of government has greatly expanded since the New Deal, but the
percentage of congressmen with economic training remains negligible.”
And much as we would like to believe that the wisdom of the people
rules, the truth is that the wisdom of the people is a myth and selected
elites rule – and want to continue doing so, as “voter irrationality
reshapes the whole political landscape, from leadership and delegation
to propaganda and lobbying” (again Caplan). Joseph Schlumpeter put
it perhaps more succinctly: “democracy today…is the rule of the
politician.” And John Dunn (A History of Democracy): “The passage of
forms of government has been an uninterrupted struggle over who
exactly is entitled to act in the people’s name, and on what ground, over
which forms of inequality, dependence or exclusion are to survive, be
suppressed or re-created, and over who is to be subject to whom over
what.”
So, one might ask, what? Considering the “general immobility and
passivity of the masses,” not much. It is what it is, and generally
observers agree that democratic selection of the ruler elite is preferable
to any alternative, though far from perfect. And therein lies the problem:
people are not and will never be perfect, they will never be able to agree
on much of anything other than their own perceived self-interest, and
thus government will always be an imperfect power struggle among
diverse interests. Furthermore, most, although they may understand
their own immediate self-interest, are unlikely to know what policies are
in their long term interest.
A few more observations and I shall leave this for now, feeling that the
reading that led to the above has provided great insight – for me – into
the reality of that which constitutes our political environment.
- “Although political scientists classify about one-third of
the public as ‘know-nothings’ it is hard to find people
whose political knowledge is literally non-existent…the
problem, one might say, is not that the ignorant vote
randomly, but that the ignorant are easily misled by
propaganda. The trouble is not the shortage of
information, but its bias, which fills the heads of the
ignorant with lies.” (Caplan)
“We all have to rely on the quality of the information we
get from the media – and, as of today, that quality is
terrible.” (Murray)
“Most of the members of today’s elite are ethically
illiterate.” (Murray)
“Unabashed populism plays well at first, but once the
negative consequences hit, voters will blame (the
politician) not themselves.” (Caplan)
“Far sighted policies pay huge dividends; short-term
patronage politics have immense costs.” (Zacharia)
"More than any institution in America today the press
(media) defines reality and determines the political
agenda. Yet unlike other mediating groups, which have
historically tempered public passions, the press today
often inflames them. It sensationalizes, dramatizes, and
trivializes news.” (Zacharia)
Ah, enough (for now). I could go on and on (and will in this vein on
subsequent pages of this website), relating quotations from those that
are far more informed than I. There is much to ponder – if one is willing
to ponder. And much with which to be concerned. Obviously I am
referring to the direction in which our government has been shifting for
some time now, though more rapidly of late.
Middle Ground - Democratic Republic
Middle Ground - Democratic Quotations
Oligarchy Excerpts
Federalism today is inadequately appreciated, if poorly understood.
Tocqueville (Rahe) called it (the most salient fact of American political
life: the presence of a centralization of government with regard to
matters unavoidably federal in the absence of a general
centralization of public administration.
Rahe: He (Tocqueville) also stated "that 'provincial institutions' are in
fact crucial for the maintenance of liberty, especially within the
democratic etat social. In aristocratic societies, as Montesquieu and
Malsherbes had pointed out, the people can find 'shelter from the
excesses of despotism because organized forces ready to resist the
despot are always to be found.' Unless, however, there are 'provincial
institutions' within an egalitarian society there exists no such
'guarantee against similar ills.'"
The drift toward centralization of public administration is steady and
remorseless, and the threat to Federalism that exists today and is
growing is very real and worrisome.
Tocqueville (Rahe) called it (the most salient fact of American political
life: the presence of a centralization of government with regard to
matters unavoidably federal in the absence of a general
centralization of public administration.
Rahe: He (Tocqueville) also stated "that 'provincial institutions' are in
fact crucial for the maintenance of liberty, especially within the
democratic etat social. In aristocratic societies, as Montesquieu and
Malsherbes had pointed out, the people can find 'shelter from the
excesses of despotism because organized forces ready to resist the
despot are always to be found.' Unless, however, there are 'provincial
institutions' within an egalitarian society there exists no such
'guarantee against similar ills.'"
The drift toward centralization of public administration is steady and
remorseless, and the threat to Federalism that exists today and is
growing is very real and worrisome.
In an article published in Jewish World Review Oct. 7, 2009,
Jonah Goldberg arguing for a larger Congress included the
following paragraph:
"In Federalist No. 55, James Madison defended the
proposed Constitution's apportionment clause despite its
widespread unpopularity. The chief complaints, according to
Madison, were that such a small Congress would become an
'unsafe depository of the public interests'; that the districts
would be too large and diverse for any politician to 'possess a
proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their
numerous constituents'; and that such a tiny House would
have the net result of attracting elitist types whose aim would
be the 'permanent elevation of the few on the depression of
the many'."
Jonah Goldberg arguing for a larger Congress included the
following paragraph:
"In Federalist No. 55, James Madison defended the
proposed Constitution's apportionment clause despite its
widespread unpopularity. The chief complaints, according to
Madison, were that such a small Congress would become an
'unsafe depository of the public interests'; that the districts
would be too large and diverse for any politician to 'possess a
proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their
numerous constituents'; and that such a tiny House would
have the net result of attracting elitist types whose aim would
be the 'permanent elevation of the few on the depression of
the many'."
Thoughts of Future
I am not qualified to predict the future, but certain trends are unmistakable, and among them are the drift to the left and the
growing oligarchy of professional politicians. Frankly, I am becoming convinced that both are inevitable, and the responsibility
among those who do not accept either enthusiastically is to fight to make our oligarchic social republic as responsible as is
possible. This is difficult with those who have recently taken over that responsibility.
I have stated elsewhere (but cannot put my hands on Samuel Eliot Morison's reference to it (History of the American People,
1965), that the founders had two concerns about democracy: the potential tyranny of a majority and the quality of potential elected
leadership. Tyranny of majority has had lots of coverage here, but perhaps quality of the elected oligarchy has not, and that is
beginning to concern me more and more.
It is my contention that Americans tend to be generally pretty ignorant of both history and the rest of the world; I don't think they
care much, and that can be a problem in a world that is becoming more and more tightly connected. But I am seeing what
appears to me to be a yawning gap of ignorance among our leaders of almost everything other than politics; they live for politics,
and of course they die (professionally) by politics. My concern is that that so dominates them that their leadership is not only
driven by it, but it is consumed by it to the exclusion of almost all else. Everything to them, it seems, responds, and must
respond to American politics - with inadequate knowledge and concern for other.
I find that naive, arrogant and hypocritical, as well as ignorant. It seems to presume, that even though they must be concerned
with what goes on in the rest of the world that they need not understand it because it is basically an extension of American
politics. In one sense they are right, and that has to do with the $13T US market; to a significant extent the rest of the world
depends overly on that market, and selling to it, to subsist, and when it tanks the world swoons. But in any other sense it is
arrogant and short sighted.
So regardless of that (the $13T market) and even despite degrees of dependence it creates, pride (their own arrogance,
warranted or no) is offended by ours, and by our assumptions that we can order them around without concern for how it plays in
their cultures and to their sovereignties. Ok, our vaunted leaders might say, so what? Who cares what they think? And I think
that our looming weakness suggests that we really should be starting to care because the world is likely to be a pretty rough
place in the relatively near future, and we are vulnerable (trade, oil, other commodities, and debt, to name only four
vulnerabilities).
I do not expect it to change however, and this comes back to the quality of leadership, that exists as far as I can tell, largely in a
bubble in a "within the beltway" ivory tower. Everything is politics, said Rousseu; actually the exact quote is "everything is
radically related to politics". That, I would suggest, is a little different and learned leaders would do well to understand the
difference. Just because much of what occurs in this wild world responds to American politics doesn't mean that it "is" American
politics. So when "learned" is largely limited to American politics there are going to be some nasty surprises.
The article that launched me in this direction was a MEMRI translation of articles from Pakistan with regard to a bill offered by
Senators Kerry and Lugar setting very specific requirements on aid that dove deeply into the relationship among the government,
the people and the army, considered insulting to many Pakistanis. So what, Senators Kerry and Lugar would say, we are giving
them the aid. But as always when we "give" something internationally it is for a purpose that is based on our own national self
interest, and if that is negated by resentment it does not achieve what it is intended to achieve. Again, our response is likely to
be, that's their problem.
But worse than that, it is more likely that our "leaders" are not even aware of their trespasses; they don't know or care about the
sensitivities of the rest of the world, since they more often assume that they are more or less like us and will respond in a way
defined by American politics.
I don't think we can continue on this exalted level of arrogance, but I also do not believe that our political leaders (and others for
that matter - business, education, NGO) know or care enough to change it. In other words I agree with the criticism of the quality
of our leaders beyond politics, and I worry deeply about an oligarchy with such men calling the shots. At the same time I worry
about the capability of "the people" to select people of the necessary quality, which brings into focus concerns that people
throughout history have had about the people's ability to manage affairs of state - through such selection.
If my worries are valid we have a challenge if we are to maintain the standards by which we have learned to live, and expect to
continue.
I am not qualified to predict the future, but certain trends are unmistakable, and among them are the drift to the left and the
growing oligarchy of professional politicians. Frankly, I am becoming convinced that both are inevitable, and the responsibility
among those who do not accept either enthusiastically is to fight to make our oligarchic social republic as responsible as is
possible. This is difficult with those who have recently taken over that responsibility.
I have stated elsewhere (but cannot put my hands on Samuel Eliot Morison's reference to it (History of the American People,
1965), that the founders had two concerns about democracy: the potential tyranny of a majority and the quality of potential elected
leadership. Tyranny of majority has had lots of coverage here, but perhaps quality of the elected oligarchy has not, and that is
beginning to concern me more and more.
It is my contention that Americans tend to be generally pretty ignorant of both history and the rest of the world; I don't think they
care much, and that can be a problem in a world that is becoming more and more tightly connected. But I am seeing what
appears to me to be a yawning gap of ignorance among our leaders of almost everything other than politics; they live for politics,
and of course they die (professionally) by politics. My concern is that that so dominates them that their leadership is not only
driven by it, but it is consumed by it to the exclusion of almost all else. Everything to them, it seems, responds, and must
respond to American politics - with inadequate knowledge and concern for other.
I find that naive, arrogant and hypocritical, as well as ignorant. It seems to presume, that even though they must be concerned
with what goes on in the rest of the world that they need not understand it because it is basically an extension of American
politics. In one sense they are right, and that has to do with the $13T US market; to a significant extent the rest of the world
depends overly on that market, and selling to it, to subsist, and when it tanks the world swoons. But in any other sense it is
arrogant and short sighted.
So regardless of that (the $13T market) and even despite degrees of dependence it creates, pride (their own arrogance,
warranted or no) is offended by ours, and by our assumptions that we can order them around without concern for how it plays in
their cultures and to their sovereignties. Ok, our vaunted leaders might say, so what? Who cares what they think? And I think
that our looming weakness suggests that we really should be starting to care because the world is likely to be a pretty rough
place in the relatively near future, and we are vulnerable (trade, oil, other commodities, and debt, to name only four
vulnerabilities).
I do not expect it to change however, and this comes back to the quality of leadership, that exists as far as I can tell, largely in a
bubble in a "within the beltway" ivory tower. Everything is politics, said Rousseu; actually the exact quote is "everything is
radically related to politics". That, I would suggest, is a little different and learned leaders would do well to understand the
difference. Just because much of what occurs in this wild world responds to American politics doesn't mean that it "is" American
politics. So when "learned" is largely limited to American politics there are going to be some nasty surprises.
The article that launched me in this direction was a MEMRI translation of articles from Pakistan with regard to a bill offered by
Senators Kerry and Lugar setting very specific requirements on aid that dove deeply into the relationship among the government,
the people and the army, considered insulting to many Pakistanis. So what, Senators Kerry and Lugar would say, we are giving
them the aid. But as always when we "give" something internationally it is for a purpose that is based on our own national self
interest, and if that is negated by resentment it does not achieve what it is intended to achieve. Again, our response is likely to
be, that's their problem.
But worse than that, it is more likely that our "leaders" are not even aware of their trespasses; they don't know or care about the
sensitivities of the rest of the world, since they more often assume that they are more or less like us and will respond in a way
defined by American politics.
I don't think we can continue on this exalted level of arrogance, but I also do not believe that our political leaders (and others for
that matter - business, education, NGO) know or care enough to change it. In other words I agree with the criticism of the quality
of our leaders beyond politics, and I worry deeply about an oligarchy with such men calling the shots. At the same time I worry
about the capability of "the people" to select people of the necessary quality, which brings into focus concerns that people
throughout history have had about the people's ability to manage affairs of state - through such selection.
If my worries are valid we have a challenge if we are to maintain the standards by which we have learned to live, and expect to
continue.
Fareed Zacharia (The Future of Freedom): “A relatively small
group of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country –
runs most of the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.”
I read this statement and understood the words, but probably didn't
really internalize it. It suddenly made sense when i read the
following from Robert D. Kaplan's The Arabists (I admire the way
Kaplan tells it the way it is):
I have read about - and observed - how new leaders in business
and military positions brought in their own people to high positions,
and I have read about how new administrations fill their top
positions, but I guess I naively never put the two together. The
reason a relatively small group of people run most of the major
institutions (or has influence in other ways) is that that is how elite
works: when they need someone to fill an important position they
look for a friend in whom they have confidence - that they trust - or go
with someone highly recommended by someone else they trust.
Whereas the rest of us interview and start low, many of these elite
choices are plucked from obscurity because someone knows
them. Of course the way they know them is often due to reputation
they have gained - and earned - that brought them to the attention of
someone among the elite. So, voila! Clearly in that heady
atmosphere it all depends on who you know, or who knows you.
Which of course is why getting into the pool is so critical, and why
"getting into" the elite schools that feeds the pool is so critical to
success in government. After all, those same pools also feed back
into those same the administrations of those same schools, into
business leadership and into media jobs.
group of people – perhaps a million or 0.5 percent of the country –
runs most of the major institutions in the United States or has
influence in other ways.”
I read this statement and understood the words, but probably didn't
really internalize it. It suddenly made sense when i read the
following from Robert D. Kaplan's The Arabists (I admire the way
Kaplan tells it the way it is):
- "He had been appointed the assistant secretary of state for
education and culture by Jack Kennedy. With trouble in
Cuba and elsewhere, the next job Kennedy had for his friend
Luke Battle was that of assistant secretary of state for Latin
America. 'But I can't even fill in the names of all the Latin
American countries on the map," Battle protested. 'I know,'
Kennedy responded, 'but you're the one I want.'"
- (He had no prior connections and no Ivy league credentials,
but with persistence he was finally hired to the Canada desk
of the United States Department of State in 1946, during the
administration of President Harry S. Truman. A chance
encounter with Dean Acheson led to his being elevated to
the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary of State.)
(Wikopedia)
I have read about - and observed - how new leaders in business
and military positions brought in their own people to high positions,
and I have read about how new administrations fill their top
positions, but I guess I naively never put the two together. The
reason a relatively small group of people run most of the major
institutions (or has influence in other ways) is that that is how elite
works: when they need someone to fill an important position they
look for a friend in whom they have confidence - that they trust - or go
with someone highly recommended by someone else they trust.
Whereas the rest of us interview and start low, many of these elite
choices are plucked from obscurity because someone knows
them. Of course the way they know them is often due to reputation
they have gained - and earned - that brought them to the attention of
someone among the elite. So, voila! Clearly in that heady
atmosphere it all depends on who you know, or who knows you.
Which of course is why getting into the pool is so critical, and why
"getting into" the elite schools that feeds the pool is so critical to
success in government. After all, those same pools also feed back
into those same the administrations of those same schools, into
business leadership and into media jobs.
Importance of Political Parties
Considering the importance of who one knows,
the role of political parties in selection of
potential politicians is equally critical; for politics
this is where candidates interview for low level
jobs. Political parties are the recruiting and
human resources arms of politics, where one
has to enter the pool - and in order to move on
one has to pay his (or her) dues, and come to
someone's attention.
On the other hand there are two major political
parties, each with their own recruiting and
grooming apparatus. One might suppose this
means we have competing elites; or does it
mean that the elite has two teams waiting for
the chance to be chosen to play. Before one
can play he has to have been selected for the
pool from which those teams are chosen.
Except under unusual circumstances most of
the rest of us non-elites have little chance,
because we are not in the pool.
Considering the importance of who one knows,
the role of political parties in selection of
potential politicians is equally critical; for politics
this is where candidates interview for low level
jobs. Political parties are the recruiting and
human resources arms of politics, where one
has to enter the pool - and in order to move on
one has to pay his (or her) dues, and come to
someone's attention.
On the other hand there are two major political
parties, each with their own recruiting and
grooming apparatus. One might suppose this
means we have competing elites; or does it
mean that the elite has two teams waiting for
the chance to be chosen to play. Before one
can play he has to have been selected for the
pool from which those teams are chosen.
Except under unusual circumstances most of
the rest of us non-elites have little chance,
because we are not in the pool.