The Swampland Of Political Choice

The swampland of political choice The Norman Transcript August 05, 2006 12:23 am — For The Transcript The complexity of the world requires government. Poor government assures disorder; no government guarantees chaos. Out of the tangled history of humanity have evolved our ways of thinking about government and how to organize it. Review a few of the alternatives. Monarchy, rule by a single person normally drawn from the "nobility," has enjoyed a long and often tragic life. Aristocracy, domination by an "upper class" and closely allied with Monarchy, had its origins well before the Christian era. Plutocracy, organizing government in the interest of the wealthy class, is equally ancient and equally disastrous. Dictatorships, domination by one person, crops out from time to time down through the centuries, with Hitler's Third Reich perhaps its most hideous manifestation. Democracy, government with all the people participating, also takes us back to the ancient world; even the word itself is Greek. Many citystates tried to make it work, although only in the upper class of a stratified society. Not surprisingly that "Aristocratic-Democracy" failed. Gynocracy, government in control of women, has its merits especially in view of the ways men have botched history with wars, polluted politics and corrupted government. The noble vision of Plato, Timocracy, government ruled by those of honor, would solve all our problems, but we cannot agree on the meaning of honor nor how to implement such a government. The flawed nature of humanity often does us in. Still we continue to have the persistent hope of Libertarianism -- the dream of checking government so we can be free to enjoy our "God-given liberties." This is a deceptive and sophisticated form of Anarchism canceled by the complexity of modern society. Authoritarianism in government or human relations is the theory and practice of arbitrarily exercising power. We see it expressed in dictatorships and totalitarian-minded individuals and organizations. Abuse and pressure on the young are the most likely causes of authoritarian drives and personalities. The military is an ideal institution for authoritarians to cultivate their compulsive needs. But there are other institutions lending themselves to such abuse: corporations, bureaucracies, schools, universities and political parties, for example. Authoritarians often use their status to hammer the egos of subordinates to make themselves feel important and in the process damage others and diminish the productivity of social institutions while seriously impairing democracy. A useful and controversial principle of political interpretation is Machiavellianism. The name and practices obviously derive from the life and writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, an early contemporary of Martin Luther. Perhaps its nucleus is power and control -- how to get them, extend them and keep them. As a technique what is emphasized is cunning, duplicity and manipulation of truth. Although explanations of Machiavelli are not always in agreement -- and he did have his own sense of morality -- Machiavellianism seems to reduce itself to a justification of whatever means are necessary to achieve a desired political end. Such an attitude illuminates much behavior and although "solving" many problems creates many others. It cannot be reconciled with any rational system of ethics, thereby guaranteeing disagreement, conflict and likely violence. An often unrecognized yet insidious principle of political control is Bonapartism. This is a pretentious, duplicitous and artificial justification for the exercise of power. Napoleon's justifications for his status and arbitrary use of power were rationalizations; he pretended he was the instrument of the masses. Bonapartism is the arbitrary rule by a modem Caesar, although it has subtle "justifications" lacking in those for Julius Caesar or Hitler. Bonapartism was initiated by Napoleon 1; it was carried on by Napoleon III, especially as he defended his status by pretending to "free" the French people from the Parliament. And the charade continues...

Seeing through the mass of political "isms" is all but impossible. But in spite of its shortcomings democracy is probably the most prudent way of organizing a political system. At the same time we should be realistic and overcome our presuppositions about it. The greatest threats to democracy are internal, although the smoke screen of optimism and the absence of critical habits of mind obscure the fact. It is not Communists, or Nazis or Moslems who are the most dangerous enemies of democracy. The real enemies are ignorance, fear, superstition, anti-scientific empty-headedness and the presumption that the highest good is money. Further confounding public understanding is the inability to distinguish faith -- the quiet hope of religion -- from the dogma of politically focused fundamentalism. It is this intensity of "political religion" that drives us to find a scapegoat -- an enemy -- thus "exonerating" us from the responsibility of thinking. And there are other oversights. A frequently overlooked weakness of American Democracy is the trivial difference between the dominant political parties. Both assume the wisdom of acquisitive capitalism although they bicker over the fringes. Both are wedded to plutocracy. Both dodge many serious problems and they use Christianity as a shield and as a vehicle for winning public favor. And they posture for neither is sufficiently committed to Christianity to implement the ethical obligations of the faith. Perhaps the Achilles heel of Democracy -- the point of lethal vulnerability -- is inability to agree on our real problems and our disinclination to face the consequences of that disagreement. Failure to analyze this deficiency in depth compounds our difficulties. There are a number of closely allied arguments that carry us to a distressing conclusion. With the increasing complexity of the world: it is ever more difficult to have open, honest and non-partisan political-social-economic discussion; if this is true, then it becomes more difficult realistically to appraise our condition; if this is true, then we inevitably drift toward the point at which disorder overwhelms society; and if this is true, then disintegrating unity may well destroy democracy. Rejecting this argument because it is "pessimistic" is childish. If there are grounds for dissent they rest on the fact that we have both reason and emotional maturity to forestall social-political disaster. As of now there use and effectiveness seems open to question. As painful as the truth may be we are a people burdened with problems of our own making. Americans are largely anaesthetized by materialism, and therefore see their real problems only in a shadowy way. The tragic result is insensitized government, a predatory foreign policy and a great nation stumbling short-sightedly into the future. The most prudent solution to this cultural predicament is education that produces self-reliant, independent-minded and humane-spirited men and women, citizens who cultivate a generous vision of the future. Lloyd Williams is a retired educator. His column runs periodically. Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.