Brainyquote: Courtesy Google Images
"For this is called politics and is the greatest of all arts, for sooner or later adherence to either party leads to one and the same end." Mika Waltari
To understand why it is that democracies eventually devolve into tyrannies it is imperative to understand some of the fundamental aspects of human nature itself- some "lowest common denominator" if you will. It wasn't an understanding of the political institutions that allowed Machiavelli to identify characteristics of the political actors (Princes) of his day in a manner that transcends the ages to today's politicians... it was an understanding of the basic nature of people themselves.
Twenty years or so ago I set out (in what began as a joke) to create a new model for political analysis, based not on the "Liberal-Conservative: Left-Right" dichotomy, not only because they're false, but because they're inaccurate, not to mention transient. There's a saying that: "If a man isn't a Liberal at 20, he has no heart and if he's not a Conservative at 50, he has no brain." What I looked for was something more permanent, one that took into consideration the essence of people from within a political rubric.
What I came up with was a four part model based on characteristics or aspects that seem not to change with time. First, there are elites and non-elites- not necessarily in a social or economic sense (although they do seem to apply) but rather that some people possess a number of innate leadership qualities- ones that make people want to follow them; not by fiat, but rather some unique traits of personality. The others would naturally be followers (also important as we will see).
The other characteristics, or types, are a bit more complicated and this is where the Asshole Quotient begins to factor in. Every "social scientist" - if such a creature actually exists- begins with a "state of nature" argument... what is the essence of human beings and what are the most basic characteristics of human nature. The two schools of thought: that people are naturally altruistic- what one might call outer-directed in a psychological context. The other is that people are naturally self-interested- once again in psychological terms inner-directed- in a Machiavellian sense, "only good when forced by necessity." Another way of expressing this could be irrational self-interest. However, the altruism vs. self-interest paradigm is another false dichotomy, although it is the basis of Marx's theory. Altruism is a learned behavior- a choice one makes- a manifestation of rational self-interest.
To clarify, the two fundamental characteristics of human nature are rational self-interest... that it is in my own best interest to try to get along in society because- given that I have to live within a social unit- it is in my own best interest to do so.
Conversely, irrational self-interest is predicated upon selfishness, hypocrisy and other elements so eloquently described by Machiavelli (remember, Machiavelli didn't only describe the ruling class, but people in general). Once again in psychological terms: inner-directed vs outer-directed. The characteristics of each "type" will become more evident as we go on.
To apply the model we need to make some typal designations- to try and keep it simple let's go with this:
A & B designate leader and non-leader types... elites and non-elites.
Positive & Negative Types... Positive (Pos) are people with innate leadership qualities that make people want to follow them. They seldom seek positions of authority- but are sought.
Negative (Neg) types are people drawn to power for what benefits it can accrue for them personally. They seek to lead rather than being sought (as the Pos are). They acquire power by any means necessary- whether subterfuge or force.
It should be clear at this point, but I'll reiterate- there are people driven by rational self-interest (Pos) or irrational self-interest (Neg). As for the B- non-leadership (followers) types go, remember the adage: "Birds of a feather flock together." The Neg leadership types attract others like themselves (both A & B)- the people so well identified by Machiavelli. we see them manifested in modern America as the "free shit" crowd, ANTIFA and other groups that don't seem to be FOR anything (except as it benefits them personally) but against almost almost everything... described so well by Rousseau as "the politics as reseniment." (resentment) These are people who have no interest in benefitting society in any way- only in what America offers them.
Heraclitus wrote (?): "You can never step in the same river twice." The thesis of his statement is that cultures are in a constant state of "flux." He also wrote that: "A man's character is his fate" and this is the crux of what drives cultures- character- or, of equal if not more importance, lack thereof. In a political sense, the ratio of leaders (A's) with character (Pos) vs those without (Neg) is what determines political outcomes. For a political culture to succeed (sustain longevity) a dynamic equilibrium must be maintained- this ratio is the Asshole Quotient. The Framers understood this and it's why they sought to diffuse power by dispersing it to the states. The more diversified the loci of power the less chance for tyranny.
Georg Hegel warned: "Beware the Prinzipien Männer," described in a statement by sociologist Max Weber... "Politics naturally engenders a cadre of men whose sole purpose is the doing of politics." [I paraphrase] These are the Neg types... people drawn to power by myopic selfishness. It is the same myopic selfishness, not altruism, that draws people to socialism. Margaret Thatcher summed it up perfectly: "The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Socialism draws the lazy, greedy and envious.
Marx's theory is based on an erroneous inversion of basic human nature. He posited that in the mythical state of nature people are driven solely by altruism and that characteristics such as greed and irrational self-interest are the result of "Capitalism." This is a false, manufactured dichotomy. In a state of nature people cooperate because of rational self-interest... the survival of the individual depends almost entirely on the survival of the social unit. This is critical to understand as America is on the long march toward Socialism and tyranny.
I've already belabored the point that Socialism attracts the Neg types (A & B). A democracy/republic can support a certain ratio of Pos/Neg types as long as some dynamic equilibrium is maintained... when it hits the tipping point, however, tyranny occurs, as it did in Nazi Germany, the USSR, China and other totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. The crucial question is where the tipping point happens to be... This is the Asshole Ratio- a democracy can support only so many assholes before turning into a tyranny (which always happens). This is perhaps not the most erudite choice of designations- but I like it.
One final observation... Socialist/Communist regimes are always implemented by force- as Mao observed: "Politics comes from the barrel of a gun," as was the case in Germany, the USSR and China... resulting in the deaths of well over 250 million people in the 20th century alone. The "long march" of Cultural Marxism is predicated on stealth and deceit. If an idea is in fact valid, people will adopt it willingly without murder or subterfuge... the mechanisms of tyrants. Conversely, no democracy that I'm aware of has had to be imposed at gunpoint... Democracy must be earned- it's more of a verb in fact than a noun.
GIF by @papa-pepper
