Connecting With Those We Like - and Our Politics

Copyright (c) 2009 Dave Smart

Many people have told me over the years about how they feel more comfortable around "intelligent" or "smart" people. I can identify with that, but I am aware that many others feel most comfortable among 'common folk', and not 'nerds'.

A friend of mine recently took this a step further. She felt that 'democracy' was an undesirable form of governance, since it puts the majority and so the power of decision into the hands of the 'masses', rather than in the hands of the 'intelligencia'. Not many would embrace this Machiavellian concept once they knew its source. For Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who has become known as the "dictator's philosopher", used for his starting point in political science the idea that "liberty will be more safely preserved by the nobles" - the intelligencia of his day - as opposed to the masses, the common man. But many if not most people are confused by just what democracy means. For although they think of the tribal-theory concept of the leader taking accountability for all people in his realm, common and 'smart' alike; the term 'democracy' actually relates to the Greek Democritus (b. abt 460 B.C.) who along with Epicurus espoused a materialistic philosophy, opposing Plato's metaphysical philosophy.

A basic Jungian principle is that we "like" those around us who most resemble the parts of ourselves that we most accept; indeed since all we know of another person is our perception of him/her, and those perceptions are parts of ourselves; then those we like are those perceptions we are most connected to. Conversely, those we hate are also perceptions, parts of ourselves; generally disconnected parts of ourselves.

It follows that, in political science under the tribal theory, where leadership was (and still is where there are tribal societies) defined as being accountable to all persons under the leader's realm, the ideal leader would be one who could best accept all parts of himself. Whereas, in Machiavellian theory, which for today we could call Orwellian or elitist, a leader is one who can successfully manipulate masses into believing that their regime is 'democratic' when in fact it is anything but. For Machiavelli said "The [ideal leader] must retain a semblance of the old forms, so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different." Hobbesian theory is quite similar, Hobbes having lived during the 16th Century religious wars and advocated a powerful secular state that could stand up to the Church - and those at war with the Church. And likewise is Spenglerian theory; Spengler's model was of the State, as political governance, subjugating tribal societies and evolving through various stages in politics (and other things) in justifying that subjugation.

How do we prepare ourselves for political systems?

It depends upon which theory of political science one believes in. It is easy to prepare ourselves for a Machiavellian or a Hobbesian or an elitist system. For all of these systems are based on the concept of victim-victimizer. The 'masses', or common man, are victims of present or recent or distant past despotism; and are at best dupes, and at worst cannon fodder. But these systems are not sustainable. As Orwell points out, the Middles are always plotting to overthrow the Highs, recruiting through manipulation some faction of the Lows; and sooner or later they will be successful. (as if that's going to really help the Lows.) The Spenglerian system is also unsustainable in the long term, for the stages of evolving statehood lead eventually to reversion to tribal society. One needs to prepare only for being a victim - or a victimizer.

The tribal theory (of political science) holds to the basic concept of accountability of the leader to all people under him, and so to full acceptance on the part of the leader of all parts of himself, as the model of leadership. Many would argue that it too is unsustainable. And besides, it sounds like a very hard theory to prepare for. But ultimately the prevailing kind of politics in the world will be that which humans have collectively prepared for, and this starts with one person at a time. I would think it's worth preparing for. Who wants to prepare for being a victim?