Right and Righter

It occurred to me this morning that there is a distinction we should make in theories of politics, between the politics of power and the politics of principle. This is not the only way we can divide up political philosophies; this is a multi-dimensional subject. For example, there is the difference between 'forward looking' progressives, 'status quo' moderates and 'backward looking' reactionaries, which defines a time vector in politics. There is the traditional left-center-right seating arrangements, which encapsulates a variety of class and caste differences; aristocrat, bourgeois, proletarian or peasant. There there is the very old feud between city and countryside: urban or provincial. All of these dimensions overlap to some degree. It is very difficult to say what is a "pure" axis, although I suppose it is a worthy project to try clarify the principle dimensions of politics. For now, though, I am more interested in the power-principle axis, because it seems most exposed by the controversies following the Democrats' electoral defeat.

This polarity is simple enough: is politics about seeking office and gaining power, or is it about some set of principles or goals? There are a number of other parallels to this dichotomy. For example, there is the old debate about ends and means. Seen that way, political principles are the end, gaining power the means. I think everyone will agree power is necessary to accomplishing anything. Things don't just happen, or, if they do, that's not what politics is about. Politics, in the power direction, is about making things happen, doing not waiting. But, I hope many of you will further agree, politics is not just about holding power; it is holding power for a reason. If so, the means of gaining power are subject to some further constraints.

You might believe the end justifies the means, or the contrary, the means justifies the end. These are generally considered cynical extremes, but they are worth a short discussion. Most people are more familiar with the problem of the end justifying the means, as very often questions arise about how things are done in order to bring about agreed goals. At least, everyone should agree the means should not conflict with, or undermine, the end. It would be self-defeating to go about reaching a goal in a manner that prevents its achievement.

The other problem, of the means justifying the end, is infrequently discussed, but it is a possible view. This is the idea that doing the right thing, or having good intentions, or both, invariably leads to right or desirable results. In fact, many people actually hold this view, or operate on it (although they do not know it as just described). In this view, what is a right or good means must be clearly implied by some valued end, or there is some strict connection between performance of "means" and the desired ends. It cannot be the case that some means work, and others do not, or the notion that the means justifies the ends would be nonsensical. What is the right or good as an end is very often not well understood by everyone. Thus, for many, maybe most, people, the problem of acting in moral situations is simplified by considering only whether the immediate act is right or good. Having had good intentions is often an excuse, when things don't turn out as expected.

'I did the right thing' can be claimed, even when the result is clearly wrong, or even bad or evil. Claiming to have done the right thing passes on responsibility to the higher standard, so it might be argued that 'in the long run' the right act will turn out favorably; it may only appear to be faulty in the short run. Also, 'I was following my orders' is a defense that passes responsibility. What is implied by these defenses is that ends must be stated in some form of commandment, order or other directive which is firm or even absolute in nature. Whenever it is conceived that the means justifies the end, the only way someone who does the 'right thing,' or who acts on 'good intentions,' can be assured of bringing about good or right ends is the complete specification of means by ends. This is a logical necessity. Again, if the ends do not completely specify possible means, then there would be an uncertainty in selecting the means, and that undermines any belief in 'right means justifies (guarantees) right ends.'

This short discussion of ethics has much to do with my distinction between a politics of power and a politics of principle. I think those who are primarily interested in gaining power also believe the means justifies the ends, which is to say they are necessarily authoritarian in their outlook. Oddly enough, they are in agreement with those who believe 'the end justifies the means,' because that belief also requires some form of absolute end. I think this is why the extreme Left and Right collapse into similar forms: people who believe in the ultimate goodness or rightness of their actions or their goals are defined by their absolutism. This implies the existence of another political dimension: the authoritarian scale.

To the extent that neither means nor ends are uniquely determined, that there is slippage between means and ends, it is impossible to impose an exact solution to every problem. This slippage requires consideration on a case by case basis of each act, recognizing that what is done only has a probability of gaining the desired result. Simply, whenever and wherever there are shades of gray - uncertainty - in this world, we cannot guarantee that our actions are good or bad or something else. In such cases, it can only be determined in retrospect what was effective, what not, based on what we eventually determine were good or bad results. 'Slippage' denies there is any a priori determination of good or right in at least some cases; i.e., there are no universal goods or rights.

In the political world, people who act entirely on principles, which they believe to be absolutely correct, are called "True Believers." So are people who just follow their orders. Collectively, True Believers of all sorts combine into powerful movements. Those movements differ in their supposed and actual goals and methods, but are otherwise fundamentally similar. True Believers, or Authoritarians, always have a shared language that implies certain highly valued concepts. Authoritarians always have a code of conduct, and strict disciplinary methods. Loyalty is very important in authoritarian organizations, so almost any sign of disloyalty is severely punished. In the military, one kind of True Believer organization, disloyalty is frequently punished by death. Authoritarian organizations are inevitably graded by caste and class, since, of necessity, someone or something must give orders and others must follow them. Historically, there is always an elite class which decides what is "right" or "good," and issues prescriptions based on that interpretation. (Note that a "class" includes one or more members.)

Military societies, ant colonies and bee hives best exemplify authoritarian (= True Believer) organizations. Every member has a defined purpose and a work agenda. Their lives are defined in terms of the society, not by non-social purposes. It is possible, as with insects, for a True Believer organization to have no "thought-out" set of principles in the sense of humanly "thought-out." Nonetheless, the principles which members of such societies obey are implicit in the organization and can be determined by thoughtful outside observers. This sort of society is often presented in science fiction novels, and can have members of various levels of intelligence. The only things different about robot True Believer societies and, say, intelligent human True Believer societies are (a) the members' alleged intelligence and (b) the method by which first principles (goals) are determined. Insects do not appear to have enough intelligence to think through end-means decisions, so "Mother Nature" - evolution - has provided solutions for them. Insect societies came to be organized as they are by the long process of trial and error characteristic of evolution. Members of insect societies are True Believers because they are genetically programmed to follow their "orders."

Humans are allegedly thoughtful, so individuals could opt out of the constraints of an authoritarian society; i.e., they could "drop out" or rebel. Despite that capability, it is historically true that almost all people who are members of an authoritarian society do not stray far from its guidelines. In fact, until modern (post-Renaissance) times, the most common form of human society was authoritarian, headed by a King, Emperor or some other Noble Lord. Rebellions against the prevailing ideology and classification scheme were few and far between. The basic form and function of the authoritarian State persisted in Egypt and China for thousands of years, and elsewhere for lesser periods. Not being an authoritarian is a rare phenomenon, and has been widespread only in very recent times (the last century of so).

Based on the foregoing, it should be clear that bureaucracies are True Believer entities. Participants in bureaucracy subscribe not only to a code of work, but to a code of life. In return for a paycheck, bureaucrats agree to be like ant and bee workers, doing their defined jobs according to pre-existing rules. Bureaucrats do not make the rules. Ants, bees and the like are "locked into" their positions, except in very rare circumstances. They don't appear to seek a different position than that assigned. Human bureaucrats, unlike worker bees, have personal ambitions and desires that do go beyond their jobs. For this reason, human bureaucrats often use their position to demonstrate their power and influence. That is a corrupt practice, but probably almost inevitable in a species in which most follower members could also be the leader. It is the plasticity of human behavior that allows of corruption.

I have spent a lot of words denouncing "careerists;" politicians who see their work as a vocation or career. This sort of person seeks power under the guise of representing constituents. Typically, at first the careerist is more concerned with pleasing constituents, and not much concerned with "policy." In other words, careerists don't care much about principle; they do care about their personal power. Careerist lives are devoted to amassing more and more power. In all the essentials, such politicians are the same as bureaucrats. Those few who do make it to the top then become the autocrats who issue orders to everyone else. Since the careerist was willing to kowtow to superiors along the way, we usually have very little to indicate what sort of leader the careerist will be, other than the reputation of gangs with which the careerist affiliates. Such people can only be judged by their friends, if they have any, because otherwise they are as neutral gray or transparent as possible. Careerism requires the chameleon's plasticity. But, under that changing surface, careerism's core is authoritarian, because the main principle is 'follow orders' until it is time to give them.

Coming back to the start, I want to associate this distinction between principle and power in politics with the different nature of means and ends in ethics. This is appropriate, because politics is often an application of ethical principles to legal affairs and social conditions. But, I also wanted to show that the politics of principle and power, of ends and means, has to be convoluted with the "authoritarian scale." At one end of the authoritarian axis is dictatorship, totalitarianism. At the other end is anarchism, even total disorder. Whether politicians seek power or principle, they are of the same sort when they are all authoritarians. They might disagree violently about what is Right, or The Good - and this has been the cause of endless wars, including the recent Cold War - but such people are certain of the truth and ultimate triumph of their beliefs.

The catastrophe of the 2004 Presidential election, and of our times generally, has been the ascendancy of True Believers. Americans have elected one of that number as their President. Many Americans think Democrats are different from the Republicans now in power, but it is not so. Most Democratic officeholders these days are careerists; as such, they are more comfortable with the authority of the President and a known route to power. What discomfits authoritarians of every cast is having to think for oneself, having to "think outside the box." In this way, the Democrats actually helped George W Bush to come to power, and they are keeping him there. Little by little, Democrats are assisting Republicans in turning the United States into an authoritarian country.

As you may see, democracy lives in the shadows between anarchy and order. This is the most unfortunate thing about a truly free country: it is not at all clear what are the answers. Such a place can never be secure; instead, it must thrive on insecurity. That insecurity is what was rejected on November 2, 2004.