When Do People Fear Power?
Politics
| August 31, 2008
| Tim
Yesterday, my girl and I were eating at a rather tasty Chinese buffet when I noticed a guy walking out, toting a baby seat/carrier. The bright yellow printing on his dark brown T-shirt announced something to the rather stunning effect of (and I am *not* exaggerating here): "Barack Obama is the truth incarnate!" It wasn't until later, when he returned and I got a glimpse of the text on the back, that I realized he was utterly serious. It said something to the effect of: "People of America, take your power back! Obama 2008"
A few days ago at work, I heard one of my more "liberal" co-workers talking in the hall. He had been downtown (I live in Denver) and was noting the presence of police dressed in riot gear. He said something to the effect of: "People said we live in a totalitarian country, and I never believed it until I saw the police dressed like that."
Half my brain wanted to ask him if they were arresting people for merely expressing unpopular views. That same half understood that he had no idea what "totalitarian" means -- and it does not mean that your police wear kneecap protectors when the radical left takes to the streets with their faces masked and covered, wearing gloves to reduce the chances of DNA evidence or fingerprints, presumably.
On the other hand, another part of me wondered, simultaneously: "Well, if you're so darned afraid of the government, why do you keep supporting the party which wants to make it even more powerful?" "Take your power back"? Yes: Voting for a candidate who wants to give my government more power is certainly a good way of "taking back" that power.
Why can't they see this contradiction?
I'll return to that question in a moment...
All of that was a long-winded wind-up (heteronym play intentional) to a few thoughts about a recent comment posted by Ryan, on the subject of peoples' apparent need to bring down the mighty:
It seems instinctual in some ways to fear anyone amassing power. Native American tribes seem to have similar standards. The British notion of 'balance of power' seems similar as well. It's rational to fear someone gathering power if law is absent. And since most of our existance, evolutionarily speaking, involved playing a zero sum game it's not surprising that these views are so deeply wired into people.
In a sense, I understand what this comment is getting at: Often, nobody likes the valedictorian, and people are often glad to see him or her fall. And perhaps in some Western, the townspeople would get together to run the gang leader out of town. But I disagree with the actual, precise formulation above.
I'm not at all sure that people "instinctively" fear the accumulation of power. To the contrary, I suspect this is an unusual, Western phenomenon which we have grown used to -- but is actually quite rare, when considered over space and time. If people feared the accumulation of power, the idea of big, powerful government wouldn't be as popular with some as it has been for the last century. Government monopoly power poses far more of a threat than, say, some unnamed well-compensated mutual fund manager.
Yet the former is often loved while the later is hated.
I believe people have a natural love of accumulated power. In the Arab world, as Osama bin Laden put it, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." I think he's nailed it, at least concerning his own culture. Likewise, in Russia, people have been clamoring for a stronger leader as as solution to national ills. Russia history tells us this is nothing new: When one lousy Romanov would kick off, rather than split up into smaller groups, the nation would go searching for the next syphilitic, addled distant Romanov cousin to resume the abuses.
And we can always throw in Hitler and Il Duce as leaders loved for their power.
I'd also point to a story recorded in the bible. Our story (one now now familiar, if not overused to my regular readers) opens with Israel living under a tiny, tiny government, in nearly complete freedom. As Judges 21:25 put it: "In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." But this wasn't good enough: Many wanted a king, a nice powerful monopolistic ruler, as other nations had.
Samuel, a prophet (among other roles) attempts to talk them out of this idea, using many arguments you'd hear today: A king will levy outrageous taxes (then, merely 10% -- can't imagine what they'd make of todays' rates), spend it wastefully on projects which help his political allies and not you; "and you yourselves will become his slaves." And God would turn a deaf ear to their complaints about the results.
The people, however, didn't like Samuel. They were stoked about "change", and weren't interested in more of his advice. Pay attention to what they find attractive about the idea of a king -- because it explains the man's T-shirt as well:
"No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
Do you get that? He will fight "our" battles. The king's glory is ours. This is a bit of projection.
In the West, many of us have realized that power is a zero-sum game. We side with Samuel, in a sense: When the government has power, you don't. To the extent you have it, the government doesn't. Instead, the Israelites, being in, I think the more "natural" state of man, saw it the other way around: The government's power was theirs. The stronger the king was, the stronger they were. The more glorious the king, the more glorious they were.
So my associates on the left don't see Obama, and the government, as a threat to themselves. They see it as an extension of themselves. This is why socialist governments always identify themselves as "the people", their rulers, "the will of the people." This also explains the fixation on unity: a failure to unite behind their leader, their policies is in essence a rejection of their own beliefs. They identify with their government.
In the west, we have many other channels for this -- particularly sports. I'm a Green Bay fan, and I know full well that when Green Bay did well, I felt happy, as if I myself had somehow won a victory. I identified with this team. Their glory was mine, their shame .... um, well, honestly I wasn't much of a fan during the 1980s, when they sucked. (Okay, so I was a bit fair-weather: Green Bay didn't have a "strong horse" to cheer back them.)
This is mostly harmless: Brett Favre's glory didn't come at my expense. His wealth costs me almost nothing, except some annoying commercial time. He won't confiscate a tenth of my crops, nor conscript any future daughters to be perfumers. But Obama's ascendancy and glory (a glory which would surely dissipate the first moment he had to reveal an actual, concrete policy preference) almost certainly would have that kind of impact.
So the man in the brown T-shirt is "taking back" his power when Obama has it. He's not personally taking it back, mind you (he's probably not even sure what he'd do with it) -- most likely he's actually giving more of it up. But Bush wasn't "his" leader, whereas he identifies with Obama -- so when Obama has lots of power, HE has lots of power. Likewise, my co-worker didn't identify with the police; so that was a threat to "his" power. But he certainly supported the charming Democratic mayor who put them there.
Finally, why are "the rich" hated? Precisely because they're faceless. Nobody identifies with them. When Obama wants to invoke a hatred of the wealthy, he doesn't name those who are truly stunningly rich, well-known, and often dabbling in politics. He doesn't name, say, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson, George Soros, John Edwards, or Donald Trump. Instead, we hear references to unnamed traders on Wall Street, generic heads of industry, etc.
Again, the principle is identification. People don't resent Donald Trump: he appears on TV. He invites us to judge "the apprentice", as though standing in his shoes. We imagine ourselves doing whatever crazy adventure Richard Branson is undertaking. They're "good guys", not a threat. We benefit from and share their wealth and power. The same goes with the rich in Dallas, Dynasty, the wealthy kids in 90210, The Hills, and even The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire. We wish, at some level, we lived their lives.
Rich people are thus very popular on TV, and very unpopular in politics.
I think what we're saying is more or less two sides of the same coin. In every instance you mention, people give power to someone they identify with to fight what they see as some external threat. Other nations, other races, the czars/bourgeois, the greedy. When we get down to it, that's the reason you've supported sending guys with guns over to Iraq to fight, right? It's taken some money out of your wallet at the least.
The people, however, didn't like Samuel.
In fairness, Samuel's sons were described as corrupt.
He doesn't name, say, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,
I've heard ordinary posters on blogs, at least, refer a few times to Warren Buffett's assertion that he can structure his wealth in order to pay a lower rate than his secretary and that this is not "fair."
"Cosmic justice:" It seems instinctual in some ways to fear anyone amassing power.
I respectfully disagree, and see it more as a mix of scapegoating (look at how oil companies are being demonized) and the need to appear compassionate.
Would it be reasonable to justify saving the cat because we have a reciprocal relationship with the cat and are responsible to it?
I want to be clear that I'm rather pro-animal: I'm just far more pro-human. I agree with Austin's response (Austin! Nice response! Greetings!). Regarding Ryan's intelligent follow-up:
To give a different example; if it costs x dollars a week to own a cat, to neuter it, feed it, care for it etc. is it ever justified to own a cat since that money would better be applied to a human-related charity? Is it ever morally justified to spend money on entertainment rather than helping others?
If I had to guess, I would suspect "utilitarians" like Singer would say "no". But I disagree.
First, I'm not sure that the main reason people are dying in the world today is a lack of money -- so I'm not sure we have an either/or choice, like the (deliberately) artificial example of the drowning pet.
When I see death in the world, I see a lack of resolve as being a primary culprit. Why didn't we do much about Darfur (which is still going badly)? Mainly a lack of resolve or lack of moral clarity. (In the linked article, the UN uses the nausea-inducing word "disproportional" to half-condemn the killing of innocents. The killing of innocents must apparently be fine, as long as you tune the numbers precisely!) Same goes for North Vietnam invading the South, Georgia, etc...
(To the contrary, there are some African economists who are pleading with us to STOP sending them aid.)
It's a bit like the man who argues against spending on anything else when more money could be spent on education. Reality check: We're already spending tremendous sums on education and we've past the point of diminishing returns, and moved into the area of negative returns.
But I understand your question.
I'm a Christian, so Christian principles inform my thinking. Two specifically spring to mind. One is the idea that God instituted a Sabbath, that is, a day of rest. (He also told the Jews to have far more feasts each year than fasts.) So God knows, as part of our functioning design, we must have a day off, a day to restore our own functioning to maximal efficiency.
The other is that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. If I were starving in Ethopia or dying in Sudan, who would I blame? What would I want the west to do?
If I were well-informed, I would recognize that huge sums were already being sent to help me -- they simply weren't getting to me. I would want the government which was ensuring that situation -- using the blockage as a kind of killing tool -- taken out of power. I wouldn't want people to be depriving themselves of entertainment or walks in the park (when they could be working to earn more money for me) or denying their kids ice cream.
I'd just like a small platoon to be dispatched to forcibly guard the grain convoys which were coming to me without those leaders' permission. That's a matter of resolve, not especially cash.
Regarding religious ritual, Isaiah records God as saying:
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Something I often think about is this phrase about "when you see them". The idea is that one responds when a specific opportunity arises. That's a challenged that is somewhat complicated by this global age, where everyone in the world can "see" a refugee camp raid in Darfur. (That said, they seem rather unconcerned!)
On the other hand, what can I do about problems like North Korea? I write about it, and I'd be willing to support even drastic measures, if a case would be made they'd help more than harm. But there's nothing specific I can do in that case.
On the other hand, many people DO hear about opportunities and sponsor a child, or help a poor friend. I don't think the answer is to deny the self any pleasure (even that which requires money) but more to make sure one is being proportion: As I am loving myself, so I must also be loving others. Did I buy myself a "toy"? Then let's share part of that expenditure, or the next such one, with someone else.
Jesus tells a story of a rich man who had stored up much grain (for himself) and died. God's complaint was not so much that he was generous towards himself, but more that he was not ALSO generous towards others.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
My two cents, anyway. Sorry this ran long; I didn't have time to shorten it up.
I've heard ordinary posters on blogs, at least, refer a few times to Warren Buffett's assertion that he can structure his wealth in order to pay a lower rate than his secretary and that this is not "fair."
Again, I haven't seen Warren Buffet's books, but the statics show, overall, that guys like Buffet (and in his demographic) are paying a FAR higher portion of taxes those of us below him.
Ryan, I sometimes suspect that if we'd just cut all the completely-useless programs, and charge a flat 5%, 10% or 15% tax rate, that after a number of decades poverty would be vastly reduced.
More later, perhaps.
Best to you! Enjoy your weekend, everyone!
Again, I haven't seen Warren Buffet's books
My point was to discuss how people argued. I don't know Warren Buffett's (two "t"s. Don't blog hungry) exact situation either. But I'm referring to statements Buffett has made that people quote.
Finally, why are "the rich" hated? Precisely because they're faceless. Nobody identifies with them
Here's a post from Megan McArdle's blog from a recent discussion which names names. Granted, McArdle's blog is not representative of the population in general.
Is GM's CEO really worth eight figures, or John Thain at Merrill who lies regularly about the financial status of his company? These guys make horrendous decisions and reap no ill effects. Therefore, they should be taxed at 70%. Period. If they don't like it, then Alex Rodriquez or John Thain can gop(sic) work at a car wash.link
People are fine putting a face on this issue. Ken Lay, for instance. Is his a representative face? I'm certainly not saying that. Is he portrayed accurately. I don't know. But he is a face. When people talk about "the rich" they often talk about CEOs, who have faces, rather than, say, middle management.
First, I'm not sure that the main reason people are dying in the world today is a lack of money
If you mean material resources, I can see that. But money can be translated into other things like time. Maybe even then, the problem is still one of opportunity to do good. I don't know.
Best to you! Enjoy your weekend, everyone!
Likewise to you Tim.
Rarely do you get the media and politicians putting faces to the rich who they love to rail against. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but by and large the talk you get is of "overpaid CEOs" or "greedy trial lawyers". Its almost like setting up a strawman. You define a term like "overpaid CEO" to mean something, usually the very picture of greed, callousness, egotism, whatever; and then you go on TV or make a speech somewhere insisting to the world that this group of people is the cause of much of their problems, or sometimes even NOT a cause of their problems "but why should they have all that wealth while you live a middle-class lifestyle?".
In reality, if you're being intellectually honest, most of the evil rich people we're told to hate are normal people like you or me, just with more money. I'd like to see a study done, though I know it never will be, on how much these "overpaid CEOs" pay in taxes each year, how much they donate to charities, etc. Not as a group either, I'd love to see this done on a case by case, person by person basis. We've got this idea about a class of people and we know little to nothing about the individuals themselves. I wonder how much harder it would be to rail against people making too much money if you actually knew something about them as people and not just an idea.
In the end, I don't know, maybe they do make too much money. Maybe they are overpaid and do fit the picture given to us by the media and politicians, but I don't know enough about the people that aren't given faces in these speeches and new commentary shows to make up my mind about that. I'll continue to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of condemning them without knowing them.
Going back a bit...
I think what we're saying is more or less two sides of the same coin. In every instance you mention, people give power to someone they identify with to fight what they see as some external threat.
Fighting the perception of threat IS a huge part of the motivation for government. So, yes, people support aggregation of power to thwart a threat, and people oppose aggregation of power when they perceive it as constituting a threat.
However, it seems that "opposing a threat" can include jousting nearly-invisible and sometimes questionable (or, when real, insoluble) threats such as "international bankers", "anthropogenic global warming", "workplace discrimination" or the Mayan fear of the end of the world. So there are far more cases where humans tend to support the accumulation of power.
Second, that only captures part of the picture: I don't believe all love of Hitler's "glory" was due to an equal fear of Jewish power. I don't believe that Osama's line about the "strong horse" was all about those individuals being protected. I think people sometimes love a show of strength for its own sake -- hence my reference to sports teams.
This was my thesis: Yes, there are times when people fear accumulation of power. But there are disproportionately more times that they are naturally inclined to love it.
In fairness, Samuel's sons were described as corrupt.
True, but I don't see any evidence that was the operative point at the moment: Judges' children didn't inherit their power, and the Israelis had been presented a far greater picture of alternative corruption.
(It's a bit like the argument that Republicans engage in wasteful spending. They do. But their earmarks don't begin to compare with the waste we'll see as whole new bureaucracies are created.)
Ryan: I've heard ordinary posters on blogs, at least, refer a few times to Warren Buffett's assertion that he can structure his wealth in order to pay a lower rate than his secretary and that this is not "fair."
Troy: I wonder how much harder it would be to rail against people making too much money if you actually knew something about them as people and not just an idea.
I agree that sometimes individuals name Buffett, Gates, or even Soros. But I believe part of the reason that the mega-rich profess leftism is to avoid being personally scapegoated, or, more, appear good and generous. ("Don't pick on me! I'm one of the good guys!") I'm not saying their desire is cynical nor even conscious, though.
Ken Lay, for instance. Is his a representative face?
Ken Lay is indeed. And he wasn't viewed as being part of the liberal establishment (though, in fact, he gave quite generously to Democrats), which is part of the reason its so FUN to pick on him. Same goes for Dick Cheney. Fair game.
But money can be translated into other things like time.
Can it? I'm not entirely sure of that. How much will it cost me to extend my life 100 years? I suspect the real underlying unit of currency may be care.
Troy: In reality, if you're being intellectually honest, most of the evil rich people we're told to hate are normal people like you or me, just with more money.
I tend to think you're right.
I'd like to see a study done, though I know it never will be, on how much these "overpaid CEOs" pay in taxes each year, how much they donate to charities, etc.
Actually, you CAN find at least the first half of that. There are numerous pages out there showing (to pick the 2005 example) that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of the tax burden, the top 5% pay 60% of it, that the top half of earners pay 97% of all Federal taxes.
Given how easy it is to find such information there is, in my opinion, frankly NO justification for reasonably intelligent politically-active liberals (like many of my associates) to keep asserting the opposite -- and demanding that a huge political edifice be built, immediately, upon their poor research (or, more, accurately, resistance to contrary evidence). The more ignorant a person is, in my experience, the more likely they will demand things be run their way.
So there may be a few rich people who evade paying taxes -- just as there may be a few poor people who pay more than their share -- but the numbers don't at all seem to support that contention in aggregate.
Troy: In the end, I don't know, maybe they do make too much money
I could care less how much a person "makes", and think that whole framing is inherently unhelpful and misleading. How much passes through their hands is far, far less relevant than what they do with it once they receive it.
I could care less how much a person "makes"
It's a fair question whether a particular CEO making several million dollars delivers value to a corporation in excess of that amount. Is there collusion between board members and the CEO for their mutual benefit, at the expense of the rest of the stockholders? I don't know how often such things happen. It seems worth asking. I just think it's a non-sequitur to use it to justify tax hikes.
But I believe part of the reason that the mega-rich profess leftism is to avoid being personally scapegoated, or, more, appear good and generous. ("Don't pick on me! I'm one of the good guys!") I'm not saying their desire is cynical nor even conscious, though.
I've heard that it used to be a point of pride with Bill Gates that he didn't donate money to either political party. The anti-trust trial changed his views, apparently. It's interesting that the settlement for that trial involved Microsoft giving software to schools, an action that inevitably would help Microsoft and further whatever situation the trial was supposed to remedy.
Ideology has little to do with where Microsoft spreads its money. In the 2000 election cycle, the company donated to 247 House campaigns and 61 Senate candidates. House Republicans received $326,000 while Democrats took in $262, 000.
link
Ryan: It's a fair question whether a particular CEO making several million dollars delivers value to a corporation in excess of that amount.
It's a fair question as to whether any salary is too low or too high. Is Brett Favre overpaid, underpaid, or just right? How about me? How about you? How much value do we deliver for our pay?
But the crucial point is that's a matter for the business, its shareholders, and its customers to decide. If it pays an executive far too much for the value delivered, that opens an opportunity for a competitor to arise with a non-bloated compensation structure.
I've heard that it used to be a point of pride with Bill Gates that he didn't donate money to either political party. The anti-trust trial changed his views...
I didn't mean to address only direct party donations -- I'm also thinking about public, verbal support for policies as well as highly visible donations to non-political charities.
On the other side, Bill Gates discovered that even well-meant laws turn the government into a giant "protection" racket -- a behavior which is generally illegal and mafia-like otherwise. So a well-meaning law like anti-trust, meant to reign in "evil" corporations, actually helps to foster governmental corruption and bribery.
It's interesting that the settlement for that trial involved Microsoft giving software to schools, an action that inevitably would help Microsoft...
The government's response was a pathetic joke. It took almost a decade (which is forever, in tech-land) to look into and address the most serious charges, and, as you say, the remedy was incredibly stupid. Instead of per-computer licensing (the allegedly illegal action) Microsoft immediately switched to "per-CPU" licensing -- with the exact same effect. And they continued to rip off software (e.g. their theft of Quicktime) and use their domination in one niche to protect their products in others.
All that might be a morality tale as to why antitrust regulation doesn't really work, and why the government, which is frequently dumb as rocks, collectively (when not paid off) makes for a very dense, sleepy, and easily-distracted-with-steak watchdog.
Ryan: But money can be translated into other things like time.
Tim: Can it? I'm not entirely sure of that. How much will it cost me to extend my life 100 years? I suspect the real underlying unit of currency may be care.
Well, I was thinking along the lines of how people exchange time for money and vice versa. You sell x numbers of hours each day to get a paycheck. A personal assistant or other employee can increase the number of total hours that a person can devote to the task of their choosing. (to some degree.) There's diminishing returns, of course.
Is Brett Favre overpaid, underpaid, or just right?
I think the problem is uniquely interesting when a person's employer (The board) is effectively captured by their employee (the CEO), to the detriment of third party investors. Mismanagement (is Favre paid too much?) seems a different bird than a genuine conflict of interest.
Members of a board of directors have an ethical (if not legally enforceable) obligation to represent shareholders and maximize profit unless some other obligations are written into the business charter.
But the crucial point is that's a matter for the business, its shareholders, and its customers to decide.
Of course. Though in other professions there would be some lines which, if crossed, would constitute a legal or professional conflict of interest.
If it pays an executive far too much for the value delivered, that opens an opportunity for a competitor to arise with a non-bloated compensation structure.
Sure, and if a company doesn't prevent customers from embezzling, this opens the door for a company that has more effective theft detection. But competition doesn't automatically obviate the need for a legal remedy, at least as a deterrent for blatant quid pro quo exchanges, even if such a club was very difficult to actually swing.
I agree with the argument that anti-trust legislation doesn't seem to have had the positive effect intended.
customers from embezzling --> employees from embezzling.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "Punitive Liberalism" and the Golden Rule |
Front Page |
Page Two
| More on Putin and Georgia »
|
I think what we're saying is more or less two sides of the same coin. In every instance you mention, people give power to someone they identify with to fight what they see as some external threat. Other nations, other races, the czars/bourgeois, the greedy. When we get down to it, that's the reason you've supported sending guys with guns over to Iraq to fight, right? It's taken some money out of your wallet at the least.
The people, however, didn't like Samuel.
In fairness, Samuel's sons were described as corrupt.
He doesn't name, say, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,
I've heard ordinary posters on blogs, at least, refer a few times to Warren Buffett's assertion that he can structure his wealth in order to pay a lower rate than his secretary and that this is not "fair."
Posted by: Ryan W. on August 31, 2008 02:30 AM