A paradox of power
I'm going to take a break from the myths-of-the-week this morning, as prompted by some recent discussions. The discussions have ranged the gamut in topics, from frustrations with the current Democratic field to more parochial concerns, but in each of them, I keep coming back to some variation of a statement I have been making for years. Time to write it down.
I shall put it in the context of some books on my mind lately-- Seth Dickinson's Baru Cormorant novels. They are not perfect novels, by any stretch of the imagination, but they do have some interesting ideas. So far, Dickinson has written The Traitor Baru Cormorant and The Monster Baru Cormorant. They take place on some other world where the rising dominant power is the Falcrest Empire. The Falcrest Empire uses economic and cultural influence over military might to control what it can, which is interesting.
Throughout the novels, characters reference a series of "Qualms," that Falcrest poses as basic principles at the heart of their philosophy (Incrasticism). The "Qualms" that get recited most frequently generally have to do with loyalty, duty, and so on, and so forth.
Let's call this Buchler's Qualm (HT: Seth Dickinson).
I have been using that first sentence for years, and it does present something of a problem. I am, well... not the first person to point it out. A few people with whom you are familiar got there first. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay... Yeah, those guys. The Federalist Papers. I took the basic principles in a different direction, but remember all that stuff about "the mischiefs of faction" from The Federalist Papers? Not too different in the basic motivation, although somewhat different in the implication. Let's tease that out, in today's more theory-based post.
The basic structure of the constitutional order in the United States, as originally conceived, was predicated on the notion that ambition must be checked against ambition. Faction must be pitted against faction. You cannot prevent people from working towards their own narrow self-interests and against whatever the common good might be, should such a thing exist, but what you can do is design a system in which the worst effects of that are minimized by a system of checks and balances such that one faction cancels out the damage done by another faction. The result may be stalemate, but stalemate-- to the framers, anyway-- was better than allowing a faction working for its own narrow interests against the common good to run roughshod over the country. That was the best for which we could hope, according to Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Federalists 10 and 51 are everyone's favorite references here. Good stuff. And mainly Madison, for the historical sticklers.
How are our checks and balances doing? Not so well. I'll spare you another rant this morning on the current state of checks and balances, but they have broken down, and that's a big problem.
So I come back, not to Federalists 10 & 51, but to what I'm now narcissistically calling "Buchler's Qualm." Here's the trick about checks and balances. If two factions check each other, then neither wins. Who has power, then? Neither! Each is trying to attain power, and both are failing. That's the hidden goal-- the denial of power to anyone.
There is, then, the pluralist model, most closely associated with Robert Dahl, and best explained in its many and varied forms in A Preface to Democratic Theory. The core of pluralism, such as it may exist, is that instead of one "faction" consistently controlling outcomes, the group that wins varies over time and across issues so that you don't just have one dominant elite that controls everything.
You still have people seeking power, and at various points in time, achieving it. What're they doing with it? That'll vary, won't it?
You may or may not remember this study. It got a lot of attention, presenting data to show that about 20% of executives are straight-up psychopaths. That's the business world. Will the political world reward psychopathy? That depends on who's doing the rewarding! Everything is dependent.
But let's put it this way. How many past presidents in US history do you think were really good? We have one sort of unifying figure: Washingon. Lincoln is in a weird historical position, vaguely unifying and playing a necessary historical role for the Republican Party to respond to any charges of racism ("I can't be racist, because Lincoln freed the slaves!"), yet revisionist history on the Civil War and glorification of the Confederacy keeps plenty of southerners-- Republicans-- from actually embracing the substance of Lincoln's Presidency.
Then, we have the Republican Party's creation of the character of Ronald Reagan, somewhat different from the actual person, in order to have a president to lionize in the post-Nixon era. He raised a bunch of taxes and gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. To modern conservatives... c'mon. Currently, though, Republicans are shifting from Reagan to Trump, at the mass level. Soon, Reagan may be openly demonized for that amnesty.
Democrats? The abandonment of Obama among a certain crowd of visible activists understates his popularity among base voters, but FDR? Do we really need to get into the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII? LBJ? How about Vietnam?
My point is, it's pretty easy to pick apart a past president. And it's really easy to pick apart the current crop of candidates. That's just not my precise point for today. Buried within the post is that they're all in it for the power, that power is the power to control others, and if you trust any of them, I've got a "degree" from a real estate trading program to sell you.
So, bigger picture. We often reference a principle called "Fenno's Paradox" in studies of Congress, after Richard Fenno, arguably the greatest Congress scholar of all. People hate Congress overall, but like their own Members of Congress. Yeah, it's the other 434 House districts that screwed up and elected a psycho. You? You did great, buddy! Gold star for you! How many Members of Congress-- House and Senate combined-- do you think are straight-up psychopaths? Then add in the other assorted defectives?
These are people who want power. Power over others. People with ambition for power. People whose ambition is to have the power to control others. People who are hence evil, and hence who should have been prevented from getting power.
Oops. The weather outside may not be balmy, but it is qualmy.
Where does all this go? Checks and balances are a nice fairy tale. But, once you create a position of power, you ensure that it will be sought by someone who will abuse it, unless it is checked to the point that it cannot be used, in which case it is not a position of power. In the absence of a formal position of power (e.g. government), power exists anyway. The Hobbesian state of nature does not, and never has existed, nor does any other "state of nature," but power means a lot of things. So here's the problem. What is the cost of not establishing a position of power? What is the cost of permitting the collective action problem and the tragedy of the commons to run their course? The dogmatic libertarian is afraid of these questions, but whatever question scares you the most is the question you need to ask with the greatest intensity. The modern American liberal, with all of the associated paradoxes of terminology, is so deeply, completely trusting of the concept of government that the possibility of abuse at a systemic level never enters the discussion at a theoretical, structural, policy level. Put Donald Trump into the equation? Sure. Then they'll talk about corruption and abuse of power, and the possibility that those seeking it are seeking it because they are evil, but to the modern American left, the idea that that should be factored into policy... nope.
If you're looking for an answer here... seriously? I've been using variations of the first line of "Buchler's Qualm" for years, but it's really just a snarky and extra-cynical version of the principles from Federalists 10 and 51. If those problems were solvable, they'd be solved by now. And I wouldn't just be snarking about them in the context of the Baru Cormorant novels, which, frankly, have some hack-ish elements, even if the first book is well worth reading. Skip book 2.
I shall put it in the context of some books on my mind lately-- Seth Dickinson's Baru Cormorant novels. They are not perfect novels, by any stretch of the imagination, but they do have some interesting ideas. So far, Dickinson has written The Traitor Baru Cormorant and The Monster Baru Cormorant. They take place on some other world where the rising dominant power is the Falcrest Empire. The Falcrest Empire uses economic and cultural influence over military might to control what it can, which is interesting.
Throughout the novels, characters reference a series of "Qualms," that Falcrest poses as basic principles at the heart of their philosophy (Incrasticism). The "Qualms" that get recited most frequently generally have to do with loyalty, duty, and so on, and so forth.
Let's call this Buchler's Qualm (HT: Seth Dickinson).
Anyone who wants power shouldn't have it. Power means power over others. The desire for power is an ambition. The ambition for that power is the ambition to control others. Anyone who wants that power, then, wants it to control others, which is evil. So, anyone seeking power is evil, and should be prevented from acquiring it.
I have been using that first sentence for years, and it does present something of a problem. I am, well... not the first person to point it out. A few people with whom you are familiar got there first. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay... Yeah, those guys. The Federalist Papers. I took the basic principles in a different direction, but remember all that stuff about "the mischiefs of faction" from The Federalist Papers? Not too different in the basic motivation, although somewhat different in the implication. Let's tease that out, in today's more theory-based post.
The basic structure of the constitutional order in the United States, as originally conceived, was predicated on the notion that ambition must be checked against ambition. Faction must be pitted against faction. You cannot prevent people from working towards their own narrow self-interests and against whatever the common good might be, should such a thing exist, but what you can do is design a system in which the worst effects of that are minimized by a system of checks and balances such that one faction cancels out the damage done by another faction. The result may be stalemate, but stalemate-- to the framers, anyway-- was better than allowing a faction working for its own narrow interests against the common good to run roughshod over the country. That was the best for which we could hope, according to Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Federalists 10 and 51 are everyone's favorite references here. Good stuff. And mainly Madison, for the historical sticklers.
How are our checks and balances doing? Not so well. I'll spare you another rant this morning on the current state of checks and balances, but they have broken down, and that's a big problem.
So I come back, not to Federalists 10 & 51, but to what I'm now narcissistically calling "Buchler's Qualm." Here's the trick about checks and balances. If two factions check each other, then neither wins. Who has power, then? Neither! Each is trying to attain power, and both are failing. That's the hidden goal-- the denial of power to anyone.
There is, then, the pluralist model, most closely associated with Robert Dahl, and best explained in its many and varied forms in A Preface to Democratic Theory. The core of pluralism, such as it may exist, is that instead of one "faction" consistently controlling outcomes, the group that wins varies over time and across issues so that you don't just have one dominant elite that controls everything.
You still have people seeking power, and at various points in time, achieving it. What're they doing with it? That'll vary, won't it?
You may or may not remember this study. It got a lot of attention, presenting data to show that about 20% of executives are straight-up psychopaths. That's the business world. Will the political world reward psychopathy? That depends on who's doing the rewarding! Everything is dependent.
But let's put it this way. How many past presidents in US history do you think were really good? We have one sort of unifying figure: Washingon. Lincoln is in a weird historical position, vaguely unifying and playing a necessary historical role for the Republican Party to respond to any charges of racism ("I can't be racist, because Lincoln freed the slaves!"), yet revisionist history on the Civil War and glorification of the Confederacy keeps plenty of southerners-- Republicans-- from actually embracing the substance of Lincoln's Presidency.
Then, we have the Republican Party's creation of the character of Ronald Reagan, somewhat different from the actual person, in order to have a president to lionize in the post-Nixon era. He raised a bunch of taxes and gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. To modern conservatives... c'mon. Currently, though, Republicans are shifting from Reagan to Trump, at the mass level. Soon, Reagan may be openly demonized for that amnesty.
Democrats? The abandonment of Obama among a certain crowd of visible activists understates his popularity among base voters, but FDR? Do we really need to get into the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII? LBJ? How about Vietnam?
My point is, it's pretty easy to pick apart a past president. And it's really easy to pick apart the current crop of candidates. That's just not my precise point for today. Buried within the post is that they're all in it for the power, that power is the power to control others, and if you trust any of them, I've got a "degree" from a real estate trading program to sell you.
So, bigger picture. We often reference a principle called "Fenno's Paradox" in studies of Congress, after Richard Fenno, arguably the greatest Congress scholar of all. People hate Congress overall, but like their own Members of Congress. Yeah, it's the other 434 House districts that screwed up and elected a psycho. You? You did great, buddy! Gold star for you! How many Members of Congress-- House and Senate combined-- do you think are straight-up psychopaths? Then add in the other assorted defectives?
These are people who want power. Power over others. People with ambition for power. People whose ambition is to have the power to control others. People who are hence evil, and hence who should have been prevented from getting power.
Oops. The weather outside may not be balmy, but it is qualmy.
Where does all this go? Checks and balances are a nice fairy tale. But, once you create a position of power, you ensure that it will be sought by someone who will abuse it, unless it is checked to the point that it cannot be used, in which case it is not a position of power. In the absence of a formal position of power (e.g. government), power exists anyway. The Hobbesian state of nature does not, and never has existed, nor does any other "state of nature," but power means a lot of things. So here's the problem. What is the cost of not establishing a position of power? What is the cost of permitting the collective action problem and the tragedy of the commons to run their course? The dogmatic libertarian is afraid of these questions, but whatever question scares you the most is the question you need to ask with the greatest intensity. The modern American liberal, with all of the associated paradoxes of terminology, is so deeply, completely trusting of the concept of government that the possibility of abuse at a systemic level never enters the discussion at a theoretical, structural, policy level. Put Donald Trump into the equation? Sure. Then they'll talk about corruption and abuse of power, and the possibility that those seeking it are seeking it because they are evil, but to the modern American left, the idea that that should be factored into policy... nope.
If you're looking for an answer here... seriously? I've been using variations of the first line of "Buchler's Qualm" for years, but it's really just a snarky and extra-cynical version of the principles from Federalists 10 and 51. If those problems were solvable, they'd be solved by now. And I wouldn't just be snarking about them in the context of the Baru Cormorant novels, which, frankly, have some hack-ish elements, even if the first book is well worth reading. Skip book 2.
Comments
Post a Comment