I am not expecting the perfect world described in my previous post on power and order. But I would like to say a few more things about leadership of large masses of people. We need leaders and people who understand humans and make appropriate rules and regulations. On the surface, libertarianism seems to have advantages, but not for three hundred and fifty million people, and definitely not for 7 billion. Nor in fact for any large numbers. It takes work and a tremendous insight into human thought and behavior to hold a very large group of people together so that they can accomplish significant things, especially if radical change is involved.. Ask any general or CEO. But the best way to understand the advantages and limitations of power and order is to look at the present, and even better, at history.
People who are too ambitious at acquiring power and order often end up losing their followers, if not their lives— Adolph Hitler comes to mind. My experience makes me believe that small groups and even large organizations are pretty good at choosing their leaders. The task is made both easier and more difficult because individuals know more about each other. But for very large groups of people, such as we are interested in here, the task is difficult, and in many cases very difficult indeed. Nations who try to maintain a royal family often run into trouble, because heritage alone does not always result in the knowledge of people, economics, and leadership ability necessary to lead a nation. Very large groups who choose a president based on his/her record with another large group may end up with a mis-match. The advent of modern communication (TV, the internet) in nations who elect their leaders often offers an insight into their ability to perform and their knowledge of the media rather than how they may perform if elected, which is why I encouraged you to follow the upcoming elections, and try to figure out how successful candidates will be at what they say about accomplishing their stated goals, as well as stating these goals.
Another problem is that people who love power and order often are never satisfied with how much they have. In Paul Kennedy’ excellent book Rise and Fall of Great Powers, nations often grow under extraordinary leadership, and fade because of over-commitment —the leadership is never satisfied —think of the colonization of other lands by European countries. Think of the Vatican, and its attempt to influence the behavior of 1.2 billion people, or for that matter, any large church. In the case of the Vatican, the problem is particularly difficult because the “rulers” tend to be old, and they want to influence people who are very young indeed.
Also, in my travels I have found that most people are not eager for wars. That seems to be a favorite sport of certain leaders, who gain their feelings of success from trying to increase the land area of their country, and/or influence the thinking of people in other cultures or just have "power" . As we will discuss later, if one looks back at former wars, the hopes of the leaders are not usually fulfilled in the long term. The world is not all communist (the Soviet Union), democratic (the U.S.), or fascist (Italy). The leaders, who probably have to believe in their form of government and are generally unique at capturing the hearts and minds of the majority of their population, do not always get their wishes, and large numbers of people are killed in the process (often people who would just as soon not have been in a war, and often not the leaders). And wars being very expensive do not often result in as big a benefit to the combatants as they might have hoped. Those of you who have been around a long time probably remember a photo of Benito Mussolini, leader of the fascist party in Italy, and his mistress who were shot and their bodies hung in a plaza for all to see.
For such reasons, I believe that leaders who have power should also have experience in what they are elected/appointed/born to do. Leadership positions vary widely in what they require, and these characteristics are not obvious. Being the president of a large private university requires the ability to raise money, and this can best by determined by past performance. It also requires a skill with people that is very different than that required to be the head of a workers union. I was particularly impressed by two people I got to know who were extremely successful as company presidents. One of these was Andy Grove, first employee and later long term president of Intel. I knew him both professionally in his Intel position, and personally as the father of one of my son’s friends. In the latter capacity, he was one of the nicest, most supporting fathers I have known. In the former, he was regularly recognized as very tough indeed. He seemed to be able to be two people. The other was Don Petersen, who became a good friend. He was CEO at Ford and is as nice and helpful a person as I have ever met. But I heard from a Ford Employee once that his nickname at work was “The Smiling Cobra”. Again capable of two lives?
Power also varies. What backs up people skills? Company presidents can regulate their employees pay and benefits. National presidents cannot. Generals are backed up by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Cardinals are not. Dictators can execute people who disobey them, leaders of fashion can not. Leadership and capability for power can best be determined by past performance in similar positions.
One problem suffered by many leaders of large groups of people is that their self-image, which often is very high, makes them think they can accomplish things they cannot. That is why this post is well timed, because you can use the media coverage of the election campaigning to try to predict how well candidates for high offices are likely to do at accomplishing things they say they can. That is why I tend to be suspicious of the ones promising revolutionary change, and go for those that are obviously bright, personable, and seem flexible. I will say no more.
Recent Comments