Philosophers in the Rawlsian tradition often like to think
about political relationships on the model of personal relationships. My own view is that we don’t share a
meaningful connection to other persons just by virtue of happening to live
within the same political state. But
nevermind that. A bigger worry is that
if political associations are like
personal relationships, that is more disturbing than comforting. No matter how bad things get in our personal
relationships, resorting to threats of force or coercion remains totally beyond
the pale. If we really think about the
relation of political rule on the model of a relationship, then it seems like a very
messed up kind of relationship.
Let’s say we go ahead and think in relationship terms. Consider what we know from political
psychology about the kind of people who want to rule over us. They are more Machiavellian. More than most, they seek their own ends at others
expense, rather than looking for shred values.
They are more narcissistic, or inclined to exaggerate their achievements
and deny criticisms. They prioritize short-term
rewards to longer-term commitments. They
are less agreeable,
or concerned with getting along with others.
And they may score higher in psychopathy, which would make them more
willing to use force and violence than most people. In short, “There
is no doubt that some who run for elective office crave the benefits and
adulation that comes from positions of power.”
People curious about the prospects for exercising rule generally
want to couch their ambitions in terms of “service” for fellow citizens. But given the list of traits just mentioned,
we should know better than to take this at face value. Those who want to get into politics often see
it more as a way of realizing a goal to hold and exercise power over others
more than they see it as a way of providing communal goods. (This is especially
true for men, who continue to be dramatically over-represented.)
Imagining these problems away by idealizing political rule
as a healthy personal relationship can give us the wrong idea about how we
should treat signals from political elites.
As Jess wrote a
while back:
Charisma
is not a positive feature of a leader, nor is it ‘value-free’ as Weber claimed. Rather,
charisma is quite morally problematic insofar as people defer to charismatic
leaders on the basis of their charisma rather than their moral or epistemic
authority. A charismatic presence often inspires followers to bypass any
deliberation of their own. Whether charismatic leaders are moral or not, when
charisma is the reason for deference the motives followers are therefore
morally worse.
There are a lot of reasons to think this is a real phenomenon. People take their partisan leaders’ word for
it all the time.
What to make of all of this for thinking about actual
political activity? Lately my sense has
been that those who have opposed peaceful protests seem to think that
protestors should be more grateful
for the terms of political rule. To my ear,
their skepticism still has the tone of “You’ll be back!” That rejoinder has been wrong before, and relying
on political rule to guide our moral actions and beliefs – the way we might
rely on people with whom we share real relationships – continues to look unpromising. The bottom line is that if the reminder of
someone’s love is found at the literal point of
a fully armed battalion, it might time to start rethinking
some relationship goals.