“. . . AND GULLIVER RETURNS”
--In Search of Utopia--
BOOK 8--SMASHWORDS EDITION
POLITICS--The Science of the Possible
by
Lemuel Gulliver XVI as told to Jacqueline Slow
© 2010 ISBN 978-0-9823076-0-1
Dear friends—Obviously I wrote this series to be read from Book 1 to the end, but silly me! Readers often begin with what sounds interesting to them. This may leave them unaware of the characters, my friends and I. So let me introduce us. We were boyhood friends, as wild and as close as geese heading south for the winter. But our university educations split us philosophically like a drop of quicksilver hitting the floor. But like those balls of mercury, when brought together, they again become one. As have we.
Ray became a Catholic priest and moved far to the right of where our
teenage liberalism had bound us. Ray calls himself a
neo-conservative. We think he is a reactionary.
Lee slid to the left of our adolescent leanings, and somewhere along
the line became an atheist. Lee is a lawyer.
Concannon, Con for short, retired from his very
successful business. I guess his business experience moved him a bit
to the right, to conservatism—a conservative just to the right of
the middle.
Then there’s me. I think I’m pretty much a middle of the
roader—except for my passion to save our planet by reducing our
population before global warming, massive poverty and far-reaching
famines decimate our humanity. Hope this introduction makes our
discussions make a bit more sense.
After enjoying a traditional Indian meal, or more precisely, an Indian gourmet meal, we walked around the university campus, hit some balls on the driving range, and swam a few laps in their outdoor 25 meter pool, we felt relaxed and ready to tackle our meeting tomorrow with Dr. Singh from the University of Bangalore. We watched the setting Indian sun imagining Sūrya, the god of the heavens, driving his seven rainbow hued steeds westward until his golden hair disappeared below the horizon. We can only imagine the speed of his chariot racing under the earth so that he will be poised to continue his eternal duty on the morrow, as he brings the dawn to the eastern sky.
So off to slumberland for us boys from LA while we anticipated tomorrow’s exciting day and the expectation of more jewels from another renowned academic. We have already looked deeply at the psychological needs and drives that motivate us and the power of the various values that pervade our thinking. But now we are going to look at how these motivations are used to control us and our human brothers and sisters. We are going to study the art and science of politics.
After a night of restful anticipation we met for breakfast in the faculty dining room--Father Ray our reactionary old buddy, lawyer Lee, our liberal skeptic, and the good old conservative Con. It is bewildering how four such close friends from high school could have travelled such different intellectual paths as we meandered towards maturity.
As we waited in line for our vegetarian morning meal I saw Mr. Ghosh escorting a tall Sikh our way. His flawlessly wrapped flaming red turban and dark well trimmed beard accented his typical Sikh handsomeness. I don’t think I have ever seen a group of men who almost universally fit the ‘tall, dark and handsome’ ideal of Western women and who typify the calm and quiet masculinity that most men envy. The Sikhs are indeed a very special group of people.
I stepped out of line and extended my hand.
—“Thank
you for inviting us here, Dr. Singh. I am really interested in your
ideas on how to get things done.”
—“Thank you Commander Gulliver. I’m delighted that you could
all come. I have been following your travels. I know you have met
with Wanda Wang in Kino and Charlie Chan in Singaling-- he goes by
Chuck now doesn’t he? It’s good that you now have some background
in ethics and in psychological motivations because practical politics
is based on the effective use of the psychological drives and the
values that people believe in—or at least say they believe in.
POLITICS—THE SCIENCE OF THE POSSIBLE
“I define politics as ‘the science of the possible.’ It relates to the acquisition of power in any situation--from individual to international. If you use the most effective political techniques, you have a good possibility to get what you want--in an individual or a social situation. It is often said that effective politics is getting your way while others think they are getting theirs! Commander, I understand that the reason we are meeting is that you want to know the most effective ways that you can use to motivate people to understand the problems of overpopulation and the need to have all children born to parents who will love and nurture them and give them the best chance to be happy and successful as well as socially useful men and women. Is that right?”
--”You
are right on, doctor.”
--
“Good. Then before we start let me clarify something. We are
psychological beings. A politician recognizes this and attempts to
use our psychological propensities to get what he wants. For example,
as you know, having power over your life is essential for your mental
health, to overcome your inferiority complex, as Alfred Adler told
us. Let’s assume for a moment that I am your boss and I want you to
be a more effective employee, I might praise you whenever you do
something right. This might make you work harder to please me and to
get more compliments. Or I might use fear, which threatens your
power. Fear lessens your control of your world. I might tell you that
if you don’t do more work and do it to a higher standard I will
have to fire you. This might also work to motivate you to perform at
a higher standard. But what if I get so upset with your poor work
that I yell at you, hit you, or even kill you in my rage? In these
latter cases I was not thinking my way to my behavior, I was merely
reacting irrationally, purely psychologically. So I was acting in an
unthinking way. This is the exact opposite of a conscious
well-thought-out political action.
“So the same or similar actions can be done from a thinking, conscious, political motivation or they can be done as a psychological outburst which vents our frustrations. What if you have killed my sister. My first psychological reaction might well be to kill you in revenge. But what if the police catch you first. You are put on trial, found guilty of planning a murder, and put into prison. What is your society’s goal in imprisoning you? Is it merely to punish? If so solitary confinement might be best. But what if the society’s goal is to rehabilitate you? The activities of the prison might then be to educate you, to train you for a job, to help you find a strong belief in a religion. Then eventually, if it appears that you are rehabilitated, you might be released back to society.
“Your reaction to your sister’s murder was purely psychological—anger. You might however rationalize it with the ‘eye for an eye’ command from your religion. Your society’s goals might have been to make people think twice about murdering because they would be jailed, or even killed. The society might have a goal to get prisoners back into the economic system where they could support the society’s economic needs rather than being an economic drain as a prisoner. Or maybe your society’s goal occurs from a pervading religious feeling your society that you are a child of God and should not be held in prison indefinitely.
“Depending on the most important goals of society relative to their prisoners-- what are the best political methods to accomplish them? Do you need to be taught to read? Would reading the Bible or Koran give you a more peaceful and forgiving outlook on life? Should the prison officials test you to find the types of jobs in which you would be most successful?
“So my point is that we must be clear in our plans and actions. We must know whether our action is the result of anger or some other tweak of our psyches, or is whether our action is a well thought-out plan to accomplish a goal. The resulting actions might be the same, the question is whether the action was planned to accomplish a certain objective. For example, a parent might spank a child because of anger and frustration, or he might spank the child because discussions had failed and the spanking was considered to have the best chance of effectively changing a negative behavior in the child. You, Commander, obviously cannot strike out in anger at those who oppose your goals. You must find the political techniques that will most effectively advance your causes.
“But your worthy causes are but two of the many economic, social, military and environmental concerns that face the world. The world has a number of weighty dilemmas. The problem is that every group uses different scales to weigh them.”
–“And most of those scales are faulty, aren’t they Lee.”
--“It’s
like the butcher putting his thumb on the scale and weighing it along
with the hamburger.”
—“But
there’s more than one butcher manipulating his scales. There are
the business people looking for more customers, the politicians whose
only concern is to be reelected, the environmentalists who want to
save the world, and the conservative religious leaders who interpret
some scriptures myopically. Then there are the faulty scales, some
with weakened springs, some with mislabeled counterbalances. It goes
back to the types and the verifiability of values and evidence that
we discussed with Wanda Wang.”
--“True.
And for every desire that an individual or nation has there is a best
technique that can be used to make it a reality. Politics is actually
an applied science. It may be part individual psychology, part social
psychology, sometimes involving economics—both micro and macro--,
ethics, religion or theology, history and it often involves some kind
of apparatus. The apparatus may involve anything from plastic surgery
or jewelry to guns and bombs—depending on objective the person or
group, that is to say the ‘politician.’
“And remember the politician can be an individual looking for a selfish goal or it might be the statesman trying to accomplish an important goal for the world. So as an individual it might be winning the hand of the local Prince Charming or Cinderella. As an elected representative it might be looking for ways for keeping your electorate happy, it might even be finding ways of controlling the world. Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, Alexander the Great and others have attempted to control as much of the world as they could. In fact political techniques can be used in any area of life. They are often used in our personal lives, just as they are used in business and in governing groups—from our families to our nations.
“What techniques are most likely to accomplish your goals? An effective politician will keep his major goal in mind. When George W. Bush went to China in November of 2005 he first called upon the Chinese government to increase civil rights and the right to practice religion freely. How many governments, or people, want to be told publicly what they should be doing. The fact that Bush’s country had a net trade deficit of $200 billion annually did not put him in a strong bargaining position, especially when it owed about a trillion dollars to his hosts. While Bush was insulting his hosts, he was asking for favors—that the Chinese would work to reduce the trade deficit by buying more American goods and that they would re-value their money upward so that their goods would not be so cheap. Of course Bush did represent the world’s only military superpower and he did control ‘The Bomb.’ But it was rather like a suitor telling his girlfriend that he doesn’t like her hair or her clothes and that she has a questionable personality—just before he asks for her hand in marriage.
“As a politician you should be aware of the probable results of your actions. When the young French demonstrated against the proposed law that would have allowed more people to be employed but it also allowed an employer to release a worker without reason during the first two years of employment, was the demonstration effective? The demonstrators saw that this provision would allow employers to bring in new employees every two years, never giving the current employees the chance to gain full employment rights. This ran counter to the long standing French tradition of a high level of employee rights, in opposition to employer rights. Assuming this was a well thought out political move and not just a knee jerk reaction, what were the possible outcomes? The whole proposed law could be junked—reducing the chances of more entry level positions becoming available. The government might keep the increased number of entry level jobs and eliminate the easy firing provision—as the demonstrators wanted. But then the businesses might move to other countries which were more employer friendly. The result of the demonstrations was that the government rescinded the proposed law. But the question is still-- were more jobs created or lost by the violent actions? In 2006 the French unemployment rate was 9.9%. In Germany it was 11.7%. By 2010 the French rate was 10.2%, the German rate was 8.2. So in that four year period the French unemployment increased by 0.2%. The Germans dropped 3.5%. We wonder what the French unemployment rate might have been had the government been able to pass the law that the students had effectively protested. At any rate, France was better off than Zimbabwe with it’s 90% unemployment rate.
“Had the law been passed the way the students wanted, we might have expected that some businesses would move to other countries which were more employer friendly. So if the student demonstrations were well thought out political techniques, did they get the results that they wanted?
“Naturally seeking power in government is one of the oldest forms of politics, so the word ‘politician’ is generally applied to people working in government. But as you know, Aristotle applied the power principle to man and woman, to master and slave, to king and subjects. I can agree with some of his observations, but I want to concentrate on power acquisition, and to how power can be acquired in many areas and relationships. After all, Aristotle thought that men were superior to women and that slavery was the natural state of some people. We don’t agree with those ideas today.
“Commander Gulliver, I know that you are concerned with how we can convince people to limit population, then as a secondary goal, how they might acquiesce to licensing parents to have children so that the children who are born will have better opportunities for education, happiness and civic worth. Is that correct?”
—“Right.
I know that people want to do as they please. Our habits of living
and believing are so deeply ingrained that they hold us in a prison
or inertia. And their beliefs are often strongly held in the area of
parenthood. Certainly some people want children and should be
discouraged from having them, but others don’t want children and
possibly should be persuaded to at least look into the option. We
certainly see men and women in the exciting fields of business and
science not wanting to deter their careers with the responsibilities
of children. But reducing the total number of children born is
essential to the survival of the planet. Yet having children who are
loved and cared for is essential to having a more peaceful and
productive society. Certainly both are desirable. So what do you
suggest Dr. Singh?”
—“Before
getting specific I want to be quite general. I have found in my
teaching and consulting that it is better to go from the general to
the specific, from the forest to the tree, from the team to the
player. To solve your specific problem you must define your goal,
understand the people you are trying to convince, then you can look
at the behavior changing techniques that people or societies might
use to achieve that goal. For example, if my goal is to have Susan
marry me, or even date me, what techniques might I use to make it
happen? I might threaten her. ‘Marry me or I’ll kill you.’ Or
maybe I could use another type of fear--‘marry me or I will burn
your house down.’ Or maybe I could shower her with gifts. Maybe I
could make her feel sorry for me. There are many methods available,
but which will work on Susan? I need to know more about her. Is she
such a loving person that she will marry me out of pity? Has she
always been poor and physically needy, very low on Maslow’s scale,
so a roof over her head might be her primary concern. You know about
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs don’t you?”
—“Yes,
Chuck Chan went into some detail on Maslow when we visited him in
Singaling..”(1)
—“If
you could find out where Susan is on Maslow’s scale you might be
better able to determine how you could meet her needs. Remember many
years ago when Supreme Court Justice Douglas, well over 60, married a
very young law school student. Was her fascination with him that he
was in the meta-need level and she aspired for that same level? Was
his attractiveness to her based on the fact that he was in a powerful
position?
“So what physical or psychological spurs will elicit the action you want? And the correct spur might vary from person to person. Looking at your idea of reducing the number of children born, how might people react to that idea? One might shun parenthood because children would interfere with her academic, economic or recreational pursuits. Another might do it only if the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury said to. Another might prefer a bigger house to a bigger family.
“Let us go back to goal setting. First, of course, you have to have a goal. What is it that you want? Do you want a state of Israel in Palestine? Do you want a certain person to marry you? Do you want to punish non-Muslim states? Do you want a specific job? Do you want a position in the legislature? This last area is the one we most commonly associate with the term ‘politics’ but it is not the only area of ‘people manipulation.’ Machiavelli wrote the most quoted treatise on politics. People who don’t understand the political processes he suggested for his ‘prince’ deride some actions as ‘Machiavellian’ as if they were evil, but Nicolo merely observed and hypothesized on how leaders can most effectively get what they want. He was a practical psychologist hundreds of years before the discipline was invented.
“Ronald Reagan, when elected governor of California, blamed the previous governor for the financial mess he was forced to straighten out. He therefore enacted very heavy taxes as being necessary. The people understood that their new leader was not at fault for the financial problems he inherited and he had just been elected the state’s leader so he enjoyed the sanctity of one newly canonized. Then over the years he reduced taxes, little by little and each time to great fanfare. He become holier and holier, or I should say, more and more popular. He had done just as Machiavelli had proposed that his Prince should do.(1a)
“So you must have a goal. Once you have a goal you must look at whom you must win over, then you will have a better idea of what methods to use. Determine whether the person or people are motivated by a value or a psychological drive, then you can have a better idea of the best way to attempt to convert that person, or those people, and accomplish your goal. The goal may be impossible to achieve, but most goals are achievable. The goal of a national leader may be to get free elections in another country. He might try negotiation, economic incentives, international consensus, assassination of the other country’s leaders, or even war.
“A man or woman may want to date or marry someone. He or she might give in to all of the other’s wishes. He or she might change his or her appearance by losing weight, buying new clothes, or having plastic surgery. Threats might work. Promising or giving money might work.
”Let’s assume they marry but then have a problem. What political techniques might they use to get the marriage back on track. They might discuss the problem to find a consensus solution. One might leave the relationship or might hit or kill the other. If the solution is well considered it would be a political technique. If it is a non-considered action, such as an angry punch in the face, it is a psychological reaction, not the use of a political technique.”
--”Dr.
Singh, you know that my interest is in trying to get people to reduce
our global population, but people being who they are--propelled by
their drives for power but bound by their religious and social
traditions, sometimes moved by their values, but often cloaked in
their rationalizations that ethical protestations provide. Few people
can be moved by rational arguments, so how can we get the world to
save itself through self-control?”
—
“I’m sure you’re more interested in looking at the techniques
you might use to manipulate people. Techniques like violence, fear,
appealing to their honor and other such things. I will get to these
soon. Later we will look at the gestalt in which these
techniques will be used. You will need to understand who your allies
might be, who your enemies might be, and several other factors that
lay the groundwork for determining which political techniques might
work on a given population and at a certain time. I’m sure you will
get impatient with me during our first hour or two of discussion. But
bear with me. If you are going to be a politician, as you must be to
get your ideas across to the people you are trying to influence, you
must understand the whole picture. So please don’t be impatient
with me. I will start soon discussing the specifics of motivating
people. I will then lay out the landscape of political landscape in
which you must wage your battles.
”The quickest way for you to require population control would be to conquer the world and impose your will—if conquering the world were possible. And of course you don’t have an all-powerful state to do this for you. So you must try reason or fear, or an appeal to honor or duty or some other motivation. When modern nations have goals they try to negotiate. If that doesn’t work, then war is the ultimate extension of national politics. Mao Zedong said ‘Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.’. Ancient nations usually just went to war. But modern nations often try negotiations first. For example, Hitler told the Netherlands to join him. They said ‘no,’ so he took about four days out of his life to conquer the Dutch.
“You know that I share your concerns about overpopulation. In my beloved India we have tried to reduce our population since the 1960s. We have made some progress, but we can’t hold a candle to the job the Chinese have done. But since we live in a democracy and have a number of freedoms, we can’t be as direct and immediate as they have been in oligarchical China, with their one party authoritarian regime. Our freedoms give us a strong self-centered liberty to do what we wish as individuals. The Chinese, with their society-based ethics, have been able to change their society’s policies and laws relative to reducing their birthrate. Now we see that their curtailment of individual freedoms since 1980 has resulted in a much higher standard of living for many of the Chinese citizens. So the self-centered desires of their people for safety and material pleasures have blossomed as the society developed. As you know, the Chinese have put the needs of a functioning society first, assuming that their citizens’ individual needs would eventually be served. In the West just the opposite has happened. The individual self-centered needs and the freedom to develop laissez-faire capitalism and free enterprise was assumed to make a stronger and more productive society. You be the judge. Has the ‘society first’ idea of the Chinese, since 1980, produced an increased or decreased economic level for its citizens? Or have the ‘self first’ ideas of our countries increased or lowered the relative economic standards of us citizens?”
—“I
get your point. In our country the value of the dollar has sunk
significantly. Factory workers have often been displaced by
outsourcing their jobs. Auto workers have lost jobs and their pay has
been cut. Low level workers have been replaced by robots and
computers. Children today are not expected to surpass their parents
in the economic realm. It is so very different from when I grew up.”
—“And
as you know, much of the progress of the Chinese was because of their
population reduction efforts. The Chinese government was able to slow
population by decree and by strong enforcement of that decree. But
your problem, Commander, is trying to make the same thing happen in
republics that have self-centered citizens voting for their
representatives and self-centered parliaments and congresses that
usually want more consumers for their businesses and more soldiers
for their wars. Then you have the monotheistic religious ideas based
on highly questionable scriptures, ostensibly given by the same
creator to many different people and often contradicting Himself, but
promising rewards after death to the faithful, with each religious
leader seeking more power and larger flocks to fleece.
“So you have your work cut out for you to get people to change their knowledge about the importance of your message, to change their attitudes and values, and most important--to change their behaviors. It won’t be easy to change their knowledge, so changing attitudes and behavior is far more difficult. As you know, you won’t be able to change behavior if you don’t change people’s attitudes, and you won’t change their attitudes if you don’t give them effective knowledge about the world’s problems and their solutions.
“Just look at your country where so many believe in creationism, in spite of all the scientific data that refutes it—paleontology, biology, geology, genetics, archeology and so many other disciplines. Then you have a few people in your country in high places in government and in the media who don’t believe that the planet is warming. I don’t know if they have studied the enormous evidence for it from geology, chemistry, and the sciences that deal with the environment. It is one thing if you have the scientific evidence to refute their opinions, but changing opinions is extremely difficult in those who are ignorant or uneducated, or both. And as long as people think that they are entitled to their opinions, no matter how absurd, you will have an uphill fight. I remember when a congressman from Georgia called man-made global warming a hoax. Naturally he didn’t cite any evidence for his opinion. Yes Lee.”
—“The
worst thing is that he was applauded by his fellow Republican
congressmen during their legislative session. And these are the
people we elect to pass intelligent laws. Did you know he was a
medical doctor, so you would think he had some appreciation for
science. But his conservative Biblical Baptist assumptions weighed
heavier on his thinking than physical science. If fact he probably
has little knowledge of the physical sciences since medical school
deals with the biological sciences.”
—“Lee,
that’s the problem you are going to have when supposedly
knowledgeable people hold out their faulty opinions as truth. Then,
the more powerful they are and the more they have strongly advocated
their opinions, the more difficult it is to get them to admit what is
obvious. Can you imagine that any philosopher or scientist would be
able to get the Pope to admit changing his mind on abortion, on
keeping a celibate priesthood, or on ordaining women as priests? All
will probably happen eventually, but not in the next few years. The
lack of priests will probably change papal thinking on ordination
faster than it will on abortion. And mechanical or chemical
contraception will undoubtedly come before abortion is accepted.
“So let’s get into the idea of politics. As I said, I like the old definition that ‘politics is the science of the possible.’ If you have a goal, what is the best way to make it happen? Whether you want a certain job, or want to negotiate a pay raise, or just want to date your secretary, there is usually a best way to accomplish your goal.
“What if you wanted to become president of the United States? You should probably become a Democrat, a Protestant Democrat. You should go to Harvard, or at least to the Harvard Law School. You would be wise to be successful in local politics, city council, then mayor, then governor. You would need to get to know the big money people, the ‘movers and shakers.’ You should certainly marry well--a Kennedy would be nice. It might help to be a famous athlete, as long as you are not labeled a dumb jock. You need name recognition. And you certainly don’t want any scandals, especially sex scandals. You must be a good speaker who can think on his feet. If you did all this you might have a 10% chance.
“So politics is about manipulating people. I know that you talked to Wanda Wang in Kino. You should have definitely have a good idea of people’s values. Appealing to people’s values can be a good political move. And I know you talked with Chuck Chan in Singaling about psychological motivations. They are even better mental movers than values. Probably most people’s main interest is in being alive, or possibly being safe. George Bush capitalized on these motivations when he made people afraid of al Queda and Saddam Hussein. Threatening or using violence, or being told that you can be protected from violence, are age-old political techniques. But there are many more.
“The right technique can usually get your desire accomplished. The right slingshot can kill the giant if it is effectively used. Of course the most effective use of politics is getting what you want while having the people you manipulated liking it. First you must have a plan of what needs to be done or what you want done, then there needs to be a plan on how to carry it out—that’s ‘politics.’ That’s why I say that politics is the science of the possible.
“For some, the end justifies the means-- Lenin, Mao, the Inquisitors, al Queda and thousands more. For others, the Kantian dictum that people are ‘ends in themselves’ and should not be used as ‘means’ is the major concern. I assume that you are in this second group.”
—“Definitely.
I would hope to be able to reason with people. You mentioned that
politics is the ‘science of the possible.’ I heard that same
definition in a political science class at UCLA, in Dr. Titus’s
class.”
—“I
know of him but never met him. I am quite sure that he would agree
that reasoning is one of the least effective political methods
because, as you well know, people are nearly always not logical but
psychological. To be able to reason with people they would have to
have a similar goal as you, to save the planet, and they would have
to have the knowledge to understand the problems facing the world.
Many might have these two requirements but would still have the
self-centered desire to have more than one child, and as you know it
is very difficult to get over the ‘self-centered values’ hurdle.
It is a basic psychological motivation to have the power to do
whatever you want, and a basic value assumption to be self-centered.
So you see what you are up against. Yes, Con. I’m sure that as an
old businessman you can add much to our knowledge of the area of
politics.”
—“In
business we use advertising and marketing all the time. If you are
going to sell something you usually have to create a demand for it.
Advertising is perhaps the most common and obvious attempt to use the
‘science of the possible’ to change people’s behavior. Probably
nobody does a better job of dealing in the ‘science of the
possible’ than the people in the advertising business. Their
guiding value is to make money for their clients, thereby making
money for themselves. They must motivate people to buy products by
appealing to their drives, needs and values. Sex drives and power
drives, especially in combination, are found to be highly successful.
The ‘Marlboro Man’, the cowboy sitting on his horse, is a macho
power symbol—and power is often sexy. His image sold billions of
Marlboro cigarettes. Virginia Slims, another Philip Morris product,
did the same for women—picturing an elegant woman--often in a power
position. It sponsored many athletic events for women. Power, for
both men and women, is a great motivating force. Remember that former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who was noted to date women who
were better looking and younger than himself, said that ‘power is
the ultimate aphrodisiac.’
“A magazine ad with two sexually attractive people drinking Scotch whisky in a candle-lit room. each obviously intending to seduce each other, relies on the sex drive and the power drive to entice you to drink that brand of Scotch. Seeing power people from sport or business wearing an expensive Rolex watch preys on our power drive, but also on our needs for esteem, as Maslow talked about, and on our self-centered desires, as Dr. Wang talked about. Every ad works to elicit one of our basic motivations, such as for sex, power or love, or else a value motivation for self-centeredness. God and society based values also come into play when the message goes beyond the self—to government or religion.
“One of the more sinister advertising ploys is subliminal, It attacks our desires below the conscious level. Some such advertising has been banned—such as for cigarettes on TV. Sweden and Belgium have banned advertising to children. The evidence shows that they are not capable of making informed decisions. But other ads are not banned for children so parents are likely to buy the products advertised to children--the cereals, video games or CDs that have been marketed. Overweight children are often the result of buying the wrong foods and buying sit down video games. We want to make our children happy but indulging their advertising-induced whims is often counterproductive. Did you know that the worst breakfast cereals for children are the most heavily advertised?”(2)
—“Trying
to get people to do what you want them to do voluntarily is naturally
the most effective way of manipulating people. Reminds me of the
farmer who had a pond on his property where the locals would
sometimes come to swim and cool off from the warm summer heat. One
evening he headed for the pond to take a dip. As he approached the
pond he heard the voices of happy young women frolicking. As he got
nearer he saw that they were skinny dipping. Soon they saw him and
dipped their nipples below the water’s surface and one of them
shouted ‘We’re not coming out until you leave.’ He shouted back
that ‘I didn’t come down here to see you ladies naked, I came to
feed the alligator.’ Obviously they leapt from the pond
immediately. I guess the moral of the story is that a good politician
can get people to do what he wants while thinking it is their own
idea. Reminds me of what Lao Tze said about leaders ‘Of a good
leader who talks little when his work is done and his aim fulfilled,
they will say, ‘we did it ourselves.’”
—“He
also said ‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists.’
But Wreck, I can’t imagine that your leadership will be of the sort
of which he spoke.”
—”Can’t
imagine it, Ray. In democracies I think I will have to try to lead
from the front, try to convince them that for their children and
their children’s children, something must be done now. For
autocratic regimes I think I will have to show how it will benefit
the rulers.”
—“Let’s
go back to ends and means. In most of the developed countries
representative democracies are the rule. They are the means, but they
are often ineffective in accomplishing the ends that the people want.
And we have to realize that what the people want and what is best for
them may be quite different. For example global warming is a fact. It
is bad for people today and worse for the people of tomorrow, but you
have pro-business people in the legislature who are concerned only
about today’s bottom line, they have been very negative to enacting
climate change legislation. We saw that for years in your country.
People denying that climate change existed or that neither people nor
technology were responsible for it. It made your country out to be
made up of selfish money-hungry ignorant people not concerned with
their own welfare or the welfare of others. Of course you were the
world’s major polluter per capita so legislation would have hurt
your businesses more than others.
“If you were the emperor of the world you could have it the way you want right now. That’s the advantage of total authority. The Communist Party has it in China, the Ayatollah had it in Iran, and the rulers of North Korea and Myanmar had it. But at least theoretically, people in democracies who vote for representatives should be more content with the choices of the majority. But as we know, losers often riot-- calling the elections unfair, whether they were or not. And obviously the democratically elected representatives often thwart what is best for the electorate while they protect the interests of those with the money or power who backed their candidacies.
“Does China’s one party system, run by engineers, with an 8% growth rate in yearly GNP, and trillions of dollars on their balance sheets, have more or less legitimacy than the United States’ two party system of antagonistic lobby-influenced lawyers with an annual growth rate of 3% or less and double digit trillions of dollars owed to its lenders? Is it the process or the results that we should seek?
“The master politician Vladimir Lenin told us that ‘There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.’ He also said that ‘To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; is not to be taken seriously in politics.’”
—“But
the society he built lasted less than 70 years and the majority of
the people were really unhappy.”
—“True
Con, but the Chinese who have been lifted out of poverty and into the
modern world, are quite pleased with the way their Communist leaders
have led them. Two Communist parties, both powered by brutal
revolutions, but each different in the economic philosophies of their
leaders. It seems that the Soviets were more concerned with power
while the Chinese were more concerned with progress. They seem to
have been following Confucius’s rule when he said, ‘Do not worry
about not holding a high position; worry rather about playing your
proper role.’
“Obviously Commander you have a goal that you want to achieve. Once you have a goal, whether motivated by a value or a psychological drive, there is a best way to attempt to accomplish that goal. The goal may be impossible to achieve, but most goals are achievable . The goal of a national leader may be to get free democratic elections in another country. He might try negotiation, economic incentives, international consensus, assassination of the other country’s leaders or war.”
—“I
would think that it is also important to portray a good picture of
yourself. Maybe I need to portray intelligence or courage, maybe
portraying hope or faith is in order. How you portray yourself
depends on the audience you are trying to influence I would assume. I
am reminded of a middle school principle in Los Angeles whose vice
principal made some mistakes on a report. He had not seen the report,
but being a man of courage he took the blame, believing with
President Truman that the person at the top has the final
responsibility. You remember that Truman had a sign on his desk that
‘the buck stops here.’ Dr. Singh I don’t know if you know the
phrase ‘passing the buck’ but it means passing the blame to
someone else. The principal had made a glaring political error
because he was acting like an ideal leader, but his audience, the
teacher-administrators in the Los Angeles Unified School District,
wanted to stop the blame with the principal. After all, using the
principal’s, or Truman’s, logic those higher level administrators
would have been responsible—and of course, eventually, the
superintendent of the district would have been the end point of the
blame train. But teachers are not generally known for their courage,
especially those who go into the district’s administration. Anyway
as a result the man, who was often acknowledged as the best principle
in the district, was shut out of ever being a high school
principle—his dream.”
—“That
seems to mean that in politics make the best picture of yourself
–forget the truth. Honesty is seldom the best policy. Also one
should see only the immediate situation, don’t look at the whole
picture. Make yourself out to be right. I am reminded of that the
German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said that ‘war is
diplomacy carried out by other means.’ My question is where does
modern politics draw the line?”
—“Good
question, Con. But looking at the world today, and at the history of
the world--there is no line. Political despots kill or imprison whole
populations. Criminals kill or kidnap people’s children as their
political techniques for financial or political gain because
endangering a person’s children often hurts worse than being killed
or kidnapped yourself. But not all political actions are violent. In
a while I will give you some examples of several types of political
techniques, from violence to logical reasoning. To find your own
examples just look around. We are all continually manipulating and
being manipulated in our personal, educational, business and
political lives. The psychological motivations that you discussed
with Dr. Chan and the value motivations you discussed with Dr. Wang
are used by us, and on us, continually. So effective politics relies
on the right mix of psychological and ethical pushes and pulls. We
use the psychological and ethical or ‘value’ buttons to move
people emotionally—and if they can’t be moved emotionally then
perhaps we need to move them with physical force.
“We must remember that a political technique must be well thought out and evaluated. You must look at the desired ends you want, then look at the probabilities of the positive and the negative outcomes. Violence can be a political technique, but it can also be a psychological reaction, with no thinking involved. An example of violent anger by a group was seen a few years ago in France. Youths attacked the mayor’s house because he had instituted anti-delinquency measures. Youth gangs reacted. They threw rocks and firebombs and set fire to four cars. If they had been concerned with changing his anti-gang policies they might have met with him, or perhaps contacted the newspapers to run their side of the story. What they did was to reinforce the need for the mayor’s new policies. Their anger had its outlet, but it was not a political technique.
“We also have to differentiate between psychological motivations and social motivations. For example a person may kill because he is severely psychologically frustrated and reacts in murder. Another may plan a murder as the best way to achieve his goal, like the Melendez brothers in California who killed their parents to get their money. Or Scott Roeder, who killed Dr. George Tiller because he performed abortions. He was psychotically angry at those who aided abortions and thought that killing them was justified homicide. I wonder if he would have committed the murder if he had known he would be caught and that the murder mobilized more supporters for the pro-choice advocates.”
—“I’m
not sure if his actions were totally psychological. It seems that he
had in mind to do something to stop or slow abortions. Then when he
was put in jail he began a mail program in which he was trying to get
others to continue his work. He held out as a hero another murderer
who was executed for killing another doctor 13 years earlier. He
stayed in contact with the Protestant group the ‘Army of God’
that lauds those who kill physicians who perform legal abortions.
Sounds to me like he was using political techniques to get his point
across.
“But on another avenue, political methods frequently masquerade as law. Presidents choose Supreme Court justices based on their politics and their expected decisions. If American common law were clear, as is the more common Napoleonic law which is based on the statutes rather than the ‘common law’ principles of English and American law—we wouldn’t have so many 5 to 4 decisions. Most would be 9-0. Our common law allows all sorts of legal interpretations that the legislators didn’t intend.”
—“That’s
true, Lee. Appointing judges gives your president a powerful impact
on your system of justice. And their decisions continually make new
law. So it is a powerful political technique in your country.
“But you have to be a very powerful figure to either make your own law, as Hitler did, or appoint judges who will probably carry out your wishes, as your American presidents do. Most people don’t have that luxury.
“Astute politicians must deal with the world the way it is, not like the Bush administration, thinking it was the way they wanted it to be. Bush fabricated evidence to go to war, probably for the oil rights. Then the administration overruled the generals by using far fewer troops than the generals said was necessary. It was a surprise to Bush when a democratic vote was held in Iraq, the directions of the electorate were toward theocracy, not toward a sectarian modern American model like Bush w0-anted. And Bush was surprised! An astute politician will see the world, or the people he wants to influence, realistically.
“So having the power, as the Americans did, doesn’t guarantee that you will have power forever. But as Frederick Douglass warned us ‘power concedes nothing without a struggle.’
Revolutionaries from Washington to Walesa used effective political techniques to get their programs accomplished.
“Look at how many people in the world, or for that matter in America, who are trying to get their programs popularized. Based on the facts of recent history it doesn’t take much of an orator to entice people to give him their allegiance, along with their property and their lives. A few quotes from the Bible or the Koran can elicit the sympathy to give alms to the poor, or they can bring forth the violent passion for revenge and murder. The Bible says ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ The Code of Hammurabi was even more specific. The more ethically pleasing Christian code of ‘turn the other cheek’ is seldom used, and when it is, it is unlikely to be effective. So it makes good Mid-Eastern sense to follow the rules laid down a millennium or two ago. If you kill one of mine, I’ll kill four of yours. You, of course must then kill 16 of mine, so I will kill 64 of yours. While this is an effective method of population control it tends to go against the modern myth that human life is precious.
“When I think of non-violent politics your Mormon religion has done a great job. Their early use of Biblically-based polygamy gave women husbands and allowed them to fulfill God’s command to have children. This increased the church membership quickly. The strong family life the church advocated and their common values bred loyalty. The requirement for young men to travel the world, at their own expense, as missionaries, spread ‘the word’ worldwide. The 10% tithe from a member’s gross income gave real riches to the church. The emphasis on large families increased the flock. Every move was a wise political decision. The government’s law against polygamy stopped the practice for the main church in 1890, but some sects broke from the church and continued it. As a missionary religion I don’t think the church has a peer.
POWER
“So, Lee, the true politician must evaluate all of the options and all of the possibilities for appealing to the basic motivations of most people. There isn’t a great deal of doubt about that. Getting power over a situation or a person, or people, is a major way to motivate people. Whether it was Hitler’s rallying rants for evil or Gandhi’s passionate pleas for good—you must motivate the people, you can’t do it alone.
“In any planned action we must remember that it is all about power—power to control others or gaining power over ourselves. I’m sure that Charlie Chan talked to you about power. That is his pet theory! So find out where the power is—this is the essence of leadership.”
—“Interesting!
Most of us want to control others or situations. That can often have
negative effects when a despot is in charge. Whether it is a Robert
Mugabe in modern Africa or a Count Vlad in 15th Century
Transylvania we have often seen power used for evil. But power can
also be used for good. Modern Norwegian leaders certainly try to use
their financial power and their international ethical position to
reduce wars and poverty. My own mission, I think qualifies here, I’m
trying to get all of us to be concerned with our planet’s human
future. My problem is that I don’t have sufficient power to
influence my brothers throughout the world.”
--“True.
You don’t have the power yet. Hopefully you will eventually have
such power. Let me interject here how people with power may use it
and how they may be limited in the amount of power they can use. For
many, if they have power—the end justifies the means. If one has
absolute power, like a Mao, a Hitler, or the Pope, you can do what
you want within your sphere of influence—Chinese Communists,
Germans or Catholics. In modern republics the president or the prime
minister is limited by the congress or parliament. So he may be very
influential, but no democratic leader has the unlimited power that he
or she might desire.
“The use of political means is not immoral—it is just moral from a self centered, God-based or societal perspective—and that might clash with your own self-centered, societal or God based perspective of what morality is. The self-centered conquests of Alexander or Hitler, the God-based Inquisition of the Catholics or the jihads of bin Laden, or the society based movements of the welfare states of Scandinavia have all been seen as moral in the eyes of the leaders. However their visions may not always lead them to where they want to go.
“American politicians have a great need to be re-elected and stay in power, not necessarily to look after the common good. The interests of their large financial contributors are essential—as is the survival of the nation that elects them. So national defense and big business share in the blessings of your legislature. The fact that lobbyists bought the programs that their employers desired should not dim our views of the democratic process. After all, what’s good for Wall Street and the Pentagon must be good for your country! But what happened to the education funding that was promised when your legislators were seeking election? When the legislative sessions’ end we always find that funding for education is very far behind. But as as astute politician you can understand why--after all how many 10 year olds cast ballots or give hundreds of thousands dollars to congressional campaigns?
“You might wonder why in the US there are big tax breaks for companies that brought back profits from overseas businesses when the tax breaks were supposed to create jobs in your country. The tax breaks for job creation worked, but companies laid off thousands. Many companies got big tax breaks while increasing the unemployment in your country—the opposite effect of what the politicians said would happen. By the same token, global warming doesn’t exist—because it’s bad for American business. Big money elects politicians and big money gets its rewards.
“If you are going to be an effective politician you had better understand a few rules of the game. A basic rule is that ‘The king can do no wrong.‘ It is a saying that every politician knows. There is an old Persian story that says if it’s noon and the king says that it is night, the wise man says ‘behold the stars.’
“But who is the king? If you are married, it might well be your spouse. If you’re employed it is your employer. If you are in Congress, the king can be the leader of your party and also the lobbyists who contribute to your campaigns. In your case commander, your kings might be the people you are trying to win over or possibly the people with money or the politicians who might help you to reduce population.
“In today’s world the king might change from day to day or year to year. It is not always the good guys against the bad guys. Our allies on free trade may be on the our side of the table on some economic issues but on the other side of the table when energy concerns are the issue. International politics is much more complicated today than ever before. And, Commander, I think you will find this to be true in your quest.
“Those in power, our kings, give us the rights they want us to have. Might makes rights so to speak! The Christian girl raped by a Christian soldier may have no rights. The Muslim girl raped by a Muslim marauder has no rights. The powerful tend to give rights that will keep them in power. When Benazir Bhutto was prime minister of Pakistan did she give women rights? No. Have the Orthodox Jews in Israel gladly given equal rights to all other Jews? No. To the Muslim citizens of Israel? No. Has the Pope given equal rights to women or homosexuals? No.
“Sunni Baathists with 20% of the population, under Hussein, controlled the 60% Shiites and 20% Kurds. In Syria the 12% minority Alawites, under the Assads, controlled the 74% Sunni population. It’s about methods of control, not majorities. The point is if you use the right political techniques you should be able to control many, possibly the majority of the people. So you have to evaluate the whole situation, consider the pluses and minuses, then attack where you can win.
“Powerful people can influence others. This, of course, is what you want to do. Your president Bush at one time had the personal power to bring you into war. Osama bin Laden had the personal power to recruit jihadists. Religious leaders and people with limited interests can lead some to do outlandish things, like the GreenPeace people dying baby seals green so that their fur can’t be sold for coats. And some PETA members can be stimulated to commit violent acts against people in pursuit of their goal to have animals treated more humanely.
“As you know, throughout history power has been borne in the cloaks of kings and the chants of shamans and clerics. The more primitive the tribe, the more it relies on potentates for its social direction, its laws and its wars, and the more it relies on its priests and caliphs for its reasons for being and for their promise of a hereafter. With education and vision, democracy replaces demagogues and doges while the anointed holy men fall under the examination of religious inconsistencies and the shattering of their fundamental beliefs by the study of biological and geological science, the rigorous study of history and archeology, the modern understandings of psychology and anthropology, and a thorough analysis of the holy books and scriptures.”
—“I
guess that power can come from many sources. Being important in a
powerful country or being a sports champion or a film celebrity are
examples. Of course being appointed by God gives one great power.
Robert Mugabe said that since God gave him the job of being president
of Zimbabwe, only God could take it away. It’s kinda like the pope,
isn’t it Ray?”
—“Ya,
but the Pope’s authority comes from the Bible. I don’t know where
Protestants like Pat Robertson and Billy Graham got theirs.”
—“Nationally
each leader’s political power rises or falls with the way he or she
handles crises and the other important national issues. Remember when
Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, our country’s president
was vacationing, as was the vice president. This was in spite of an
ongoing war. Bush’s tardy and ineffective handling of that crisis
followed him through his presidency and beyond. While he was viewed
as a nice guy, being a nice guy may not be enough to help a person
lead a country through bad times. Perhaps it works during the good
times as it did with Eisenhower. But Wreck, you’re a nice guy and
you do have the power that comes with being a world renowned
explorer.”
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-26 show above.)