Power, corruption and human nature

[Darlica]

I've been thinking about this for a while, how come so many people in power seem to be the sort of persons who shouldn't be in a position where they can decide over other persons life's at all, since they seem to think mostly of their own needs and wishes than the people they are put to govern?

Is it that power corrupt (9 out of 10) or is it that the only people willing to take a job with a lot of power are those that already have their own best interest before their eyes?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I would say so, yes. Most people who are best fit to rule simply aren't interested--there's better things to do than keep idiots from doing idiotic things that they'll only try again once you're turned for back.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Robert Heinlein once said that anyone who wanted public office should have his head examined.  If found sane, be immediately disqualified for office.

It's a thankless job, and to do it right means you'll be hated by everyone.

Most politicians want the job-- what does that say?

Nothing that is good.

No, I think that the people attracted to power are already insane to a degree.   It's the power they crave, even though it will make them even more insane.

Like attracts like.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

people attracted to power are already insane to a degree.

Crazy is not the same as corrupt. There are certain insecurities that may motivate a person to seek the recognition that comes with power. It is even possible that in a very few cases the desire is fueled by a combination of altruism and naiveté.

But the thing is that once in power the possibilities to take advantage of the situation will be self evident, and -as most criminologist would say- crime (in this case corruption) is the son of opportunity. It is very easy to think that we deserve more for our actions, therefore it would be fair to do this-or-that in our favor, more so if we are talking of a public servant who has to put up with all the bs that the job implies.

A good political leader is one who isn't crazy enough to seek a cult to his/her persona, but at the same time has the good moral sense not to take too much (ideally none at all) advantage of his/her power.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

A good political leader is one who isn't crazy enough to seek a cult to his/her persona, but at the same time has the good moral sense not to take too much (ideally none at all) advantage of his/her power.

I agree.

In fact, the best leaders seem reluctant (no, true reluctance, not false affectation) to take the job, but do so anyway.

Once there, they seem intent on making the best of it.  Ford seems a close match for this-- he clearly did not want the role of VP, but took it anyway, to get things moving forward.   That he was willing, later, to again move things forward at the expense of his career says much.

[Opsa]

Zone's brought up a very interesting point about entitlement. It's like Senior Slump, or the way a person tends to feel after they've been on the job for awhile- that they're sick of the hard stuff and deserve much better than they're getting! So what's needed is the sort of person who is resistant to such thoughts: a humble person! But a humble person wouldn't consider him/herself a leader. Maybe we should do away with campaigning and vote a person into office kicking and screaming!

[pieces o nine]

I think there's another factor (does not excuse, just contributes) in why the word 'leader' so often brings to mind the worst of the lot. I've never run for public office and I never will. I like my privacy and do not enjoy being second-guessed by armchair quarterbacks. (Doesn't stop me from armchair quarterbacking my elected officials, though!) 

However, I have been in 'leadership' roles. Each time I was motivated by a real desire to remove unnecessary obstacles from people's paths, get proper recognition and compensation for those who are too busy doing a good job to send out frequent memos about what a great job they do, to get training to those who would benefit from a boost, and to remove some privileges from those who coast off the labor of others.

Each time the reality of the situation just about did me in. The stress of trying to meet the often-contradictory expectations of my chain of command, cooperate with peers who were sharks with frikkin laser beams attached to their heads on career missions, and maintain a clear, fair, and firm message with my direct reports was...well. you all know what it was! Ha!

Now, magnify that mix by hundreds, thousands, even millions of people... add in diversities and feuding undreamt of in most corporate settings... add the unreal amounts of money and favors that must be exchanged in constant and just-barely-legal ways to get *anything* done, at *any* level, ever... add the increasingly large numbers of constituent gadflies more persistent and 'assertive' than most employees... add being on-call, 24/7/365 (with little normal family or R&R time) or there being hell to pay (unless you have a scrub ranch in Texas)... add being hounded to speak all the time and watched like a hawk for a slip that can be magnified into a career-breaking infotainment... add being the target of anonymous and virulent *hatred* up to and including serious threats against self and family, regardless of personal ethics, voting record, etc... add almost every single person you meet expecting their own personal, sensible agendas be implemented immediately-if-not-sooner and the *stupid* agendas of everyone else be shit-canned as quickly... 

ick. 

It's a good thing there *are* people who enjoy it, because I can't imagine the decent, reasonable people I know surviving, unscathed, in such an environment for even one term.

[beagle]

But a humble person wouldn't consider him/herself a leader. Maybe we should do away with campaigning and vote a person into office kicking and screaming!

I think you have to consider the background situation as well. In UK history Lord Halifax was the quiet, humble type whereas Churchill met most of the criteria in the thread so far as being unsuitable, but I'm fairly glad it was the second who got the Prime Minister job in 1940.  Similar our weaker more humble kings (e.g. Stephen) were generally considered architects of our more unstable periods.

[Swatopluk]

people likely to abuse power will also be those that fight the most to get it.
Evil tends to triumph because as Ford Prefect put it in the 3rd Hitchiker book:

"Once again,"  he  said,  "we  have  failed  pathetically.  Quite
pathetically."

"That," said Ford quietly, "is because we don't  care  enough.  I
told you."

He swung his feet up on the instrument panel and picked  fitfully
at something on one of his fingernails.

"But unless we determine  to  take  action,"  said  the  old  man
querulously, as if struggling against something deeply insouciant
in his nature, "then we shall all be destroyed, we shall all die.
Surely we care about that?"

"Not enough to want to get killed over it," said Ford. He put  on
a  sort  of  hollow smile and flipped it round the room at anyone
who wanted to see it.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But a humble person wouldn't consider him/herself a leader. Maybe we should do away with campaigning and vote a person into office kicking and screaming!

I think you have to consider the background situation as well. In UK history Lord Halifax was the quiet, humble type whereas Churchill met most of the criteria in the thread so far as being unsuitable

But isn't that the trick though? In quiet times, someone moderate, thoughtful, cautious and deeply moral fits the bill, but in bad times those virtues may become a problem. Then you need assertiveness, foresight and a level of machiavellism because some of the decisions needed may directly affect a minority for the sake of the majority and the future. But how can you tell if the person in question has those qualities?

The other side of the equation is that a smart b*stard will realize that certain crisis will affect the status quo that currently benefits him and he will fight tooth and nail to keep it (the classic 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons'). In the end a level of common sense is needed, otherwise we get people like Cheney, Dubya & Co that are assertive but completely crooked and devoid of foresight and common sense.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Sort of reminds me of something that was passed around by my friends when we were about 13.
There are three men*:
The first one consults astrologers and has a mistress.
The second never gets up until noon, drinks a martini shortly thereafter, and smoked opium in college.
The third is a vegetarian and [something else that made him more desirable as a leader--I can't remember what it was].
Who would you vote for?
The first is Eisenhower, the second, Churchill, and the last was Hitler.

You never know what else you're getting when you elect someone for office. There may be another side that isn't shown very often (I suppose this is one of the few benefits to American mudslinging-- SOMEONE will have seen the behavior).

At any rate, I tend to think it's better to be suspicious of the motives of any single person who actually seeks power. Thinking about it is one thing, actually putting yourself out there is another issue entirely. You're going to find go-gooders (remember the CS Lewis quote about them), or the power-hungry.

_{*I have no idea if this stuff is true or not. This was just the meme.}

[Swatopluk]

I guess you mean that Hitler was fond of animals (as were some other highranking Nazis). The Nazis were responsible for the strictest animal protection law Germany ever had (it was watered down heavily after the war). Some see this as a proof that the Nazis were not all bad and others that protecting animals is fascism and therefore immoral (or liberal).

Saint Ronnie also consulted astrologers (and the CIA allegedly tried to find Russian submarines using clairvoyants)

Btw, did Eisenhower paint (both Churchill and Hitler did)?
also btw, I do not really trust dogmatic vegetarians*
As far as mistresses are concerned, the French kings knew how to do it: It was an official act for the king to choose one and his wife sat on the selection committee, iirc)

*actual bumper sticker: I am a vegetarian not bcause I love animals but because I hate plants

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Go figure. Might keep him from making a silly mistake in the form of the wrong mistress.

[beagle]

Hmm. Possibly. Can't help wondering if the wife will be looking for quite the same qualities in an applicant though. The king could find himself playing solitaire because they've both buzzed off on a mega-shopping extravaganza together.

[Griffin NoName]

Ah!  The power of Shopping !!