Are Americans Not Submissive Enough?

[handy]

Thought provoking. I like this guy.

https://www.fff.org/comment/com1206t.asp

Are Americans Not Submissive Enough?
by Sheldon Richman (https://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxr.asp),
June 26, 2012

If I didn’t know better, I’d have thought New York Times columnist David Brooks was having a laugh at our expense. Alas, Brooks means every word of his column titled “The Follower Problem (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/brooks-the-follower-problem.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss),” as anyone who reads him regularly will realize.
“I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem,” Brooks laments. “Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions.”
Worse than that, he thinks Americans dislike all authority.
We live in a culture that finds it easier to assign moral status to victims of power than to those who wield power.… Then there is our fervent devotion to equality, to the notion that all people are equal and deserve equal recognition and respect.… But the main problem is our inability to think properly about how power should be used to bind and build.… Those “Question Authority” bumper stickers no longer symbolize an attempt to distinguish just and unjust authority. They symbolize an attitude of opposing authority.

I think Brooks is wrong, though I wish he were right. I see little real rejection of political authority. Too bad. We need it.
But let’s assume Brooks is right. Is anti-authoritarianism a problem? You’d have to be a nationalist devotee of intrusive government to think so. Who else would value mindless obeisance to political authority?
Brooks disparages “our fervent devotion to equality” because it’s “hard in this frame of mind to define and celebrate greatness, to hold up others who are immeasurably superior to ourselves.”
Is he kidding? Is he really finding fault with those of us who fail to recognize greatness and superiority in “our political leaders”? (“Misleaders” is a better word.) Where, pray tell, is the evidence of either greatness or superiority in those whom Brooks has in mind? For some reason he doesn’t provide any. He just takes it for granted.
He quotes Dwight Eisenhower, who wrote, “Always try to associate yourself with and learn as much as you can from those who know more than you do, who do better than you, who see more clearly than you.”
That’s good advice, but is Brooks suggesting that our misleaders know more, do better, and see more clearly than the rest of us? Can he give us any reason for that assertion?
Presidents routinely interfere with our lives and authorize the mass murder we call “war.” Members of Congress do equally stupid things, such as passing bills authorizing unaccountable and ignorant bureaucrats to write inane rules about how to manage everything from medical care to the financial industry.
These people get elected not by demonstrating superiority, or even greater-than-average knowledge, but by their facility for setting the right mood for voters. Politics is theater, and politicians are actors. If one portrays a character that enough people find appealing, he or she gets elected.
Of course, that’s not all politicians do. They devote a good deal of time promising new ways to spend other people’s money — money that will be extracted from the taxpayers by threat of violence. They will also borrow money, which means they will create liabilities for future generations that have no say in the matter.
This is greatness? It’s ludicrous to read superiority into anything they do. Nefariousness and condescension are more like it.
Brooks fears the consequences of a general skepticism about authority:
You end up with movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Parties that try to dispense with authority altogether. They reject hierarchies and leaders because they don’t believe in the concepts. The whole world should be like the Internet — a disbursed semianarchy in which authority is suspect and each individual is king.

Again, I wish he were right. But he is far too optimistic. (He’d call it pessimistic.) Neither Occupy Wall Street nor the Tea Party have identified the root of our political and economic problems, and consequently their solutions are not anti-authoritarian enough. But at least they sense something is wrong systemically. That’s a start.
Brooks, on the other hand, thinks it’s not the leaders who need changing so much as those who distrust “their” leaders.
“We have to relearn the art of following,” he writes.
No we don’t. We need to learn the art of living free.

[podfish]

Thought provoking. I like this guy.
Initially I did too, but there's something a bit facile about his argument that turned me against him by the end.

Are Americans Not Submissive Enough?
.... I think Brooks is wrong, though I wish he were right. I see little real rejection of political authority. Too bad. We need it.he's got me with him at this point, playing up to biases I share with him. The problem is that he now goes to a classic straw-man argument and I think reinforces Brook's thesis

But let’s assume Brooks is right. Is anti-authoritarianism a problem? You’d have to be a nationalist devotee of intrusive government to think so. Who else would value mindless obeisance to political authority?...Is he kidding? Is he really finding fault with those of us who fail to recognize greatness and superiority in “our political leaders”? (“Misleaders” is a better word.) Where, pray tell, is the evidence of either greatness or superiority in those whom Brooks has in mind? For some reason he doesn’t provide any. He just takes it for granted....
Of course, that’s not all politicians do. They devote a good deal of time promising new ways to spend other people’s money ....This is greatness? It’s ludicrous to read superiority into anything they do. Nefariousness and condescension are more like it.damn, he just stopped arguing and fell into a mindless rant. That's not helpful.
Brooks, on the other hand, thinks it’s not the leaders who need changing so much as those who distrust “their” leaders.
“We have to relearn the art of following,” he writes.
No we don’t. We need to learn the art of living free.His thesis as I read it was more interesting. It is part of a theme that the occupy movement highlighted as well: can political movements succeed without leaders? Can political change best happen by a unified group who respects and supports the role of its leaders? Is the unwillingness to participate in a group and accept decisions by its leaders crippling society's ability to take concerted actions to solve problems? I think this piece serves mostly as an illustration of Brook's ideas, not a refutation of them.

[handy]

Initially I did too, but there's something a bit facile about his argument that turned me against him by the end.

Perhaps. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and guess that facility was due to length limits.



he's got me with him at this point, playing up to biases I share with him. The problem is that he now goes to a classic straw-man argument and I think reinforces Brook's thesis damn, he just stopped arguing and fell into a mindless rant. That's not helpful.

Guess I missed the rant part. I thought he made mostly pretty accurate observations. :wink:


His thesis as I read it was more interesting. It is part of a theme that the occupy movement highlighted as well: can political movements succeed without leaders? Can political change best happen by a unified group who respects and supports the role of its leaders? Is the unwillingness to participate in a group and accept decisions by its leaders crippling society's ability to take concerted actions to solve problems? I think this piece serves mostly as an illustration of Brook's ideas, not a refutation of them.

Your questions appear to presuppose politics as necessary to leadership. To me, it seems that that will lead your thinking astray.

Leadership, in self-organizing systems, is only recognizable 2 or 3 layers of complexity out from our own locus in the complex.

Our ability to absorb, sift, sort, store and respond to the variety of incoming data is limited. Most of the decisions we take are individual, autonomous and local. Leadership is unnecessary and irrelevant.

Leaders are sought when we feel we need to take a decision and we know we are equipped with inadequate data from which to extract the information (that which changes us) we need. So we team up with others we trust and leadership emerges through individual initiative.

Leadership should be temporary and situational. When the problem at hand is solved (or better, dissolved), the involved individuals can go their way.

Politics at the national or international levels of complexity generate variety beyond our capacity to match. Attempts at "control" by people who (mis)perceive themselves to be "outside" of the considered system generate positive feedback loops which further destabilize the system.

Once positive feedback spins up, it begins pulling in energy from wherever it can. Further attempts at control
only make matters worse. The only way to break a positive feedback loop is to starve it decisively. Pull the plug. Walk away from the argument. STOP feeding it.

Our submissiveness and nearly automatic unquestioning compliance feeds the spin up. The (often undeserved) respect and attention (and fear?) we give the politicians feeds it. Even the act of voting (if the only choice is between evils) feeds into it by giving it a perceived legitimacy that permits further growth.

So laugh at them. Don't treat them with respect if they harm others, or see themselves as superior, or above the law. Call them on it and give'm the finger. And don't give them a single dollar you don't absolutely have to.

It's not that we don't need leaders. We don't need long term, distant, arrogant, ignorant, holier-than-thou people claiming to be "leaders", but desiring to be Rulers. F**k'em.

[podfish]

Your questions appear to presuppose politics as necessary to leadership. To me, it seems that that will lead your thinking astray.

Leadership, in self-organizing systems, is only recognizable 2 or 3 layers of complexity out from our own locus in the complex.

Our ability to absorb, sift, sort, store and respond to the variety of incoming data is limited. Most of the decisions we take are individual, autonomous and local. Leadership is unnecessary and irrelevant.

Leaders are sought when we feel we need to take a decision and we know we are equipped with inadequate data from which to extract the information (that which changes us) we need. So we team up with others we trust and leadership emerges through individual initiative.sure, those are some of the aspects of leadership, but not the ones relevant here. Perhaps it would be better to talk of representatives instead of leaders. The two roles do inevitably overlap in the political sphere, though.<br><br>You need representation because of the scale of the actions being taken. Pebbles or pottery fragments thrown into a pot won't do when the population is this size. Issues affecting regional or world-wide populations require negotiations and tradeoffs, since consensus isn't going to happen. Only representatives (or someday soon, computer algorithms) can spend the time and attention it takes; there are practical limits to the amount of input that can go into discussions. I don't think anyone's all that excited about turning political decision-making to computers. So by refusing to accept representatives, essentially you're refusing to allow decision-making on this scale to occur. This leads to decision-by-default, and doesn't seem to be working all that well. 'Course, you might claim that it works better than the alternative...

[handy]

Peter, thank you for your considered response and thoughtful discussion.


sure, those are some of the aspects of leadership, but not the ones relevant here. Perhaps it would be better to talk of representatives instead of leaders. The two roles do inevitably overlap in the political sphere, though.

I agree that representation is a more accurate construct than leadership in this context, but I disagree that the two roles need to overlap. To me, the function of "inevitable overlap" is a purposeful (and very politically useful) muddying/blurring of the distinction. Spending my money murdering civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc., is most certainly not leadership, and it doesn't represent my interest, either. And representation should be limited to representing the interests of the State that elected them relative to the interests of other States within the union. Meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is neither representation nor leadership. It is sociopathic arrogance.


You need representation because of the scale of the actions being taken. Pebbles or pottery fragments thrown into a pot won't do when the population is this size. Issues affecting regional or world-wide populations require negotiations and tradeoffs, since consensus isn't going to happen. Only representatives (or someday soon, computer algorithms) can spend the time and attention it takes; there are practical limits to the amount of input that can go into discussions. I don't think anyone's all that excited about turning political decision-making to computers. So by refusing to accept representatives, essentially you're refusing to allow decision-making on this scale to occur. This leads to decision-by-default, and doesn't seem to be working all that well. 'Course, you might claim that it works better than the alternative...

I agree that scaling of levels of complexity require representation. I also think that most of the necessary functions of governance can be approximately automatic, and politicians should not be permitted anywhere near them.

I don't refuse to accept representation; I refuse to respect people who claim to represent me when they do things directly counter to my interest and wellbeing. And I don't support taking action when the scale is beyond the capacity to understand. (Does anyone actually believe that Pelosi or Boehner have any clue whatsoever about what is best for a family in Afghanistan (or California)? Their clueless arrogance leaves poverty, destruction and death in its wake.

What you're calling decision-by-default, I would identify as kicking the can down the road. their decisions will (are designed to) gain riches and power for them and theirs, and by the time the damage they've wrought becomes obvious, they'll be out of office and long gone. And I agree, it doesn't seem to be working all that well (for the rest of us).

I haven't seen any alternative put forth. Well, except for Ron Paul. But it sure looks as though Americans love their war and ongoing mass murder. It seem the vast majority will vote for one of the Obamney twins. Sad.

Best regards,

[Garnette]

we must wake up we can wake up we are waking up to stand shoulder to shoulder brave and with integrity. we will not give up we will not let our county be gutted while we sleep. be a hero not a zero. Support Ron Paul in 2012:usflag:


Peter, thank you for your considered response and thoughtful discussion.



I agree that representation is a more accurate construct than leadership in this context, but I disagree that the two roles need to overlap. To me, the function of "inevitable overlap" is a purposeful (and very politically useful) muddying/blurring of the distinction. Spending my money murdering civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc., is most certainly not leadership, and it doesn't represent my interest, either. And representation should be limited to representing the interests of the State that elected them relative to the interests of other States within the union. Meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is neither representation nor leadership. It is sociopathic arrogance.



I agree that scaling of levels of complexity require representation. I also think that most of the necessary functions of governance can be approximately automatic, and politicians should not be permitted anywhere near them.

I don't refuse to accept representation; I refuse to respect people who claim to represent me when they do things directly counter to my interest and wellbeing. And I don't support taking action when the scale is beyond the capacity to understand. (Does anyone actually believe that Pelosi or Boehner have any clue whatsoever about what is best for a family in Afghanistan (or California)? Their clueless arrogance leaves poverty, destruction and death in its wake.

What you're calling decision-by-default, I would identify as kicking the can down the road. their decisions will (are designed to) gain riches and power for them and theirs, and by the time the damage they've wrought becomes obvious, they'll be out of office and long gone. And I agree, it doesn't seem to be working all that well (for the rest of us).

I haven't seen any alternative put forth. Well, except for Ron Paul. But it sure looks as though Americans love their war and ongoing mass murder. It seem the vast majority will vote for one of the Obamney twins. Sad.

Best regards,