Disney/Grimm Politics: Are noble leaders a fairy tale?

Politics International Politics
1

[quote=“mofangongren, in another thread, and addressing the Bush Administration”]1) A fundamental lack of accountability –
2) A fundamental lack of due diligence –
3) Denial, denial, denial –
4) Lack of trust of their people --[/quote]

I do not want to claim that this is totally off-mark when describing the Bush administration.

What I just wonder is … where is the news? Ain’t all governments or administrations more or less like this? In my perception, they are and I mean independent of nation, political leaning or period of history.

I must admit, I also heard these stories of those ‘noble leaders with only the common good on their mind’. But I never really took what Disney or the Grimm brothers told for real.

2

[quote=“games”][quote=“mofangongren”]1) A fundamental lack of accountability –
2) A fundamental lack of due diligence –
3) Denial, denial, denial –
4) Lack of trust of their people --[/quote]

What I just wonder is … where is the news? Ain’t all governments or administrations more or less like this? In my perception, they are and I mean independent of nation, political leaning or period of history.

I must admit, I also heard these stories of those ‘noble leaders with only the common good on their mind’. But I never really took what Disney or the Grimm brothers told for real.[/quote]

Well said, games.

Reminds me of a discussion MFGR and I had a while back along similar lines.

[quote=“Hobbes, in an earlier discussion with MFGR”]If the proof exists? Well then, okay: There are people in the government who are willing to lie and cheat to maintain/increase their power. Of course there are. What else is new?

The only way this argument would really make a difference is if one buys into the fairy tale “Good Guys vs. Bad Guys” view of politics, in which the other side is evil and selfish and motivated by a desire for power, where as your side is motivated by pure-hearted altruism and a desire to do good in the world. In this worldview, the Good Guys are not corrupted by power. In this worldview, the Good Guys would not lie or deceive, and thus it is significant to try and prove that the Bad Guys do. There is nothing logically inconsistent in this. It’s just that we Hobbesians just find this worldview difficult to reconcile with our observations of the effects of power on human nature.

http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?p=305256&highlight=power+corrupt+fairy#305256
[/quote]

So who spreads the Disney/fairy tale version of politics as a battle of good and evil? I believe that there are three main groups:

color=blue Those so slow, uneducated, or naive that they really believe that this is how things work;

(2) Those who know that things don’t work that way, but are optimistic things could work that way (i.e. we could have heroic, Prince in Shining Armor government officials who are honest and selfless) – we just need to have faith and work hard to achieve this; and

(3) Those who know that things don’t work that way, and who know that human nature fundamentally prevents such a government from ever coming to be, but who exploit the myth when it is convenient (i.e. when their party is not in power) and ignore it when it is not (i.e. when it’s their own people abusing power).[/color]

I am inclined toward a charitable view of Category 2 people. I disagree with them, and I think that such optimism leads to worse government and more suffering than a more realist/cynical perspective, but I can still appreciate motivations that come from a good place. Category 1 and Category 3 however, are more difficult to defend.

My impression is that MFGR is, at heart, a Category 2 person, even if one can be forgiven for hearing hints of Category 3 sounding arguments from time to time. Then again, when one engages in vigorous political debate, I suspect that most of us are sometimes guilty of such opportunistic dishonesty. I know I sometimes am. Ah well… something to work on.

Cheers,

3

Which category does the U.S. Constitution fall into?

4

Interesting question. I’d say it has a bit of both 2 and 3 in it. What do you think?

Like the avatar, btw. “lovely lovely Ludwig van…” :whistle:

5

I suspect there’s a fourth, less Machiavellian category.

6

Quite likely. My categories 1,2,3 above do not seem very helpful to me when it comes to documents (or really anything beyond the question of why there are those who believe/profess to believe in fairy-tale-style “goodguys vs. badguys” politics). Still thought yours was an interesting question though.

7

Apparently, I’m something of a Category 2 person.

Having said that, I’d like to suggest that there is a category 4, where people believe there is such a thing as nobility, but recognize the innate drive of self-interest overpowers nobility. Any time a noble person comes to power (which will be rare since the forces of self interest are entrenched and hereditary) and manages any good, all that good will be erased in short order. So, when a true statesman comes to power, he will recognize this and attempt to limit what damage can be done.

Some of the Founding Fathers would fit that category.

8

Or you could have a government like Hitler’s, Mugabe’s, Starlin’s, Mao’s, Idi Amin’s, Saddam’s, …etc. Governments that start to restrict peoples choices in order to reserve power for themselves. Clearly this is not an unreasonable concern, even in America.

And are these people evil?

Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs.

Saddam’s favorite book was “The Old man and the Sea”

Idi Amin was initially loved by the poms.

Starlin had a nice moustache.

So I’m putting myself into category number one because I believe it is possible that governments and administrations can use fear and intimidation to reserve power for themselves whatever their motivation.

9

About why people believe in the ‘good vs. evil’ story? My suspicion is, it makes them feel better.

As a first step, they define one group as the good guys. Then they affiliate themself with said group. The ‘achievements’ of their chosen groups become their achievements. They bask and revel in these because by affiliation it feels to them as if it were their own achievements. It also becomes a very personal thing then - any attack on their political group are perceived as a personal attack.

Check a bit Fred’s diction for example. He often writes ‘we are doing fine’, ‘we achieved a lot’, ‘we, we, we …’. How far away you think this actually is from ‘me are doing fine’, ‘me achieved a lot’, ‘me, me, me …’. He is just an example though. I am sure if the Democrats were in power now, you’d hear similar from Mother T… Same when talking with mainland Chinese - many take critzism of China personal because they want to be part of something ‘greater’ than themselves.

Now, as to why people act like this … do you reall want to delve into this? I think it is not really a pretty thing. I usually put it down to “the smaller the man, the bigger the flag he has to hide behind”. So people start to ‘weave’ these stories about how great and noble their own group is. I would not put it down to just being ‘naive’ or ‘uneducated’. I rather see the real need of a (usually cheap) ego-boost behind that. And of course the feeling of ‘knowing better’.

Btw Hobbes:

Was it really necessary to lump together and insult most of the regular posters on forumosa IP all in just one sentence? You bad, bad person. Troublemaker you are! :no-no:

10

Btw … why was my post removed from its original place and used to start a new thread? Not that I mind copy&paste and post it there all over again, but still … why?

11

Hobbes – I’m a category 4 person, in which I believe that the different political parties have a job cut out for them in keeping the other in line. Nobody has to just “lie back and enjoy” the reaming from another party just because human nature makes people (and particularly people with power, with great temptations at their fingertips) weak. Thus, if one’s partisan energy is put into trying to reach good solutions that meet the best interests of the American people (i.e., American voters), then one might not get too much “market correction” from time to time. When one party over-reaches, there are risks to that behavior.

People used to complain around the time of the 1992 presidential election that we needed Ross Perot to bust up the system a bit, to create an alternative to the Republican and Democrat parties that to many people seemed to be variants of the same flavor. Well, the parties are “different” now, and it’s not particularly pretty what everyone has to spend their time doing. But, if the GOP wishes to do a big ol’ tectonic grind against the Democrats, there’s going to be plenty of grinding back. I’m not being idealistic, but that’s just how it goes.