On the one hand are three compelling arguments that a political leader must sometimes be
less than truthful in order to be effective in that leadership. The first argument lies in the fact
that politics is a game played among politicians--and that to succeed in the game one must
use the tools that are part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability
and naivete, neither of which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and
which those opponents will use to every advantage against the honest politician.
Secondly, it is crucial to distinguish between misrepresentations of fact in other words,
lies--and mere political rhetoric. The rhetoric of a successful politician eschews rigorous factual
inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions, ideals, and subjective interpretation
and characterizations. Consider, for example, a hypothetical candidate for political office who
attacks the incumbent opponent by pointing out only certain portions of that opponent’s
legislative voting record. The candidate might use a vote against a bill eliminating certain
incentives for local businesses as "dear evidence" that the opponent is "anti-business," "bad
for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters want." None of these allegations are
outright lies; they are simply the rhetorical cant of the effective politician.
Thirdly, politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism; after all, in
order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power, which means winning
elections. In my observation some degree of pandering to the electorate and to those who
might lend financial support in reelection efforts is necessary to maintain that position. Modern
politics is replete with candidates who refused to pander, thereby mining their own chance to
exercise effective leadership.Although in the short term being less-than-truthful with the public might serve a political
leader’s interest in preserving power, would-be political leaders who lack requisite integrity
ultimately forfeit their leadership. Consider Richard Nixon, whose leadership seemed born not
of ideology but of personal ambition, which bred contempt of the very people who sanctioned
his leadership in the first place; the ultimate result was his forfeiture of that leadership. In
contrast, Ronald Reagan was a highly effective leader largely because he honestly, and deeply,
believed in the core principles that he espoused and advocated during his presidency--and his
constituency sensed that genuineness and responded favorably to it. Moreover, certain types
of sociopolitical leadership inherently require the utmost integrity and honesty. Consider
notable figures such as Gandhi and King, both of whom were eminently effective in leading
others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they themselves advocated. The
reason for this is simple: A high standard for one’s own personal integrity is a prerequisite for
effective moral leadership.
To sum up, I concede that the game of politics calls for a certain measure of posturing and
disingenuousness. Yet, at the end of the game, without a countervailing measure of integrity,
political game-playing will serve to diminish a political leader’s effectiveness perhaps to the
point where the politician forfeits the game.
Issue 76
"What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all people had a
reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of ’human nature’ as war and crime
would become extremely rare."
84
Are products of human nature such as war and crime actually products of the human
condition--specifically, lack of resources and territory? The speaker daims so. I strongly
disagree, however. Whether we look at science and history, or simply look around us in our
daily lives, we see ample evidence that human aggression is the product of our nature as
humans--and not of our circumstances.First of all, the claim runs contrary to my personal observation about individual
behavior--especially when it comes to males. One need look no further than the local
school-ground or kindergarten playroom to see the roots of crime and war. Every school-yard
has its bully who delights in tormenting meeker school mates; and in every kindergarten
classroom there is at least one miscreant whose habit is to snatch away the favorite toys of
classmates--purely for the enjoyment of having seized property from another. And these
behaviors are clearly not for want of resources or territory. Thus the only reasonable
explanation is that they are products of human nature--not of the human condition.
Secondly, the daim flies in face of what scientists have learned about genetically determined
human traits. Many human traits--not just physical ones but psychological ones as well are
predetermined at birth. And to a great extent we have inherited our genetic predisposition from
our non-human ancestors. One might argue that lower animal species engage in warlike
behavior for the main reason that they must do so to protect their territory, their dan, or for food
not because of their nature. Yet, this point begs the question; for we humans have been
genetically programmed, through the evolutionary process, to behave in similar ways. In other
words, doing so is simply our nature.
Thirdly, the claim makes little sense in the context of human history. Prior to the last few
centuries the inhabitable regions of our planet provided ample territory and resources--such as
food and cultivable land--to accommodate every human inhabitant. Yet our distant ancestors
engaged in war and crime anyway. What else explains this, except that it is part of our inherent
nature to engage in aggressive behavior toward other humans? Moreover, if we consider the
various experiments with Marx’s Communism, it becomes clear that the pure Marxist State in
which all territory and resources are shared according to the needs of each individual does not
work in practice. Every attempt, whether on the macro- or micro-level, has failed at the hands
of a few demagogues or despots, who aggress and oppress like playground bullies.
In sum, the author of this statement misunderstands the roots of such phenomena as war
and crime. The statement runs contrary to my personal observations of human behavior, to the
scientific notions of genetic predisposition and evolution of species, and to the overwhelming
lack of evidence that providing ample resources to people solves these problems.
Issue 77
"Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who
is an expert in that field."