David Brooks’s political dream
Excellent column by Glenn Greenwald. Here are just the two updates, worth in themselves (well, the second for the link):
UPDATE: In comments, spinozista points to this observation from Thomas Jefferson, in his 1824 letter to Henry Lee, that so perfectly captures David Brooks and his like-minded comrades:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.
What I find most odious about Brooks and most of the members of the establishment media who think like him is not that they are in Jefferson’s category (1) — though they obviously are. It’s that they never stop insisting on the deceitful pretense that they’re in category (2).
UPDATE II: Someone who actually understands British politics – this British journalist from the British newspaper Telegraph – explains that Brooks has no idea what he’s talking about.
It seems to me that a more useful division would be LEADERS and FOLLOWERS. This is one of the rationales for representative government under a democracy.
Aristocrats will always be with us. Aristocrats are more likely to have the power and influence to be perceived as LEADERS. Even some successful democrats may become aristocrats as well as LEADERS. Unfortunately all LEADERS do not govern well. When aristocrats gain too much unwarranted and unchecked power very bad things happen. The foolish execution of the Crimean and First World Wars come to mind.
It is important to promote quality of LEADERSHIP, by exercising a form of government that has transparency and adequate provision for corrective action.
Bob Slaughter
25 May 2011 at 11:36 am
I’m familiar with that dichotomy because I long since realized that I don’t really fall into either camp: not a leader and not really a follower.
Among leaders, I have noted that some see leadership as a means of personal power and wealth and use their position for self-aggrandizement rather than for the common weal. I think what Thomas Jefferson was identifying this attitude as that of aristocrats—by which he clearly means those who consider themselves much better than other people and who therefore see no need to take the concerns of others into consideration.
Eugene V. Debs had a nice phrase that summed up the difference in attitude: “I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.”
Those whom Jefferson identified as Aristocrats deny any affiliation with—or true concern for—the ranks.
LeisureGuy
25 May 2011 at 11:58 am
Debs. What a great man and what a noble sentiment. Unfortunately it will never happen that the ranks will rise. That’s why we have a representative democracy as long as we can keep it.
Bob Slaughter
25 May 2011 at 12:07 pm
The ranks may never read the top (except, of course, for the top rank), but the ranks could do MUCH better than they’ve been doing lately if their leaders actually cared about them. But the leadership these days seems focused on the needs (and wants) of the rich and powerful. As Congress tries to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net so that hedge-fund managers can keep more of their multi-billion salaries, it is betraying the American idea.
LeisureGuy
25 May 2011 at 12:24 pm
The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with a Leader/Follower dichotomy. I recognize that that structure—the hierarchical structure—as a fait accompli, but not as a goal and probably not as a general optimal solution (though optimal in some circumstances, I warrant). Instead, a model that appeals more to me is a participatory model, like a coop or a troupe. Certainly it’s helpful at times to identify someone with primary responsibility for something, but I like that to be specific and time-limited and rotating, to provide many people with chances to learn new skills and explore new opportunities. It’s a bit more chaotic, but groups of friends operate in this mode quite comfortably and do a lot when they are so moved.
LeisureGuy
25 May 2011 at 8:31 pm
I just finished as a juror in a criminal trial. My experience fits exactly your participatory/group/coup model. The lead juror is always the first juror chosen and may or may not be the LEADER. Various members exercised various strengths (cooperation, persuasion, logic, emotional weakness, emotional stability, etc) and the result was much better than an exercise in hierarchical leadership. A lot of irrelevant discussion took place but it was necessary to eventually gain a unanimous verdict. In fact we thought we were hung once and so notified the judge.
I do not think this model can possibly apply in large scale governance.
Bob Slaughter
26 May 2011 at 10:03 am
Yes, it doesn’t scale well. OTOH, my view of large-scale governance is currently jaundiced by the directions taken by various large-scale governments, which seem quite frequently not to redound to the benefit of the governed but rather to the benefit of the governors. We are more or less forced into this model by the aggrandizing tendencies of existing governments, but on the whole I don’t think the predominant organizational model works well for the betterment of humanity.
What would be interesting would be a portfolio of organizational models, with strengths and weaknesses of each listed, and for groups to deliberately pick from the portfolio the model best suited to their aims and values. But that’s like seeing the individual states of the US as inventive laboratories of democracy, trying different approaches to solving problems and then adopting the approaches that work best, and trying variations on those: great idea, but it doesn’t happen.
Full disclosure: I am not so enthusiastic about the Leader/Follower model because, as I noted above, I don’t fit either slot. OTOH, there are many other roles that important that I fit better, I think: researcher, teacher/student (the two activities are much the same in many ways, with teachers learning and students teaching—in this I am doubtless influenced by the St. John’s program of my undergraduate education), critic, observer, historian, etc.
I do think we damage many enterprises by forcing them into a hierarchical organizational structure that is ill-suited to their aims and values.
LeisureGuy
26 May 2011 at 10:51 am
I used to be a utopian socialist but I gave up years ago. Your “great idea” seems to be equally utopian. That’s why it never happens except in controlled small scale applications.
Lets consider REPRESENTATIVE/CITIZEN as a model. It’s the one we have and we have to make it work. The TEACHER/STUDENT mod4l has the unavoidable burden of making good citizens as well as representatives.
Bob Slaughter
26 May 2011 at 2:05 pm
I’m not sure to what great idea you refer—not that I have so many, but in this case I don’t think I even have one. Having a portfolio of organizational structures is more or less in some sort of existence—you mentioned the jury organizational idea, I mentioned a troupe and a group of friends. And of course we all know the hierarchical top-down organizational structure, by far the prevailing model, though there are also co-ops and clubs and volunteer organizations that tweak it this way and that.
What is lacking (at least to my limited knowledge) is a readily accessible collection of organizational-structure descriptions (what it is, how it is put together (including names and responsibilities for the various roles), historical examples, strengths and weaknesses, field observations of parent structures that tend to produce the given structure, and the offspring structures that this one tends to change into. Etc.).
With that sort of library of organizational structures, the options would be more visible. But this is hardly a great idea—it’s just a call to social scientists to give us organizational tools we can use: applied social science, or social technology.
Now that I wrote that, I thought I should look around a bit, and, yes, they’re on the case. Take this article, for example: a useful summary with lots of links.
So we have a good start on an organizational bestiary. The next step would for organizations to consider which structure best fits their mission—which, of course, assumes the organization is agreed on its mission.
But of course in Congress and in government in general (not in specific departments with assigned missions), the disagreement on mission is basic and seems to be what the whole enterprise is about—some feeling, for example, that the government exists to ensure the common welfare, and that includes ensuring that the basic human needs of all citizens is supported as well as possible: safety, clothing, shelter, nourishing food, clean drinking water, healthcare, education, and the like: the very basic things humans need for a productive existence and a hopeful life.
OTOH, some feel very definitely that the government is in business mainly for public safety and ensuring that legal and binding contracts are enforced. Everything else should be left to individuals, and if individuals suffer, so be it. It’s not the government’s business.
So they would indeed have trouble picking a model, but the model we have doesn’t seem to work very well, as I look about the world today. For example, the US not only avoids addressing major and urgent problems, it can’t even seem to do small things—e.g., as described in this post. That is piddling compare to (say) climate change, Peak Oil, the financial mess, and other major failures, but that’s the point: if the government can’t even get this right—cannot respond to a reasonable request in a reasonable time—what hope is there that it can do big things? None, I submit.
LeisureGuy
26 May 2011 at 2:59 pm
The “this article” link doesn’t seem to work. Can you fix it?
The present model hasn’t worked very well historically, but we have stumbled along better than the rest of the world. I don’t really believe it can be made to adequately cope with the looming global catastrophes. Maybe the participatory/group/coup model will provide a survival mechanism for a few.
Bob Slaughter
26 May 2011 at 7:05 pm
Sorry about that. Link is fixed, and for good measure, here’s the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure
LeisureGuy
27 May 2011 at 6:24 am