On Realism - Well, My Kind of Realism.

 I want to pontificate on a few things, though to be fair it's the sort of thing that should probably have proper studies done, so take it with a grain of salt.

I have heard people say that whoever spends the most money tends to win elections, but I wonder if that's mixing up correlation and causation. 

I say that, first of all because once I've made up my mind about a candidate it really doesn't matter how many ads I see or hear... it's not changing my mind. I also vaguely recall someone saying all the out-of-state money going to help with the Georgia run-offs may actually do more harm than good. (I did not get any details on how or why that may be, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.)

So if money is associated with winning elections, but ads and the like may have only a marginal effect, how are they related?

I think a case could be made that money is a marker of enthusiasm and support for a candidate, though I'd want to see studies done on that. And on whether the source of the money makes much of a difference. If I recall correctly, Obama raised a great deal of money because a lot of people donated small amounts. He was charismatic and people were enthusiastic. Would someone who raised the same amount of money, but mostly from large donors, show the same sort of results?  Does enthusiasm among the people who can afford the large donations matter the same as enthusiasm among the vast majority who can't? Idk, that's the sort of stuff you'd need to have studies for. 

I brought that up because I was thinking about realism. Or rather, about people who believe that underneath everything (sometimes very well hidden) decisions are made by the ones who can control brute force. The monopoly on violence that a state must hold, as just one example. This is the type of analysis that focuses mostly on hard power and military strength. 

But here's the thing - does a correlation between controlling brute force and being able to achieve your goals necessarily mean causation?

Bear with me here. There was an episode in the anime Samurai Champloo where our wanderers end up in a town that was mostly controlled by the mafia. There was an 'old school' mafia leader. A criminal, yes... but he also believed in taking care of his villagers. He was mostly supplanted by a newer, rougher, more violent leader. What was interesting, to me at least, was that at the end of the show one of the men switched loyalties. Even though the old leader seemed to lose everything (and iirc even died, so really it was switching loyalty to his son), during the course of the show his former follower realized that he valued the old ways more. That he didn't like this newer, more brutal leadership. 

That's what I get at, when I talk about how leaders can only lead where people want to follow. Where the relationship between leader and led is complicated, and not a one-way street. And it's also how we choose the world we want to live in.

It's easy to think that the hardass, the one willing to brutally put down any resistance, is the one who 'faces reality' and will win. And people will join up because they like being on the winning side, or they're afraid of being targeted, or for whatever reason. It's 'realism', and in that view the 'strongest' (which often means most brutal) wins.

But we are cooperative and social creatures, and the pack of wolves is often capable of taking down a larger opponent. Whoever draws the most people generally is more powerful.

And as Seth Godin says, "Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you."

People want to follow people that give them a sense of purpose, an idea that they are helping create something better. Following power for power's sake is, in many ways, depressing. What does it matter whether this bully or that one takes over? What vision of a better future are they offering? 

If you think that only someone willing to be forceful can get things done, and you choose to follow that forceful leader... you create a world where that is exactly what happens. 

If you think things like justice, honesty, and truthfulness matter and you follow a leader who supports that... then those are the people with the largest pack of wolves and they have a better chance of making it happen. You create a world where it really does matter. 

You, me, all of our decisions together collectively make that happen.

It's way more complicated than that of course, and there are constraints that come when you decide these 'soft' things matter. Like expecting justice to be blind, and nobody should be above the rule of law.

I brought all that up because of all this talk about a 'coup' that's been going on ever since Election Day. I don't want to go into all the political and legal things going on right now, or all the court cases and failed evidence.

I wanted to discuss that so-called 'realist' way of analyzing a situation that looks at the crude basics - brute force. 

In most countries that would be the military, which is why whoever controls the military can often succeed at taking over a country. Also why history is littered with military dictatorships (and also dynasties that were overthrown by their military class. Like the Mamluks.) Luckily for us we have a very strong tradition of an apolitical military. One that swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and values our citizen soldiers as citizens as well as soldiers.

In other words, various figures in our military have consistently sent quiet signals over the last few months that they're not going to get involved in any sort of dispute. Like one over the election. (And so much of this has wound up in court, which makes it rather esoteric and hard to follow for those of us who aren't lawyers.)

If someone wanted to take over our country and couldn't use the military, there's not actually a lot of other choices left. You might get somewhere with the various militias (and although I know there's been some debate over whether they should be called that, but I'm thinking about how we called Muqtada al-Sadr's armed supporters a militia. They're not terrorists unless they're actually using terrorist tactics. A bunch of people carrying weapons and with some sort of structure for command and control is more like a militia. Unless you want to go with 'gang', I suppose.) 

Anyways, you might get somewhere with militias and armed supporters, but you'd still need some sort of coordination and communication. After all, what should they target? Where? Who? (and how would they pull anything off in time, considering the levers of state power that would be coming at them.)

Somewhat the same, but not, would be private security forces. I've heard people say that companies like Academi are actually somewhat similar to the professional mercenaries of medieval ages, though our current use of the term 'mercenary' gives that a connotation that isn't meant by the comparison. Seems like a stretch that they'd be used like that, though. And it would still require communication and coordination (or rather, command and control?).

There's also the possibility of outside forces, I suppose. I mean, you'd have to get our existing military to stand aside while you brought them in. And you'd have to have absolutely no morals whatsoever, and be a traitor to the country... but if you had all of that you could probably invite in foreign support. (I'm not talking about advisors and forces requested through official channels. Like the Germans and French that helped our revolutionary forces fight the British. There's a difference between asking aid to help fight off another foreign power and asking for aid to take over your own government against all it's laws and traditions.)

Anyways, all of those should have pretty obvious warning signs if you know what to look for. The gist of all of that is that our current troubles will probably be decided in a court of law. Courts which have rather consistently thrown out most of the Trump team's cases for a rather shocking lack of evidence.

On National Strength, Morals, Etc.

I talked about realpolitik in my last post, and probably made it sound negative.  I wanted to go into more detail here, because I don't think that it has to be.

Realpolitik is tied up with the belief that good politics are what's best for the nation (whether that means ensuring a good source of oil, or building alliances against threats, or what-have-you).  The problem, I think, is that people can justify almost anything.


I have to admit, realism seems to reflect international politics more than any other model.  The notion that democracies don't fight seems silly, considering we did go to war with England in the 1800s.  The belief that globalism and the interconnectivity between nations will make war disappear has some merit.  It means there are more severe disadvantages for fighting.  But if the issue seemed important enough, I think nations would overlook that, as well.

But realism sometimes seems harsh and cold, and I think most people associate it with a cynical, pessimistic and negative view of human nature.  One I disagree with rather strongly.

If you look at who people admire and respect, it's generally NOT the ones seen as master manipulators.  Nor the game players.  (If you want to go the Christian route and consider the Bible - when Jesus tells his disciples that he will make them fishers of men, he was telling them that he would make them leaders.  How?  By teaching them to serve others, and to be good shepherds, not by giving them 48 Laws of Power.)

To bring this back to the title above - I think policies that make our nation stronger are ones that would expand our options, build off a strong base of support, and stay true to our national values rather than cynically giving lip service to them.

I sometimes think of a book I'd read, years ago, on the Ottoman Empire.  From what I remembered, the Ottoman Empire (before becoming "the sick man of Europe") was pretty smart about how it operated.  It offered better governance than its neighbors, so much so that Christians in the Balkans preferred Ottoman rule.  It's been a while since I read the book, and I know the details were not as simple or nice as that...but the principle seemed sound.  Besides, it resonates with the American concept of a "city on the hill" trying to lead by example.

We have a lot going for us.  We have enormous resources, a large and capable population, wide oceans to our east and west, and only two nations (Canada and Mexico) on our immediate borders.  We're too large to pretend we can't or don't have an influence on the rest of the world, we just have to figure out how to do so wisely.  Intervene, and people will criticize you for meddling.  Don't intervene, and people will criticize you for doing nothing when you could have made a difference.  For better or worse, we have an effect on the outcomes of current events.  The question is, what outcomes do we want to pursue?  And how capable are we of making those outcomes a reality?

We are weaker, in that we seem rather incapable of making things happen the way we profess we want them to.  Iraq has hardly lived up to our rhetoric.  Nor has Afghanistan.

In the last decade, it seems like we, as a nation, grow more and more constrained.  Even worse, the influence of business on our foreign policy (both somewhat isolated from the average American) means that we have done things in the past that make it harder to operate in the present.  If you read about our history in South American and Latin America, for example, you find that Hugo Chavez's ridiculous conspiracy claims were not as far fetched as they sounded.  Our past actions made it easier for someone like Hugo Chavez to oppose American interests.

(The CIA has a reputation that can be used against us, as much as for us.  Want to claim that what you are doing isn't really a bad thing?  Claim that 'the West' is stirring up trouble and supporting your opponents.