I've been thinking about elite arrogance.
No, not the Democrats and recriminations on how they lost to the worst possible candidate.
Nor Republicans, or the billionares who might be smart in some ways... but are pretty foolish in other ways. Elon Musk being the poster child for that at the moment.
Rather, seeing millions of Americans make what I think is a horrible choice, I've been thinking about some of my earlier opinions of democracy.
As a young college student studying political science and joining ROTC (and eventually getting commissioned in the Army) I believed in America. I still do...
Or rather, the potential we have. We're definitely not perfect, especially if you know American history, but there have always been elitists who think democracy itself is a foolish idea.
The Founding Fathers had concered about direct democracy. It's why we have the electoral college. And, tbh, when you see fads and fear sweep through the population it's hard not to understand why. And yet -
And yet, I truly believe that the alternatives are worse.
I'm going to digress for a bit, so bear with me.
Years ago I came across a program that focused on the end game in chess. I'm not really a chess player and haven't touched a chess board since then, but I found it an interesting puzzle. It basically gave you a game alread in progress and asked you to figure out how to get to checkmate in a certain number of moves.
The endgame isn't just when the king is in checkmate. When you position the pieces so that the king is threatened, the king and all his forces loses a lot of options. They have to prioritize getting the king to safety first, which means that you can direct their movement.
They have to move the king a square to avoid your threat, or move another piece to block you, or whatever, and if you set up your pieces right you can force a series of moves that puts their king into checkmate.
Avoiding that is impossible after a certain point, and the only way it could have been prevented was to go back several moves to before the options got locked in.
I think about that sometimes, because I think it reflects a certain truth about the choices we make. That going down certain paths, that making certain choices, locks you into a path that results in checkmate. Avoiding that requires making the right choice before you're stuck on the path. (Though in real life, are you ever truly stuck?)
This is where I come back to elite arrogance.
Because the decision that leads to checkmate might not seem like a bad idea right away. It might even seem like a good one - for a time. There are moves you can make, and the number varies, but the next apparent response leads to the next, all of which eventually put you in checkmate. (If you're still alive. People may never really live long enough to see the consequences, too.)
Now that I am trying to put this into words, it's hard for me to explain the failed path I see. It's more like a sense than anything else. But I'll try to make it clear.
It starts with someone in a position of power who has a subordinate challenge them. It can feel like a personal attack, a threat, and if they act on that feeling than they will try to end that threat.
Often with some sort of power play that punishes them. Because 'how dare you!'
And in the process, a couple of things can happen.
1) Other people see this and get scared, so they stop speaking their minds.
2) If it's perceived as an unfair overreaction, it can cause other people to oppose you even more. Also, if the person punished wasn't actually trying to attack you and thought they were just giving their honest opinion, you've probably turned them into a real enemy.
3) It makes people more cautious, especially if you are punishing someone for showing initiative. Others start thinking 'I'd better ask him/her first'
This has consequences.
It means people won't tell you the things you need to hear.
It means you might create enemies you didn't have to, and get bogged down in power struggles that prevent you from accomplishing much of anything.
It means that things don't get done unless you micromanage, especially if you insist it always has to be done the way you want. And at a certain level of power, it is impossible for one person to do everything. Instead of having trusted subordinates who are able to make decisions and accomplish things together, you are the center and the hub and if you're overwhelmed then whatever you drop doesn't get taken care of.
The alternatives involve a lot of work, especially in the beginning. (But once you get past the initial stages, it can actually take less work. Like the One Minute Manager. You have people to delegate things to and only have to get involved for specific things.)
It means listening to other people's opinions. Truly listening. You don't have to always do what they're suggesting, but simply hearing them out and explaining yourself will go a long way to build trust and acceptance.
You don't even have to lie in order to manipulate them! (Really, that's a sign of weakness and failure, and yet somehow some strategists think they're being clever by doing so.)
Of course, that means that sometimes you have to spend a LOT of time hearing multiple people complain, and sometimes it's for petty reasons and sometimes they all repeat the same thing and you can't just dismiss them because you're tired of having the same conversation over and over again. If they weren't part of those previous conversations, they don't know that.
It can be pretty tiring, and I understand why some people don't want to deal with it. (They probably shoudn't be in a leadership position if they can't handle that, but... leadership positions often come with money and influence. People rarely seem to give that up even if they're not well suited to it.)
It means being careful in how you handle issues. Tempting as it is to just go off on someone who is making your life difficult, see point 2 above. You need to respond in a way that is fair and consistent and doesn't play favorites.
You also need to invest time in your subordinates. In building that leadership pipeline. In teaching them how to think. In setting expectations, checking in to see if they have what they need in order to meet those expectations, getting rid of obstacles, and most of all guiding them to the point where they can do the job just as well as you can. That's how you get enough people to handle the work that would overwhelm you alone.
Oh, and often times you will have to negotiate some of the craziest interpersonal drama, because people are people.
It's a lot of fucking work! Or rather, it is if you're doing it right.
Some people lack the maturity for that, or are afraid to admit they were wrong because they see it as showing weakness, or any number of things.
All of this, btw, exacerbates and can play a role in one of the topics I bring up a lot - groupthink.
That unwillingness to hear unwanted opinions? That's part of how you get a bunch of folks ignoring warnings about O-rings and get the Challenger explosion.
I'm not sure if it's groupthink, but you could say that's also what led to that rich guy dying in a submarine accident.
This is also how you wind up like Elon Musk, surrounded by 'yes-men' that encourage him to do some of the most idiotic things (and waste millions of dollars in the process).
To bring this discussion back to democracy - elections are a way to hear the voice of the people. It's hard to tell exactly what that voice is saying, despite all the polling and interviewing. Sometimes it's just a voice shouting 'FIX IT!'
Sometimes it's not what we want to hear. Sometimes people are flat out wrong. But dismissing their concerns leads to checkmate. They're telling you something important. Maybe not the exact thing they're claiming it is, since the root cause can be something else entirely. Still, deciding that 'people are morons and they're too dumb to manage themselves' means you've stopped listening and you're on the path to losing.
This, for me, is especially hard at the moment. It is tempting to just throw my hands up in the air, decide people are too stupid to bother with, and figure out some way of just quietly living away from it all. At least until climate disruption and civic unrest wind up killing me. (I don't expect to be the protagonist of an apocalyptic story.)
But I think, ultimately, that this is a sign that we didn't do the work. I don't just mean educating people about civics, or teaching them how to research and evaluate sources, or emphasizing just why Jan 6th was like taking a wrecking ball to the American ship of state.
It also refers to the elite, who live in their bubbles. I can't say for sure, but it seems they've learned to dismiss the voices of everyone pointing out things they really need to know and address.
That we need voices explaining all over again why letting income inequality grow is a terrible idea - for their own self interest, too.
Why separating church and state is a good idea, and that doing so is not a threat to their faith.
How having an educated population with enough financial security to be able to leave a job that doesn't suit them is a good thing, and making higher education affordable benefits everyone too.
Why having a healthy workforce is also a good thing. Seriously, why is that even a question? If you don't like the idea of universal healthcare, then find an alternative that actually works.
Why racism is idiotic, because apparently some of us need a refresher.
Why autocracy is bad, and we don't actually want to wind up like Russia under Putin. Not even the billionaires.
Things I thought had been well established as common American beliefs are apparently not, otherwise we wouldn't have rich people spending money to undo all of that.
Edited to add: Oh yeah, and why science is a good thing! And that truth is important.
Why is truthiness a thing? Whatever happened to 'truth, justice, and the American way'?
