“The Trouble with Democracy” – excerpts
Enjoy excerpts from this stunning piece, courtesy Mises.org (emphasis mine).
*** Excerpts from The Trouble with Democracy: Maslow Meets Hoppe by Doug French ***
Chapter 24 from Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
H.L. Mencken described politicians as “men who, at some time or other, have compromised with their honour, either by swallowing their convictions or by whooping for what they believe to be untrue.“[1]
The Sage of Baltimore had it correct, that to be elected and stay elected in American politics to any full-time position requires the suspension of any ethics or good sense a person may possess. Even those who begin political careers with the best intentions and have measurable abilities that would make them successful in any field soon realize that the skills required to succeed in politics are not those required outside politics..
.
Lew Rockwell explains that, while competition in the marketplace improves quality, competition in politics does just the opposite:
The only improvements take place in the process of doing bad things: lying, cheating, manipulating, stealing, and killing. The price of political services is constantly increasing, whether in tax dollars paid or in the bribes owed for protection (also known as campaign contributions). There is no obsolescence, planned or otherwise. And as Hayek famously argued, in politics, the worst get on top. And there is no accountability: the higher the office, the more criminal wrongdoing a person can get away with.[3]
Thus it becomes “a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union,” wrote Mencken.[4] Democracy makes it possible for the demagogue to inflame the childish imagination of the masses, “by virtue of his talent for nonsense.”[5] The king can do the same thing in a monarchy but only by virtue of his birth.
…
There may be politicians that pursue elected office for the money, but many elected officials are already wealthy by most people’s standards. What makes the wealthy and otherwise successful want to hold office? Is it, as Charles Derber describes in The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Ego in Everyday Life, that politicians since “Caesar and Napoleon have been driven by overweening egos and an insatiable hunger for public adulation”?[9]
The work of psychologist Abraham Maslow may provide an understanding as to why even successful entrepreneurs would seek public office. Maslow is famous for his “hierarchy of needs” theory that is taught in most management classes in American universities.
The theory is generally presented visually as a pyramid, with the lowest or most basic human need — physiological need — shown as a layer along the base of the pyramid…These first four needs (physiological, safety, love and esteem) were considered deficit needs. If a person is lacking, there is a motivation to fill that need. Once the particular need is filled, the motivation abates. This makes these needs different than the need at the top of Maslow’s pyramid, the need for self-actualization. The need for self-actualization is never satisfied, and Maslow referred to it as a being need — be all you can be.
Thus, humans continually strive to satisfy their needs, and as the more basic needs are satisfied, humans move up the pyramid, if you will, to satisfy higher-level needs. Of course, different humans achieve different levels, and it was Maslow’s view that only two percent of humans become self-actualizing.
Maslow studied some famous people along with a dozen not-so-famous folks and developed some personality traits that were consistent with people he judged to be self-actualizing. Besides being creative and inventive, self-actualizers have strong ethics, a self-deprecating sense of humor, humility and respect for others, resistance to enculturation, enjoyment of autonomy and solitude instead of shallow relationships with many people. They believe the ends don’t necessarily justify the means and that the means can be ends in themselves.
One readily sees that Maslow’s self-actualizers have nothing in common with politicians in a democracy, but closely fit the profile that Hoppe describes of the natural elite that would lead a natural order. But a step down from the top of the hierarchy-of-needs pyramid is the need for esteem. Maslow described two types of esteem needs according to Maslow expert Dr. C. George Boeree: a lower-esteem need and a higher one. And while the higher form of esteem calls for healthy attributes such as freedom, independence, confidence, and achievement, the lower form “is the need for the respect of others, the need for status, fame, glory, recognition, attention, reputation, appreciation, dignity, even dominance.”
…Because democracy is open to any and all who can get elected — either through connections, personality, or personal wealth — it is a social system where leadership positions become a hotbed for sociopaths. Maslow’s self-actualizing man won’t have an interest in politics. But those stuck on the need for esteem are drawn to it like flies to dung.
…So while the electorate recognizes that they are electing at best incompetents and at worst crooks, the constant, naïve, prodemocracy mantra is that “we just need to elect the right people.”
But the “right people” aren’t (and won’t be) running for office. Instead, we will continue to have “the average American legislator [who] is not only an ass,” as Mencken wrote, “but also an oblique, sinister, depraved and knavish fellow.“[13]
*** End of Excerpts ***
Read the article in full here.
Related Posts:
Why bother with politics? – Sanjeev Sabhlok
Dear Shantanu,
It was really a surprise to read how Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can be used to explain the evolution of governance. But most of us do not realise the obvious unless some one points the same to us.
on reading this i tought two other philosophies are closely related to the same.
1. The Hindu division of Gunas into 3 – Sattva, Rajo and Tamas – Tamas encampassing the three baser needs, Rajo roughly equivalent to esteem amd sattva being self actualisation.
2. The division by Plato – The Rational Soul, Spirited Soul and the appetitive soul.
It is the Spirited soul(Rajas / Esteem) whose quality are willingness and courage (Soldiers – party workers in this context) who rise to become politicians and leaders. The Sattvik / Rational / Self actualised man rarely does.
I wonder where we would place our leaders on this scale – especially the leaders of the Independence era where we had better leaders.
Most Importantly:-
1. M K Gandhi
2. Jawaharlal Nehru.
3. M. A. Jinnah.
4. Subas Chandra Bose.
5. Sardar Vallabhai Patel.
6. Rajaji.
with warm regards,
sridhar
Marslow’s need heirarchy theory is applicable for common man. Marslow theory cannot be applied for people who are aspiring for power. The person who is aspiring for power has different motivation power. The rewards and punishments that power carries is different from those for common man. A leadership related to governance needs to be tested in it’s accomplishments in matters related to governance, external security, internal security, development of human resources of country.
Dear Shantanu
Let me discuss two issues separately:
MYTH 1: SELF-ACTUALISERS DON’T JOIN POLITICS
I am unable to agree with Doug French’S view that “Maslow’s self-actualizers have nothing in common with politicians in a democracyâ€. First of all let me digress a bit to discuss Maslow himself. I am not persuaded that Maslow represented human needs properly. Thus in The Discovery of Freedom – draft at: http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/ – I show how he fails to identify the most basic need of all, of freedom. That is a very serious shortcoming of his analysis. So let’s take Maslow with a pinch of salt.
Further, when he talks about self-actualisers, he is effectively talking about level 4 leaders (Jim Collins): “Besides being creative and inventive, self-actualizers have strong ethics, a self-deprecating sense of humor, humility and respect for others, resistance to enculturation, enjoyment of autonomy and solitude instead of shallow relationships with many people. They believe the ends don’t necessarily justify the means and that the means can be ends in themselves.â€
However, there is a huge difference between that level and level 5. Level 5 has the additional focus on results (including for society) and on succession planning (building future leaders). That is a massive difference in quality. Self-actualisation is of limited value to society: it needs to be translated to leadership.
And now for my difference with Doug French – that while it is impossible to find a perfect ‘level 5’ leader, the reality is that a large number of political leaders do come close to that level. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. Others like Edmund Burke, J.S. Mill, Rajaji were at least level 4. To say that politicians can’t be really outstanding people is terribly flawed. Indeed, the world has moved forward PRECISELY on the shoulders of great politicians. Try being like one of them and you’ll soon realise how hard it is.
MYTH 2: POLITICIANS MUST NECESSARILY BE SCUM
I dislike those who undermine democratic leadership or politicians without first offering themselves up for leadership. Thus I respect ALL the world’s democratic leaders and politicians far more than I respect commentators like Menken. Even the ‘lowest’ level of democratic leader is far superior to a pen-pusher who condemns him. One Laloo Yadav is worth 100,000 Menckens.
People who don’t have the ability or calibre to provide leadership often find it too easy to pat their egos and look down upon politicians as a whole. These are people who are not fit personally to become zero level leaders, but who sit in judgement over others who actually lead. If Mencken had real ability he would have become President of USA and led the world to freedom. But such people only write: a much lower level skill.
I believe that real liberals must (become or) support and promote good politicians; not condemn politicians as a class. Of course, the corrupt politicians should be brought to book but to say that politicians are a lower order of humans (“sinister, depraved and knavish”) is wrong.
We cannot replace something with nothing, as Masani said. If anyone (Mencken, e.g. – of course long dead) thinks he is ‘better’ than Laloo Yadav, then he should step forward and replace him. Don’t simply criticise is what I say.
Let’s therefore discard sermons from those who have no personal ability for leadership. It is very hard to lead a real-life political movement for freedom and democracy. Human societies are very hard to manage.
Let’s give politicians their due and learn even to respect them.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
http://bfn.sabhlokcity.com/
I do not subscribe to the view that everyone can be a leader associated with dispensing of governance. However, if there is freedom of speech, a person has the right to analyze the situation and form views, even if he is only a philosophical person or a penner of words.
Leadership related to governance requires a different mindset and actions than that of person inclined to walk on path of self actualization.
If one follows “self actualizations” to dispense good governance, he will most probably kill the entire nation. For example, the reason MK Gandhi was unable to kill his entire followers is some of them got the eye opener from the shock waves of realities of world and took it to streets with WEAPONRY WHICH COULD KILL like swords or to WEAPONRY WHICH COULD SAVE like shelter under sarees than spinning, walking, fasting. The peace returned not because of spinning, walking or fasting but because of leadership of some persons who remain insulated from “Self Actualizations” and actually did some job under leadership that appeals to common sense like Constable/ Army Jawan following orders of Inspector/ General who in turn forgot to ask “Self Actualized Leader”
Point is 10 point leadership levels or 5 point leadership levels or single pint leadership all are useless if one is unable to work on basis of common sense aka vivek as described in beautiful poems by Shri Krishna. The vivek also needs to be applied by common man when he exercises his franchise and he should not cast his franchise in favor of anyone who is nothing but a leader separated by varying degree of evilness among leadership. The vivek also says that one should fully support 49 O so a Self Actualized Blunder calling himself a leader (like Nehru) or Wolf in Sheep Clothing (Like Shahabuddin) or A Leader Actually Needing Self Actualization Therapy ( Like Advani) can be addressed.
Till that time no vote, work hard, blog, drink, enjoy etc.
Vote only if Narendra Modi can become Prime Minister
In real life, each and everyone is a leader. For example, in a group of two, one is superior and leads the other. The leadership will become dynamic if the group of two persons is friends and one will find leadership changing as per problem faced by the two friends. In real life, a minor problem, triggers leadership out of no where and people follow the (leader) person blindly who is the first one to trigger action… One can study the behavior of public in train, in general class category to find it this is true or not.
@ Sanjeev: If anyone thinks he is ‘better’ than Laloo Yadav, then he should step forward and replace him. Don’t simply criticise is what I say.
Well said!
Vote only if Narendra Modi can become Prime Minister
Seriously? The guy who could not handle riots and worse, is suspect of actually instigating them?
Salil,
We are discussing democracy, a means of dispensing governance and leadership in democratic form of government here. There was a typo mistake in my construction of sentence… The sentence should be read as vote for leader like Narendra Modi only for the post of PM because he stands for progress, peace and development and he does so by leadership of guts, hard work and sincerity. We are talking about certain quality like guts, hard work, sincerity for good governance.
Should Democracy be termed as Demoncracy in case it fails? :-))
@Salil
How you know N. Modi cannot handle riots and worse? and he is the suspect? Did anyone know what going to happen in Taj hotel? Did not we loose many lives? Or its just fine if Pakistan is behind it, so brush it away as Kashmir issue. Right!
@Indian:
The very fact that riots happened over 100 towns and 900 villages for days killing thousands indicates that the govt. was unable to handle them. I didnt say Modi was responsible, but his reputation & role in the matter isn’t completely spotless. Comparing the riots to 26/11 is futile because that was a completely different issue altogether.
I know some of you’ll will disagree but I don’t intend to take this thread to a different topic.
Different Issue and futile. That’s what I said. No need to take a thread to a different topic.
@ Salil: Re. “riots happened over 100 towns and 900 villages for days killing thousands“, there is a thread on Godhra if you wish to examine/discuss this more closely. (Part I and Part II)
@ Shantanu
If anyone thinks he is ‘better’ than Laloo Yadav, then he should step forward and replace him. Don’t simply criticise is what I say. Well said!
Very well said! But there are political leaders who are offering their political leadership even if Lalu is there. When Gandhi was there, even then, there were leaders offering leadership… Some, as we learn today, were extremely capable leaders. The thing is when it comes to application of your franchise or support, are you a good consumer of craps fed by a politician? For example, I believe, Lok Sabha Elections should focus on National Level Politics. I may be able to test any one’s macro level theory but can a poor, unaware, malnourished, struggling to meet daily needs be able to decide national level politics like NAM policy, Socialism, Secularism? Does the senior level leadership address the issue of governance as good governance = external/ internal security, good level playing field for everyone to earn his/ her bread by hard work, sincerity?
This feels like the right post for this brief excerpt from NYT Op-Ed Fie, Fatal Flaw! by Maureen Dowd: