The light dawns
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule it.”
–H. L. Mencken
Advertisement
Posted at 6:33 pm on January 13th, 2011 by 
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Ive always liked that quote. Thing is, I dont think save
the world types are really greedy for raw power for its own sake.
They simply have a low tolerance for frustration. In their rush to
make the world a better place, they want to cut corners – to go
directly to Utopia, steamrolling over obstacles like other
peoples opinions, democracy, due process, etc.
I think that many of the save the world types would fit in that category you describe, but unfortunately, they are easily used by those who really do want to rule. Useful idiots
Regardless of whether they initially were interested in power for its own sake, the need to acquire raw power is the inevitable conclusion of the drive to “save” others. The tacit assumption of people like this is always “I am absolutely right, it is not possible I am wrong.” Evidence to the contrary is faked or simply misunderstood (e.g. any and all weather conditions have now become evidence of “climate change”.) It follows then if I am unquestionably right, those who disagree are unquestionably wrong. If I am on the side of good, my opponents are evil. The need for power then becomes the sword by which I will crush the evil demons.
I agree. Furthermore, this thought process smacks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder where the individual can’t allow a contradictory idea to exists least their whole house of cards falls down around them. When confronted with a countering to their delusional persona, the reaction is rage as the alter-ego attempts to survive. To me, this explains a lot of leftists behavior as so much of their “empathy” is geared to reflect well on them and their tolerance is extended only to that which they find tolerable. It also explains lefts unwitting projections of violence upon the right that leaves me gobsmacked when considering the unrelenting imagery of violence the left pours forth without a second-thought.
“Thing is, I dont think save
the world types are really greedy for raw power for its own sake.”
How would they act differently if they were?
They would not try to destroy a society
in which they are able to hold power,
and replace it with one in which they
will be ignored, if they are lucky.
The only thing I would change would be to leave out the “almost”. If saving humanity is to mean anything one must actually do something. And doing it requires doing it to people. If you want to “do it” to me, you must necessarly rule me.
10-04 good buddy!
“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”
~David Brin
As implied above by FUBAR (cool name, my favorite of those snafu-terms is FUMTU), there is essentially no way to know whether an ostensibly utopian-seeking leader is driven by lust for power or merely so egocentric that he is sure that “corners must be cut” to achieve utopia. I also don’t know that one is better than the other, morally or practically.
Even if we came upon the diaries of a Castro or Guevara, and found such unlikely ruminations, we would not have full insight into this matter, given that such a person would write a diary with knowledge that he might be judged by history. And I think in many cases the leader himself must know that he does not know to what extent each is his “true” self.
Perfect, absolutely perfect. This quote encapsulates something I’ve been trying to define in my own mind for quite some time. Now I have this in my back pocket!
Throw in our odd propensity to believe our own lies. I’m convinced many lefties look in the mirror and see precisely the magnamous do-gooder they try to project. They really seem to imagine that their need to rule is incidental, a peripheral detail in their noble quest raise humanity out of it’s own filth. Who’d suspect that rulership itself would generate so much the very worst filth?
Just remember that people on the right are no less subject to this failure of character than are people on the left.
Its worth noting Mencken didn’t attempt to distinguish.
To paraphrase Heinlein, the real two parties are people who want to be ruled, and people who want to be left alone.
True, people on the right are also corruptable. One good example was Pinochets Chile, where they tried to impose free market economics, but by dictatorial means. They actually succeeded in increasing economic freedom, and prosperity, but at an unaccceptable human cost. I dont count Hitler as really being on the right, at least not the libertarian right, since his economic policy was basically socialist. In his actual impact on individuals he is indistinguishable from Stalin, and is really just another form of big gov totalitarian socialism.
But if you are talking about the libertarian less gov right, there is a built in stabilizer. If your stated goal is less gov, then you have to violate your publically stated goal to increase your power once you have gov control. Leftist power mad types do not suffer from that built in constraint, and are thus much more dangerous, since they are subject to no self imposed limits.
Yeah, I have to disagree that the right is no less susceptible to this failing. In fact, its one of the most important defining differences between right and left. Saving humanity from the latest bugaboo–Demon Rum, racism, capitalism, homophobia, overpopulation, global warming–is the lefts whole raison detre. People on the left think society and humanity are perfectible and are willing to break lot of human eggs trying to make that omelet. The right knows that theres such a thing as flawed, immutable human nature. Thats why it attract the overwhelming majority of those who want to be left alone.
Algorithm of the Left:
1. Destroy economy by overspending, over-regulation, and over-taxation.
2. Thereby impoverishing the majority of the potential electorate.
3. Thereby making them dependent on government.
4. Thereby exerting absolute control over the entire populace.
Motto of the Left:
Of the government, by the government, and for the government.
Camus said something similar I believe. Something like “The salvation of humanity is the alibi of all tyrants.”
Here’s one of my posts from a recent thread on precisely this topic:
@Warren Bonesteel: “Just remember that people on the right are no less subject to this failure of character than are people on the left.”
Agreed — an important point and something we ignore at our peril.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but
they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters — Daniel Webster
I really fear a takeover by people on the right. Not those
Washington Republicans, but real people on the right. I dont know
how Id act if we got a bunch of folks running the government who
wanted to leave me alone.
One of their favorite refrains is that there isn’t
anything wrong with the theory of socialism or Marxism, per se…the
problem has been with the flawed people who have attempted to
implement societies based on socialist or Marxist principles. The
tragic irony, of course, is that they’re absolutely correct: they
just don’t fully understand the import of their observation.
Actually they are not correct. Von Mises and Hayek have shown that
a centrally planned economy is impossible, because the information
can never be available to the planners to direct the economy.
Prices encapsulate gigantic amounts of information in a single
number, and by restricting their attention to just those aspects of
the economy relevant to their activities, people running businesses
can use prices as a managable information source for planning their
activities. Planning and directing the economy as a whole is
impossible. Without freely moving prices the people trying to plan
cannot even know what to make and in what quantities; thats the
Economic Calculation Problem and socialists never found an answer
to it (they decided to ignore the whole problem instead). Hayeks
last book, The Fatal Conceit, is a summing up of the whole issue.
It really doesnt matter if the revolutionaries are power-mad or
just think they need the power in order to give effect to their
wonderful utopian schemes, they end up with a bloodbath anyway,
because they are trying to achieve impossible utopias against human
nature. As for Pinochet, he was the savior of his country. He
prevented the leftists from turning Chile into another Cuba, with
all its attendent miseries. He revitalized the economy, and it is
still going strong on that foundation. He left the country in
condition to reestablish democracy on a stronger footing than
before, so that Chile has not (as yet at any rate) slid into the
leftist fantasies so many other Latin American states are pursuing
again. His government killed fewer than 4,000 in the course of
doing its job, which is a small fraction of what the Castros or the
Nicaraguan Commandantes killed. Sadly, when leftists try to make
revolutions, there is going to be bloodshed. In Chiles case
Pinochet had to reckon with 10,000 armed Latin American leftists
as they were described in newspapers at the time. During the show
trial of one of Ochoas colleagues during the 1980s, he tried to
wriggle out of his inevitable death sentence by claiming that he
had commanded the troops in Chile at the time Salvador Allende was
overthrown. Turned out that those leftists were Cuban troops,
wherever they had come from originally. If the leftists win there
is endless bloodshed to go with the endless impoverishment they
cause. Better they should be stopped before then, because it is
very difficult to get them out once they have power, stopped even
at the cost of some bloodshed, since the cost of enduring them in
power will invariably be worse.
One of their favorite refrains is that there isn’t
anything wrong with the theory of socialism or Marxism, per se…the
problem has been with the flawed people who have attempted to
implement societies based on socialist or Marxist principles. The
tragic irony, of course, is that they’re absolutely correct: they
just don’t fully understand the import of their observation.
Actually they are not correct. Von Mises and Hayek have shown that
a centrally planned economy is impossible, because the information
can never be available to the planners to direct the economy.
Prices encapsulate gigantic amounts of information in a single
number, and by restricting their attention to just those aspects of
the economy relevant to their activities, people running businesses
can use prices as a managable information source for planning their
activities. Planning and directing the economy as a whole is
impossible. Without freely moving prices the people trying to plan
cannot even know what to make and in what quantities; thats the
Economic Calculation Problem and socialists never found an answer
to it (they decided to ignore the whole problem instead). Hayeks
last book, The Fatal Conceit, is a summing up of the whole issue.
It really doesnt matter if the revolutionaries are power-mad or
just think they need the power in order to give effect to their
wonderful utopian schemes, they end up with a bloodbath anyway,
because they are trying to achieve impossible utopias against human
nature. As for Pinochet, he was the savior of his country. He
prevented the leftists from turning Chile into another Cuba, with
all its attendent miseries. He revitalized the economy, and it is
still going strong on that foundation. He left the country in
condition to reestablish democracy on a stronger footing than
before, so that Chile has not (as yet at any rate) slid into the
leftist fantasies so many other Latin American states are pursuing
again. His government killed fewer than 4,000 in the course of
doing its job, which is a small fraction of what the Castros or the
Nicaraguan Commandantes killed. Sadly, when leftists try to make
revolutions, there is going to be bloodshed. In Chiles case
Pinochet had to reckon with 10,000 armed Latin American leftists
as they were described in newspapers at the time. During the show
trial of one of Ochoas colleagues during the 1980s, he tried to
wriggle out of his inevitable death sentence by claiming that he
had commanded the troops in Chile at the time Salvador Allende was
overthrown. Turned out that those leftists were Cuban troops,
wherever they had come from originally. If the leftists win there
is endless bloodshed to go with the endless impoverishment they
cause. Better they should be stopped before then, because it is
very difficult to get them out once they have power, stopped even
at the cost of some bloodshed, since the cost of enduring them in
power will invariably be worse.
To add to what Personfromporlock wrote: “Good intentions
will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is
hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in
all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They
promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” –Daniel
Webster
“3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.”
Does ‘you smell like dog poop’ count as an ad hominem? Because that’s the only argument arrow in my quiver.
Also, you all smell like dog poop!
The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world – that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power – which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters – which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.
H.L. Mencken
This quote describes the 2012 Tea Party Presidential nominee:
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre – the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.[24]
H.L. Mencken