Does power breed arrogance, or do the arrogant seek power?

In a piece asking whether voting matters anymore, Jeff Pope discusses political arrogance:

Political arrogance is far more dangerous than social arrogance. In civil society arrogance is the simple disdain for others due to class, wealth, education, or breeding. It is a trait that America, being egalitarian from its founding, strongly rejects. Political arrogance, however, is a much more virulent strain of the disease because it transforms a politician from a person having an appreciation of being first elected to a position of power into one who believes power naturally comes to him or her because they are uniquely worthy of it. To those who see themselves in this way, the vote of the people does not indicate a preference for a type of governance; nor is it an expression of the general will on specific issues. Rather, electoral victory is an affirmation of their special status as the worthy leaders of the populace at large and an implied acceptance by the voters to be led in whatever direction they deem fit. To the arrogant politician the voter wants me, not someone to represent them and their views. Think Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Kerry, Dodd, Durbin, etc.
What has long fascinated me as a observer of human behavior and culture is that arrogance is a mindset generally accompanied by deep insecurity. There's a sense of entitlement to power, but an underlying, all-encompassing fear of a loss of that power.

Consequently, where it comes to preserving that power, arrogant people tend to stick together -- even if they are on opposite sides of the fence.

That's why in political terms I trust the Tea Party people a lot more than what Will Collier (linked by Glenn Reynolds yesterday) called (appropriately) the "dinner party" people.

The latter group suffer from a sense of entitlement to power, because they're closely associated with it. Because they hang out and hobnob with the powerful, they start to imagine that they, too, are powerful -- the way people who hang out with famous celebrities start to think that they, too, are famous. Or ought to be. When this happens to journalists, it can affect their ability to be objective, and the result is the fawning sycophantic behavior that so nauseates the Tea Party people.

While it's a bit beyond this post, there's a group of people I have discussed repeatedly which suffers from a worse form of arrogance than elected officials -- the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, academicians, Ph.D. policy wonks and the like who believe they should have a divine right to tell people what to do. While it's bad enough to be ruled by arrogant elected officials, rule by the unelected arrogant class is intolerable.

It's the essence of tyranny.

But perhaps there's hope for the dinner party conservatives. Sooner or later, they might wake up and realize that there's a new dinner party, to which they're not invited.

But will they deign to have tea with the common folk? Or will they imagine that they'll still be included among the elite if they "behave"? A secondary question is whether the new arrogant class deign to throw a few crumbs to those they've displaced.

I guess the rest of us will have to stay tuned.

Whether power breeds arrogance or the arrogant seek power (or a combination of both), I don't know. Has it ever been settled whether we live in an aristocracy or a meritocracy? Or has the distinction been erased?

Obama's Ivy League appointments have refueled a longstanding debate.

posted by Eric on 03.12.09 at 11:06 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8073






Comments

The word "effete" pops into mind. When the volume of the discussion goes up, the relative value of this adjective also increases.

The thing I look for in a discussion is the relative robustness of the argument being offered. That it represents a certain intellectual vigour. For those of us who appreciate debate, it is the elevation of conversation to debate--rather than the elevation of volume--that could lead to the perception that "arrogant people tend to stick together."

It's more interesting to talk about the allocation of scarce resources, than to hear someone repeat theories on Man Made Global Warming.
.

OregonGuy   ·  March 12, 2009 11:57 AM

Unfortunately education does not indicate intelligence, we have many degreed people who are illiterate.
People achieve advanced degrees by proving their ability to ferret out and supply the Professor or institution with the asked for data without question.
It seems that how much a person is willing to pay these institutions is somehow a measure of the institutions ability to educate. Again wealth = prestige.
Intelligence is the ability to question, evaluate and arrive at workable solutions.
Barrack Obama's "Change and Hope" does not indicate
intelligence.
Change is inevitable hope should not be considered strategy.

hugh   ·  March 12, 2009 12:47 PM

As a whole, I think it is power creates arrogance. Many people enter politics for heartfelt reasons and the best of intentions, but most then succumb to the temptations of power.

This is nothing new of course. As Lord Acton famously phrased it in 1887, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

AustinRoth   ·  March 12, 2009 02:58 PM

John D. MacDonald addressed a similar point in one of his Travis McGee novels way back (I can never remember which one is which, but they're FUN! in a noir kind of way). One character was a big movie star, a tiny woman in real life. McGee muses about her, about what in her enables her to face the prospect of her own eye, blown up to Volkswagen-size, on a screen: her steely, gigantic ego, no matter what her exterior or her background might seem to say about her. He seems to determine that an ego like that - or in our discussion, arrogance - is innate.

I'd go with that. I've known a few arrogant people who didn't have the chops to take their arrogance anywhere but the local Cub Scout den or copy shop or office, which suggests to me that the arrogance (and, yes, insecurity) are there from the get-go, the power sought to whatever level the person can achieve it.

Jamie   ·  March 12, 2009 07:03 PM

The people have thrown off two classes who thought they were born to loot and rule: the clergy and the hereditary aristocracy.

The majority of contemporary professional intellectuals compose just such a tyrannous class. The people will not be free of them unless they vote them out of the public trough.

Brett   ·  March 13, 2009 09:46 AM

In Plato's Republic when it is all said and done Socrates concludes essentially that if people were more like him life would be better. Today's elites are the same. They presume a college degree bestows secret wisdom and insight that only they possess, and no one who came before had such knowledge. These self-appointed guardians of the realm obsess over the little people. If only the common folk out there would people conduct their lives as directed from on high, life would be better. Basically it comes down to this, the elites want the fruits of capitalism but want the peasants to work and live under socialism.

dittybopper   ·  March 13, 2009 11:01 AM

If the product of an education is not:
1. To live humbly.
2. To respect others.
3. To avoid envy, pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, and pride (and resist all incarnations of it).
4. To set an example in actions and deeds.
5. To be good stewards.

Then they learned nothing. Simply, they failed the final exam.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  March 13, 2009 01:35 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



March 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits