WHY DO WE NEED STRONG POLITICAL LEADERS?

1. WHY DO WE NEED STRONG POLITICAL LEADERS? The case in favor of strong, centralized leadership comes up again and again among prominent thinkers… even in some surprising places A quick summary of Greek, early American, and socialist thought… What common assumptions do they make? Is there something about organizational or human nature that makes strong leadership inescapable?

2. WHY DID THE GREEKS REJECT RULE BY THE MANY, ESPECIALLY THE MASSES? Why did Plato think that most types of governments are unstable and doomed to corruption? Timocracy  oligarchy  democracy  tyranny What was his solution? Why are philosopher kings the way to go? Philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption… And they learn the lessons of history They are lovers of all true being; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honorable, which they are willing to renounce Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their minds falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth. He whose desires are drawn toward knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure--I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one. We will know the true philosopher kings at a very young age. Elsewhere in the Republic: Why should we use a the Noble Lie to get the masses to accept rule by Philosopher kings?

3. Marx: We Don’t Leaders Why did Karl Marx think that revolution would happen without leadership? Why did he think that a “dictatorship of the proletariat would be a needed but temporary phase? Why did he think that truly Communist societies would need no political leadership… or even government…?

4. SO, WHY DID COMMUNISTS COME TO REJECT RULE BY THE PROLETARIAT? How did Lenin, Stalin, and other communist leaders change Marxist theory to downplay the role of citizens and justify the concentration of powers in the hands of a few? Why did Lenin come to believe that strong leaders would be needed to achieve communism? Vanguard parties and democratic centralism On what grounds did Lenin, Stalin, and other communist leaders justify making Marx’s idea of a transitional “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” a permanent feature of communist governments in E. Europe and Asia?

5. WHY DID OUR FOUNDERS—WELL, MOST OF THEM—REJECT RULE BY THE PEOPLE? What did the Federalists think about everyday people? Ask Madison: “The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.” “The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished” “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man…From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

6. WHY DID OUR FOUNDERS—WELL, MOST OF THEM—REJECT RULE BY THE PEOPLE? Madison on the superiority of Republicanism: “the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest… to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” “As each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.”

7. Why Did Our Founders—Well, Most of Them—Also Reject Rule by the Proletariat? Hamilton: A strong president is key: “Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.”“A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. ““Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished. “

8. WHY MIGHT STRONG LEADERSHIP BE INEVITABLE? Is it natural and biological to concentrate power? Despite the assumptions of “liberals” that human beings desire liberty, why is dictatorship the norm across most of human history and cultures? What did Hobbes mean when he said that in the absence of all powerful leaders, men live in a “state of nature”? Nature and the evolution of a human mind?: Why does Willhoite (and many other social scientists) think that we can learn a lot about humans if we study primates? What can the Milgram experiments tell us? What happened to gene pools that ignored leaders and tried to go it alone historically? What happened to societies that have leadership and followership problems?

9. WHY MIGHT STRONG LEADERSHIP BE INEVITABLE? If an appreciation for strong leadership is genetically rooted, is this aspect of the human experience changeable? Is human nature much more changeable than we sometimes think it is? Although we live in a state- and leader-centric world, realities may be changing (What does the widespread adoption of democracy tell us about the extent to which we need leaders to survive like we once did?) Robert Michael’s Iron Law of Oligarchy: Is concentrated leadership the inevitable result of social darwinism? Big institutions with bureaucracies, delegation, and centralized leadership usually defeat those that have other structures Power is inherently corrupting