The initial opening of the "great man" topic has raised so many questions that it is difficult to deal with one without another and another. In a democracy, is the great man normally a "user" or is he ultimately the used? Would he trend towards corrupting power, or keep his eyes on the history books? Is there a personality type for leaders in general, and is it helpful or harmful to society? With each question, others are raised, but I will try to stick to these three:
One: is he user or used? To answer this question, I have to move on to number two: is he corrupted by power or controlled by the opinion of history? Taking Kennedy as the prototype (as this is the man I am reading about) we can say that the democratic leader is both user and used. He is a user, as he uses others for popularity and self-aggrandizing power. Of this there is little doubt. In a former blog, I mentioned that the current pope, Francis, seems every bit the man who does NOT want his position, but sees himself as obligated to do the best he can. But that is not the case for president - he has to fight hard to get the nomination and harder to win the actual position. He is driven - and it is seldom because he feels himself pressed reluctantly into service by God. This may be the case with Washington, but I can recall no others. Generally, they have a grandiose impression of themselves and a need for this to be fulfilled through others.
But, then, they are used - to be adored by the people, they must give the people what they want - that is, their 51% of the people, those who have elected him. It is here where the president is often humbled - recall the broken image of LBJ when he had to pass up his second bid for the presidency because of Vietnam. All, eventually, are used, for they cannot give everything that the electorate wants, and in so doing, must see themselves as failures in some light (George W, I think, is a good example of this). This is particularly painful, because (#3) the personality type is almost without exception egotistic, narcissistic, and perhaps sociopathic. It is to this later trait that I alluded to in yesterday's blog concerning Kennedy, and it is this point that I find the most important - for spiritual purposes.
By sociopathic, I mean: unconcerned, or beyond, the normal emotions of the individual. Kennedy, according to the author, really did not love - and perhaps he didn't even hate. Overall, JFK, like I suspect of many presidents, had no conscience. For leadership, this can be a wonderful gift, for conscience distracts from purpose. Machiavelli's "The Prince" emphasizes this point - the successful ruler (or politician) must never let principles divert him from his task of consolidating power. And here is where leadership and spiritual evolution come into into opposition. The primary change that Christ brought to humanity was the development of the conscience, done in two important ways: one, to have us see the other guy as our self, and , two, to have us look beyond the law into our hearts for the "right" way to live with our self and others.
This may bode well for villagers living among themselves, but is a disaster for "the prince," the man who wants to get to the top of the power structure. True two-way empathy, and doing what is right, is too time-consuming and enervating for a leader. He must be able to read others, but not to succumb to their emotions. If anything, he must be able to find the kernel of discontent in the people, and emphasize it, posing as the sole source of its solution (Hitler a classic example). But in this, the leader is an anachronism, a throw-back to warriors beating their breast-plates with their swords. He is, by and large, the obstacle to spiritual development, the shadow side of the populace even as he extols himself as the white knight.
The problem is, how could a system change so that it elevates the person of the future, the pinnacle of spiritual evolution? And how could this person deal with the Machiavellian leaders that surround him? More later, FK
One: is he user or used? To answer this question, I have to move on to number two: is he corrupted by power or controlled by the opinion of history? Taking Kennedy as the prototype (as this is the man I am reading about) we can say that the democratic leader is both user and used. He is a user, as he uses others for popularity and self-aggrandizing power. Of this there is little doubt. In a former blog, I mentioned that the current pope, Francis, seems every bit the man who does NOT want his position, but sees himself as obligated to do the best he can. But that is not the case for president - he has to fight hard to get the nomination and harder to win the actual position. He is driven - and it is seldom because he feels himself pressed reluctantly into service by God. This may be the case with Washington, but I can recall no others. Generally, they have a grandiose impression of themselves and a need for this to be fulfilled through others.
But, then, they are used - to be adored by the people, they must give the people what they want - that is, their 51% of the people, those who have elected him. It is here where the president is often humbled - recall the broken image of LBJ when he had to pass up his second bid for the presidency because of Vietnam. All, eventually, are used, for they cannot give everything that the electorate wants, and in so doing, must see themselves as failures in some light (George W, I think, is a good example of this). This is particularly painful, because (#3) the personality type is almost without exception egotistic, narcissistic, and perhaps sociopathic. It is to this later trait that I alluded to in yesterday's blog concerning Kennedy, and it is this point that I find the most important - for spiritual purposes.
By sociopathic, I mean: unconcerned, or beyond, the normal emotions of the individual. Kennedy, according to the author, really did not love - and perhaps he didn't even hate. Overall, JFK, like I suspect of many presidents, had no conscience. For leadership, this can be a wonderful gift, for conscience distracts from purpose. Machiavelli's "The Prince" emphasizes this point - the successful ruler (or politician) must never let principles divert him from his task of consolidating power. And here is where leadership and spiritual evolution come into into opposition. The primary change that Christ brought to humanity was the development of the conscience, done in two important ways: one, to have us see the other guy as our self, and , two, to have us look beyond the law into our hearts for the "right" way to live with our self and others.
This may bode well for villagers living among themselves, but is a disaster for "the prince," the man who wants to get to the top of the power structure. True two-way empathy, and doing what is right, is too time-consuming and enervating for a leader. He must be able to read others, but not to succumb to their emotions. If anything, he must be able to find the kernel of discontent in the people, and emphasize it, posing as the sole source of its solution (Hitler a classic example). But in this, the leader is an anachronism, a throw-back to warriors beating their breast-plates with their swords. He is, by and large, the obstacle to spiritual development, the shadow side of the populace even as he extols himself as the white knight.
The problem is, how could a system change so that it elevates the person of the future, the pinnacle of spiritual evolution? And how could this person deal with the Machiavellian leaders that surround him? More later, FK
RSS Feed