Why Does Power Corrupt?

In the late 19^th century, the noted British scholar Lord Action observed:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

                  

The phrase certainly has a common sense ring to it.  But is it really true?

To be sure, a quest for power over others is a truism of human nature.  Think of the school yard bully at one end and the tyrant oppressing his subjects at the other.

But it may be more accurate to say that the possession of power tempts its holder to abuse it.  Some resist the temptation; some don’t.  And perhaps the greater the power one possesses, the greater the temptation.

Plato, the original utopian, believed that the solution to leadership abuse was to place governing power into the hands of philosopher kings who would be ideal governors because they would not confuse the public’s interest with their own.

The realist retorts:  good luck in finding them.

Christians note that only Jesus Christ would qualify and he has yet to return to earth.

Our Founding Fathers devised our Constitution long before Lord Acton’s admonition became common political currency.  But they saw the point – and human nature – clearly. 

That is why our Constitution has distinct, and separate, sources of power: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  They counter-balance each other.  No branch, therefore, can possess absolute power.

Of course power corrupts.  Our history is full of politicians who surrendered to temptation and became corrupt.   I’m not naïve.  Some people enter politics and government in the hopes that they’ll have the opportunity to abuse power.  They are not corrupted by its possession but rather seek power to exploit it. 

But I also believe that most people enter the political arena with good intentions; they do want to make a positive difference.  Alas, once in authority, many of those succumb to the temptation to view their self –interest as synonymous with the public good.  (A good reason for term limits, don’t you think?)  After all, pursuit of one’s self interest is another aspect of human nature.

Considering that we all want to think well of what we do, doesn’t it make sense, well intentioned as we consider ourselves to be, that treating our self-interest as equivalent to what is best for the public is an awfully alluring thing to do?

And thus does power corrupt… which brings to mind another truism.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Would It Have Made Any Difference if Zimmerman Had Been Named “Diaz”?

One wonders.  What if George Zimmerman’s mother had been white instead of Peruvian?  And his dad had been a Latino instead of having a European heritage?

Would the New York Times have labeled him simply as an Hispanic instead of a white Hispanic?  Would Al Sharpton have raced to the scene to cry racism?

Would the nation’s Latino activists, who are so protective of the rights of illegal residents, have sprung to the defense of an Hispanic citizen who was in the bull’s eye of the liberal media?

So how did George Zimmerman, a simple neighborhood watch participant, become a symbol of the claim that racism remains rampant in America and the continuing failure of the judicial system to deliver justice for blacks?

Because elements of American society chose to make him so.

Certain activists pointed to the killing as a civil rights violation.  The President chimed in with his gratuitous remark of how his son would look the same if he had one.  And the media added support for the theme that justice in Sanford, Florida, for a black person, was problematic.

*****

The verdict came after a trial which could be viewed from beginning to end and was the subject of extensive media coverage and commentary every day of the two week trial. 

At first, the reaction was muted and mild.  No prominent observers questioned the fairness of the trial nor the conscientious deliberation of the six member jury.  “Justice had been served” seemed to be the consensus view.  Even President Obama commended the Florida proceeding.

The general equanimity did not last long.

Reverend Al Sharpton protested the verdict and promised demonstrations demanding that Federal civil rights charges be brought.  Others on the left added their voices to cries of racial injustice.

But what was unjust?  The jury found reasonable doubt, at least, that George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin was a crime.  It’s hard to imagine anyone fairly considering the trial evidence concluding otherwise.

No, those objecting to the verdict weren’t concerned about judicial fairness.  Rather, they wanted Zimmerman found guilty to confirm their racial preconceptions.  History, they say, shows that blacks have often been treated unfairly by the law and injustice was common.  So suspicions are appropriate.

President Obama, apparently bowing to pressures to reflect such views (despite his tolerant comments on the jury’s decision the week before), used a press conference on Friday to note the historical basis for black suspicions of white motivations.  In fact, he became quite personal:

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me thirty-five years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African-American community, at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here.  I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a history and a set of experiences that doesn’t go away.”

Whoa there, Mr. President!  Isn’t part of your job to set an example, to be a guide for all Americans?

 

Thirty-five years ago, a black man wasn’t the leader of the free world.  Isn’t history, by its very definition, about the past?

 

Wouldn’t race relations be better served by focusing on the present and how far we’ve come?

Instead, Obama is reinforcing the faulty message to the black community that history is the present – nothing has really changed.  Blacks remain pawns in the white system so dependence on the Federal Government is vital to their salvation.

 

I have no doubt that President Obama wants to help.  Certainly his recent remarks were not intemperate.  But by focusing on roadblocks of the past (and, agreed, some are still to be found), he discourages those who share a portion of his racial heritage from seizing present opportunities that were not so readily available, say, thirty-five years ago. 

What a shame.

Zimmerman Is Acquitted and America Breathes a Sigh of Relief

The verdict was not a surprise – when there are sharply divergent, credible accounts as to what happened, a fair jury had no choice but to find George Zimmerman not guilty.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt – as it should be – is a heavy burden, indeed, upon the prosecution.  In my view, the State of Florida didn’t come close to meeting it.

Yet it is a mistake to read too much into the result of the heavily-publicized trial.  Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.  Did George Zimmerman’s following of a young black male wearing a hooded sweatshirt (a “hoodie”) invite a confrontation?  Perhaps.  Did an attack by an unarmed Trayvon Martin, as alleged by the Defense, warrant the use of deadly force  Zimmerman?  Maybe. 

Thus, the use of the word “vindication” bandied about by Fox News commentators was a bit much.  Over at MSNBC, the always predictable Rev. Al Sharpton was fulminating over the perceived miscarriage of justice as another illustration of blacks’ inability to receive justice in American courts.

But such outrage was minimal within black communities.  And there were no riots as had been the case 20 years ago after the acquittal of white police officers accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angles.

It would be comforting, indeed, to think that’s another example of improved race relations in America.  Blacks, with the exception of the Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons and their ilk, are less inclined to see racial animus in human conflicts involving members of different races.  The lack of violence, with the exception of Oakland, California, in the wake of the verdict may be the most noteworthy aspect of the trial. 

Certainly leftists, from President Obama on down, saw racial prejudice in the events in Sanford, Florida.  And the media was receptive to the message.  Why else subject a trial involving an ordinary private citizen to seemingly around-the-clock coverage?  And the sympathy to the prosecution was not confined to MSNBC.  Perhaps that was why Fox News shows (Hannity, in particular) felt compelled to be cheerleaders for George Zimmerman.  I don’t consider that a justification, though.  Conservatives shouldn’t counter the excesses of the Left with those of their own. 

Radical Change Prompts Hostile Reaction

Human nature resists change.  We are comfortable with things as they are, not necessarily because they are in some sense good but because they are known.  We are skeptical that change will produce improvement.  But if the change seems modest or incremental, our resistance is not likely to be strong.  The fight isn’t deemed worth the struggle over what is seen as small differences from the way things were.

However, beware if the change is seen as radical.  Human nature causes the digging in of heels.

This fact, with myriad examples throughout history, is ignored repeatedly with disastrous results for either the proponents of drastic change or those subject to it.

This willful ignorance of reality is so typical of the left since its adherents deny the intractability of human nature.  Prominent examples are the French and communist revolutions.  In the former, the hopes for liberty and equality ended soon after it began in a reign of terror followed by the reign of Napoleon.  In the latter case, the communists soon recognized that they had only one option to failure.  Fierce opposition was crushed by force.

There is a reason why the phrase “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is a truism.

On our home front, a recent example involves domestic policy:  Obamacare.  If the Democrats had proceeded incrementally by requiring that insurance coverage be provided to those with pre-existing conditions and left it at that for now resistance would have been minimal.  But radicals don’t see the need to be patient.  They’re not evolutionary in their thinking.

Another current example of such thinking is seen in Egypt.  One doesn’t think of the Muslim Brotherhood – Islamists – as leftists, but they are radicals and equally unmindful of the virtues of moderation.  Their efforts to revolutionize a strongly secular society generated, as should have been expected, sharp hostility which led to their ouster. 

It is ironic, isn’t it, that leftists would be more successful if they were more conservative in their approach to change?  

We Conservatives can be grateful that they’re not.