Presidency incites lying, deception, violence
People use extreme behaviour to attain extreme power. It's time to lower the stakes
“I am in shock. I can’t believe people are resorting to this behaviour to claim power” stated an incredulous Andersonius Cooperius, standing amidst the forum in the aftermath of another bout of political violence. “You expect to see some foul play when it comes to seizing supreme power. But this is really too far.”
It was a typical reaction among the Roman intelligentsia following the assassination of Emperor Domitian in a palace conspiracy. And yet, it seems to fit a familiar pattern. Independent outlets point out that over 50% of Emperors have been assassinated. But commentators are unable to explain why such power drives people to extremes. From Julius Caesar to Caligula to Commodus, it seems that Emperors are just incredibly unlucky.
But Seriously…
…people use extreme behaviour to attain extreme power. It’s time to lower the stakes.
Asking whether Joe Biden will be a good president and holding him to account are necessary activities in a democracy. But the more important question is: can anyone be a good president? And is the power the executive has at their disposal right? The answer is an emphatic no for two reasons. And it suggests one solution; a drastic reduction of executive power.
Extremely powerful, extremely remote from individual voters
First, the presidency is too powerful simply because it has too large an effect on most people’s lives compared to their ability to influence who is president. The small slice of citizens who vote in swing states are lucky that their influence on elections is just tiny. For most Americans, it is zero. Across increasingly vast domains of our lives, we are quite literally powerless to determine what happens. We are not agents. We are statistics, acted upon at the whim of people we will never meet. We have no choice on whether our activities are monitored by federal agencies. Or how much debt we will leave our children’s generation. Or what laws we work / employ under. Or how best to manage health. Or how to balance the economy with the environment. Or whether housing is subsidised.
This situation pisses people off. A system where 70 million people are royally pissed off every four years is not good.
Second, the consolidation of power in the presidency all but requires those who seek to use that power to act in bad faith. Hence the title of this piece - that the presidency itself incites lying, deception, and violence. The prospect of being on the team that wields the awesome powers of the presidency quite literally ‘urges people to act in a violent or unlawful way’ to achieve that power, lest it is wielded against them. The Roman example illustrates this principle: when extreme power is at stake, then using extreme means becomes the norm.
The USA in 2021 is not Rome c.69 AD when three emperors were killed and one committed suicide. But the presidency does cause dangerous behaviour on a lesser scale. The media deliberately misleads voters. Intelligence agencies undermine political candidates. Candidates do not commit to respecting election results. Retired generals openly discuss military intervention in domestic politics. Opponents deceive voters. Tech companies censor legitimate news and disappear entire platforms. Mobs form across the nation and in the capital. Politicians openly plan to deploy the national security apparatus against their opponents.
The critical extra ingredient to understand is that this is accelerating, and that is it independent of Donald Trump. It is naïve to think that this can be solved either by the personal character of a particular president or by some widespread return to moderation. It is driven by powerful currents of psychology, technology, and economics. Psychologically, consumers/voters literally are addicted to news that frames them as part of the Good Team against the evil ignorant cultish Bad Team. Nuance and complexity doesn’t sell, either for politicians or news, compared to simple narrative that fits a worldview. Technologically, the internet gives consumers millions of ways they can spend their time. So news has to compete in an oversupplied, hyper attention deficit environment. Economically, journalists’ and politicians’ aspiration to thoughtful honesty is sacrificed on the altar of advertiser dollars and relevance. Did someone say recipe for sensationalism?
Simply put, the people who matter are not incentivised to fix this problem.
If you face a choice between wielding extreme power, or being acted upon by that power in the hands of people you believe are evil, then it becomes logical to use some extreme means. Maybe a lie here, an unholy alliance with tech oligarchs and career intelligence agencies there. Some language that normalises mobs and justifies private violence. A judicious interpretation of security laws to use them against your opponents. Turn a blind eye to militias that are on your side.
Once these forces are unleashed they cannot easily be brought back. Cheerleaders for using terrorism laws against right wing Americans may one day find that power wielded against them. Far better that such power does not exist.
So where do we go from here? We live in a highly interdependent economy that requires significant government activity. But we can choose to minimise the scope of that activity that happens at any one level. This would mean a large shift away from DC to the states, or preferably even more local levels. Making this happen - what could be called ‘de-weaponizing the state’ - is an enormous challenge, especially given the forces described above. Funnily enough, most politicians and commentators are not willing to cede power. Success would take a coalition of voters/consumers such that the incentives for those in power change enough that they have more to gain from the centre than the fringes, and from a less powerful central government.
Don’t hold your breath.
Thanks for reading this weekly article on But Seriously. Please share with friends if you think they would enjoy it.
"We live in a highly interdependent economy that requires significant government activity. But we can choose to minimise the scope of that activity that happens at any one level. This would mean a large shift away from DC to the states, or preferably even more local levels."
It seems that, increasingly, states either need to embrace authoritarianism or accept that governing large numbers of free people is incredibly unwieldy. The antithesis to this, surely, is responsibility?
States, counties, households, individuals can and should be asked to look after themselves and determine what's in their own best interests. More importantly, they should be allowed to make bad decisions if such decisions are localised. You need to tell me what's good for you, and your slice of society should be left alone to do so.
I think if we attempt to intervene in parts of people's lives, solving real problems can be outsourced to bodies wholly inappropriate to dealing with them, instead of forcing people to confront their own actions.
The difficulty then is (a) when we have issues where the poor decisions at the local level impact the global ('negative externalities') and (b) when it's clear that there are systemic injustices at a local level, a higher authority is needed. This, for me, is the hardest part to get right - and where I'd see the bulk of the power of the executive. I believe, in theory at least, that's the role of the executive dictated by the founding fathers, I wonder how well in practice it's been implemented and has kept pace with the scale of the United States?