Which kind of power will Americans choose?
Recent governmental events (kidnapping people off the streets, arresting dissenters, blocking free speech, withholding monies) brought back a few thoughts.
One (from a political science class) was, “Power is seized – not granted.” The other (from a seminar on negotiations) was, “The one who doesn’t care tends to win.” Both ideas have relevance in today’s societal confusion.
Power can be used beneficially or harmfully. In either case there is a continuum. At one end there are soft generic definitions like: the ability to act or produce an effect; and having influence over others. Later come stronger words indicating official or legal authority … the statement, “I/we have a right to (something)” fits here.
At the other end of the continuum are phrases such as: absolute control over others; and “I can hurt you.”
Humans are social creatures. We develop brain patterns early on to be aware of (and care about) other people. It is called “empathy.” Modern studies show that this maintains relationships and peaceful conditions.
But there can also be impaired brain circuitry in which social cues are not recognized – (now called “empathy erosion”). Inappropriate responses can result, including “not caring.” This can result in ignoring the emotions of others – or even desiring to see pain.
When a person doesn’t care … negotiations mean less. This applies between individuals – as well as in political processes – (domestically and worldwide).
If power is “seized” – this can be domination by physical brute force. But also consider the processes of deception, manipulation, and con-artistry. One-way-or-another, there are many tools to arrive at domination.
If “the people” actually vote for (or simply allow) authoritarianism … does that mean that “power is seized” really is the default societal bumper sticker? Is that destiny?
The current Republican agenda seems bent toward the idea that power is, indeed, “seized.” Trump (and the GOP) are ignoring the traditional rules of accepting court rulings – therefore seizing the authority for themselves.
Further, some court rulings (as well as civil decisions by citizens, law firms and universities) are giving authoritarians allowances to overpower them.
Our U.S.A. democratic political experiment is an exploration into how to “grant power.” It involves the development of “trust” – (having faith in the good intentions of the grantee) – from the local dog catcher to the President.
Is it even possible that “power” can really be non-violently retained by “the people”? Is it possible for humans to move toward cooperative societies which care for and help one another?
Can/will “the people” show that they can (in effect) seize their own power? Many people seem to think so.
They are increasingly speaking out. This is an evolving process of defining who “we” might be. Stay tuned.
– Gene Johnson, Polson