Of the People

"Who knows what Lincoln (and others) meant (and mean) by the phrase "of the people"? Is it possessive as in "management of the estate" or "owner of the house"? Or is is causal, like "died of a broken heart"? Or is it partitive, as in the "hem of her skirt" or "hair of the dog"? Or is it all of these?

When I wrote By the People, I thought I would soon follow with Of the People and For the People. But I got stuck on Of.

I suppose government "of the people" might simply refer to administration primarily of people rather than of property or of the economy or of a highway or tax system. Those other things become responsibilities of government only in as much as they affect "the people." But that's getting into the realm of "for the people."

Maybe it's even simpler: Lincoln wanted to emphasize the importance of the people three ways for oratorical effect, even though "by" and "for" might have covered his intent.

I suspect there's more to it. I won't presume that Lincoln had this in mind, but it's worth consideration. Maybe government of the people means that government follows the people rather than requiring the people to follow those in charge. Daniel Webster said earlier that it is "the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people."

Every government is "answerable to the people." The people have the ultimate power. What our founders established was an acknowledgement of something that was always true. Our "fathers brought forth a new nation" as an honest attempt to institutionalize this natural rule of the people through a system of representatives elected by the people.

Citizens hold authority, whether or not they wield it. This is why governments and companies spend so much effort trying to influence people. Those at the top use their position to try to influence the electorate instead of dictating how things will be. We rejected the way of the kings of Europe, who thought they could dictate to the people. Some in business still dictate. Maybe that's OK, because workers can usually quit and work for someone else.

I'm reminded of something John Oliver said of Elon Musk: "He wants to save the world. But only if he can be the one to save it." 

That is not of the people. It's hubris.

Howard Schultz, founder and former CEO of Starbucks, was impressive in his insistence on taking care of his employees. But when they said they wanted more of a say, through a union, he fought them. Only I can fix it, he thought. They cannot fix things for themselves.

That is not of the people. It's patriarchy.

We also see desperate, yet often successful, propaganda from regimes that build systems to exploit the people to benefit a few oligarchs. They cannot simply say, "Because I said so!" They have to get a significant proportion of the people to believe in whatever they are peddling. They flood the world with lies, if that's what it takes.

This is not of the people. It's domination.

There was a time when most people accepted the notion that some were born to rule and others to be ruled. This acceptance was part of what allowed authoritarians to tell people what to do. But that notion faded in recent centuries with the rise of democracy. Now tactics have changed. There are still governments that rule with an iron fist, and some of them still have a populace that believes the ones in charge are ordained. But more often a move toward more extreme oppression is an effort to quell the people's dissatisfaction and resulting restlessness.

Authoritarians, many who gained a foothold by appealing to the citizens, have a lot of sway. Especially when they ally themselves with titans of industry. Now they have the money they need, and the wealthy bosses have government policies that ensure they get a lion's share of the markets. If the media can be pressured toward propaganda and the courts can be influenced to judge in favor of the already privileged, then the common people are at a serious disadvantage.

We citizens are not of one mind. We don't see eye to eye in the best of times and, when the bullhorns of propaganda blare in support of an authoritarian and his sponsors, it is difficult to cut through the confusion.

But it is still up to us. We gradually learn what is going on and, if we can no longer vote because we voted in an authoritarian, we can still protest. The dictator, never fully in charge, raises the volume on his lies. He threatens (or worse) those who disagree. He shifts blame for our discontent to scapegoats. But he responds to the people. He might even make policy adjustments in our favor. If we persist, he will fall.

I suppose we will always reserve some respect for those who thrash their way to the top. But this should never blind us to their wiles, their selfishness, their will to dominate. We will always tolerate some of this nonsense and go about our business, but we must not be deaf and silent.

For now, we can let our collective voice be heard through the ballot box. But, no matter what happens, if we decide not to put up with authoritarianism, we can stop it. The governing of us is up to us. It is always ultimately a government of the people. Any one, any party, any clan or cult that suppresses our voice or claims the right to decide for the rest is wrong. They are not of the people.

The Soul of a Nation

[TOC: all blog posts]

Volodymyr Zelensky has purportedly been offered an escape from his beleaguered capitol. He turned it down. He has what Putin will never have: courage.

Putin is a powerful man. He has made sure of that by changing the rules in his country and by silencing those who protest. But power is not courage.

When a small country next door to Russia got rid of Yanukovych, the corrupt president who bowed to Putin and attempted to replicate his power grabs, Putin worried that Russians might notice. They might turn toward justice and demand true representation counter to his personal plans. They might heed Russia's own great literary giants* and protest against the system. So Putin decided to put an end to the offending country's elected government and install another of his toadies.

Putin is not alone. President Xi of China has made similar moves to consolidate power. This powerful man is so scared of simple stories that he has systematically forced Hollywood to say nothing about his and his country's offenses against its smaller neighbors. He has the power to do so, and he knows how to manipulate those who worship a major god of our country, money—another form of power. There is no courage involved in that manipulation, only greed.

Zelensky knows his days are likely numbered. One of the world's most powerful military forces is out to get him, and most of the world (perhaps wisely) has decided not to offer direct military aid. He could follow the route of many in power who convince themselves that they can do more for their country alive than dead. He could run, but he has chosen a different path. 

If Russia is successful in subjugating its non-compliant neighbor, as it most likely will be, the soul of the country will not die. It will live on in the hearts of a people who elected a comedian as president and then watched him choose country over self and laugh at a murderous power. They will follow his lead.

From far away most of us root for the underdog and are inspired by acts of courage. Notably, a few of us admire the cowards who choose personal power over country. People who sit in gilded towers rooting for liars and thieves. People who long for power and will sacrifice truth and country to get it, one of whom sought not long ago to corrupt Zelensky by withholding aid that could help Ukraine defend itself against its monstrous neighbor. People who may very well change their tunes because they haven't the courage of conviction.

Perhaps Zelensky will eventually choose exile, but I don't think so. I think he understands that his country cannot be saved without sacrifice. He will stay. He will sacrifice himself for his country, just as he has asked his soldiers to do. He could be like Putin and Xi and other heads of state. He could sit in a place of safety and order others to take chances for a country he thinks belongs to him. But he sees what the powerful cannot see: he belongs to his country, and he will act like it. He will let his sacrifice exemplify the soul of a nation, no matter the outcome for himself.

-----------------------

* In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful. 

-Leo Tolstoy        

Power

It's not money makes the world go round, says Nietzsche, it's power: "There is will to power where there is life and even the strongest living things will risk their lives for more power. This suggests that the will to power is stronger than the will to survive."

There's something to this. Animals, as well as humans, risk life to dominate. Nature shows tell us it's about the right to mate. But there are pecking orders, and there's more to it than sex. It's lust, but not just that one kind.

A will for power does explain much of history. The elephants fight, and the grass suffers, says an African proverb. Winners write the history books. And the appeal of power is there for perhaps all of us. Psychologists tell us it is important to feel like we have some (if not all) control.

News stories about politicians are often told in terms of power. It's as if power is the thing that motivates them. I think that's part of it for most, maybe much of it for some. I don't personally know many politicians, but the ones I've met and talked with seem more interested in service than in a means to dominate. I'm not saying the politicians I've met are typical, but neither are sweeping statements about aspiring to power.

The church too makes much of power (some of it corrupt). In Sunday School we sing, "Our God is so big, so strong, and so mighty" and we take comfort from that, partly, perhaps, because it lets us off the hook. We're not in control, but we've aligned with someone who is.

I read a book by former Executive Editor of Christianity Today, Andy Crouch, about power. The book, Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power, advises accepting power to do right: fight injustice, bring peace, create beauty. He refers to power as a gift. I'm not so sure. It seems a curse. 

I'm not referring to power in all its connotations. Novelist Toni Morrison, in an interview, tells of how she learned at a young age the power of words. I think she is talking about how words can have an effect, change people, help us understand. Words like hers are effective, but they aren't a means to dominate. Also, I'm fond of the word empower, because it too is absent of aggression or the urge for the upper hand. An ability to do something is not the same as power. Are Jesus’ miracles acts of power? Ability is a skill or talent; power is something else. What I'm referring to is a desire for positions of authority, where we are in charge. 

In college one year I was an RA. I disliked the job. But at the end of the year, when asked if I wanted to do it again, I felt an urge to say yes—before coming to my senses. So I admit feeling an attraction to authority, no matter how meager.

I once suggested that God might not be omnipotent. More recently, I've wondered if God is the antithesis of power. When is power not associated with destruction, an ability to achieve destruction, the means to punish? Power is an ability, but for inflicting pain or even annihilation. If I have power over you, I can do you harm. We want power (for good, we tell ourselves and others), and we think God is like us in this except that he has ultimate power.

What if we thought of God’s superpower as being ultimately incapable of lording it over someone else? The lion shall lie down with the lamb, because the fully redeemed lion is incapable of extinguishing the life of another. Unlike the lion, who must kill to eat, we force others to do our will. Not because we have to eat, but because we want to exercise power.

To be first, you must be last. To be honored you must be a servant. That's how Jesus lived. It's how we are told to live. We may conclude from this that serving is a stepping stone to power. No, honor is not the same as power. 

I realize I'm out on a limb here, but I think it's a branch worth examining. I'm not really interested in convincing everyone that this is the sole truth, but I do want to examine our preconceptions.

I recently heard an episode of Freakonomics, in which writer Maria Konnikova explains her decision to learn and play poker. She refers to it as the best analogy to life. But if poker is the the ultimate life metaphor, then it assumes life is about winning. How about we forget about winning. And losing.

This may well be just another heresy. The Bible has many stories of people meeting an untimely end as the result of God-induced justice. But what if Jesus’ death were viewed less as a trick to conquer death and more as an indication of what God is really like? To become godly is to counter but ultimately submit to the ungodly power of others. And thereby to turn everything upside down. Jesus' message and life turn power on its head. 

The disciples thought Jesus had come to run the Romans out of town and take power. Then he goes and gets killed by them and their toadies, even though he could have avoided it. Who makes a hero of someone like that?

Ah, but he stuck it to them by rising from the dead! Except that's not how the Story goes. It's only our interpretation that makes it about power. It seems some monk couldn't resist the temptation to embellish the Lord's Prayer with "kingdom" and "power." Monks are like the rest of us. We want God to be as we would be. We want power. In the end, we'll show them!

I don't mean to imply that Jesus was a timid milquetoast. He definitely got in people's faces. He protested, even violently in the temple. He spoke truth to power. He is Truth, not Power. His protests, in fact, prompted his arrest and execution. In challenging the status quo, he followed a long line of Old Testament prophets and poets.

A friend counters that power relinquished is still power, and maybe that's the right view. God has all power, but gives it up. Or maybe the difference is that power is for others, not over others. I think this is what Andy Crouch promotes. (In the introduction to his book, he recalls reading Marilyn French's Beyond Power. I shall have to read that book. The title sounds idealistic, and ideal. And it sounds like what I'm suggesting here.)

As we learn about how long creation took and how it started, we might do well to reconsider our conception of God—or of the universe in relation to God. Traditionally, we thought God created the universe in a week, virtually through a series of six finger snaps, followed by a holiday. Maybe the big bang is a letting go, more giving than asserting*.

So much of the life of God incarnate is God powerless. What if Jesus’ death were viewed not as a trick to conquer but as an indication of what God is really like. We speak of the power of love, but love is the opposite of power. And God loves most those who have the least power or have rejected it. We think of God as omnipotent perhaps only because power is what we want. God wants nothing to do with it. God wants only love.

What if perfection is an absence of the will to power?

-----------------------

* The image of creation as letting go comes to mind from reading Stephen Hawking's answer to the first question in Brief Answers to the Big Questions. (Hawking, by the way, doubts there is a god or that the Big Bang required one.)

Most Powerful?

At election time we hear people say that at stake is the position for the most powerful person on earth, or maybe in the western hemisphere.

Is that really so?

I suppose from one perspective it is. The President can push the button to set off a nuclear holocaust. That's pretty powerful.

But in other ways the President of the US is not so powerful as other heads of state. For example, complaints to the contrary, POTUS cannot control the media, nor order the assassination of opponents or shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.

If you want to be really powerful, you'd have to become a dictator in a country where you can pretty much do as you wish--at least until the next coup.

Heresy

Anyone who thinks much about God is likely to have one or more heresies. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, although some heresies are surely bad.

My current (favorite) heresy is this: God is not all-powerful. They gave that up.

Power

Clifford Stoll, as I recall from a speech of his that I attended, challenged the notion that knowledge is power. One of the most knowledgeable people he knew was the local librarian. Her level of power: not so high.

Whether or not it correlates with knowledge, why is power so appealing? What would make knowledge more valuable if indeed it were associated with power? Why do people lust for power, even kill to attain it?

A friend of mine spent much of a day dealing with US INS representatives in Detroit. "In this country," he said when he was finally able to leave, "they don't take bribes. But they still like to play with power."