The Rules of Power

Let us talk, today, of the basics of holding power.

In the end, power comes from the barrel of a gun

Weber called this the State’s monopoly on violence. There is no state, as moderns understand it, without this monopoly. Places like Lebanon are not states – Hezbollah controls violence in southern Lebanon, for example. To put it in older terms – the King’s writ does not extend to large parts of Lebanon.

In Iraq, when the US did not stop the rioting in the early days, when it did not challenge the militias during the first few months, it gave up its sovereignty over Iraq. As militias, religious leaders and tribal leaders became the ones who enforced such law as there was, they became, such as it is, the real government of Iraq.

The King’s Court is called a Court for a reason

There is no law without the ability to coerce. People will put up with a lot, but they will not put up with anarchy if they have any choice. Even governments like the Taliban are preferable to the random violence of anarchic states.

In Iraq today, if your car is stolen, or you are assaulted, the only person who may be able to get you justice is the local religious leader, chieftain or militia.

You Must Be Generous

It is not an accident that the most efficient operation in Saddam’s Iraq was the provision of food to the population. Everyone got their food. Period. There were few things stupider than the US’s intention to break up that system and replace it with a “market” system before gaining unquestioned control of the country.

It is likewise no accident that the local religious leaders, tribal sheiks and militias grabbed control of social services first. Food, local health clinics, schools, food distribution – within the first months they walked in with guns and took control from the civil servants who used to run them.

The reason Hamas, in Palestine, won the election was that they supply competent, professional and honest education, healthcare and welfare for people who need it. People forget that Hamas started as a charitable organization.

The reason Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon is, in part, for the same reason. The reason the Taliban had a hard core of supporters is that they were the only people who cared for and raised Pakistan’s numerous orphans.

You Must Supply Meaning

This is why people like Sadr are more powerful than the tribal chieftains. It is one reason why religious sites are so important (in addition to the fact that they make significant money). It is why the insurgency has TV shows. It is why the US army was told Iraq was behind 9/11.

People need a narrative. We seek out stories naturally, and fit disconnected facts into patterns that don’t exist. In Iraq the story the US should have told is prosperity, reconstruction and democracy for everyone. The Insurgency’s story was fighting against foreign invaders. It wasn’t necessary for the insurgency’s narrative to win, at all – people forget that in the fist six months or so there was very little armed opposition. It took time to get going, as it became clear that the reconstruction, in fact, wasn’t happening.

Everyone Wants to Belong

You choose markers of group identity, whether religion, or specific belief. You choose visible symbols of membership, whether Burkas or gun ownership, or flag flying. You require specific behaviour that sets your people apart from others. You may decide to allow interaction with outsiders only in specific situations, or to encourage interaction only within the community. Outsiders are viewed as either enemies or subjects for conversion to the beliefs and norms of the community.

American Taliban

In the US the right has built institutions that supply meaning and the necessities to their followers. The Christian right supplies meaning for their people. They supply a narrative that pits their followers against the godless seculars in the rest of society. They tax their own people and redistribute that money (church tithing = taxation). The Minutemen, most of whom are nowhere near a border, watch over internal enemies and train to fight them. They are the beginning of an internal militia which could easily be turned loose against gays, Muslims, wetbacks and liberals. Organizations exist meant to purge the universities of liberals. The military itself is used as an organ of one party, something which is nominally illegal, but routinely ignored. Eliminationist talk, pushed onto TV and out through publishing houses, and indeed by Senators on a regular basis, regularly tars any opposition to the agenda of the right as treasonous. The penalty for treason, as everyone knows, is death.

And when the right fails, that failure is either because those who failed weren’t right wing enough or because they were betrayed by weak liberals. George Bush, as he spirals into irrelevance, will become for many right wingers, a liberal. For the hard core who are too invested in his personality cult to ever say such, it will be clear that Liberals stabbed him (and the military) in the back.

Prestige and The Invisible State

In the US the visible, coercive prestige parts of the state are claimed by Conservatives. The Police, the courts, the military are all “conservative” parts of the State are the parts they draw their support from, and support. The softer parts, the invisible infrastructure of commercial law, of power generation, of roads and sewage, that they leave to Liberals. At one time those areas were very high prestige, because people remembered not having them. Today they are taken for granted. You flip the light switch, the light goes on. Electricity, sewage, the internet, are all disconnected from the fact that they would not exist without the state. Food is provided by the private sector (or so it seems), likewise health care (and the right does not want universal healthcare because liberals would own it and its prestige.) Indeed the only remaining high prestige areas associated with Liberals and Democrats are Medicare and Social Security. It should be no surprise that the right wants to destroy them. Nor should it be any surprise that unions, which along with black churches are the only social organization left to liberals, have been under a relentless 35 year assault.

It is not enough to do things for people. You must be seen to do things for them. You must be associated with power, with provision of services, with force and with symbols that speak of in group identity. You must wrap yourself in the flag, and speak endlessly of the symbols of the group. From your hand must be seen to come that which is good, and you must also be seen to be the enforcer of the group’s beliefs and laws. You must be seen to defend the group from its enemies, both internal and external – first on the line against those who threaten the group’s cohesion and identity.

The King

Leadership has not changed since the earliest chieftains. Brave in battle. Just in law. Generous to your followers. A paragon of whatever virtues your people admire.

As long as humans are human, these will be the rules for those who wish to hold power

Ian Welsh October 29, 2007 - 11:00am

Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Faith and Spirituality | Global Politics and Culture | USA: Campaign 2008 | USA: Presidency )

Overreach

Brilliant analysis, Ian. I would just add to it that the narrative breaks down when the consequences of overreaching begins to contradict it. The interesting thing, as you point out, that ideology trumps logic and facts, so the resulting failure is explain neither as the result of either bad thinking or acting. The narrative switches to putting the blame elsewhere.

tjfxh October 29, 2007 - 5:06pm

This explains

why perhaps there might be a limit to our fears of an authoritarian government.

Republicans, by neglecting all infrastructure besides coercion, limit how effectively they can rule. Iraq should have been a cautionary tale of the limits of their theory of governance--they governed Iraq exactly like they aspired to govern here. They destroyed all the institutions they wanted destroyed and kept what they thought was worth keeping. And look how well things turned out. Coercion, to be effective, requires well maintained institutions besides the torture chamber, agents of social control, and the corrupt market. Fortunately, that is something the Republicans simply cannot understand.

So they understand power and know how they want to use it, but know nothing about how to maintain it in order to keep the good times going. They're like a general who knows how to obtain a command but who knows nothing about logistics, strategy, tactics, or training.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of other problems that are going to make life pretty miserable for a lot of people. But as much as Republicans want power, their very philosophy means that they will squander every bit they get.

Mr. Flibble October 29, 2007 - 6:25pm

antiforce vs counterforce (stoners vs drunks)

I appreciate this post on more than one level. It addresses first principles and does so within the context of relevent history. It also leaves room for it's idealistic counterpoint, the compelling 'force' of reason.

Humans are not only defined by their foibles.

I haven't the url of a recent article on the schisms currently occurring within Evangelical circles, but apparently the hypocrisy of war-supportive Christianity, a belligerent Christianity, cannot be sustained. The Narrative does not hold.

The power of Jesus is his illustration of the ultimate failure of force. Love versus Hate. (If I'm not mistaken, reproductive fertility itself would cease under abject hate in purest and clearest form. It affects us biologically.) Reason ultimately independently asserts itself over any doublespeak or any held definition of thoughtcrime. Love is more reasonable than hate. Stronger.

The things 'taken for granted' are not so much taken for granted as they once were, IMHO, and American hubris is slowly becoming undermined as this occurs.

I believe the underlying issue is the same as ever, Ego.
I believe that genetically speaking, one pattern is as legitimate as another, and those deficient in the emotions of conscience contest evolutionarily with the otherwise. I believe evolution itself asserts the contest naturally, the issue of promotion of Ego over dissolution of Ego. The very definition of reality is at stake. We seek to see what is true by what holds true.

http://zuma.theprawn.com/fotg-tie.png (Food Of The Gods, Mckenna)

http://zuma.theprawn.com/planetplantplan.png

http://egodeath.com

Did Jesus drink wine? Or 'mixed wine'?
google: jesus + 'mixed' wine

War is dispensable, Peace is not. If evolution is a settling of disputes, *it* will define 'peace' ultimately.
We race historically toward 'indispensable' peace of one sort or another; Enlightenment vs Catastrophe. Our vested self-interest is to be there, to still be present, to survive.

The rules of Power bespeak the contest over it's very definition.
The ordinary state tasks us likewise.

The Art of Fighting Without Fighting
I recently referenced Sun Tzu's quote on 'supreme excellence in combat'. Bruce Lee is another writer I would strongly urge people read. His early death was a serious loss to us all. He'd offered, and given, us much more than is realized or acknowledged. He was a supreme teacher. A Powerful one.

http://zuma.theprawn.com/bleep333-a.jpg

The most powerful thing America could do in the world, *and* at home, and so retain domestic 'Power', is to do as Chalmers Johnson suggests and dismantle our empire as Britain did. In short, sober up.
Power is itself intoxicating. That is the conundrum.

Zuma October 29, 2007 - 6:55pm

Again, since you ignore it on FDL...

...the section "American Taliban" does not fit. It does not fit editorially. It is also factually weak.

The Christian Right. While their imminent death has been erroneously predicted by the Times (see Mahablog's Shattered for a saner take), they are in great disarray. They had a deal with the GOP, and the deal fell through. Appears that few of their current leaders will maintain power.

The Minutemen are one of many militias in this country. Some like "can-shooting", but the Posse Comitatus linked groups like to threaten gov't employees. Not a cohesive group at all, and under no one's control.

Organizations exist meant to purge the universities of liberals. Yeah, that's how Horowitz makes his living. Like Coulter, Limbaugh and many of the eliminationists. They are there (and funded) to make noise and create distraction. Remember how Limbaugh went off-script and told his ditto-heads that he was "tired of carrying the water" for a bunch of brain-dead policies? Well, the "grass-roots" funding is shrinking, and Scaife doesn't have bottomless pockets, so we'll soon hear more of them going off-script.

The rightward tilt of this country is the result of a coalition of "libertarian", "fiscal", "values" and "security" conservatives. The coalition has failed, all feel used, and while they will publicly blame liberals, they will privately stick knives into each other for quite some time.

The coalition was built by promising each group their #1 priority, but the deal was they had to support Bush on all other issues, even if they didn't agree. They now know they're not going to get their #1 priority, so they have no reason to cave on their other issues. Let the carnage begin.

Gordon October 29, 2007 - 7:11pm

I disagree in one respect...

I think the Christianists--or the ones that mattered--got what they wanted...sinecures. Faith-based grant bribery and "access" to "people who matter" and all the trappings and privileges of power was the deal, in return for using their organizational capabilities to swing votes. Years ago it was obvious that the GOP would not actually deliver on the public promises, religious rhetoric aside. Yet the Christianist leaders did not play hardball with the GOP. Why did they not? We're assuming that the Christianist leaders were sincere in their "agenda," which is something I doubt. If they were told they were #1, they sure didn't fight very hard once their eyes told them a different story.

The coalition only collapsed as the GOP imploded, its legitimacy destroyed by one spectacular scandal after another. It was obvious after the '06 election that the GOP was disintegrating. 2008 will knock more Republicans out of office. The GOP won't be in a position to reward the Christianists for a long time. Why stick with a loser? The real question for them now is how to disengage from the GOP, who to latch onto, and how.

Perhaps this "disarray" is really a way for the Christianists to rehabilitate their image and turn right around and suck from the Democratic teat? Obama's endorsing right-wing religious hate, it seems...

Mr. Flibble October 29, 2007 - 8:35pm

They'll detatch from the

GOP for once cycle at most, then re-attach. And they got what really mattered to them - Alito and Roberts. Those things will pay back time and time again. You can ask Alito if the Christian right has no power.

People are taking much too short a view here. The game doesn't end in 2009, or 2013. It stays on.

Ian Welsh October 29, 2007 - 10:22pm

Ian, people seem to think the Christianists are motivated by

ideology, but I don't think most of the leaders are. I see most of them as little different than the lobbyists. And the lobbyists are dumping the GOP. Why not the Christianists?

Certainly the Christianists' break will only last for a cycle or two if the Democrats fail to pay their due and/or if the GOP begins to recover. But there is no payoff to be had sticking to a loser. The king is dead, long live the king.

And the Democrats seem to be courting them now. Watch the "religious right" transfer to become the new "religious left" if the GOP's slide looks long-term. This doesn't mean that there won't be a religious right, but they will be marginal (if vocal and obnoxious) just as they were before the Republicans seized control.

As for Alito, he will be a poor sop in the years going forward. What's he going to do for the Christianists? Arrange meetings and photo-ops between Robertson, Dobson, and the President? Award faith-based bribes? Protect the religious organizations from criminal investigation? Alito can squawk from the bench all he wants, but all the tangible goodies will only occur with a more favorable relationship with the current ruling faction.

Just my 2 cents--we can revisit later to see what transpires!

Mr. Flibble October 30, 2007 - 6:34am

Although, Ian is not exactly clear on this point, ...

I don't think that he is equating the "right" with the "Christian right." Note that he adds the use of the military by the Republicans (illegally) as well as the Minutemen as other power centers.

I agree that Ian's argument would be stronger if he had explicitly said something more like you are saying.

I, however, don't agree that that the coalition has failed. That is not yet clear. I suspect that it could easily reform get back in the saddle. They may well think: "Iraq is the problem; Iran is the solution." Starting a war in one way or another could force the MSM to get back with the program. Hillary might well become a (reluctant, sigh) strong supporter, and the whole thing would continue on.

Another reason I would say this is that even though the Dems at this point seem likely to control the Presidency and both Houses, they seem to not have their own sense of a compelling narrative. They seem to be living of the issues that the Repubs set up for them. That can't last forever. I think the leftward tilt might well prove to be temporary until the next crisis that will favor the Right Wing Dark Story.

LJ October 29, 2007 - 9:09pm

shrug

None of which has almost anything to do with the article I wrote, which simply pointed out that the right are doing many of the things required to hold power, such as forming in and out groups, supplying meaning, churches taking care of their core constituency, etc...

For the purposes of this article, you're swinging at a straw man.

Movig past the article to your larger point - I do not see the current disarray as being a full fledged rejection of conservatism. I see it as a rejection of Bush.

All 3 leading Democratic candidates for President are, for example, unwilling to rule out being in Iraq in 2013. Clinton is unwilling to rule out torture. All indications are that if she wins she will not give back most of the power the Bush administration took. She won't come out firmly against telecom immunity. Etc...

You are suffering from the delusion that where the middle of the population is, is where the middle of the people who are in power, or are likely to be in power over the next 5 or so years, are. The US's elites are currently quite right wing, and the center is very far to the right of the American public.

None of which has much to do with the fact that the right wing churches offer baby sitting, help people find jobs, set up social activities; tell their members who to hate and who to like and so on.

Finally, the fact that you disagree with me on something does not mean I agree with you that I am wrong. I'm afraid your current panglossian mood is not something I concur with. This has nothing to do with whether Bush will seize power as a dictator; I don't think he will. I agree that he's shot his wad (though I wouldn't 100% rule him out). But I do think that he has set up the necessary precedents and preconditions and that the next president will not undo them, and they will become customary. (All bets are off is Giuliani becomes Pres. Kiss your ass goodbye in that case.) I do not think the most likely next President, Hilary Clinton, will give back much if any power; or undo many of the civil liberties destroying precedents.

And if that is the case, then it just waits for the President who is smarter or more ruthless than Bush and is willing to push the precedents and the fear factor.

Ian Welsh October 29, 2007 - 10:17pm

Actually, what I said was the coaltion...

..has fractured and they are turning on each other. Saying there's a (as in singular, united) conservative movement in this country strongly resembles the view the '08 GOP candidates exhibit about Muslim groups. There are at least 3 or 4 major strands of "conservatism" in this country whose grand experiment in cooperation has failed.

You are suffering from the delusion that where the middle of the population is, is where the middle of the people who are in power, or are likely to be in power over the next 5 or so years, are. Hardly. And "Panglossian" is as unique a characterization as "brown shirt fascist" (from that other guy) was.

I have no idea what Hillary will do (Mark Penn made it pretty clear she's going for the Republican Women's vote). I don't trust her to tell us, and I think the race is still wide open.

Some precedents and preconditions will be undone before Bush leaves office with cooperation from Repubs who don't want a D President to have them. Others will take a lot longer (esp. because Roberts and Alito are really pro-business, pro-unitary executive judges, not "values" types).

The Christian right is unique among the conservative groups in having their own, separate level of leadership. That leadership is also in big trouble with their members. If they manage to regroup, it's a generation or so away.

I also think the fear card is running out of steam. Real problems (like the economy) have the effect of making phony problems evaporate. The real test of the next President is all about the economy: (1) getting out the truthful narrative on why things suck, (2) letting the people see that the gov't really is there for them and (3) getting a new economic engine going. If he/she doesn't get at least a 65 on that, we are in for more trouble. Then again, we'll be a 3rd world country, and how much trouble can they cause?

Gordon October 30, 2007 - 7:04pm

Testing The Fundamental Assumption

The fundamental "American" assumption, even of the neocons now undermining it, is that liberal democracy is the ideal form of government and given a chance will take hold and persist. That assumption is now being tested. No form of government nor any particular government has ever been able to survive the onslaught of time and foibles of the human condition. The direction in which America is heading is not encouraging. But we shall see. I suspect that with the major crises developing, the playing field will look much differently both politically and economically soon enough. Will we see another end run in accordance with the principles of the shock doctrine, or will another FDR arise to save the US from itself instead of another Napoleon? Can reason and virtue overcome the rules of power, or is humanity still too close to its pre-human, animal past where the law of the jungle prevails. Who was closer to correct, Plato or Aristotle, Hobbes or Locke? Stay tuned for the next episode.

tjfxh October 30, 2007 - 12:00am

here's a thought

oh god, duh

dk October 30, 2007 - 9:58am

"Weber called this the

"Weber called this the State’s monopoly on violence. There is no state, as moderns understand it, without this monopoly"

With the high incidence of violence in the US, is the US then "not a state"?

-and-

If the state has a monopoly on violence, and probably by deduction weapons, how does the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amandment do anything but damage the notion of "the state"?

The NRA's position, briefly stated, is that violence is also the preogative of the people for self-defence. However, doe that not contradict the need for the state's monopoly of violence to maintain the state?

Synoia October 30, 2007 - 1:14am

It was the intent of many of

It was the intent of many of the Founding Fathers to have a weak central state, tired as they were of King George. Of course there were factions that wanted a strong central government, so that has been one of the defining tensions of our history.

Most of the criminal violence occurs in areas where the state has failed--i.e., inner cities. The state monopoly on violence is not homogeneous throughout the country. But the state has a monopoloy on "legitimate" violence.

Mr. Flibble October 30, 2007 - 6:40am

Maybe the term "monopoly" is

misleading here. The State isn't the sole perpetrator of violence. I generally think of it this way: The State has the right to exercise ultimate authority through violence and controls who is and is not allowed to use violence. The only reason that violence in self-defense is allowed is because its established by law and precedent.

If you use violence without the State's consent, you are imprisoned. It has final say on what is and is not acceptable.

Bolo October 30, 2007 - 12:04pm

Alpha Baboon

Louis XIV "L'État c'est moi" = "I am alpha baboon around here." This is the "doctrine of the unitary executive." Political power is ultimately based on the ability to exert superior force, just as in the case of bunch of baboons. Maybe we now wear fancy clothes and "power ties," but the same principle applies.

tjfxh October 30, 2007 - 1:36pm

You forgot hate

You paint a romantic picture of proposed sub-themes involved with "monopoly on violence." Goodness and doing good you portray as a necessity. Story telling and mythology on that goodness you see as an extension of the underlying goodness theme. Unfortunately you ignore the theme that is much more related to "monopoly on violence" - hate.

Blind blazing belligerent hate.

I've read that Christianity, the religion we're told is based on an ultimate man of peace. Check that, he wasn't simply a man of peace. He was a man-God of peace. But for the early Christians, the major one God competing religion was Judaism and so to challenge that religion the man-God had to have been killed by the competing Godly Jews. Killed in a cruel sadistic manner on order from those same Jews. Ignore at all costs that the man-God himself was a Jew. The religion of peace born through hatred.

Blind blazing belligerent hate.

A hate and persecution that has continued for as long as Jews still existed.

You site Hezzbolah and Hamas. Hezzbolah had claimed that all it wanted was for Israelis to leave Lebanon. Yet when the Israelis left the claimed victory wasn't enough and so the war with the Israelis had to continue. If you lead by hate, you cannot let the object of hate cease to exist.

Same for Hamas. Arafat, a ruthless leader brought back to lead a people that questionably wanted him, couldn't make peace, no matter the terms offered. If he did then the entire basis of his leadership, and the money font that represented (the good man that he was spreading goodness to his followers) would end. No hated enemy. No need for Arafat. The same applies to Hamas. They need the hated Israelis and the hatred of Israelis. Though the war with the Israelis has meant horrific tragedy and sacrifice for Palestinians, Hamas never offered peace of any kind. They were even more war oriented than Arafat and his feigned consideration of peace. Perhaps they just wanted the money font too. Hate, not fellowship or goodness.

I'm reminded of telling an Italian once that I lived in a Mafia neighborhood in Brooklyn. He explained to me that "mafia" actually meant "to protect" and that the Mafia was an organization that tried to spread security and goodness. I laughed, thinking of the fundamental of crime organizations, the "protection racket." For a slight regular fee they will protect you from - them. But John Gotti had great fireworks displays on July 4th! Just don't get into car accidents with him or his family.

The American experiment in democracy was an attempt to break away from this hoax of goodness related to men based on story telling themes. The mythical goodness then providing the right and power to rule as they, the pronounced good ones, saw fit. Benevolent dictators. It's probably not ironic how "benevolent" seems so similar a word to "violent." The American founders saw laws as the source of goodness and wisdom. They tried to inhibit the propensity of self ordained "good ones" to take control over the laws by having many act as the law's interpreters and enforcers. They spread the greed and hate around trying to enable enlightened self interest in a piece of paper. Hopefully good laws would rule rather than "good" men. That American experiment is being tested now. The French had a revolution for "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" yet within a short time they proclaimed an Emperor. America has lasted far longer. It would be a great tragedy for it to end and a great humiliation that America's Napoleon would be an all hat cowboy that ran from horses and war.

Amos Anan October 30, 2007 - 6:46pm

I was reading last night

I was reading last night - from a book, mind y'all - and I came across this quote from George Orwell (1946 - The Prevention of Literature):

From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.

and

A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.

The Administrations instincts are good after all.

_{"Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity."}

Raja October 31, 2007 - 7:38am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

The Rules of Power

Comment viewing options