*
Why on earth do people assume, by default, that the leader of a political party represents that party, that he has any real interest in the well-being of the party - or indeed that the leader of any institution is trying to do his best for that institution?
A leader can promote himself as the primary objective, or 'his' organization. But parasitic behaviour is the norm, not the exception.
Often it will pay them, now or at some point in the future, to promote themselves at the expense of the group.
*
This is especially a problem with young leaders who have been parachuted into the organization, and are expecting a limited term of leadership; and therefore need to plan their career beyond the current organization.
Typically, they will operate such as to get as much as possible for themselves from the organization.
*
What leaders want for themselves, and what they take from the organization, depends on the person - money, status, power or sex are the usual.
But in some instances (and these can be the most damaging) it is self-esteem: the organization will then serve as an agency for fueling the leader's own sense of moral superiority.
The results of self-esteem maximizing behaviour may appear irrational; but inside the leader's head, he is taking the lead role in a psychodrama demonstrative of his own moral integrity and superiority.
*
Self-esteem is protean and insatiable and thrives on change.
The leader who is a self-esteem seeker is much more difficult to control, and much more likely to destroy the organization, than a leader who is merely trying to make money for themselves.
*
Such moral parasitism on the part of the leadership seems almost like the norm in much of the public administration, education, NGOs, the mass media, the legal system, and progressive politics.
If it is such a big problem, then why is the question not addressed at all?
Why does evaluation of potential leaders focus exclusively on 1. their 'qualifications' and 2. what they say they intend to do (their 'policies') - and ignore completely whether this particular person has any deep, genuine and personally-motivating identification with the organization they are supposed to lead?
*
This is a matter of loyalty.
If leaders don't have loyalty to that which they lead (and loyalty comes from within, is spontaneously expressed, and imposes-itself - loyalty is not something which can be imposed on a leader from without)... if they are not loyal then leaders will be parasites - and once they are leaders it will be all-but impossible to stop them running the organization, or the country, for their own personal benefit.
*
But what is that 'personal benefit'?
In a society dominated by Leftism in the form of political correctness, we must be aware that 'personal benefit' is not always, nor even usually, financial.
The commonest and worst form of corruption among the modern leadership class is moral parasitism.
The typical modern leader is driven by primarily by the imperative of self-esteem-maximization as enacted in the symbolic and subjective arena of their own minds, and evaluated by their internal representations of equality, diversity, pacifism, inclusion and all the rest of it...
Meanwhile, reality is crumbling into chaos.
*
1 comment:
I saw an interview with Sonya Sotomayor the other day. She said her drive to become a judge came from watching Perry Mason. She realized that the most powerful person in the room wasn't Perry Mason, or anyone else prominent in the show. It was the judge.
This seems terrifying to me, as a lawyer. Pure power desire. I can't fathom that motive. But, it makes sense in light of this entry. She seeks to improve her self-esteem. She desires power because it fuels her self-esteem.
Her behavior at Princeton is also consistent with this. There, she dropped out of her first major to become a latino-studies major and then began to threaten the university with protests and her access to low-income hispanics as protesters.
Post a Comment