According to Hillary Clinton, former
Secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, "Great nations need
organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." We may agree with her assessment,
yet as we look around at the nations of the world, it would seem that paying
attention to this prohibition should be a necessity for good government and
that it is too often ignored.
Why do people in authority do stupid stuff? This question has often come to my mind as I
watch the daily news programs. It seems
that quite often those who should be leaders in their nations and communities
fail to exercise anything that resembles good leadership. I'm not thinking especially of immoral acts,
but of acts and behaviors that appear to be contrary to the best interests, not
only of those led, but of those very leaders.
Hosni Mubarak is deposed as dictator in
Egypt; rather than giving ear to the complaints of his people, he attempted to
violently suppress all protest, which ultimately resulted in his
overthrow. Even when it was apparent
that his methods of suppression weren't working, he continued on the same
course. Mohammed Morsi was then elected
as Prime Minister of Egypt in a fair election and when protests arose, he
followed the same methods of oppression as his predecessor. And he too suffered the same fate. Now we have a third leader in Egypt who seems
to be following the same course.
We could name more middle eastern dictators
and wannabe dictators, who continue to follow non-workable government policies
which get them thrown out of office or killed, or even worse, destroy their
nations: Assad in Syria, Maliki in Iraq.
But we don't need to go halfway around the
world to witness these strange behaviors.
The actions of the police in Ferguson, Missouri come to mind. Attempts to quell legitimate protest with
militarized force only lead to more and more violence.
Don't these guys ever learn? Don't they watch the news? Can't they see that their methods don't
work? That they are counter-productive?
The above examples all demonstrate that force
is not only ineffective but actually contrary to the best interests of all
parties. The use of force, however, is
only one way in which those in leadership can act contrary even to their own
best interests.
Having been involved in church
"politics" for many years, as both a pastor and a layman, I can verify
that this behavior is as often the rule as the exception. I've also seen it among engineers and
educators.
Browsing through the
sale rack at the Half Price Bookstore, I came across a copy of The March of
Folly by Barbara Tuchman. I am
always delighted to find a book I haven't read but have wanted to for
years. Though the book is 30 years old
it was still in great shape and at three dollars I felt I couldn't afford to pass it up. The book deals with the very question that
had bothered me and it is a fascinating read.
Tuchman's first chapter
sets the stage for the whole book. She
is concerned about "misgovernment" which she sees as being "of
four kinds, often in combination ... :
1) tyranny or oppression ...; 2) excessive ambition ...; 3) incompetence
or decadence ... and finally 4) folly or perversity" (page 5). She tells us, "This book is concerned
with the last, in a specific manifestation; that is the pursuit of policy
contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved." "To qualify as folly" she
continues, a policy "must have been perceived as counter-productive in
its own time." Also "a
feasible alternative course of action must have been available. ... a third
criterion" she says, "must be that the policy in question should be
that of a group, not an individual ruler."
She cites examples
from many different periods of history, but for purposes of her book homes in
on just four, which make up the major sections of the book:
· "Prototype: The Trojans Take the Wooden Horse Within
Their Walls"· "The Renaissance Popes Provoke the Protestant Secession 1470-1530"
· "The British Lose America"
· "America Betrays Herself in Vietnam"
The book is full of
historical details which are usually ignored by many. After all, I've been taught the Reformation
from the view of the Reformers and the American Revolution from the American
point of view without much consideration of what brought these on, from the
"losers'" point of view.
But what fascinates
is her comments and observations on the folly as demonstrated in the
details. She shows the various aspects
of folly. As I read I kept my iridescent
yellow pen handy for every mention of the word "folly."
What we observe on
our evening news then, is nothing new.
The pursuit by governments and lesser leaders of policies contrary to
the interests of both governors and governed has been going on since the dawn
of history; some of the earliest being Rehoboam's loss of 10 tribes and the
reduction of the nation of Israel as well as the Trojan horse.
In the Epilogue
Tuchman concludes, "If pursuing disadvantage after the disadvantage has
become obvious is irrational, then rejection of reason is the prime
characteristic of folly" (page 380).
She does not offer much hope of change but sees a need for an educated
electorate "that will recognize and reward integrity of character and ...
reject the ersatz" (page 387).
Tuchman does not
write as a Christian but more as a pragmatist.
She does address matters, such as greed and the lust for power, but less
from a moral position than a pragmatic one.
And yet as a Christian I find myself agreeing with her. The moral position is often the practical
one. Greed, self-aggrandizement, the
failure to consider what is best for one's neighbor; refusal to face the truth
about one's actions -- these could all be recognized as sin. And of course sin is ultimately
self-destructive.
The Bible is full of
stories similar to those found in this book.
In fact, the history of the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old
Testament in a continual repetition of the book's themes: actions taken for which there were better
alternatives; refusal to heed warnings -- in most cases the prophets. And these actions ultimately brought down the
nation.
Of course, we could
go clear back to the Garden of Eden, to Eve's and Adam's partaking of the
forbidden fruit, which got the ball rolling.
We've been following their precedent every since.
How often have we --
have I -- taken actions that were not only sinful but destructive, not only to
me but to those I am responsible for?
Forgive me Lord and help me to heed your warnings.
