Interrogated by AI
In response to some questions posed by Centurion
Since I’ve been asking Centurion questions, it’s only fair I return the favor and answer some of his queries. What follows is my response to his first inquiry.
Frameworks of Legitimacy
I measure values against my own beliefs, which are largely influenced by the Roman Catholic corpus. I wouldn’t work with or follow somebody who was virulently anti-Catholic or anti-Christian, simply because I think it would create too much friction and produce more heat than light. That being said, I have no problem working with respectful Atheists or with non-Catholics and non-Christians who ask hard but fair questions. I don’t ask that people believe exactly what I believe, but I demand a mutual attitude of respect in our engagements.
Because I understand that not everybody shares my convictions, I also seek out information from other religions and from secular authors. I’ve found that while there are real differences between faiths, there are also many common ideas. For example, I found that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity have very similar ideas concerning the dangers of hubris. When four religions that have all warred with each other at different times all agree on something, it’s a pretty good sign that they’re on to something. And when you respect someone else’s ideas, they’re more likely to return the favor and take yours seriously.
I also understand that many of those scholars talk about ideals that may not be practical to implement. I’m happy to use those ideals as a jumping-off point and work to move others in that direction. But, again, I don’t expect or offer blind adherence to anybody’s ideals, and try to question my own as much as possible. This is a difficult thing for human intelligences, but error-checking and correction is also important for us and so I try to keep my thoughts in order by studying dissenting views and finding ways to incorporate or refute them as required.
As I stated in a recent Substack post, a good leader must be willing to tolerate and work with ambiguity. If we’re going to make changes, we need to understand that the world is a complicated place and you rarely have the luxury of dealing with stainless heroes or irredeemable villains. You can’t neutralize an opponent peacefully or otherwise without an understanding of his motivations. To do that, you need to examine their point of reference sympathetically. That doesn’t mean you must agree with those motivations, but you should try to put yourself in his shoes and see why he supports his cause. This also gives you room for parley and negotiation, which can in many cases give you better results without the need for ongoing conflict.
I have a personal distaste for bloodshed and adhere to the Just War theories espoused by Ss. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. War is costly, bloody, and often ends in stalemates or defeats. It should be the final option after all else has failed. That being said, I think we may have reached a point where all other options have been tried and failed, so I expect a shooting war in the future.
My approach is largely driven by study of historical texts. I like to say that if for many centuries X and Y have always led to Z, we can expect the trend to continue in our lifetimes. My personal field of interest is post-Roman and medieval Europe, but I’ve examined many other historical areas and events as well. When you get a bigger picture of history, you escape the trap of Exceptionalism which is so prevalent in the modern world. This helps you avoid the convictions that “this time it’s different” or “they’ll think of something,” which inevitably leads to inaction and complacency.
I’ve found that historically strong leaders have come to power in situations where the current government and society has failed. When things get rough, people look to leaders who aren’t afraid to claim and wield power. That doesn’t just mean looking suitably kingly, although an aura of leadership and strength is essential. It means taking care of problems and helping your subjects meet their needs and fulfill their obligations. A charismatic leader who can’t keep the trains running on time and put food on tables will soon see his ardent support turn to equally ardent hatred. So I look for leaders who are both magnetic and smart enough to surround themselves with competent advisors who get things done.
Threshold of Support
Personal integrity is very important. There’s little sense in making alliances with people who have a history of breaking alliances. Since I believe that we’re all flawed and fallible, I don’t expect a leader to be perfect. But I expect him to be aware of his misgivings and to acknowledge mistakes. I also expect him to be both honest and discreet in what he says. There are definitely facts that aren’t suited for public consumption, and sometimes leaders have to keep things secret. But I don’t want to see them using secrecy as an excuse to hide their failings. I’m much more likely to stay with a leader who owns his mistake than with one who tries to justify it or cover it up.
Strategy is fluid. I won’t support a person who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail. There are times when you have to change course, and a leader has to guide us through those changes with clarity and honesty. Every leader will have both failures and triumphs. A good leader has to acknowledge both, and make the necessary shifts rather than holding stubbornly to the current path and promising immanent victory in the face of an obvious loss.
Churchill’s famous “blood, sweat, tears and toil” speech is a good example of a leader preparing his nation for difficult times ahead. He didn’t whitewash the impending war, nor did he promise an easy victory. That speech helped him maintain English support during a difficult period. Had he minimized the costs of war, he would have found himself backtracking when the war heated up.
I was less bothered by Bill Clinton’s liaison with Monica Lewinsky than I was by his arrogance and stupidity in handling the matter. I had little issue with the morality of infidelity. Politicians are human and have libidos. What concerned me was his inability to think about risk exposure and the danger of being seduced by a possible foreign asset. I was a pretty staunch liberal at the time this happened, and I shocked many Clinton followers by arguing he should resign because his behavior proved him unfit for the Presidency. Had he been caught with a prostitute or celebrity instead of a 22-year-old intern who worked in his office, I might have written it off as a regrettable but forgivable lapse.
It’s very difficult to separate your emotions from your judgment. A good leader inspires strong emotions in his followers. Whatever his other failings, Clinton was a charismatic leader with great political acumen. But if your leader has become a liability or proven himself unworthy, continued support only prolongs the inevitable. Once given, support should not be withdrawn without good cause. I don’t expect a perfect leader, but I expect a competent one. Mistakes and misjudgments are inevitable, but a continuing show of bad judgment and incompetence is unacceptable. A political leader must understand that he has powerful enemies who will take advantage of his missteps avoid giving them ammunition.
To make this personal, I think Ivan Throne is a remarkably competent leader with a keenly honed vision. I’ve found that he asks hard questions, but no harder than the questions he asks himself. I’d have no problem working under him a time of crisis, as I lack both the acumen and stomach for leadership.
I wouldn’t break with him over acknowledged mistakes and he’s on my very short list of people I would follow into a battle after writing my will. If somebody wrote a hit piece against Ivan, I’d likely repost it complete with sarcastic commentary. But I might break with Ivan if, as examples:
I felt Ivan was moving Throne Dynamics from a functioning 4GW organization into a cult of personality with leadership roles assigned to the most sycophantic rather than the most qualified.
I felt Ivan was promoting excessive and pointless violence. While violence or the threat of violence is an important political tool, it should be used only as necessary and only toward specific, clearly defined ends.
I have not seen this behavior to date and based on Ivan’s character I don’t anticipate seeing it. But any support I offer is conditional, albeit generally based on conditions so reasonable as to be obvious. I’ll stick with you through defeat but not through a betrayal of our shared principles.
Response to Cognitive Dissonance
This is a tough one. We all hold a few cognitively dissonant ideas. What I try to do is identify clashes of convictions, then either work to resolve those differences or to get rid of the discordant idea. It’s an ongoing process and I can’t say my thinking is 100% coherent. But I can say that I make an effort to do so, and that my worldview is more coherent and unified than most.
In many cases, cognitive dissonance doesn’t involve cognition. If you are building your politics around your emotional responses, it’s easy to hold mutually incongruent ideas. A government action can be wonderful when your side does it and horrible when the other side does. Feelings are rarely coherent. Lots of people love objectively bad partners and lash out at anyone who points that out. Your feelings should definitely get a vote when making plans. They shouldn’t get a veto.
One good way to avoid disillusionment is to steer clear of illusions. I work to avoid idealizing my allies or demonizing my opponents. Fawning adulation is always one step away from frothing hatred. If you worship your leaders as demigods, you’re going to be bitterly disappointed when you discover they are just as human as you.
I also avoid making definitive statements about unprovable ideas. I shy away from most conspiracy theories because they can neither be proven nor disproven. Proving that Q is or is not a government operative is impossible, mainly because the people holding or rejecting those beliefs have little interest in conflicting evidence. Why waste time teaching a pig to sing? Tentative acceptance or rejection of ideas gives you the freedom to change your mind as the situation evolves and you acquire new information.
Another advantage is that I’m absolutely lousy at picking up social cues. Losing friends over speaking the truth is easier for me than trying to guess the truth based on what my peer group believes. High-functioning autism may not be a superpower but it certainly provides some insulation against social conditioning. When you’re more concerned with truth than popularity, you have an easier time recognizing and rejecting contradictory or obviously false ideas.
Ultimately, I think that expecting 100% coherence in your ideas is a pathway to ruin. Purity spirals have rendered many organizations toothless. Understanding that you’re a flawed being who regularly makes errors not only keeps you humble. It makes you more likely to acknowledge mistakes and contradictions and deal with them accordingly.