In 1984, I met Professor Hermann
Oberth, known as "the father of space flight," because of the
fundamental essays on rocket and space flight techniques that he
wrote about seventy years ago.
At the time he was 90 years old, and his latest book was just
published. But this book did not deal with rocket development. In it
Oberth makes a last minute appeal to all men, in order to point out
the false social developments, which can shortly lead to the complete
destruction of mankind. He gave me his permission to publish the book
in English, and about three years later it came out under the title
Primer For Those Would Would Govern .
This remarkable book is called a "primer" because it should teach
those basic principles of political knowledge, of which each publicly
active man and woman should be aware. "Votes must be weighed, not
counted," proclaims Oberth.
Since your topic for today is about politics, our government and our
political system, I'd like to introduce you to some ideas from this
PRIMER.
Most of us will agree that a totalitarian form of government is wrong
in the long run. But is its opposite -- the democracy -- the
culmination of all wisdom?
A statesman once said, "Even democracy is not the best form of
government, but I do not know a better one."
Democracy can, in fact, be regarded as the form of government of the
future if and only if it is supported by a politically trained,
intelligent people.
The general right to vote is sometimes called "Suffrage for Idiots",
since every half-witted individual who has managed to retain his
civil rights has a vote which is equal to that of John F. Kennedy or
Albert Einstein. (I believe that this is one of the reasons why many
voters today stay away from the voting booths, in addition to the
uncounted broken pre-election promises by candidates, the fact that
they are not accountable for breaking their promises, and the
inability of voters to have any say over vital political decisions
being made today; i.e., declaration of war, foreign aid, compulsory
AIDS testing, speed limit on our thruways, etc.)
The fundamental prerequisite for obtaining the right to vote should
be that the person concerned knows at least as much about politics as
is contained in this voter's primer.
But this alone cannot be the decisive qualification for becoming a
politician. For instance, even Stalin or Hitler would have been
intelligent enough to have learned this book, but they would have
still made the same mistakes anyway.
A really good democracy must be able to select from among the many
who would be intelligent enough to rule, those people whose
personalities are suited to such work. Also, a good democracy should
be able to find a relatively painless way of dismissing a politician
from his post if he is no longer capable of doing a proper job.
An obvious prerequisite for the "intelligence census" would be that
anyone who wants to learn is given the opportunity to do so: i.e.,
that no one is denied a chance to study because his father was too
poor or too rich, or belonged to the wrong political party at the
wrong time.
I do not think that there is any danger that resentment will arise
among those who are not allowed to vote as long as the non-voter is
convinced that he holds himself away from politics of his own free
will and that he can join in anytime he desires to do so. It must be
simply left up to the individual to decide whether he wishes to
participate in politics and to learn what is necessary in order to be
politically active.
Supporters of authoritative systems often like to criticize democracy
for being too complicated and requiring too much work and energy. The
ancient Romans were undoubtedly staunch republicans. But in times of
greatest danger, when something had to be done, they elected a
dictator who simply organized everything by himself.
So one can ask, "Is democracy only a game which is completely
disregarded as soon as the situation becomes serious?"
Actually, the Greek philosopher Aristotle (the teacher of Alexander
the Great) has already provided an answer to this objection. What he
had to say was this: "If it is too hot, one is uncomfortable. If it
is too cold, one is also uncomfortable." The "happy medium" is the
best; for every virtue there are two vices: an excess, and a
deficiency.
We call that good which is conductive to making the world as a whole
better, more just and more beautiful. From this follows that
everything is good up to that point of where having more of it would
cause suffering rather than happiness in the world; beyond this
point, it is evil.
This happy medium principle applies also to coercion and freedom.
Ultimately, a state does not exist to be admired by outsiders for its
conquests and monumental structures, while its residents are
oppressed and live in poverty. Instead, it is supposed to provide its
citizens with as much happiness and freedom as possible. In the last
analysis, the state exists for the people, not the people for the
state. Abuses of freedom must be combatted in some other way, but not
through an abrogation of freedom.
The question of recognizing which restraints are unnecessary is best
left in the hands of politically schooled people. For this reason the
Romans never elected a dictator for more than half a year.
A state should follow a course which is familiar to and desired by
its citizens. But for those people who are either too dumb, too lazy
or too apathetic to concern themselves with politics, it would be
certainly advisable to restrict themselves from playing an active
role and thus prevent them from making the work more difficult for
more thoughtful people.
Even people in a tightly run totalitarian state would do well to
study politics in order to be prepared for the time when the rule
comes to an end, and, as we have just seen in Russia, today it does
not take as long as it used to in the days of Atilla the Hun.
Our culture and technology today are in the process of removing many
difficulties in the political process.
In the first place, it will become easier and easier to bypass
representatives and poll the people directly on the most important
issues, thanks to computer technology.
Secondly, the LIE DETECTOR, to which hopefully politicians will have
to submit in the future, will prevent much of the harm that is being
done to humanity today. This will result in the improvement of the
quality of the elected representatives, and gradually there will be
more and more such elected officials who will be able to answer "YES"
on the lie detector to the following questions:
Are you qualified?
Do you honestly intend to be a good
leader?
Do you believe that your fellow party
members have the same intention?
Will you be able to make objective
decisions?
And these same people will be able to answer "NO" to the
question:
Are you subject to any kind of
extortion?
At this point we should take a look
at the following question:
What is the greatest danger to our freedom?
My answer is, CACOCRACY.
For those of you, who have never heard this word, I'll explain
it.
"Kakos" in Greek means 'bad," and "kratein" "to rule. Thus,
"cacocracy" means the rule, or at least the dominance, of the
bad.
In life there are numerous options open to any respectable person
wishing to advance. These same options are open to any scoundrel of
equal intelligence and energy in a similar position. However, the
scoundrel can increase his alternatives by adding to them courses of
action which the respectable person would never consider.
As a result, his opportunities for advancement are more numerous and
this results in an accumulation of people of questionable reputation
among the upper levels of society. The more numerous and influential
a given stratum of society, the lower its moral standards will
be.
It is this circumstance alone which can explain the fact that the
world did not become a paradise already five thousand years ago.
The primary cause of CACOCRACY is the fact that the spiritual forces
of our Social Age culture are no longer adequate for the human
society as we know it today. (Ancient Rome also owed its fall
primarily to the cacocracy which resulted from its size.)
In a tribe of 50 people or less, it is difficult for the worst rogue
to become chief. In a large state the situation is different; the
average citizen will know and like or hate only a few people: the
policeman who gives him a speeding ticket, the used car salesman who
cheated him. We are moved when we hear of a 15 year old boy stabbed
to death on a bus in our town, but are unmoved when we read of a
threatening famine to tens of millions of people of the late Soviet
Union.
The horizon of our instinctual life is too narrow for such
things.
Therefore it is perfectly adequate if a cacocrat can maintain good
relations with his immediate associates. Also, the complexity of
today's world offers the cacocrat an even greater advantage. How can
a normal voter know what people running for election really feel
about an issue, and what they do when the TV reporter is not
present?
As long as a state is large enough, it is fundamentally irrelevant
for the success of cacocracy whether the state is capitalist,
socialist, or totalitarian. Or democratic, for that matter.
But the situation is not hopeless. There is a tool for fighting
cacocracy: THE LIE DETECTOR.
A lie detector today will only indicate if a given question disturbs
a person, not if that person is really lying. But it will be further
developed and improved, and the time will come when the lie detector
has become a "truth finder" which one can no longer deceive.
Then it will become inevitable that someone, let's say a man running
for election, knowing his own conscience is clear and that his
promises are sincere, will submit to a lie detector and declare: "I
believe what I am telling you. My opponents should also submit to a
lie detector after their election speeches, if they can!"
Moreover, after they are elected, they will have to keep their
promises to their constituents. Things would naturally follow a
similar course in other areas of public life, and in this way a
gradual purification process would take place.
As a result of this, the danger exists that farsighted cacocrats will
attempt to discredit or even do away with the lie detector. This is
exactly what happened in Germany as well as in the United States,
where the Supreme Courts have expressly forbidden the use of the lie
detector in courts. Presumably, the excuse given was that it was
against the principle of democratic freedom!
But let me counter with this question:
Which is more in accordance with the principle of freedom: to ask an
innocent person to submit for one or two hours to the lie detector
and then release him, OR to hold him for months in detention pending
trial, interrogate him for hours on end, and ultimately, perhaps even
mistakenly, convict him?
Which is more in accordance with the principle of freedom: that every
crime be solved, because every suspect must tell the truth when
questioned; OR that a large percentage of all crimes remains
unsolved, with this fact encouraging criminals again and again, and,
on another level, even causing wars among the nations due to
falsification of history?
But it would be just about as wise for me to lobby for the repeal of
this law as it would be to throw myself in front of a speeding truck
in an attempt to stop it.
Fortunately, is is feasible that the lie detector will one day be
acceptable in court. Through legal measures on can retard the
development of a useful invention, but one cannot halt it forever.
The need for the lie detector is stronger that the powers who oppose
it.
There is another aspect of our political and social life that I I'd
like to comment on before closing:
Our culture is much too technologically oriented. It is like a ship
whose cargo was placed on one side, and the ship is keeling over.
Technology is masculine wisdom. What we are lacking is feminine
wisdom. The masculine hold sway over the principle of destruction;
the feminine, over construction.
One should only destroy where something better can be built
instead.
Our masculine society brought us to the point where we today, are
approaching the limits of this planet's ability to withstand further
stress. A destruction potential exists in the realm of military
technology that could blow up our world not only once, but several
times over.
Woman, who was greatly revered as the giver of life at the dawn of
human history and to whom we owe the great early cultural
achievements, has found herself increasingly dependent on man and on
the male culture now in place.
If we contrast the masculine virtues (bravery, force, destruction)
with the traditionally feminine virtues (modesty, self-sacrifice, the
giving of life, striving for peace and harmony) -- then it is plain
to see that modern humanity must basically reorganize its value
system in order to be able to survive at all on this overpopulated
and exhausted planet.
Women must have the same educational opportunities as men. They must
penetrate more than before into those occupations that are concerned
with the social life of human beings and the resultant problems: for
instance, sociology, history, psychology, education, jurisprudence,
etc.
We should consider what kinds of new occupations can be created for
women in order to make possible the emergence of a woman's
culture.
There is no doubt that women would make better political policy under
today's conditions than men.
To conclude, I believe that in order to save our freedoms into the
21st century, we need to accomplish the following:
The institution of the lie
detector.
Proof of political awareness before
being given the right to vote, and above all, evidence of an
understanding of cacocracy.
The bringing about of the emergence
of a "woman's culture" in our society.
In the movies, we cheer when the good
wins over the evil; in the same way,we enjoy beauty in arts, we
desire environmental cleanliness and just social conditions.
This instinct for justice and harmony is innate in mankind, and it is
because of this instinct that the aim of all political policy should
be this:
to arrange our public life and to direct our strengths in such a way
that the greatest number of living creatures enjoy the greatest
possible well-being.
If we let ourselves be guided by practicing the principles of
truthfulness and non-hurting any living creature (in thought, word,
or deed), and if we carry out our duties selflessly, skillfully, and
lovingly, then we will make a positive contribution to making our
world a little better then we found it.
Then, and only then, will we have earned our freedom.
Keep informed - join our newsletter:
Copyright 2001 West-Art
PROMETHEUS, Internet Bulletin for Art, Politics and Science.