Howcum The Powerful Sometimes Can’t Help But Help Themselves To The Help?
The recent falls of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominic Strauss-Kahn from their lofty perches and the imminent fall of Anthony Weiner from his begs the question as to why people who have everything — money, power and prestige — can’t kept their hands off the help, whether they be secretaries, nannies or hotel maids, or in Weiner’s case sending sexually-laden text messages to women?
It seems easy to explain this away by assuming that power corrupts, but that’s too pat an answer. A more likely one is what psychologists call the paradox of power.
Here’s how it works: The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place pretty much disappear once they rise to power. They become impulsive, reckless and rude, as well as less sympathetic to the concerns and emotions of others, but at the same time are unaware of their transition from mere mortal to hypocrite. Just ask John Edwards.
People almost always know the right thing to do, but a sense of power makes it easier to rationalize an ethical lapse, whether cheating, breaking one’s marriage vows or stepping over other ethical and moral lines. Countless psychological experiments have proven this so, as well as something else: Common sense, a quality that certainly is lacking in a former California governor, former International Monetary Fund chairman and now an about-to-be-former New York congressman.
23 Responses to “Howcum The Powerful Sometimes Can’t Help But Help Themselves To The Help?”
The excessive power and influence these people have (especially in our oversized, overreaching federal government) goes to their head, notably when part of the “late Roman” decadence accompanying the bloat that we see is the development of a celebrity culture among (and around — think, say, David Frum or Andrew Sullivan — them).
Shaun Mullen wrote:
Don’t you believe that instead, they continue to be expressed, but more so, and in more ways where these present themselves?
I’d say so.
You don’t have to be conservative to think about the title to one chapter of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”: “Why the Worst Get On Top.” It’s not limited to totalitarian government or nations.
DLS:
You — and Hayek — are correct.
I tend to think this behavior is rampant…we just find out about the famous people because they are on tv.
Being 21 doesn’t make the young women in question “the Help”. Sending junk shots is different than raping a maid. These things should be pretty damn obvious.
Yes, roro80, yes. Thank you for belaboring the obvious.
The post is about the paradox of power, and it is understood that by your standards — and most other people’s, including my own — what Ahnold and Levi-Strauss did is to the right of what Roman Polanski did and to the left of what Weiner did. But all have a common element — the paradox of power.
A footnote that has probably been covered elsewhere here:
Pelosi and the Democratic posse can be perfectly comfy in rushing to condemn Weiner and announce an ethics investigation.
This is because his Brooklyn-Queens district, previously represented by Chuck Schumer and Gerry Ferraro, is “safe.”
Thank you for belaboring the obvious.
Well, Shaun, since it seemed demonstrably less than obvious to you from your post, I thought it necessary to point it out. **
I’d also like to point out that perhaps the “paradox of power” has nothing to do with the Weiner case, as 57% of men and 54% of women admit to being unfaithful to their partners. Rape is about power, yes. Being unfaithful often is not. Certainly sexting is not something done solely by the powerful.
And being 21 still doesn’t make the young women “the help”.
**ETA: it should also probably be noted that it is not in any way obvious to many, many people in both the media, and on both sides of the aisle, that there is a difference between sex and rape. The number of times Polanski’s actions were referred to as “sex” should make this very obvious, but it happens all the time, including on this site. You seem to be lumping the two together, even though Weiner didn’t even have sex with the young women.
roro80:
Per usual, you are reading your lumpage into a straightforward post. I know that you want nothing better than to engage me in a discussion on lumpage — anal rape of a drugged minor versus whatever — and I’m not going to bite.
Your certitude about everything that involves your sex is . . . well, certain, but it doesn’t advance the discussion. It is unfortunate — for you — that Kathy self destructed and is not on hand to abet your latest endeavor in bashing, although I do hold you in the highest esteem as someone who seems to take everything personally.
I wake up every day full of self doubts about who I am and what I believe in. How wonderful that you have no such reservations.
why people who have everything — money, power and prestige — can’t kept their hands off the help, whether they be secretaries, nannies or hotel maids, or in Weiner’s case sending sexually-laden text messages to women?
Yep, no “lumpage” there, Shaun. I’m just “reading my lumpage” into the post. It’s all me.
Look, Shaun, I disagree with your characterization of this event, and I disagree with the idea that young women are in any way “help”.
I suppose the only advancement of the discussion (which we both know you’re so, so interested in) can come from my slathering on the praise. So you are totally right. All the events are the same, and it’s all about a paradox of power, and any woman who’s ever had sex is the “help”. Congrats on a fantastic discussion.
It is unfortunate — for you — that Kathy self destructed and is not on hand to abet your latest endeavor in bashing, although I do hold you in the highest esteem as someone who seems to take everything personally.
I wake up every day full of self doubts about who I am and what I believe in. How wonderful that you have no such reservations.
Wow, Shaun, wow. Thank god we stupid women have awesome allies like you. You’re the best. Hugs and kisses.
And by the way, Kathy did not “self-destruct”, you were a total immature sexist pig to her, you kept on writing posts about her, poking her over and over, ridiculing her. The fact that she fought back and that the mods took your side (after refusing to even read the threads in question) meant she no longer wanted to be here. That is fundamentally a different concept than “self-destructing”.
Of course, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between 21 year women in college and “the help”, so you know, I can see why you might be confused on the concept of some things being different than others.
Don’t just pick on politicians. Many media darlings also think their power translates into a free reign with the help in the bedroom.
Letterman slept with an intern. When the boss hits on an intern or secretary, any promotion or raise is lost if you ignore the bosses advances…
Wow, I will miss KK, as I also miss Father Time and Axel. They were worthy opponents and we agreed sometimes.
Too much water weakens the brew, bring em back.
I’d be interested in hearing Prof. Palin’s views on Weiner. I’m sure it would add hilarious entertainment to this whole kerfuffle.
Kick me in the shins then run away? Again? I’d love to say that I’m shocked.
Agreed dduck. I think passion is direct side effect of caring about truth and justice. In that vein I’d say there is much to feel passionate about these days. I’d sooner trust someone who shows his or her emotions now and then than I would someone who never does. Of course passion can spring from less noble sources too, but in the case of the people you mention (despite the human foibles we all struggle with to varying degrees) I believe there was more nobility involved than not. As for Weiner? What a dumbass… and a waste.
begs the question
While we’re at it, you may want to look up this term. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.
D. Duck: I suspect Palin is waiting for the Weiner issue to be “resolved” first. Then she’ll know how to liberal- or Democrat-bash.
No telling yet if she’ll run, and she may be negated by Bachmann (more serious and with more serious things for libs to object to, politically).
* * *
Did Kathy really leave? I noted the most recent reply I got, the so very ironic direct statement (which the management never will criticize or suddenly threaten the poster with banning, as opposed to others’ replies to people that aren’t mean) to me that I’m a lightweight. Did Kathy leave because she couldn’t count on eventual biased intercession by site management currently if need be? [shaking head]
Shaun — and it’s found throughout the political scale or spectrum.
This thread in general …. really sucks. Nice flame throwing contest.
To more important matters…. what happened to Kathy? Yes, she is rather extreme left, but she is an important part of this little web community. This is NOT good.
ShannonLeee:
I am inclined to agree about the thread, although a rough count shows that nearly half of the comments address the issue being discussed. The other half is dominated by roro80′s usual exertions against me and anyone else who does not play by her rules, in this case a bit of poetic license in the headline with the word “help” that fails to meet her exacting literalness standards.
All my comments were on topic until you decided to play armchair psychologist and then brought up Kathy(yup that was you)!because someone had the temerity to disagree with your overly simplistic premise. You are unbelievable, Shaun. I look forward to your next post about what a great feminist you are; hopefully it will also include what bitches all the feminists are.