Power Beyond the Shadows | The Illusion of Political Discourse

Politics proper is the applied study of leadership. It answers the question: “Who rules?” in any given social context. It is the science and art of power, and its application. It is how leaders and rulers attain the ability to act through granted power. 

What most ordinary people call “politics” is, in reality, just news entertainment. The front-facing national conversation is perpetually mistaken for politics proper. 

When would-be politicians enter the modern “political arena” (usually within a Party apparatus), they often enter with the misguided assumption that “winning” in politics is a result of their opinions and ideas gaining popularity and more attention. The mistake comes from observing news and public conversations about the ideas and movements of the political elite. 

Political entertainment and “news” are designed in such a way as to give the viewer the impression that the conversation “matters” organically and based solely on the merits or newsworthiness of the content. However, this is a necessary tool in the art of politics. In truth, the content is designed and curated to manufacture such opinions and consent for political action. The US notion of a free and independent press helps provide diverse interests to compete within the realm of disseminated ideas — but these two fall under the same ever-present rules of politics proper, subject to the hidden turnings of the balance of power. 

Shadows on a Wall

To borrow from Plato’s allegory of  “The Cave”, the “shadow on the wall” (e.g., the “national Conversation”) is mistaken for substance. Most ordinary people who get involved in “politics” want the promotion of their opinions and ideas to higher prominence within the “national conversation”, because this is the extent of their awareness of the hidden world of power.

They want to see their own shadow on the wall join in the production, and mistakenly believe that directly interacting with the other shadows is the best way to participate and be seen, which ensures they are facing the wrong direction to discern the true nature of the production. They are captivated, but unable to affect the outcomes. To cast their own shadow on the wall for the rest of the cave to see, the observers would need to turn around and truly interact with those casting the shadows from behind. 

This is the defining factor that determines the successful political operator from the rest of the ignorant observers in the cave, who follow the puppet show, only dimly aware of the real events taking place behind them. If they were to turn their attention around from the cave wall, it would then become apparent they are dealing with mere men, not shadow monsters or the grand edifices of narrative storytelling. 

Dividing Lines: Audacious Actions

Such is the situation on the ground in American politics — the truth of power is much more visceral than we would expect, and at first glance, is offensive to our Western democratic ideals. The real decisions of weight and importance are never decided by a group. They are always determined by those rare individuals who are audacious enough to take action. 

Ludwig Von Mises correctly argued that human action, rather than group consensus, was the true driver of real events and that those who chose to take representative action were the only real source of meaningful action. The power to act in a representative capacity is granted by several factors, but the most prominent is the virtue of alignment with the constituency. Once aligned, another factor comes by the constant and tacit consent of that perceived group, by which the operator gains the ability to act on their behalf as a representative. 

For the group to effectively reject the proposed representative actor, it is practically necessary that some rival champion emerges from the group (another operator who is capable of taking representative actions to contest them). Only once a choice such as this is presented can the crowd explicitly offer or withhold their approval for one actor/action over another. This makes the real world of decision-makers very small indeed. The sphere of real influence can be understood as confined to those who have the power to act effectively. 

Effective Rule Requires Consensus 

What this means for the average civic participant is both good and bad, depending on one’s perspective. The good news is that there is no glass ceiling and that the world is open to you. Anything is possible. Simply turn, take action, and the world is open to you. 

The bad news is that our vague democratic notions of diverse groups of people, slowly working out their differences through our institutions and by empirical scientific knowledge, converging slowly and inevitably together upon the truth at the center, is a very idealistic (and false) myth. 

There is a kernel of truth to the myth: some consensus is needed to rule effectively, and if the ruling elite ever get so far out of balance with the concept of representative action, then the bar by which they can be overthrown is lowered. This makes it easier for other operators to take action against them and win. This is the political “law of heaven”. As noted in the Art of War, the people will only follow the will of the ruler if he is imbued with the moral law, by which he may command their loyalty. 

However, this is also the means of his downfall. Here we see a peek behind the covers: the basis of power and authority is ethical morality. It has a practically necessary relationship to all real events that play out between free moral agents, and usually forms the basis for consent of the governed.  

To cultivate the moral law, the shadows are projected onto the wall by those who understand the need for power. Its tendency to subjugate ever larger constituencies puts distance and layers between ignorant observers and the pivotal stage upon which the true action is taking place. 

Much then depends on the quality of those actors, those craftsman who embrace the ability to act, and upon their ability to guide the shadow play toward the outcomes which they deem to be desirable, by casting their shadows in the form of human action.