Western democracy can be viewed in the context of its break with the past, as I noted in my previous blog. But elements of its predecessors can still resurface, however inappropriately. Since this is a presidential election year in America, I simply cannot resist illustrating how the past is reprised by our politicians. If you read my recent blog, then you can relate to the following.

➣ How would a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon lead and protect in our current world? Probably, he would establish himself as the strongman who could defeat all potential foes. He most certainly would build a wall to protect his collective from outside invaders who might compete for resources. And he would insist on preserving ethnic homogeneity within that collective. He would appeal to a tribal-like insecurity, without regard for the pluralist nature of a democratic collective.
➣ How would a shaman lead and protect in our current world? He/she would likely call upon the magical powers of transformative ideals to create a modern utopia. Inspiration would be the calling card for this shaman. His/her goal would be some form of transcendence or, in political terms, a change revolution.
➣ How would a leader who equates himself with god or with god-like powers lead? Well, he would be Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Fortunately, he would be laughed out of any democratic electoral campaign.
➣ But what might be the leadership style of a candidate whose political positions were presented as mandates from god? It is doubtful that past monarchs actually believed in the “divine right of kings”; but a modern equivalent, mimicking those monarchical forbears, would justify a campaign for elective office on the basis of religion. This candidate would quote divine texts and appeal to “god given rights” and the need for more religious practices within the electorate. Moreover, this candidate would campaign for specific religious practices, decry their apparent suppression, and use the American Constitution to justify these positions—ignoring the fact that it only secures the individual practice of religion and not its imposition on the rights of others.
➣ How would a leader claim the right to lead on the basis of infallibility? In the current political theater, infallibility is assumed by many candidates who feel free to misquote established documents, like the Constitution, or misrepresent facts, like historical events or scientific evidence. When rebuked, these candidates simply equivocate and justify positions as some version of the truth, thereby inserting their equivocations or lies into the political pundits’ discourse and gaining free media exposure. Self-promotion then trumps truthfulness.
➣ How would a feudal aristocrat campaign for office in a democracy? It would not be necessary for that aristocrat to espouse any relevant qualifications. Only status or class would be required. In the current political environment, celebrity status and membership in the political class would substitute. The modern day “aristocrat” need only establish the inevitability of election based upon his/her position in society. (Remember the movie “Being There” with Peter Sellers.)

Perhaps these analogies are a bit whimsical. But I offer them for your consideration when evaluating candidates during this campaign season. Separating the chaff from the kernel is the craft every citizen must learn. Without that craft, the political remnants of the past will infiltrate and corrupt the seeds of our democracy.