In our virtuous push for equality, we have inadvertently let a malignant spirit into our house.
Trump anomaly aside, our political leaders today appear to be nothing more than the sedimentary remains of endless attempts to filter out anyone who might offend to a voting public. A compromised ore mined from interested factions.
A developmental biologist could explain why weak men and aggressive women are less attractive. But we all instinctively know it’s true.
The link between authenticity and attractiveness interests me greatly. The abject lack of authenticity in the today’s leaders is, I believe, the primary reason so many are reaching for draconian powers, and the reason voters were so frustrated, they re-elected Trump. If we don’t solve this problem the next Trump could be worse.
We are instinctively attracted to authentic leaders, yet startlingly, in almost all western countries, we have democratic socialist party in power, in almost all cases led by political constructs who find excuses to use rank and rules. When I was a teenager in the 80’s watching ‘The Young Ones’ and listening to ‘The Clash’, I would have never imagined left wing governments would be ones introducing online censorship. But Historians would have told you that’s exactly what happens.
Once upon a time our leaders seized power in a long and bloodied struggle or were ejected from a royal birth canal, and then only to spend the next decade or so avoiding beheading. Today it seems leaders merely stumble into the role, but that seems unlikely given the frenzied manner our political systems eject corpses. It the type of fight that has changed. And that’s changed the outcome.
Along with the march towards diversity comes the frenzied dismantling of traditional power structures. The traditional processes of selecting leaders through relevant experience and abilities has become history. Equality, although a kindly meant sentiment, is sadly anything but kind in practical application. Special treatment during a competitive process used to return a consolation prize. Today many expect to take home a trophy for simply taking part.
It’s not simply a case of illegitimate outcomes, the entire process is defective. Those bestowing rewards are morally blackmailed into awarding preselected ‘winners’ via a completely abstract set of credentials, and in some cases, people who never wanted a reward in the first place. A tough competition, as much as anything, filters out those that share and desire a specific outcome.
Ironically, today's selection processes, driven from virtue signalling, are more of an internal competition to become the most fake. Fakeness is nothing new, at least to me. I grew up with a passive aggressive parent that almost never said what they really meant unless they were angry. Consequently, I needed to work thought the damage to protect my own marriage, I recognise the nuances and techniques.
I’m a Germaine Greer era feminist (if you believe me can be, some do not). I believe in equal rights between men and women, and I have never seen any patriarchal hierarchy repressing women in Australia with my own eyes. But I have certainly worked in environments dominated by men but for benign reasons. Women and men do their best work together. Opposites attract.
As I see it, in the absence of a natural propensity for aggression and the physical strength to back it up, women developed ways to orchestrate positive outcomes. The typical human resources department will be predominantly staffed by women. It makes sense given human resources uses inferred powers to attain organisational outcomes. Organisations that are spread out over vast geographical distances or possess significant headcounts operate via inferred power structures. What never changes is; the instinctively repulsive nature of surrendering to someone undeserving of respect.
I would suggest this is one reason so many people objected to the compulsory vaccinations and lock downs of the Covid pandemic. The instructions and the reasoning behind them emanated from bureaucrats with an abstracted relationship with the challenges of wider public. Bureaucrats respect bureaucracy, but few others do.
Likewise, it should come as no surprise that bureaucrats have terrible ideas when left to their own devices. It’s hard for people far from a problem to understand a problem. We’ve all heard the joke about giraffes being designed by a committee. It’s true bureaucrats have access to all the information, they have entire departments of advisers who generate endless reports. But without the actual connection, nobody is going to take the situation as seriously as someone in the eye of the storm.
Today, candidates for bureaucratic leadership will be selected by how benign they are. Anyone too confident or knowledgeable would be stuck off a list from fear of future mutiny.
In any sort of prolonged conflict, the preservation of your energy and your application of force is highly important. Business and politics are all about conflict. Anyone witnessing a child with a hammer would understand this why power needs to be earned, not found. Weak leaders must wield power via the enforcement of laws. Every decision they make requires a penalty and someone to carry it out. Weak leaders operate with an enormous overhead and as a result deliver fractional outcomes.
It’s ironic then, that Australians were upset with the re-election of Donald Trump. US voters knew what they were getting themselves into. Trump was clear about what he intended to do. We cannot say the same about our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
He has yet to deliver on any of his election promises. Trump wasn’t about to make the same mistake in his second term. He moved quickly to gut the federal bureaucracy and act on illegal immigration. I'm not suggesting Trump is by normal standards authentic, that would be a stretch, but his enthusiasm for capitalism and patriotism was more in line with how he lives. Whist in contrast, many high-profile Democrats, now openly describing themselves as ‘democratic socialists’ have just as many wealthy members. Eye of the needle indeed.
Anyone with financial control of an organisation understands the significant portion of any budget payroll is. Along with the expanding bureaucratic machine comes the need for increased revenue. Without increased revenue bureaucrats face the need to increase taxation or alternatively sovereign debt. The most recent Australian Federal Government budget hinted at an additional eight billion to cover a significant increase in headcount. They suggested it was all for front line workers, although the federal government does not typically employ front line workers. Front line federal services are delivered by partners in most cases.
I really wish Australian Schools taught that governments don't make money. Governments skim their income off businesses and taxpayers in surplus. A fiscally responsible business would only increase their headcount in conjunction with increased revenue. Not the Albanese government.
Regardless of your view on the state of Australia's economic health, it’s obvious the world is heading for less globalisation. With a redrawing of global trade, you’d expect the Australian government to cautious, especially after receiving a warning from not one, but two international credit agencies. When you lose your job, you don’t go and buy a new car.
Because Albanese isn’t influential, and because he hasn’t any good ideas, he’s embarking on building a bigger stronger government. But you can’t keep borrowing money forever.
