Is politics "public service?"

[charles brough]

I've noticed that all who are or have been in public office refer to it as "public service. The are not "politicians," either; they refer to themselves as "public servants." They seem to be implying that their motive is "altruism." In contrast, the public feeling is largely that they are "politicians" who mainly aim to get rich from special interests funding them.

 

I think it helps to sort out what is going on here by looking at human social nature. We evolved as group animals intuitively, innately or instinctively geared to function in them. In many mammal and most primate groups, for example, the males generally compete for dominance. We men also compete for dominance. We seek status. Public Office is an official badge of status that is often even higher than being head of a big corporation except, perhaps, within the corporation.

 

So men seek office in much the same way chimps will compete for the Alpha male role of the group. In nature, the role of alpha male is what forms and maintains the whole group. If the Alpha is not aggressive and assertive enough, the females will move to another group. They stay with a strong alpha male for the security. This means that it is his role that is the central focus of the whole group. It falls apart without him. And to provide that sense of security, he has to run it well and aggressively without compromise.

 

So, many men have an intense desire to gain power. Those who achieve it gain an intense emotional reward by sensing that power. To preserve that reward, the individual is motivated to do the best job of running things he can to keep his position. Thus, it is more accurate and revealing to refer to this trait as "the Alpha dominance responsibility trait" rather than "altruism." And since it is so rewarding, describing it as "public service' is a bit self serving.

 

Since he makes the group, the Alpha male is shaped to consider the group to be "his" in the sense he "owns" it. He is just "taking care" of what he considers to be "his." He has a unique ability to grasp the whole of his responsibility and take care of it---but only as long as he considers it to be his "group."

 

Unfortunately, there is really no clear group men feel ownership over in our society. The checks and balances of the system protect the minorities, and the number of minorities is immense---reflecting the divided nature of our society.

 

So the Alpha-politician feels he has power and authority but not not over what he feels is really his. This explains what tends to happen. He is sorely tempted to consider his family, friends and relatives as his "group" and regard "society", the nation, or his state as what he can troll though to better serve that family. That is, his conscience is not adequately able to handle the special interests and their generosity. It is not nice to label that "corruption," so the term is generally only used in reference to other governments.