Blog

For centuries, Western civilization has relied on “colleges and universities” to create very important modes of social capital. Now, in the U.S., such institutions for forming elite social capital are under stress and are less and less trusted by the middle and lower social “orders” as able to provide “good value for money.”

Recently, I shared with you some comments by Professor John Adams.

Another colleague, Professor Robert Kennedy of the University of St. Thomas, sent me his reflections on what is happening to our institutions of higher education. You can read Bob’s insights here.

Our global culture seems more and more vulnerable to divisions and conflicting emotions and ideals. In the U.S., at least, social media is not contributing to cohesion. Populist nationalism is a global phenomena; conflict in Gaza and insurgency in Afghanistan reflect the passions of crowds.

Professor Doran Hunter, a member of our board and a contributor to our work on ethical principles for government, sent me a reflection on the dynamics of crowd psychology.

At times, I think that an externality of the service provided by social media platforms is the creation of new “crowds,” sometimes called social or political “bubbles.”

Here are Doran’s insights:

A political, religious, social or economic mass movement is led by a leader who mesmerizes and besots a segment of a national population.

Such mass movements exhibit the following characteristics:

1. Personal impulsiveness (sudden desire to believe what the leader is preaching); personal irritability (annoyed, impatient and angry with anyone who disagrees with the leader of the mass movement).
2. Incapacity to be reasonable (capable of making only extreme or excessive judgments and incapable of making sound and moderate judgments); being driven by passions that lend themselves to exaggeration – love, hate, disgust, fear, etc.
3. The unnerving presence of a “devil” that personifies everything the mass movement detests and embodies the reason for the movement to exist and seek victory at all costs.

Earlier this month, our fellows had their quarterly round table via Zoom to share insights into our moment in history. Again, they turned to issues of leadership and courage, in finding a way forward for the common good.

You may read the proceedings of their discussion here.

I recently received from Khun Kasit Piromya, a Thai colleague of ours and a former Foreign Minister of Thailand, a copy of a letter recently sent to the leaders of the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations insisting on a more determined engagement with the military junta in Myanmar. You may read the letter here.

A moment’s consideration will lead to the conclusion that the military commanders who have forcefully taken control of public authority in Myanmar are not following the ethics of moral government, as set forth in the Caux Round Table (CRT) Principles for Government.

The generals do not see themselves as trustees of a trust to serve all the people of Myanmar. They do not accept personal responsibility to serve the public as a worthy community, but rather would impose their own priorities on the people as subjects of a regime and not as citizens possessing rights.

However, in the history of humanity, getting those with power to live up to good ideals has not often been achieved. Conflict between rulers and the ruled has been too much the norm.

Roughly speaking, it has only been with the rise of middle classes and mass education that has permitted the emergence of more responsible governments, respecting the people and accepting constitutional norms. That social reality, which facilitated the rise of more fair and responsible governments in the modern era, was made possible by capitalism and its generation of the industrial and post-industrial economies.

Though reforming bad government is never easy, I believe we must always speak decency to power and set standards for those who hold political power. This is the course taken by the CRT to foster conditions in which moral capitalism may more fully be achieved within just political orders.

I have just learned that today – May 5^th, 2021 – is the 200^th anniversary of the death of Napoleon Bonaparte, for a while Emperor of France, in exile on the island of St. Helena.

It is said that history is written by the winners.  This is especially true about Napoleon.  He is well known and contributed much to modern France and Europe, but he left life as a prisoner.

But once he did, as Shakespeare said about Julius Caesar, “Bestride the narrow world like a Colossus.”

Once, I had occasion to read some of his writings.  I also, at the University Club of St. Paul, on a dusty bookshelf, stumbled upon several volumes of his biography written by Adolphe Thiers.  Thiers included many of Napoleon’s official communiques and memoranda.  His mastery of bureaucratic administration was impressive; his mind was attuned to both grand ideas and the minutia of getting things done with expeditious decisiveness.

To me, Napoleon took the scientific rationalism of the French Enlightenment and gave it sovereignty over a centralized bureaucracy, as professionalized by the Bourbon monarchy, to create a process for socially engineering society to conform its thoughts and beliefs with some normative “general will,” as had been recommended by the moral philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau.

This model of the state led by a master mind creating society has been the goal of socialists of all sorts ever since.

In Latin America, Spanish monarchical colonial governments were replaced by Napoleonic states by revolutionaries such as Simon Bolivar.  Since then, the political conflicts in all the countries once under Spanish rule have been rivalries between conservative elites who resist a powerful state and liberals or leftists who want to subordinate local and patriarchal hierarchies to regulation by the state on behalf of the common good.  We can see the Napoleonic state at work today in Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba.

To some extent, the Napoleonic state is found in all the social welfare states in the European Union.

Napoleon left a precedent of relevance to the Caux Round Table.  He invented the modern field army – with a commander in chief with staff sections reporting to him; three corps; three divisions to a corps; three regiments to a division; three battalions to a regiment; three companies to a battalion; three platoons to a company; and three squads to a platoon – all in one command and control hierarchy, from the commander on top, to all the soldiers at the bottom.

This formation of combat power and the strategies and tactics to enable it to win battles was taught to young American officers at West Point and used by the federal government in its Union armies mobilized and deployed to crush the Confederacy.  After the Civil War (1861-1865), many of these officers, trained in the Napoleonic way of running a large organization, brought the decision-making structure to the new railroad and other corporations then being created as the managers of these new forms of private enterprise.

Thus, Napoleon’s command and control hierarchy was brought to capitalism and has become the global norm for corporations – CEO centric and focused on “winning.”

His role in human history, therefore, should not be forgotten.

Nor have his aphorisms lost their relevance:

“Music is the voice that tells us that the human race is greater than it knows.”

“The best cure for the body is a quiet mind.”

“Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.”

“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”

“Ability is nothing without opportunity.  I had rather my generals be lucky than able.”

“Victory belongs to the most persevering.”

“I can no longer obey; I have tasted command and I cannot give it up.”

“The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos.  The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.”

“Imagination rules the world.”

“Great ambition is the passion of a great character.  Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts.  All depends on the principles which direct them.”

“You become strong by defying defeat and by turning loss and failure into success.”

“There are only two forces that unite men – fear and interest.”

“If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.”

“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking and go.”

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

“Until you spread your wings, you’ll have no idea how far you can fly.”

“A leader is a dealer in hope.”

“Riches do not consist in the possession of treasures, but in the use made of them.”

“The fool has one great advantage over a man of sense; he is always satisfied with himself.”