This diary is an excerpt from a book I wrote. The subject is the effects of human nature on our shared lives, our national lives, our political lives.This subject is omitted from our education system. Evolution by natural selection is verboten in many public schools across America. Evolution was mentioned in my high school biology class by the teacher telling us that if we wanted to know about the subject we should read about four pages in the textbook. No other mention was made. But World History and American History are products of evolution by natural selection. The Framers were well aware of these facts and they went to the trouble to describe the characteristics of two kinds of human beings: TYRANNI who naturally work against the common good and DEMOCRATI who naturally work for it. The current debate about racism and the reason many people of the evil Confederacy were filled with so much hatred is evolution by natural selection. Our two-party system is a product of evolution by natural selection. We are engaged in a Darwinian struggle for survival and life itself is losing.
n 1787, some of our most important Founding Fathers convened in Philadelphia in search of ways to improve the Articles of Confederation. But in a very short time they decided instead to design, or frame, a new system of government for the new nation. George Washington was president of the convention, and James Madison played a major role—in fact, he is often called the “Father of the Constitution.” Late in the year, the Framers submitted the proposed new Constitution to the states for their consideration. At that time, three of the Framers—Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay—began to write a series of eighty-five essays designed to persuade the people of New York to approve the radical new government. The essays, called the Federalist, were somewhat influential at the time, and remain one of the most important sources for understanding what the Framers did and why they did it.
From my standpoint as a systems designer, the most important idea presented in the Federalist was that of faction—what it is, and how to control its harmful effects. James Madison gave us his definition of faction. He was precise. He did not want his readers to misunderstand:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.[1]
Factions, by Madison’s definition, are always bad things. Factions are made up of human beings, and they always work against the common good. Because any social organization reflects the nature of the humans who control it, the men who form factions are therefore naturally inclined to work against the common good. There is a more benign definition of faction that is in common use today. Many people seem to think of faction as simply a quarrelsome subset of a political party, sometimes irritating, other times worrisome, but rarely dangerous. That form of faction is like a wart on the back of one’s hand. But Madison’s form of faction is a cancerous tumor growing in one’s body which, if left unchecked, will kill its host.
By varying the definition of the terms, “passion, interests, rights, citizens, permanent, aggregate, and community” Madison’s definition of faction can take on different meanings. I will discuss the most important of these in the next chapter, but for now I will leave it to you to decide just what Madison meant by these terms. But no matter the definitions, it is true that factions work for policies that will produce harmful effects. According to Madison, the paramount aim of the constitutional system that he and the other Framers designed was to control the harmful effects of faction. They wanted to create a faction-free government. So should we all.
Madison told us the origin of factions, and how they pass their time:
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.[2]
Factions arise out of human nature. Some men join together in pursuit of goals that are harmful to the public good. Other men, also examples of human nature, work together in pursuit of the public good. Unfortunately, Madison’s centuries-old description of the effects of faction gives us strong evidence that the Framers were not able to create a system that would keep our government focused on the common good and thereby free of faction. His remarks accurately capture the political environment of our modern world. “Mutual animosity” perfectly describes the interactions between the Democratic and Republican parties of our era. And religion plays an important role in our political life. And who can disagree with Madison’s prediction that Democrats and Republicans would be “more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.” And, I, for one, am weary of hearing our politicians raise a furor over “frivolous and fanciful distinctions.” Because of the persistence of human nature, factions are alive and well in 21st century America—and so are the men who form them. These men can be found in any institution, and they can occupy positions of great power.
The Framers went to the trouble to describe the characteristics of these men. In Federalist 1, Hamilton said (emphasis added):
Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.[3]
In Federalist 10, Madison said (emphasis added):
Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.[4]
Later, near the end of his second term as President, George Washington published his Farewell Address, and said this about men who form and control factions (emphasis added):
They [factions] are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.[5]
I made a list of the definitions of the words I emphasized in the preceding quotations and found that the Framers had identified the characteristics of very dangerous men: [6]
- factious—“addicted to form parties or factions and raise dissensions”
- prejudice—“an unreasonable predilection, inclination, or objection”
- sinister—“evil or productive of evil”
- intrigue—“to cheat or trick”
- corruption—“impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle”
- betray—“to prove faithless or treacherous to”
- obsequious—“exhibiting a servile and sycophantic complaisance”
- demagogue—“a politician who seeks to gain personal or partisan advantage by specious or extravagant claims, promises or charges,”
- tyrant—“an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”
- cunning—“marked by wiles, craftiness, artfulness, or trickery in attaining ends, ability to mislead or trap,”
- ambitious—“eager for rank, fame or power—pretentious, showy,”
- unprincipled—“a lack of moral principles—conscienceless,”
- subvert—“to bring to nothing, destroy, or greatly impair the existence, sovereignty, influence, wholeness of, especially by insidious undermining”
The Framers were describing men who were troublemakers, who were inclined to do evil, who were not trustworthy. They would lie to get what they wanted, and they were without personal integrity. They were cunning, they would lay traps for the unwary, and they had no conscience.
Two Varieties of Men
Throughout my working life (as a designer of large-scale computer systems for large enterprises), I studied the systems of large organizations to see if improvements could be made. In the course of those efforts I spent time working with people throughout the enterprise. As one might expect, different employees of the enterprise at all levels reacted in different ways to change. Over the years I began to recognize that these reactions divided into two opposite groupings. I saw it from coast to coast, in different types of enterprises, over decades, and across generations—I worked closely with people whose birthdays ranged from about 1910 into the early 1970’s. They were of different colors, religions, genders, national origins, sexual orientations, and political persuasions. They were overpaid and underpaid, on the way up, on the way down, and on the way to nowhere. The enterprises were also at different points in their evolution. In all these situations human behavior was consistent—it divided into two groups, two sets of identifying characteristics. I learned that when a person displayed one kind of behavior it was very likely that he would exhibit an entire set of related behavioral characteristics.
Essentially there were two varieties of human beings, one that naturally worked for the common good and one that naturally worked against it. In order to be more effective at my job, I learned that each of the two groups had to be treated differently. The group that worked for the common good was easy to work with, the other group, the one that worked against the common good, was much more difficult.
I did not know what name to give these two different varieties of men. Were they Democrats or Republicans? I think many members of each party would have described the other party as a group that was doing the work of the devil, while they described themselves as being of noble character. In fact, they seemed to do it every single day, loudly and bitterly. Were these men Conservatives or Liberals? Were they Libertarians or Independents? Perhaps they were Dixiecrats or Progressives? The answer was maybe yes, maybe no. Both varieties of men could be members of a given human organization. But when an institution was controlled by those men who work against the common good, then trouble would ensue. I observed that many of our national institutions were controlled by men who seemed to be “in it to win it,” no matter whom they hurt. In order to talk about these problems, I wanted to drop the super-sensitive, ill-defined, emotional, reason-defying, provocative terms such as Right, Left, Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Independent, Conservative, Progressive, Neoconservative, Neoliberal, Liberal, Libertarian, Tea Party, and all the rest. So I invented my own terminology.
Whence these men?
I wondered where these men came from. Were they born different? Were they trained by their parents, our schools, or our churches? Was nature or nurture to blame? I can’t conclusively answer these questions, of course, but I think these men are products of nature and nurture working together and there is a name for that process. It is called evolution—evolution by natural selection to be precise—Charles Darwin’s theory. The good news is that Darwin’s process of natural selection produces both varieties of these men—those who naturally work against the common good and those who naturally work for it. In his 1859 masterpiece, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin’s explanation of natural selection was the breakthrough that made it clear how one life form could descend from another. Scientists and some religionists immediately recognized the importance of Darwin’s idea and they went to work.
Some religionists set out to disprove it and the scientists wanted to see if it was true or false. Both sides worked hard. The religionists, following the theocratic method, searched their souls and the Bible for evidence that evolution was wrong. They found none then and they have found none since. The scientists, following the scientific method, used their intellects and searched the planet for evidence that would prove or disprove Darwin’s theory. They found evidence everywhere that it was true, and they found no evidence anywhere that it was false. The scientific search for evidence continues to this day and much more proof of Darwin’s idea has been found—and nothing has been found that would disprove it. Both sides claimed victory, one evidence-based, the other faith-based (believing something for which there is no evidence), and they still do today. Evolution by natural selection stands as the most vilified and most verified scientific idea in Creation.
Characteristics of Evolution by Natural Selection
- The process is mindless, purposeless, relentless, merciless and amoral—it gives no second chances—once our life form is lost, it will never re-evolve.
- Life forms, such as Homo sapiens, produce many offspring.
- Some offspring may receive genetic material that can cause them to vary from their parents.
- Without such variant genetic material there would be no evolution.
- The offspring with variant genetic material constitute new varieties of their parents. A single life form can have more than one variety living at the same time.
- The varieties are exposed to the environment, and the process of natural selection begins.
- Their variant genetic material may give the new varieties an advantage in their struggle for survival—or not.
- Even though varieties share the same parent life form, they will struggle with each other for survival.
- The successful varieties will reproduce and pass their genetic variations to their offspring—for them, natural selection will have worked in their favor.
- Over time new life forms may evolve, and the process renews.
Humankind followed this process exactly. We started as varieties of our ancestors and our ancestors were once varieties of their ancestors and so it went—and so it still goes. Evolution by natural selection has produced two living varieties of our life form, Homo sapiens, the wise man. They are: Varietas Democratica, the democrato variety, and Varietas Tyrannica, the tyranno variety. I know I am violating the current rules of taxonomy, but I have, in my mind at least, two reasons.
The first is that even though I cannot find a modern example of “varieties” of Homo sapiens, Charles Darwin nevertheless discussed “variation, variety, and varieties”[7] in great detail in the first few chapters of his Origin, so I decided to use “variety” here to provide some consistency for readers who are familiar with Darwin’s writings, or who may want to do further reading of his books.
The second reason that I am violating the rules of taxonomy by identifying two varieties of our species is that my varieties are based on behavior. Scientists, when they identify new members of the human family, are limited in the degree to which they can consider behavior as a defining characteristic. The archeological record does not give much evidence of behavior. Certainly it does not give us much evidence with respect to the social interplay that might have occurred many thousands of years ago when a tribe of our ancestors was deciding who would lead, or which course of action the tribe should take in response to threats or opportunities. The decisions reached could well have depended on the specific human nature of whomever was in charge at a critical moment. My varieties are identified by their behavior, so I felt free to introduce varieties to the human family tree because we are now able to analyze human behavior and its relationship to the progress of our species. It is indisputable that behavior can determine the success of a life form, and the behaviors of the varieties I define below, and their access to power, can determine the future of our species.
So my “illegal” modifications to current taxonomy would produce the following for my two varieties: Homo sapiens variety democratica and Homo sapiens variety tyrannica. But we need shorter terms so I start with Varietas Democratica and Varietas Tyrannica. I will frequently shorten these terms to V. Democratica and V. Tyrannica hereafter. In addition I will use democrati and tyranni to refer to all members of V. Democratica and V. Tyrannica respectively. Democratus and tyrannus refer to a single individual belonging to V. Democratica or V. Tyrannica respectively. I am a democratus and you are a democratus, and together we are democrati belonging to V. Democratica. Similar terms would be used if we were tyranni.
I will also use adjectival prefixes such as democrato-Christianity and tyranno-Christianity to show that I am speaking about a particular variety of the institution of Christianity. Almost any institution can have two varieties, tyranno and democrato, and they can be very different—so different that it can be hard to believe they are both part of the same institution. For example, there is a very great difference between democrato-Christianity and tyranno-Christianity. The only reasons to connect them are that both use the same name and they are both supposedly based on the Christian Bible. Beyond these connections, they are very, very different. In fact, the world would be a much, much better place if tyranno-Christianity could be converted to democrato-Christianity.
Many people think that there is essentially one human nature. The idea is that all of us, in the face of sufficient circumstances, will react with murder or heroism. But I assert that there are two basic human natures, and they will produce different reactions to a given set of circumstances—not all of us are potential murderers, not all of us are potential self-sacrificing heroes. The varieties I see have nothing to do with race or any other outwardly visible characteristic. Some people will do one thing; others will do something else no matter their gender, color, intelligence quotient, sexual orientation, height, weight, girth, smile, hair, athletic ability, strength, or any other outwardly measurable physical aspect—our nature, our brain, controls our conduct, and our conduct controls our world. That is why there appears to be a fundamental split in our species. Key elements of our lives occur in opposing pairs: good and evil, fairness and unfairness, love and hate, inclusion and exclusion, nonviolence and violence, peace and war, liberty and tyranny. These opposites are characteristics of V. Democratica and V. Tyrannica, respectively. You can tell the two varieties apart by the way they treat other people, not by how they look. In short, you are what you do—to others.
Characteristics of Varietas Tyrannica
(These characteristics should not be applied to humans under age 26.)
- Tyranni are willing to use force and deception to make others live their lives the way they, the tyranni, want. They will impose their views on others. Tyranni are willing to ignore, or even break, the law.
- In the most extreme form, tyranni think they have an almost divine right to rule. They possess certainty based on some internal feeling, or instinct, that only they have access to. Tyranni expect you to defer to them in all things—they are often extremely intolerant. They feel superior to other people and some even require adulation.
- The most extreme tyranni will aggressively seek power over others wherever they can find it; some are dictators and some others are common criminals. They are prone to anger and violence.
- Tyranni often have little or no regard for the harm they cause others to suffer, and in the extreme form some tyranni are willing to take the lives of others. This taking can be of many forms: murder, blackmail, extortion, economic exploitation, bribery, assault, torture, rape, decapitation, robbery, fraud, spousal abuse, child molestation, wars of aggression, lynching, slavery, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, shootings, bombings, stabbings, immolation, corruption of office, denial of civil rights, denial of equal protection under the law, denial of access to health care, denial of an education, economic inequality, and more.
- Tyranni want to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves but they are not so sure about you. They may be willing to let you have them if it suits their purposes, otherwise they may dictate how you should live your life.
- If the liberties and rights of “tyranni-out-of-power” are under threat by “tyranni-in-power,” the “tyranni-outs” will join with democrati in the struggle against the “tyranni-ins.” But when the “tyranni-outs” win and become “tyranni-ins” their democrato comrades-in-arms become expendable suckers.
- Tyranni qualify their acceptance of the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. Tyranni believe that some men are created unequal, and that civil rights are not for everyone—certain groups are to be excluded.
- Tyranni will say “Live and let live,” but mean it only when it is self-serving.
- If tyranni govern then our lives will be marked by evil, unfairness, hate, exclusion, violence, war, and tyranny.
Characteristics of Varietas Democratica
(These characteristics should not be applied to humans under age 26.)
- They are willing to let, or help, others live their lives the way they want.
- Democrati tend to listen to the views of others and are often reluctant to advance their own views. Democrati are typically law-abiding.
- Some democrati will just leave others alone and they want to be left alone in return.
- Democrati are reluctant to use force or deception.
- Democrati do not seek power over others, but like the Minutemen patriots of the First Revolutionary War, democrati are ready to do their civic duty when called.
- Other democrati will dedicate their lives to helping others live their lives the way they please. Nurses, doctors, scientists, and teachers fall into this category.
- Still others will risk or even give their lives in order to save the lives of others. These heroic people are firemen, policemen, soldiers, medical first responders and more.
- Democrati want you to have the liberty to live your life and pursue your happiness the way you want. Democrati tend to be too tolerant.
- Democrati accept without reservation the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. They believe that all men are created equal and that civil rights are for everyone—all groups are to be included.
- Democrati will say “Live and let live,” and mean it.
- If democrati govern then our lives will be marked by good, fairness, love, inclusion, nonviolence, peace, and liberty.
The debate between nature and nurture is old and contentious. But for my purposes here it is immaterial. My varieties apply to fully developed adults: people who have been shaped into fully formed human beings—people who have experiences in the real world and who have demonstrated to the world how they treat others. Consistent patterns of behavior reveal the evolved nature of human beings: tyranni or democrati. In this book it is of little importance whether any behavior is due to nature or nurture, or, and this is obviously more likely, the interaction between the two forces (which is evolution by natural selection). A fully formed adult settles into patterns of behavior and they largely remain consistent throughout his life. The adult human has behavioral tendencies that identify his variety, and his behavioral tendencies become clearer as his power (or his desperation) increases. This does not mean that his behavior is predetermined. Experience does play a role. It is true that one very often cannot control how one feels, one cannot control one’s inherent inclinations toward a certain action in a particular situation, but one can control what one actually does about these feelings and inclinations. When one acts against one’s feelings and inclinations one is exercising free will.
So these definitions of the two varieties of humankind are valid whether or not one believes in nature or nurture or free will. It is important, and almost unavoidable, to try to understand why one person treats another person in a certain way; there are many theories on this question. But my idea is that our behavior toward each other, no matter its cause(s), reveals our variety. You are what you do—to others.
Tyranni and Democrati—Fact or Metaphor?
In the second chapter of Origin, “Variation under Nature,” Charles Darwin attempted to separate individual differences, varieties, and species. He was trying mightily to establish some rule by which a group of individuals that differs from another group of individuals—yet both groups are clearly closely related—can be properly classified as a variety of a species or another distinct species. He failed to find the rule. My own reading, while by no means exhaustive or even broad, has failed to find the rule elsewhere. Darwin ended his discussion with this comment:
Hence in determining whether a [life] form should be ranked as a species or a variety, the opinion of naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience seems to be the only guide to follow. … That varieties of this doubtful nature are far from uncommon cannot be disputed.[8]
I am not a naturalist and I offer no scientific evidence for the existence of tyranni and democrati. I nevertheless assert that I have seen them and read about them and I know many of both types—and I am related by blood and marriage to some of each variety, including three extreme tyranni. I think both varieties, in all degrees, exist in all so-called “races,” cultures, genders, nations, sexual orientations, and in all times—wherever and whenever we find H. sapiens, we find these varieties. My only evidence, decidedly unscientific, is that others have noticed these varieties as well, and that history has revealed many of them to our view.
I am convinced that these varieties exist, but if you do not share my conviction then perhaps the rest of this book would be more palatable if you consider that I am speaking metaphorically rather than scientifically and I simply don’t know the difference, and I will continue to speak as if I know tyranni and democrati both exist. So I continue—others have noticed different varieties of men.
A Man’s Gotta Do What a Man’s Gotta Do
Lord Acton recognized the existence of tyranni, but he did not agree with me about their origin. We have heard Lord Acton’s famous statement, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always evil men.”[9] The first part of Acton’s statement sounds right, but it is wrong. Power reveals the evolved nature of those who hold it. Power does not corrupt the incorruptible, and there are many of these, but it does enable the already corruptible to indulge their nature. There are many examples of people who have held great power and who were not corrupted by it. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Franklin Roosevelt are but a few examples of a natural incorruptibility.
But the second part of Acton’s statement has more validity. Throughout human history “great” men have often been tyrants. As Lord Acton implies, “great” does not always mean “good.” These men were already tyrants before they gained absolute power. They were tyranni first, and being true to their natures, they sought power—they were not democrati who were changed by the power they gained. So Lord Acton is right in his general statement that “great men are almost always evil men,” but the reason is that they are “almost always” tyranni. Power attracts tyranni absolutely.
John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun
In 1820, John Quincy Adams described V. Tyrannica when he noted the characteristics of the southern slavers. Adams was Secretary of State under President James Monroe when he was called to a meeting in Monroe’s office to consult on the admission of Maine as a free state and on the Missouri Enabling Act. Adams recommended that Monroe approve both, even though he, Adams, was against slavery and Missouri was likely to be admitted as a slave state. He thought that the Constitution prevented the government from abolishing slavery. After the meeting, Secretary Adams continued the conversation about slavery with Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of South Carolina as they walked back to their offices. Afterwards, Adams made some entries in his diary which explain the differences between tyranni and democrati very well:[10]
The discussion of this Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls. In the abstract they [the defenders of slavery] admit that slavery is an evil, they disclaim all participation in the introduction of it, and cast it all upon the shoulders of our old Grandam Britain. But when probed to the quick upon it, they show at the bottom of their souls pride and vainglory in their condition of masterdom. They fancy themselves more generous and noble hearted than the plain freemen who labor for subsistence. They look down upon the simplicity of a Yankee’s manners, because he has no habits of overbearing like theirs and cannot treat Negroes like dogs.
It is among the evils of slavery that it taints the very sources of moral principle. It establishes false estimates of virtue and vice; for what can be more false and heartless than this doctrine which makes the first and holiest rights of humanity to depend upon the color of the skin? It perverts human reason, and reduces man endowed with logical powers to maintain that slavery is sanctioned by the Christian religion, that slaves are happy and contented in their condition, that between master and slave there are ties of mutual attachment and affection, that the virtues of the master are refined and exalted by the degradation of the slave; while at the same time they vent execrations upon the slave trade, curse Britain for having given them slaves, burn at the stake Negroes convicted of crimes for the terror of the example, and writhe in agonies of fear at the very mention of human rights as applicable to men of color.
Adams was no fool. He was the son of two important Founders, he was raised to understand America’s founding principles, and he was Secretary of State who would soon become President. After he finished his presidential duties he served as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts. He was not an extremist; he was speaking plainly and his words represented very well the position of many American democrati of the time. His words found the most important point. He realized that the men who could “treat Negroes like dogs,” and who “burn at the stake Negroes convicted of crimes for the terror of the example,” performed those horrible, shameful acts because it was in them, in their souls, in their very beings—it was natural. Such men are tyranni. They are products of evolution by natural selection.
I do have one slight disagreement with Adams’s words. He said that slavery “taints the very sources of moral principle,” it “establishes false estimates of virtue and vice,” and it “perverts human reason.” He speaks as if slavery is not a creation of men but that it is created by nature and in turn corrupts men. But the opposite is true; slavery is created and supported by certain men who hold moral principles that other men regard as tainted, who hold views of virtue and vice that others reject, and who follow a kind of reason that other men think is perverse. The tyrannus who wields the whip means to do it—and he thinks, no, he “knows,” that he is right to do it. I know, it sounds overwrought, but that is the way things work. We are who we are. V. Tyrannica perform irrational, tyrannical acts.
The more extreme tyranni are willing to use force to get their way. Such tyranni are ruthless, and very aggressive. They seek power over others wherever they can find it. This meant that every leadership position in government, North and South, was an eligible target for tyranni, but in the South the leadership requirements were so ghastly that democrati did not qualify, or at least did not have the will to “treat Negroes like dogs.” So once a culture of official violence developed, new tyranno-leaders who condoned that violence were more likely to win and keep power than those who preferred a softer, kinder approach. By 1820, the tyranno-governments of the solid, stolid, squalid, sullen, sordid, surly, sorry, slaveholding southern states were rotten, and America was not beautiful.
John C. Calhoun was a tyrannus; John Quincy Adams was a democratus. No matter how long or how hard they tried they would never understand each other. In order for them to share a common view of the world, and to consistently take similar paths in similar situations, one or the other would have to change, or perform repeated acts of self-control in which he acted against his own nature. So it is no wonder that Calhoun and Adams ultimately became spokesmen on opposite sides of the question of slavery. Adams got it exactly right—certain men could beat, burn, and breed blacks in order to finance their own way of life, but other men couldn’t. The tools of tyranny, terror, and torture are naturally agreeable to some and naturally abhorrent to others. Evolution by natural selection is always on the job.
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Science has noticed Varietas Tyrannica. One group that has noticed them is the American Psychiatric Association (APA). They analyze human behavior on an individual basis, to determine if a person has a personality disorder. They have designed diagnostic criteria, based primarily on observable behavior, as an aid in identifying people who need help. The APA says:
Personality Disorders may be diagnosed when such traits reflect persistent patterns of self- or other- perception and behavior, are inflexible and maladaptive, cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress, and are markedly abnormal for the person’s culture. Personality Disorders are recognizable by adolescence or early adulthood, although some should not be diagnosed until the patient is an adult. The disorders continue through most or all of adult life. The traits that define the disorder are often ego-syntonic and may not be apparent to the patient as ‘symptoms.’ They sometimes become troublesome to him or her only after a significant life change.[11]
An example of APA diagnostic criteria follows:
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR ANTISOCIAL
PERSONALITY DISORDER (301.7)[12]
- There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three or more of the following:
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for profit or pleasure
- impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
- reckless disregard for safety of self and others
- consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
- lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
- Current age is at least 18 years.
- There is evidence of DSM-IV Conduct Disorder (see p. 85 [sic]) with onset before age 15.
- The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
“Antisocial” means more than just preferring to sit by oneself at parties. It means: “hostile to the well-being of society.”[13] Such a person, if elected to office or to the head of a political party or a religion, would not act in the interests of the people. The Framers of our Constitution wrestled with this very question and designed the famous system of checks and balances in an effort to control such abuse of power in our three branches of government.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
There is another personality disorder that has some of the same characteristics as Varietas Tyrannica. I found the following information in the Home Edition of a popular physician’s handbook in the “Mental Health Disorders, Personality Disorders” section:
People with a Narcissistic Personality have a sense of superiority and an exaggerated belief in their own value or importance, which is what psychiatrists call ‘grandiosity.’ People with this personality type may be extremely sensitive to failure, defeat, or criticism and, when confronted by a failure to fulfill their high opinion of themselves, can easily become enraged or severely depressed. Because they believe themselves to be superior in their relationships with other people, they expect to be admired and often suspect that others envy them. They feel they’re entitled to have their needs attended to without waiting, so they exploit others, whose needs or beliefs are deemed to be less important. Their behavior is usually offensive to others, who view them as being self-centered, arrogant, or selfish.[14]
Many of our national leaders display their belief in their own superiority, and they can be fairly described as “self-centered, arrogant, or selfish.” In fact our national government is so dysfunctional that the entire group of politicians can be described in those terms. In my lexicon “politicians” are different from “public servants.” Politicians accrete power and excrete corruption, public servants don’t.
The Most Extreme Form of Varietas Tyrannica
In her book The Sociopath Next Door, psychologist and author Martha Stout describes in the course of more than two hundred pages the characteristics and dangers of V. Tyrannica in the most extreme form; she calls them “sociopaths.” She says (emphasis in the original):
About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience. It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior. The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us. Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all.[15]
To establish the defining elements of sociopathy, Stout begins with the APA’s definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder that we discussed above. Then she adds characteristics, with special emphasis on the absence of a conscience. Her book is dedicated to a review of her experiences with sociopaths in the course of her career as a psychologist. It is fascinating reading, and you may see descriptions of people who sound familiar to you. She warns us, much like the others I have mentioned in this chapter, about the dangers posed by these individuals.
If her estimate of one person in twenty-five is correct, then our nation has twelve million sociopaths out of our approximate population of three hundred million. This means that if you are acquainted with two hundred people, you may therefore be acquainted with eight sociopaths among them. There may be one sociopath in your child’s class at school. The United States Senate may contain four sociopaths, and the House of Representatives could have as many as seventeen sociopaths at work, and among the presidents and vice-presidents we have had so far, two at least could have been sociopathic. And sociopaths can, and do, follow other occupations. I don’t know how many Supreme Court Justices our nation has had, but certainly some of them, statistically speaking, were (are?) sociopaths. It is possible that twenty of the chief executives of the Fortune 500 companies could be sociopaths, or perhaps one or two members of each National Football League team. Perhaps 3,000 ministers of the 75,000 Baptist churches in America could be sociopathic, and the sixteen million members of the Southern Baptist Convention could include 640,000 sociopaths. With a population of 23.5 million people, Texas could be home to 940,000 sociopaths, many of them armed. This extreme form of V. Tyrannica can be found anywhere in our country, or in the world for that matter.
It is my assertion, and I apply this idea throughout this book, that sociopaths, given comparable talents to start with, have a competitive advantage over non-sociopaths in many fields, but especially in government, religion, education, economics, and business—our major ideological fields. If I am correct, then it is easy to see that our major institutions in these fields can be in the control of this most extreme form of V. Tyrannica.
So Stout gives us her estimate of the number of sociopaths in a given population. But this estimate pertains only to the most extreme form of V. Tyrannica. Other forms, while less dangerous, are still able to cause great trouble for society. I don’t know how many of our three hundred million citizens are V. Tyrannica or V. Democratica, but I do think that democrati outnumber tyranni. If this were not so our nation and civilization itself would not have made the social progress it has. Tyranni have historically opposed advances in civil rights while democrati seek equal civil rights for all. Our history as a nation is plain, democrati have always fought for liberty for all, and democrati have been winning—but we are a long way from total victory. In fact, the tide may be turning. Tyranno-policies in banking, energy, health insurance, health care, pollution, investing, trade, and taxation have dominated our government for decades now. While democrati have focused on civil liberties, tyranni have focused on political power and the almighty dollar.
Golden Rule of Reciprocity = Declaration of Independence
Sometime shortly after World War II my father told me, for the first of many times, that the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than an elaborate, more recent expression of the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. Since that day his idea has always been in my mind and ultimately led to my idea that H. sapiens consists of two varieties of human beings: V. Tyrannica and V. Democratica. To me the essential difference between these two varieties is how they honor the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. The most important measure of this is how one respects the rights of others—whether one believes in liberty or not. You are what you do—to others.
The differences between the varieties I have named can easily be seen by taking a look at the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, as they might apply in different circumstances. Starting with the Declaration I will modify a key sentence by adding some clauses of specific exceptions. Please pay attention to your own reactions as you read the following. You may be surprised. But no matter how you react, it should be clear that there is a wide range of reactions among Americans today. These different reactions account for many of the problems we have and they reflect fundamental human variety of two types. Let us vary the words of Thomas Jefferson, as approved by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the rest of the Continental Congress:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”[16]—unless they are gay,
- … unless they are female,
- … unless they use birth control,
- … unless they are poor,
- … unless they are atheists,
- … unless they accept evolution,
- … unless they disagree with the president,
- … unless they support stem cell research,
- … unless they are against school prayer,
- … unless they want a mixed-race marriage,
- … unless their religion is different from ours,
- … unless they support the separation of church and state,
- … unless they are not white,
- … unless they favor gun control laws,
- … unless they don’t work as hard as we do,
- … unless we hate them.
Most democrato-Americans would reject these modifications. Many tyranno-Americans would accept them. It is important to note that in spite of the Founding Fathers’ inclusive words many groups of Americans were nevertheless excluded at the time they were written. The most deprived were the slaves who had been kidnapped and brought to America against their will. But since that horrible time, America has, at great cost in blood and treasure, become more, but not perfectly, inclusive. So I think that it is fair to say that Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would not include these modifications if they were writing the Declaration of Independence today. What would you do?
The Declaration’s famous words harmonize with the words of Jesus who claimed the Golden Rule of Reciprocity as one of his principal rules of self-governance that we all should follow. Let us vary the words of Jesus as they are expressed in the Christian Bible:
“You are to love your neighbor as yourself”[17]—unless he is gay,
- … unless your neighbor is female,
- … unless he uses birth control,
- … unless he is poor,
- … unless he is an atheist,
- … unless he accepts evolution,
- … unless he disagrees with the president,
- … unless he supports stem cell research,
- … unless he is against school prayer,
- … unless he wants a mixed-race marriage,
- … unless his religion is different from yours,
- … unless he supports the separation of church and state,
- … unless he is not white,
- … unless he favors gun control laws,
- … unless he doesn’t work as hard as you do,
- … unless you hate him.
Most democrato-Christians would reject these modifications of Jesus’s commandment. Many tyranno-Christians would accept them. It is impossible for me to imagine that Jesus would make these modifications to his Golden Rule. There are two varieties of the Golden Rule of Reciprocity at work today in America:
The Democrato-Golden Rule of Reciprocity
You are to love your neighbors as yourself, and to do this you must protect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
The Tyranno-Golden Rule of Reciprocity
You are to love your neighbors as yourself, and to do this you must persuade, or require, them to live their lives the way you want.
Democrato-Christians are able to accept the Democrato-Golden Rule, while tyranno-Christians are not. The latter prefer and follow the Tyranno-Golden Rule. The Democrato-Golden Rule is consistent with the democrato-Constitution which guarantees freedom of worship as one of our civil rights. One of the hallmarks of V. Tyrannica is that civil rights are not for everyone.
You see the problem. Our interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule of Reciprocity is shaped by our internal values system, our internal nature. Both have to be interpreted in two ways, “get and give,” and they both require intellectual effort, otherwise known as self-control, to follow. The first interpretation is “What do I get?” You get freedom and love. You are well treated and you can pursue your life and your happiness as you wish. The second interpretation is “What must I give?” This is the hard part. You must decide what to do when conflict arises. What must each party do in order for both parties to be satisfied? Many people are willing to compromise and to accept decisions by a fair third party. But not all people are that way. They want it all for themselves. They are for tyranny and the others are for liberty. Thus we have V. Tyrannica and V. Democratica—the two varieties of humankind. “Live and let live,” is very difficult for tyranni to accept, but “live and let live” is an essential element of the American Way.
President Jimmy Carter and Christian Fundamentalists
Former president Jimmy Carter encountered tyranni in his religion. He noticed over a period of many years that the organization governing his Baptist religion had changed and become more and more dogmatic. (It is astonishing that a religion actually needs a governing body to tell it how to worship God.) The following text quotes Carter’s description of the kind of men who caused trouble. In fact, they caused so much trouble that he and Mrs. Carter withdrew their support from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000. In any case, here is Carter’s description of fundamentalists.
I soon learned that there was a more intense form of fundamentalism, with some prevailing characteristics:
- Almost invariably, fundamentalist movements are led by authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others, and within religious groups, have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women and to dominate their fellow believers.
- Although fundamentalists usually believe that the past is better than the present, they retain certain self-beneficial aspects of both their historic religious beliefs and of the modern world.
- Fundamentalists draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.
- Fundamentalists are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs. They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda.
- Fundamentalists tend to make their self-definition increasingly narrow and restricted, to isolate themselves, to demagogue emotional issues, and to view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.
To summarize, there are three words that characterize this brand of fundamentalism: rigidity, domination, and exclusion. [18]
Men like those Carter describes can be found throughout our institutions, many of them in positions of great power. George Washington used three words to warn us about certain men: “cunning, ambitious, unprincipled.” Jimmy Carter used three words as well: “rigidity, domination, exclusion.” Put them all together and what have you got? Varietas Tyrannica.
Genocide and Varietas Tyrannica
Genocide is a cultural phenomenon, but it springs from the psychology of certain human beings. One man has devoted his professional life to the study of both. I. W. Charny is a practicing clinical psychologist, a professor of psychology and family therapy at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, executive director of the Institute on Genocide and the Holocaust in Jerusalem, and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.[19] In the first paragraph of the introduction to his book, Fascism & Democracy in the Human Mind, A Bridge between Mind and Society, Charny writes:
Many years ago I decided in my role as a psychologist and psychotherapist that I would try to contribute my understanding of how our human mind works to the vital study of the Holocaust and genocide; that is, to see what psychology can contribute to our understanding of how every-day, ostensibly ordinary human beings can turn into the rotten destroyers that many of us have become.
Charny has identified two general types of human minds. He likens their development to computer software in which we are given a certain version of mind software at birth and our life experiences act upon that original software and shape it into one of the two types of minds. Charny also asserts that psychotherapy can convert one type of human mind to another. His two types of human minds are: Fascist Mind and Democratic Mind. Charny uses these capitalized words throughout his book to identify the basic types. On page 81 of his book, he provides a table that briefly summarizes the contrasting characteristics that identify each type. He is at pains to make his readers understand that any human being may well have some characteristics of each type. I assert that you will see many similarities between the characteristics of Fascist Mind and the characteristics of Varietas Tyrannica as well as many similarities between the characteristics of Democratic Mind and Varietas Democratica.
Charny devotes the bulk of his book to analyzing the details contained in these characteristics. They are at the heart of how and why human beings act as they do, and why tyranny, with its many horrors, is so prevalent throughout human history. Here is Charny’s table: [20]
Element removed
Tyranni in Culture
Varietas Tyrannica have been in control of most of our institutions for a very long time, and they are expert at manipulating society. Lawrence E. Harrison draws our attention to social behavior at a cultural level. In one of his books, The Central Liberal Truth, Harrison includes a table that has many parts. The table is essentially a contrast between the characteristics of a “Progress-Prone Culture” and a “Progress-Resistant Culture.” I have borrowed descriptions of six key factors of social behavior from Harrison’s table whereby he shows how they operate in a Progress-Prone or Progress-Resistant culture: [21]
Element removed
Harrison’s table aims to apply across cultures in many lands, most of which are much smaller than ours. For example his factor “Church-State relations” is very difficult to characterize for us. Depending on the part of the country you live in, or depending on the religion of key government officials, you could find yourself living in a secular area or living in one in which “religion plays a major role in civic sphere.” Witness school boards all over the country that try to substitute creationism for evolution in the classroom, and recall the spate of state constitution amendments in the last several years that forbid same-sex marriage; some even forbid civil unions. I think it is fair to say that Church-State relations today fall into the area of Progress-Resistant Culture. I will provide more information on this topic in a later chapter.
In the “Rule of law, corruption” factor there is strong evidence that America is currently a Progress-Resistant Culture. Money matters very much, especially in deciding which candidate or party wins our elections, in setting national priorities, and in deciding who, if anyone, pays for the services of our government. Connections definitely matter. In our national government cronyism has been extreme for the past few years. Corruption is not just about money it also includes; “impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle.” There is convincing evidence that the integrity of our national government has been impaired in the extreme. Our irrational and aggressive invasion of Iraq has damaged our international standing and the adoption of torture as a national policy for use when interrogating prisoners has certainly impaired our virtue and our moral principles.
In the “Family” factor we can be classified as Progress-Resistant or Progress-Prone. It depends on where you live. In Texas, where I live, the family is definitely a “fortress against the broader society.” This is especially true in the rural areas of my state, and I think it applies throughout the Bible Belt. “Family,” and “family values” have become rallying cries for politicians of a regressive kind—Rick Santorum, recent Republican presidential candidate, is a good example of this attitude.
In the “Authority” factor, we are definitely Progress-Resistant. At the national level the Congress and the president cannot get along even when they are of the same party. President George W. Bush, a tyrannus, set new highs, or should I say, lows, in claiming new presidential powers. He would sign legislation, but added statements that often said that he was not bound by the legislation he just signed. Our national government is definitely “centralized, unfettered, often arbitrary.” One man takes more and more of our government’s power—Bush even reminded the nation of that fact when he publicly called himself “the Decider.”
In the “Role of Elites” factor we again are Progress-Resistant. Our nation has become solidly divided into two Americas: the elitist, wealthy ruling class and everyone else. There is no doubt that the ruling class is not “responsible to society,” but rather is “power and rent-seeking; exploitative.”
The most emphatic factor that shows we are a Progress-Resistant culture is “Gender Relationships.” Harrison blinks, in my opinion, when he says that a Progress-Prone culture does not actually have to have gender equality if gender equality is “at least not inconsistent with value system.” Again this depends on which religion you belong to, but a huge part of our population belongs to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Southern Baptist Convention, both of which treat women, if not as inferior, then at least as subordinate to men. Our national government is, and always has been, almost entirely in the hands of white, Christian, heterosexual males over age 50. So not only is sexism a part of our culture, but religionism, racism and ageism are as well. In this area America is definitely a Progress-Resistant culture.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics give us a surface appearance of being Progress-Prone, but our social core is definitely Progress-Resistant. I believe that the Progress-Resistant aspects of our culture are a reflection of the impact of V. Tyrannica on our institutions.
Harrison says that the answers to the following two questions are of great importance in determining if a culture is “Progress-Prone” or “Progress-Resistant.”
(1) Does the culture encourage the belief that people can influence their destinies?
(2) Does the culture promote the Golden Rule?[22]
If the answer is yes to both, then the culture is likely to be Progress-Prone. Things certainly change over time, and they have done so in America. Right now I think that the answer to the first question is “No” for most Americans. Many of our students, with the encouragement of society, leave college with large debts, starting their lives in a financial hole, making it difficult for them to influence their destinies. Globalization has led to loss of jobs, which in turns leads to loss of homes and health insurance, which in turn leads to a tremendous drop in quality of life, and in too many cases, to collapse of the family unit if illness strikes. People worry about this, especially people in the working class. The ruling class, on the other hand, is free from such fears. These situations make it clear that most people cannot influence their destinies. For the second question, the answer is simple. The wealthy elitists control our nation, and they are not responsible to the society, so they do not honor the Golden Rule. Of course, the Golden Rule has two forms in our nation:
The Democrato-Golden Rule of Reciprocity
You are to love your neighbors as yourself, and to do this you must protect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Tyranno-Golden Rule of Reciprocity
You are to love your neighbors as yourself, and to do this you must persuade, or require, them to live their lives the way you want.
The Democrato-Golden Rule of Reciprocity is Progress-Prone, the Tyranno-Golden Rule of Reciprocity is not. Approximately half our population belongs to a Christian religion—Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or United Methodist—that subscribes to the Tyranno-Golden Rule of Reciprocity. So our culture pays lip service to equality for all, but half or more of us do not follow it. America’s future is up for grabs. If V. Tyrannica rule then we will become more and more regressive. If V. Democratica rule then we will become more and more progressive. (Of course, the tyranni of Wall Street have their own Golden Rule: “Those who have the gold make the rules.”)
John W. Dean and Authoritarians in Government
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Richard M. Nixon, has witnessed the performance of our government officials for decades. He has seen misbehavior at the highest levels. He decided to write a book that explains the reasons for such behavior, which, he believes, has reached unprecedented extremes. In the preparation for his book, Conservatives without Conscience, he found a body of research into authoritarian personalities. He says that he saw “plenty of authoritarians in the Nixon administration, from the president on down.”[23] He includes the following remarkable words in the preface to his book:
Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral. They are also conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the likes of which we have never known.[24]
Dean characterizes the personalities of some modern politicians by using terms developed in studies performed by Felicia Pratto and Jim Sidanius:[25]
Social Dominators—Leaders:[26]
- Typically men
- Dominating
- Opposes equality
- Desirous of personal power
- Amoral
- Intimidating and bullying
- Faintly hedonistic
- Vengeful
- Pitiless
- Exploitive
- Manipulative
- Dishonest
- Cheats to win
- Highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic)
- Mean-spirited
- Militant
- Nationalistic
- Tells others what they want to hear
- Takes advantage of “suckers”
- Specializes in creating false images to sell self
- May or may not be religious
- Usually politically and economically conservative/Republican
Dean indicates that some government officers, and their allies, personify many of these characteristics. He names some former government officials and describes how the personal traits listed above affect government policy. If you just look at the traits, you can easily determine whether they would spawn policies that serve the public interest or the private interest of the politician.
Abraham Lincoln on Human Nature
On the evening of November 11, 1864, Abraham Lincoln, one of the wisest men who ever lived, said this:[27]
Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged.
This book is devoted to answering Lincoln’s call to action.
The Eternal Darwinian Struggle
Tyranni naturally work against the common good—democrati naturally work for it. I know that I have entered into an important conversation with a person of the opposite variety many times. I believe that both of us took those conversations seriously, and we each spoke from the heart—we each made an honest effort to explain the world as we saw it. But we never came to a meeting of the hearts or the minds. We were too different. We had different values, and we had a different understanding of reality. I think that this kind of difficulty is commonplace, and so long as each of us depends on our emoticons and instincts to govern our actions individually or as groups, we will be in danger of destroying ourselves. Our intellects are the only tool we have that can overpower our feelings and take us forward together. It is easy to say, but very hard to do—you can’t control how you feel, but you can control what you do about how you feel.[28]
Fortunately there is no doubt that V. Democratica exist. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and billions of others are democrati. Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, as shown by his conduct and by his teaching, also belongs to V. Democratica. There is also no doubt that V. Tyrannica exist. Historians call the most extreme of them “tyrants.” Humankind’s history is filled with examples—Osama bin Laden and the ruler of North Korea are the tyrants we have most recently been occupied with—and don’t forget Saddam Hussein. We even think of some of them as heroes. For example, Alexander, the Macedonian king, was one of the most vain, aggressive, bloodthirsty men in history. He started wars of aggression, slaughtered thousands, sold innocent women and children into slavery, murdered rivals by the score and razed cities. He was a tyrannus through and through and one of the most unworthy men ever. He is called “the Great,” when “the Grotesque” is more accurate. And his murderous acts are not unique:
More than 50 million people were systematically murdered in the past 100 years—the century of mass murder: From 1915 to 1923 Ottoman Turks slaughtered up to 1.5 million Armenians. In mid-century the Nazis liquidated six million Jews, three million Soviet POWs, two million Poles, and 400,000 other ‘undesirables.’ Mao Zedong killed 30 million Chinese, and the Soviet government murdered 20 million of its own people. In the 1970’s the communist Khmer Rouge killed 1.7 million of their fellow Cambodians. In the 1980s and early ‘90s Saddam Hussein’s Baath party killed 100,000 Kurds. Rwanda’s Hutu-led military wiped out 800,000 members in the Tutsi minority in the 1990s. Now there is genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.
In sheer numbers these and other killings make the 20th century the bloodiest period in human history.[29]
At the head of every band of murderers just listed is an extreme member of V. Tyrannica and his tyranno-lackeys. There is no doubt that there are would-be Hitlers and Stalins hard at work right now looking for the best weaponry they can find so they can kill and kill and kill. The only way that such extreme tyranni can be stopped is to organize our world to keep weapons out of their hands, and should they ever get them, to keep them from doing harm.
If Charles Darwin were still alive, I think that he would say that Edward O. Wilson is one of those “naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience,” that we should listen to. Wilson has written many important books on various topics concerning evolution. One of his most recent, The Social Conquest of Earth, may well be his most important. In it, he explains how human evolution has resulted in a fundamental conflict between behaviors that favor the success of the individual human and behaviors that favor the success of groups of humans. He says that these two conflicting behaviors have a genetic basis:
Alleles (the various forms of each gene) that favor survival and reproduction of individual group members at the expense of others are always in conflict with alleles of the same and alleles of other genes favoring altruism and cohesion in determining the survival and reproduction of individuals. Selfishness, cowardice, and unethical competition further the interest of individually selected alleles, while diminishing the proportion of altruistic, group-selected alleles. These destructive propensities are opposed by alleles predisposing individuals toward heroic and altruistic behavior on behalf of members of the same group. Group-selected traits typically take the fiercest degree of resolve during conflicts between rival groups.[30]
Wilson’s conclusion is that this conflict, this struggle between two kinds of humans, has only one outcome: [31]
An unavoidable and perpetual war exists between honor, virtue, and duty, the products of group selection, on one side, and selfishness, cowardice, and hypocrisy, the products of individual selection, on the other side.
… In summary, the human condition is an endemic turmoil rooted in the evolution processes that created us. The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be. To scrub it out, if such were possible, would make us less than human.
I can think of no better description of our present predicament. The Darwinian struggle has always been with us. In fact, Darwin foresaw that the struggle could be violent even among relatives. In the third chapter of Origin he included this section heading:
Struggle for Life most severe between
Individuals and Varieties of the same Species.
The best we can do is to do our best. We must control the harmful effects of tyranni, we must control the harmful effects of factions—we must work for the common good.
A New Variety of Evolution
Evolution by natural selection has two sides—on one, it creates new life forms; on the other, it destroys them all. But evolution by natural selection has given us a powerful tool to use in our defense. We have been given our intellects. Because of this great gift, we are the only species that can understand its history, and we are the only species that can see, and perhaps determine, its future. In a profound and improbable way, by giving us our intellectual powers, evolution by natural selection has itself evolved. It has produced a new variety of evolution. In fact, some humans have already been using a form of this new kind of evolution—they call it the “scientific method.” For example, Albert Einstein made good use of this tool. His work produced important advances in the study of atoms, relativity of motion, the relationships between light, gravity, time, and space, and the equivalence of matter and energy.
His work was based on the work of scientists and mathematicians who preceded him. And their work was based on the work of still earlier thinkers, and so it went. All of them used their intellects to make things, to create something out of nothing but an idea. Like them, Einstein relied on ideas. He was famous for designing “thought experiments” which would aid him in discovering principles of physics. In one such experiment he wondered what it would be like to be able to move at the speed of light and observe a beam of light as it traveled through space. This and other ideas led to his prediction that a beam of light would be deflected, or bent, as it passed through a gravitational field such as that produced by our sun—and his calculations even predicted the amount, or angle, of deflection.
In order to confirm his theory, Einstein encouraged other scientists to conduct measurements of the deflection of starlight during a total solar eclipse. Several responded. They calculated when the next such eclipses would occur, and they calculated when and where they could be observed. They built special photographic equipment for the tests, and they traveled over great distances and under difficult conditions (some even went into a war zone), to see if Einstein was correct. Bad weather, equipment breakdowns, and human error took their toll and the tests were delayed for years, but scientists kept trying, and finally Einstein’s prediction was confirmed. (The delays were fortunate for Einstein, because they gave him time to detect and correct an error in his original calculations.) Subsequent tests, with new and better equipment, continue to confirm, with ever-increasing accuracy, that Einstein was correct.
Einstein’s ideas have had many practical applications. Global positioning satellites and nuclear energy are among them. There are more, but for our purposes here, I just want to underscore that Einstein and all the other scientists involved in testing his ideas were using the new variety of evolution. This new variety of evolution is very different from evolution by natural selection. This new variety requires that we use our minds, but evolution by natural selection is mindless. The new variety can be applied to any human endeavor, and it can be applied with a purpose, it can be moral, and it can be merciful. On the other hand, evolution by natural selection controls, or at least affects, all human endeavors, and it is relentless, purposeless, merciless, and amoral.
The new variety of evolution has long been applied in almost all that we do in the STEM institutions (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). And it has worked wonders. There can be no doubt that marvelous progress has been made in these fields, and is being made this very second. But this new variety of evolution has been rarely and inconsistently applied in the GREEB institutions (government, religion, education, economics, and business). And it shows. There has been almost no progress in the GREEB fields in the past century or longer—many, if not most, of the managers of the great institutions in these fields tend to rely on a false theory of common sense or on gut feelings, selfish urges, inner voices, false hypotheses, ideology, generalized personal experiences, hunches, instincts, cronyism, personal contacts, or pseudo-science. These and other such tyranno-management tools at best produce confusion and poor results, and at worst throw the entire field into chaos. It is time to start applying this new variety of evolution to all fields of human endeavor, and it is time to call it what it is: “evolution by cogitation.”
Characteristics of Evolution by Cogitation
Cogitate: to think deeply about a problem, an idea, a possibility; to ponder.
- The process is not a natural one, it is a tool created by humans for their use. It depends on the sustained, cooperative, and rational acts of humankind. It depends especially on the most important of our intellectual gifts: the power to make something out of nothing but an idea.
- The process is rational and depends on facts.
- The process sets goals and works to achieve them.
- The process is not self-renewing. It is simply a tool that is useful only when humans pick it up and apply it to the problems of life.
- The process works for the common good. It gives our species the best chance of building a better world for us all: tyranni and democrati.
- The process requires that we apply our intellects to gain control of evolution by natural selection. This effort has already begun but has a long, long way to go. At the very least we must fight to mitigate or cancel altogether the undesirable effects of evolution by natural selection and genetic variation.
- The challenges facing our species are so great that it will take our combined intellectual power to overcome them. Our STEM institutions and our citizens must work closely together to apply our intellects in rational, benevolent, and forward-looking ways.
- Tyranni will gain power and so our institutions must be organized to keep tyranni from doing harm.
- Our fate is not planned or guided by any friendly power, we must make our own plans, we must be our own guides, and we must be our own friends. We are all in this thing together. We must think our way forward.
- Our future as a species depends on wisely applying our collective intellectual power to answer four eternal questions:[32]
Where do we stand?
How did we get here?
Where do we want to go?
How do we get there from here?
By applying this new form of evolution to all our major institutions we can transform our lives. Tyranni disregard facts that are contrary to their beliefs or that interfere with indulging their selfish, unthinking urges. This tyranno-propensity becomes dangerous when tyranni gain power of the kind that flows from control of a government or a large corporation or religion. It is happening every day in our society. But evolution by cogitation requires that we use our minds. By organizing government and other large, important institutions so that their leaders make decisions rationally and in pursuit of the common good, we will create a better America.
So, where do we stand?
Here is a summary of the statuses of many of the institutions that make up our Madisonian Republic, and most of them are controlled by factions. They work against the common good. Instead of controlling the effects of factions, we are controlled by them.
- Congress today is an utter failure and a stain upon America. It is badly designed, and beholden to moneyed and fanatical interests. It is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- The Supreme Court substitutes the elaborately rationalized personal preferences of five human beings for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, usually delivering political, economic, and religious support for friends, party, and class. It is the ultimate political tool for thwarting the will of the people. It is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- The election system is used as a corrupt tool for manipulating the electorate. Its main purpose is to disguise payoffs between our national elected officials and other units of Tyranno-America. It also is used to give the national news media a huge bonanza of undeserved income. The election system is an essential tool of Tyranno-America.
- The theory of states’ rights has provided cover for more outrages against individual liberty than any other part of our system of government. And through tyranno-state legislatures it still provides the twisted rationale for denying rights, resources, opportunities, and protections to members of the seven hated groups: not-white, not-male, not-Christian, not-heterosexual, not-well-to-do, not-native-born, and the disabled. It is an essential part of Tyranno-America.
- The press (news media) long ago abandoned its theoretical role as guardian of the truth in favor of personal and corporate greed. At the highest levels, television news is mostly populated with those whose only competency is smugness. It is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- Art, sports, and entertainment need to emphasize the spirit of fair play. Too much emphasis is placed on winning at all costs. Movies, music, and other forms of entertainment need to be much more concerned with their effects on our youth. These cultural entities are occasional elements of Tyranno-America.
- The education system has been demoted to a laboratory for testing the slogans and pet theories of the ruling ideology of the moment. It has become a giant playground for the politically powerful. “No Child Left Behind”[33] is as empty as “Weapons of Mass Destruction,”[34] and “Yes we can.”[35] This system is one of the main battlegrounds in the struggle to replace our government with a theocracy. Many parts of this institution are essential elements of Tyranno-America.
- Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are still following their objective paths, but ideologues and fundamentalist religionists are trying to destroy them, while capitalists are trying to control them for their own commercial interests.
- Our national problem with guns reflects the natural difference between tyranni and democrati. Tyranni want guns in order to have transformative power over other beings. Democrati want guns because they want to protect themselves against the tyranni who have guns. This manifestation of the Darwinian struggle shows how far our society has to go before common sense and the common good will prevail.
- Threat management is not yet an institution, but should be. We need to consider threats from, and to, the biological, geophysical and astrophysical worlds. Extreme weather due to global warming is our greatest danger.
- The system of crime management does not have sufficient resources, and it too often has to deal with the failures of other institutions such as the education, health care, and economic systems. Unfortunately, being able to carry a gun is a form of power over others, and it strongly attracts tyranni.
- The President and his fellow members of the Executive Branch are free to act as if they are possessed by an overpowering sense of divine certainty about how force should be applied to reshape the world. This branch of government is deeply partisan, and badly designed. It places too much power in the hands of one person, and it is too often unchecked power. This branch is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- The two-party system is vastly overrated; parties worship the God of Reelection first, greedily seek personal power and wealth second, and work for the common good a distant third. They are corrupt and largely ineffective, except when advancing the interests of those who pay for reelection campaigns or when pandering to the baser instincts of the electorate. This system is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- Tyranno-Christianity is not about God and souls but about politics and power over others. Some sects seek at best to impede the advancement of civil rights for all, and at worst to replace our government with a theocracy. Certain kingdoms within this institution, in partnership with political parties, comprise the greatest internal threat to individual freedoms. Tyranno-Christianity is an essential element of Tyranno-America.
- Tyranno-Capitalism has evolved to mirror the natural world in which the weak are the prey of the strong. Here carnivores eat living herbivores every minute of every day in the name of free markets. “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”[36] The cornerstone of this evil system is the lie that we have a limited supply of money. Greed is the controlling principle for managing our planet’s resources. The most important American resource is its people, and they have been badly used for decades now. The corporations who control and exploit our resources are essential elements of Tyranno-America.
- Our health care and health insurance industries are proof that everything is for sale in America—a great shame for a nation in which the majority of the population professes to follow the teachings of Jesus. But the corrupt politicians and special interests who make money from the misery of the ill are shameless. One of the worst things about these institutions is that politicians play life and death games with other people’s health, just as they play life and death games with other people’s children in the military. The corporations who control and exploit these institutions are essential elements of Tyranno-America.
- The people who make up the military are dedicated, well-trained, patriotic and heroic. But as in health care and education, this institution has become a tool for political manipulation and the personal indulgence of pet theories by the civilian authority. Well-designed and well-staffed, but badly used. The corporations who manipulate and supply this institution are essential elements of Tyranno-America.
- Foreign policy is a reflection of the Presidency. This is clearly a design problem. No one man or woman should have the power to order the deaths of innocents. Ideology has displaced common sense here and ignores the facts of our place in the world. This function can be an extremely destructive element of Tyranno-America.
- State and local governments have varying levels of success. Smaller units are very vulnerable to corruption. State and local governments are much more likely to deny civil rights to American citizens than is the national government. More state regulation should be replaced by national regulation. It is time for us to make part of the Pledge of Allegiance come true and finally become “one nation.” It varies by state, but many units of this institution are essential elements of Tyranno-America.
My evaluation of our present overall status is that tyranno-institutions, or factions, have gained the upper hand and have brought us to the edge of catastrophe. Tyranno-America is ascendant. Few Americans have any ability to control their lives. Anger and even hatred dominate our national conversations as one group blames another for each calamity that befalls us. Each of our institutions is free to set its goals independently, without regard to the goals of the others. As a consequence, brutal competition is the rule of the day, and lives are needlessly damaged or destroyed. Evolution by natural selection dominates our lives. The struggle for survival consumes us, the goals of the individual are paramount, we share no common goal—we fear our neighbors because we are sure that they do not love us—and we grow weary.
Fortunately, there is a way forward. The Declaration of Independence is the true founding document of America. It declared seven, equally-important, self-evident truths. Unfortunately, because our government has failed to implement the first three, it is now time to pay attention to the last four. Here are the seven self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence:
- All men are created equal.
- They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
- Some, but not all, of these rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.
- The powers of the government can come only from the consent of the governed.
- If any government fails in its duty to secure these rights the people can alter or abolish it, and create a new government.
- The people can structure the new government any way that they please.
The Declaration of Independence is very clear. Our government is conditional—its existence depends on its ability to secure the rights of the people. The Articles of Confederation was the first conditional government. It failed, and was replaced by a second conditional government: our constitutional system. It has clearly failed to perform its duty and has thereby forfeited its right to govern. It is time for us to begin a process of replacing our current system with a new one of our own design. At the same time we will transfer our delegated power from the current system to the new one in a step-by-step process over the next few years—if enough of us go to work, we can do it in five years. This new system of government will be a Faction-Free Democracy.
As we move away from our current systems, we will soon cross a threshold. We will find that our current morass of seemingly unsolvable problems can be left behind, and Tyranno-America will fall away to become a mixed memory of greatness and tragedy. On the other side we will move into our new, planned world of problems that can be solved and where adequate funding is available for all worthwhile projects. We will enter into Democrato-America. In short, by implementing this plan, democracy will at long last come to America, and it will be here to stay. Our individual responsibilities will be great, but the benefits will be even greater. By joining our hands, hearts, and brains we can do many mighty things. It is time to implement government of the people, by the people, and for the people, for only the second time in history. It is time to implement a Faction-Free Democracy.
This chapter has been an attempt to answer the first of the four eternal questions asked by evolution by cogitation: “Where do we stand?” In the next five chapters, I will provide answers to the second eternal question: “How did we get here?” If I have done my work well, you should be able to see that power attracts tyranni absolutely, and that we are what we do—to others. You will see that when tyranni push forward to take power, democrati almost always step back to let them pass. Democrati will suffer much before they push back. Now, more than ever, is the time for democrati to push back—hard. The tool that will add the necessary power to that push is evolution by cogitation.
When they were in office, Jimmy Carter and Franklin Roosevelt were rational and worked for the common good—they acted as democrati.
When they were in office, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan were irrational and worked against the common good—they acted as tyranni.