An understanding of power helpfully informs laments about economic
inequality, including those on Ethical Musings (cf. Capitalism
and inequality and Economic
inequality). The nineteenth century British politician Lord Acton was
perhaps the first to comment that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He aimed
his comment at the abuse of power by politicians. His observation, however,
applies equally to other arenas of life.
Power, according to Henry Kissinger, is the “ultimate aphrodisiac.” Even
if power is not absolute, power or the lust for power may still corrode healthy
relationships with self, others, creation, and God. Abraham Lincoln insightfully
recognized the exercise of power as the true test of a person’s character: “Nearly
all men [sic] can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power.”
Illustratively, absolute (or near absolute) economic power corrupts persons
who hold that power. Late nineteenth century US business trusts such as
Standard Oil, US Steel, and Hormel meatpackers exemplify the corruption of
absolute or near absolute economic power. Working conditions tended to be
exceptionally hazardous, products were often unsafe as well as overpriced,
market positions were maintained by eliminating competition, and politicians
were bought to prevent change. Businessmen, and they were all men, contended
that the federal government existed not to promote the common good but to protect
their property rights and to defend the nation against foreign enemies.
During the twentieth century, new laws enforced by new federal agencies
ended many of those abuses, e.g., the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Food
and Drug Administration, anti-trust laws, Social Security, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, and the Federal Election Commission. The federal and state
governments began to actively promote the common good.
In the early twenty-first century, new forms of abuse by monopolies or
near monopolies have emerged. The diminishing power of unions has allowed large
corporations to exercise more power over their workforces, as reflected in the
dramatically widening gap between CEO pay and the median compensation of a
corporation’s workforce. Privacy has diminished with corporations collecting
ever increasing amounts of information about individuals. A push for
deregulation that began during the Reagan administration and accelerated under
Trump has both shifted power from individuals to corporations and frequently sanctioned
environmental harm. The large sums that corporations and the extremely wealthy
contribute to increasingly expensive electoral campaigns represent a new form
of purchasing politicians. The argument that political contributions purchase
access and not influence today rings hollow. Most citizens lack direct access
to their elected officials. Well-funded special interest groups publicize the
voting records of elected officials, endorsing those who consistently vote in
line with the wishes of the special interest and condemning officials who
deviate from those wishes.
The former Archbishop of Scotland, the Most Rev. Richard Holloway, correctly
observed that power always seeks to justify itself. Oft repeated justifications
for unlimited government expansiveness are to protect the common good,
safeguard the well-being of all, and to prevent every potential fraud, waste,
or abuse of government power or resources. Consequently, the usually well-intentioned
but continuously expanding reach of government into personal and business
affairs in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has too often favored
large corporations and government at the expense of diminishing individual rights
and responsibility.
Typically, government tries to achieve zero-defects in most if not all
of its laws, policies, and programs. Abuses of any type of government power frequently
trigger a media feeding frenzy, reinforcing the commitment of politicians and
government officials to zero-defect laws, policies, and programs. Occasionally,
a zero-defect standard is important, e.g., in aviation safety. However, most efforts
to achieve zero-defects are unnecessary and eventually alienated the majority
of citizens and corporations who perceive these efforts as governmental
overreach, excessively wasteful and complex, and unnecessarily intrusive.
For example, when I, as an active duty chaplain, wrote the Navy’s first
instruction governing the use of and accounting for religious offerings, a frustratingly
large number of stakeholders pushed for the instruction to eliminate all
possible fraud, waste, or abuse with respect to funds. No number of safeguards
can foresee much less prevent all future fraud, waste, and abuse. I insisted
that the cost of safeguards should not exceed the cost of potential losses. Unsurprisingly,
the first revision of the instruction, prepared after I had moved to a new
assignment, incorporated additional safeguards, most of them not cost
effective. In spite of good intentions, the complex procedures requiring the involvement
of more people that supplanted the original easily implemented, standard accounting
protocols failed to decrease the number of thefts or embezzlements.
More generally, well-intentioned but counterproductive government
overreach results in needlessly repetitive layers of bureaucracy, excessively
detailed procedures and rules, and widespread reluctance to accept
responsibility for a decision. All of this is eerily reminiscent of the well-intentioned
but ultimately discarded Pharisaical attempts to avoid violating the 613
commandments of the Torah by fencing the Torah with additional rules designed
to keep an observant Jew from unintentionally violating the Torah. Similarly,
the inherent weakness of any rule-based ethical system is that no set of rules,
no matter how comprehensive, can foresee every situation that may arise.
Deceased rock star Jimi Hendrix articulated the
basic remedy to the wrongful accumulation and misuse of power: “When the power
of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.”
In practical terms, distributing and using power to build healthy
relationships and promote life abundant entails imposing limits on persons,
organizations, and communities that in one or more arenas exercises absolute or
near-absolute power. In personal relationships, breaking another’s power over
one’s self begins by reclaiming one’s dignity and self-worth and may ultimately
require ending the relationship. In the case of a monopoly, this may involve
anti-trust cases and legislation. In the case of the US government, actions to
limit power may include rebalancing the distribution of power between the three
branches (Trump, from this perspective, may be good news if Congress and the
Courts reclaim their Constitutional powers), changing laws, and working to
elect and then to lobby politicians willing to accept an imperfect and limited
government while holding steadfastly to sound values. Finally, each individual must
audit their motives to ensure that s/he pursues the power of love instead of
the love of power..