If you ever want to explain the Peter Principle, the character is a textbook example from pop culture.
On the one hand, I don’t like American network TV’s impulse to make every character likeable in some way; on the other hand, The Office UK ran for 14 episodes total over two series, and I doubt anyone would have stuck with The Office US through over one hundred of episodes if the Michael Scott continued to be as horrible as David Brent.
The guy who brought down the Twin Towers spent more time on his kids’ education than most of the parents reading this article.
Brütal. Also pithy.
Aside from my enthusiasm for that line; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a slide toward dictatorship actually has a bit of a winnowing effect on the less-likeable people(tragically, not exclusively among them):
If you’ve got a nice, cushy, ‘rule of law’ being one of the people who are only alive because it would be illegal to kill them is a viable option. Sometimes a lucrative one.
If your polity is moving toward an environment of disruption and increasingly routine use of extraordinary force at the whim of a ruling clique a Shkreli smirk and the phrase “we did nothing illegal” won’t save you from ending up like a Russian Oligarch in London unless you are at least willing to make yourself useful to the right people; which is a crude sort of likeability.
This hardly means that a dictatorial society will be one of charm and manners; but when “why don’t we just kill him” stops being either rhetorical or hyperbolic, and is a perfectly routine option, things could go rather poorly for you if nobody who’s anybody sees a reason to put up with you.
Power is the ultimate drug.
Which is why checks and balances are essential.
“Likeable” is not necessarily equal to “charming and well-mannered”. Dictatorial regimes reward the superficially charming diplomats just as often as they reward the crude thugs – both types have their uses. In both cases the key to success is knowing which boots to lick further up in the hierarchy, an ability predicated on the distinct lack of an internal moral and ethical compass.
On a lower level in such a regime, it does pay to be polite and considerate to one’s neighbours lest one of them develops a grudge that inspires him to turn one in to the authorities on some pretext. That’s an empty and oppressive kind of general societal politesse, though; there are plenty of ultra-polite liberal democracies that exist as counterpoint examples.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
