Reply #26: It's important to understand "power"

[H2O Man]

which actually comes from a root meaning to "possesss the ability" ... so having the power to do something merely means possessing the ability to do it. Now let's take that one step further, and recognize that to "possess the ability" in Washington quite literally means having the authority within that system.

Now, let's examine "power" or actually authority within systems. There are three types of authority within any and all systems. And these are hereditary, bureaucratic, and charismatic. Let's look closer at each one.

Hereditary authority simply means "this is how my ancestors did things." It's family systems. It can be a clan, a tribe, or we can even look at some Middle Eastern peoples to see hereditary authority. (It does not necessarily mean the "from father-to-son" power that we think of with kings, though that is certainly one aspect.)

The second type, bureaucratic, is what we think of in dealing with the Department of Social Services, Dept of Motor Vehicles, the phone company, state government, etc. It simply means there are too many families for hereditary authority to meet the needs of large numbers of people, so an assembly-line system is brought into being. If you have one of the ten problems that, say, DMV is prepared to deal with, you get in and out quick. Come in with a problem they don't deal with, and you find the system has difficulty dealing with you.

People who have worked in a government-run human service agency know that bureaucratic systems have problems with people who say, "I do it this way, because my father/mother/grandparents did. We've always done it this way." The system requires that people respect the bureaucratic authority. If they question it, there's a problem much larger than going into DMV with an odd request.

Next is charismatic authority. As we know, the word literally came into use in reference to people filled with "the holy spirit" of early Christianity. But it has come to have a broader meaning. Martin Luther King, Jr was charismatic. So was JFK, RFK, and Malcolm X.

Charismatic authority translates well into hereditary or family systems, but not very well into bureaucratic systems. Family systems will make adjustments for charismatic leaders; bureaucratic systems always try to find the point a charismatic leader will compromise his beliefs for bureaucratic "power." Those who don't -- and MLK, JFK, RFK, and Malcolm are proof -- die. When they die, they are always replaced by their aide with the greatest bureaucratic skills. And that is always true, even if by chance - like Moses - they die from natural causes, or if like Crazy Horse, they die at the hand of one of their own people.

Now, most charismatic leaders have skills that fit either the hereditary or bureaucratic system. Bill Clinton had charisma. Reagan projected charisma at a distance. Both Clinton and Reagan were willing to trade their authority for fame and fortune. When we look at Usama bin Laden, we see a charismatic figure with both hereditary and bureaucratic abilities; one can say with confidence that he will die in battle, as opposed to in the style of Nelson Rockefellar.

This brings us back to Howard Dean and the very bureaucratic DNC. Take a minute to examine what Dean represents to the system, and perhaps far more importantly, what he represents to the democratic grass roots. I hope this is useful in helping folks understand what is going on, and why the bureaucrats appear to be hoping for "anyone" but Dean.