The problem is that a person having the ability to read social cues and act on them well is ethically neutral in and of itself. History has some populists who are highly skilled at reading a crowd and motivating them. Barack Obama is one of them, so was Adolf Hitler. It's about the only talent the current president has.
Cunning sociopaths can be very good at reading social cues and doing whatever it takes to get their mark to go along with their plan. Ultimately that plan only serves them because they are incapable of true empathy. Studies on sociopath traits in business found that among CEOs sociopathy was twice as common as it was in the general population.
The skills of political manipulation are also ethically neutral. History has some brilliant political tacticians who manipulated the system to achieve great things. Most of these people also had their failings too. Look at the lives of most of the politicians who we consider as doing great good for the most people and all of them have some pretty deep flaws. FDR broke with tradition and ran for 4 terms, he has been criticized for being the first president to heavily deficit spend in peacetime, but we have some tremendous infrastructure works that still benefit this country to this day. People who live in rural areas and are able to read this can thank FDR for bringing electricity to you.
Lyndon Johnson got rid of the Jim Crow laws and pretty much stopped black people from getting lynched in the South. He also introduced Medicare and some other things that benefit many if not all of us. But he was a major political manipulator. I believe Kevin Spacey's character in House of Cards is based on LBJ.
Richard Nixon actually got the US out of the Vietnam War (after trying to escalate it true), signed the EPA into law, opened the door to normalizing relations with China, and did other good things, but he resigned in disgrace.
On the flipside, George W Bush is an affable person outside of politics, but he and his White House took advantage of the crisis and fear after 9/11 to pass some pretty draconian legislation that is still with us (The Patriot Act), got us into a war that destabilized the Middle East, and let the biggest financial meltdown in 80 years happen on his watch.
Those are just US examples, most countries have their own examples ranging from cunning politicians to outright dictators.
There is also another issue with "doing the right thing". The answer to a short term issue might be clearer, but the further into the future you go, the harder it is to predict exactly what will happen and what the long term consequences of a person's or a people's actions will be. None of the conspirator in Sarajevo who assassinated the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian empire would trigger the bloodiest war in history (to date).
Back when the internal combustion engine was introduced, it was hailed as "pollution free" transportation. The horse manure and urine problems in major cities was reaching crisis proportions. But the advent of the internal combustion engine and the widespread use of fossil fuels has had many long term consequences nobody foresaw when cars replaced horses and saved everyone from the horse manure crisis at the turn of the 20th century.
The technologies that will replace fossil fuels, in at least some areas look benign, and I can't think of any major downsides, but there might be issues down the road we didn't think of.
When politicians think of long term solutions, they need to weigh the short term cost vs the long term benefits. Short term the costs might just be the political opposition getting the upper hand for a while or there might be short term political fallout in other ways as constituents are harmed in the short term. Is a politician going to risk his or her job for a vote that won't show benefits for a generation or more? And what damage could the opposition do if the controlling party trying to do the "right thing" gets turfed out because of the short term costs?
It's a complex issue with no easy answers.
Cunning sociopaths can be very good at reading social cues and doing whatever it takes to get their mark to go along with their plan. Ultimately that plan only serves them because they are incapable of true empathy. Studies on sociopath traits in business found that among CEOs sociopathy was twice as common as it was in the general population.
The skills of political manipulation are also ethically neutral. History has some brilliant political tacticians who manipulated the system to achieve great things. Most of these people also had their failings too. Look at the lives of most of the politicians who we consider as doing great good for the most people and all of them have some pretty deep flaws. FDR broke with tradition and ran for 4 terms, he has been criticized for being the first president to heavily deficit spend in peacetime, but we have some tremendous infrastructure works that still benefit this country to this day. People who live in rural areas and are able to read this can thank FDR for bringing electricity to you.
Lyndon Johnson got rid of the Jim Crow laws and pretty much stopped black people from getting lynched in the South. He also introduced Medicare and some other things that benefit many if not all of us. But he was a major political manipulator. I believe Kevin Spacey's character in House of Cards is based on LBJ.
Richard Nixon actually got the US out of the Vietnam War (after trying to escalate it true), signed the EPA into law, opened the door to normalizing relations with China, and did other good things, but he resigned in disgrace.
On the flipside, George W Bush is an affable person outside of politics, but he and his White House took advantage of the crisis and fear after 9/11 to pass some pretty draconian legislation that is still with us (The Patriot Act), got us into a war that destabilized the Middle East, and let the biggest financial meltdown in 80 years happen on his watch.
Those are just US examples, most countries have their own examples ranging from cunning politicians to outright dictators.
There is also another issue with "doing the right thing". The answer to a short term issue might be clearer, but the further into the future you go, the harder it is to predict exactly what will happen and what the long term consequences of a person's or a people's actions will be. None of the conspirator in Sarajevo who assassinated the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian empire would trigger the bloodiest war in history (to date).
Back when the internal combustion engine was introduced, it was hailed as "pollution free" transportation. The horse manure and urine problems in major cities was reaching crisis proportions. But the advent of the internal combustion engine and the widespread use of fossil fuels has had many long term consequences nobody foresaw when cars replaced horses and saved everyone from the horse manure crisis at the turn of the 20th century.
The technologies that will replace fossil fuels, in at least some areas look benign, and I can't think of any major downsides, but there might be issues down the road we didn't think of.
When politicians think of long term solutions, they need to weigh the short term cost vs the long term benefits. Short term the costs might just be the political opposition getting the upper hand for a while or there might be short term political fallout in other ways as constituents are harmed in the short term. Is a politician going to risk his or her job for a vote that won't show benefits for a generation or more? And what damage could the opposition do if the controlling party trying to do the "right thing" gets turfed out because of the short term costs?
It's a complex issue with no easy answers.
