Shakespeare’s King Lear gives a good (accurate and artistic) accounting of what happens when a powerful leader descends into madness. Lear is impressed by the flattery he receives from two of his daughters, and leaves his kingdom to them, ignoring the third daughter, who is more circumspect and honest in what she says. The play is a tragedy because it does not end well for any of the main characters. Although the play is “fiction” in that Lear was not a “real” king, the characters are based on common historical events. History shows how common it has been for those in charge to order their “troops” into battle, resulting in a lot of fighting and dying, and, perhaps, a change in leadership. It wasn’t until the thirteenth century that the Magna Carta limited the power of the king to do whatever he wanted. The Magna Carta primarily served to protect other royalty, but it also conferred some rights to “commoners.”
In more recent times, we’ve had some major revolutions (French, Russian, and Chinese) to transfer power from “royalty” to ordinary people. Those didn’t always produce really wonderful results for most people, but, in comparison with social structures from times past, they were an improvement. As is always true of history, however, things can take a turn for the worse at any time. The old saying is “two steps forward, one step back.” As Paul Simon said, we tend to be “Slip Slidin’ Away”:
For the lyrics, see lyrics.
In terms of democracy, we seem to have entered a period of “slip slidin’ away.” The oligarchs have taken over. The wealthy few control the press and other media, and write laws that will further enhance their wealth and power. The people, as in We the people seem to have lost our voice. In my opinion, the real question is why so many people are so willing to “march” (and even go to war) for leaders who care so little about their well-being. Given what we know about history, the homage paid to royalty in Shakespeare’s day (and earlier) is understandable. Other than those who were “royal,” most people couldn’t read. They were brought up believing that members of the royalty were better than “commoners.” People got their news, if they got any, from town criers, or from the town gossip.
“Real” reporting didn’t begin until newspapers were common. Even then, a lot of “news” was gossip rather than what we think of “news reporting” today, and wealthy people owned the newspapers. When radio and TV came along, those media were also owned by and primarily served the needs of the wealthy. Even today most people know only what has been filtered by news organizations owned by wealthy individuals or corporations. Most people simply do not have the time to read and/or watch the same news story as presented by different media outlets with different ownership. For most people, keeping up with the news means reading and/or watching stories presented by one or two media outlets. As a result, they choose to follow the media outlet(s) most closely present views with which they already agree. The most famous example (interestingly enough) is from a Republican from Indiana, Earl Landgrebe, who used the phrase during the Watergate Hearings. The facts simply didn’t support many Republicans’ view of Richard Nixon.
I continue to be amazed at the number of people willing to support a “mad” king. A lot of people supported Richard Nixon even as he was forced out of office, so perhaps that kind of support is common. It is only the captain who is supposed to go down with the ship. The crew and passengers are expected to use the “life boats.” The problem with this is that at least some members of the crew bear significant responsibility for problems with the ship. When the “ship” being discussed is a major corporation, the key members of the crew typically receive golden parachutes to ensure that they will not be among those who go down with the ship. In major corporations, what that means is that most the principal executives do just fine when the company fails. Those who had been employed by the corporation, are “hung out to dry.” What’s really strange, is that those who have been “hung out to dry,” continue to support those who did the “hanging.”
We will have good opportunity to see whether that continues to be the case as Trump’s tariffs affect those who supported him. I have always been mystified by how many people can be persuaded to vote against their self-interest. People don’t always understand their options, of course. And a certain number of the population is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. If you really hate members of a certain race or ethnicity, you will vote against candidates from those groups regardless of the qualifications of their opponents.
One thing’s for sure: we are living in interesting times. We are witnesses to history in the making. Whether we are currently fighting what will be our Battle of Hastings or our Agincourt or whether we are living between such battles remains to be seen.
