Baltasar Gracian: go with the crowd?

No. 133

 "Better a fool with the crowd, than a sage by yourself;  the politicians say, that if all men are fools, no one of them can be counted such; wherefore the wise man who stands apart, must be a fool;  it is important therefore to go with the current:  the greatest knowledge at times, to know nothing, or to affect to know nothing; we have to live with others, and the stupid make up the majority; to live alone one must have within himself, either much of God, or much of the beast: I am strongly urged to turn this aphorism about and say: better wise with the rest of the wise, than a fool by yourself: still some find distinction in making  fools of themselves."


 

"Better a fool with the crowd, than a sage by yourself;  the politicians say, that if all men are fools, no one of them can be counted such; wherefore the wise man who stands apart, must be a fool;  it is important therefore to go with the current:  the greatest knowledge at times, to know nothing, or to affect to know nothing;"

Numerous politicians in a particular party today frequently begin their speeches by saying "While I'm no expert" or some such statement, and then go on to discuss a particular scientific issue and express opinions about something they have said that they know little about.  I have yet to see anyone point out the contradiction here.   But, to be fair, their opinions do demonstrate their ignorance, or supposed ignorance.  It is clear that Gracian's observations still hold true today.

These politicians, according to Gracian, then go on to say that   "we have to live with others, and the stupid make up the majority; to live alone one must have within himself, either much of God, or much of the beast:"

Of course these politicians never come out and say this publicly for they must flatter their followers into believing that they are the intelligent ones, for they are not blinded by study, knowledge, and research on a particular issue.  And, of course, it is hard to say whether these politicians are as ignorant as they seem to be or are pretending such ignorance or imbecility in some cases, as Gracian suggests, to maintain the support of their followers.  



Within the past few days, we have seen a governor show his support of a conspiracy theory that claims that the US Army plans to take over his state.  ISIS troops are stationed just outside El Paso, and when they invade, the US Army will use this as an excuse to take over the state.  Wal-Mart stores that were closed specifically for that purpose will be used to hold political prisoners.  To prevent this, the governor has now called out the State Guard to protect the citizens of this state from this invasion.  He has now gained the support of at least one of his party's presidential hopefuls.  Several others, no doubt, are waiting to see the results of the governor's actions.  If there is considerable support shown, they will join the chorus of fools.  If the overall reaction is ridicule and laughter, they will remain silent or even join in with criticism.

The question, of course, is whether the governor really is a fool who believes this or lacks the courage to stand up and say this is stupid and thereby possibly lose those whom he might consider to be his strongest supporters.   

Those of you who know this governor well can better answer the question than I can.

At the end Gracian here interjects his own opinion: "I am strongly urged to turn this aphorism about and say: better wise with the rest of the wise, than a fool by yourself: still some find distinction in making  fools of themselves."

Overall, I think Gracian presents strong evidence in support of the theory that human nature really hasn't changed that much over the centuries.  The issues may change, but a fool is still a fool and to gain the support of fools, one must act accordingly.

Third Parties--their year?

According to what I've read, a major factor in Obama's upset victory over Clinton, the shoo-in candidate, was the electorate's need for change. Recent polls show Obama with a slight lead over McCain, with change also being a significant issue. However, there are still 3 1/2 months before election day, so that may change.

But, if this need for change does play an important role in the election and does give Obama the win, what will this mean for the other races? As low as Bush's ratings are today, I hear that Congress' ratings are even lower. Will this same perceived need for a change affect those races also? If this is true, then I can see this having an effect in one or more of the following ways:

1. Incumbents of both parties lose to political newcomers running for office for the first time.

2. Dissatisfaction spreads beyond the candidates to the political parties themselves and results in increased voting for third party candidates.

3. Both the incumbents and their opponents discover the need for change, which results in some strange campaigns in the next few months as everybody strives to demonstrate they are the ones to inaugurate a change.


I see No. 3 as the most likely outcome, but it would be interesting if it were No. 2 and we see third party members in Congress for the first time in decades.