Political idiots vs. idiotic politicians

By Michael Bergmann

Let's not insult anyone. Let's not be self-righteous. Honestly, most of us just never had such a choice. Thinking of alternatives, however, is healthy for everyone.

The Greek word "idiotes" means a person concerned about his or her "own," or "private" affairs. It can be contrasted with "polites," the citizen of the "polis," the Greek city-state, for whom being a "citizen" then appears to be both a right and a duty. To call someone an idiot is just saying in classical Greek that the person in question minds his or her business.

The cheap resentment that "politicians are selfish idiots" should be overcome, in the current crisis more than ever, with the more dialectical distinction of political idiots versus idiotic politicians. Let me explain.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant answered the question "What is enlightenment?" (1784) with an optimistic belief in one driving force of human progress: the individual citizen's public use of reason. He encouraged people not to fear repression or irritations, as reason gives us the ability, the right and the duty to think publicly with a cosmopolitan conscience — regardless of our particular social identity, private business or idiotic existence. That is why he radically distinguished the public use from the private use of reason. He wanted to empower the individual to be, despite all the conflicts of interests, both "politician" and "idiot".

But Kant failed to foresee the armies of egos trying to build idiotic careers on the pretension of working for general causes. He couldn't guess how many politicians, not only in the narrower sense of the word, but also journalists and professional academics among others would turn the public use of reason into publicity and publications as mere strategies to keep themselves in the business. That Kant could not foresee the fate of his distinction, himself being a university professor, shows the limitations of the great thinker.

The complexity of today's societies might need some "professional citizens," to use a more flattering term. Also, each person's right to private pursuit of happiness can't be denied to those engaged beyond their house, trade and family. But we have to think again how someone can be both "idiotes" and "polites." The distinction has to get just one step more complex. When we call the publicity careerist, as described above, an idiotic politician, our hope must go toward a new balance of private and public use of reason. Our new hero is the political idiot.

He or she has proved the strength of their reason in private use, has grabbed their opportunity in a free society, has done their thing, has reached personal satisfaction — and starts then to think beyond their idiotic existence. Our hero doesn't need any longer to establish their ego, doesn't have any selfish need for public attention. Our hero is an idiot free enough for a truly political use of reason.

Michael Bergmann is a teacher in Seoul. Write to bergmann2473@yahoo.de.