Charles Barkley, Power, and Politics

During the March Madness tournament, former NBA star Charles Barkley made some viral political comments (I encourage you to watch them before reading) about the immorality of American politicians. There are many disadvantages in using these short clips because they often take people out of context and don’t take nuance into account. However, I like this particular clip because it is a vocalization of a certain sentiment that underlies much of the political discourse. My point is not merely to criticize the opinions of one particular person. Rather, because Barkley’s remarks went viral, they are likely indicative of general sentiments, so addressing Barkley’s comments also implicitly addresses the many who share his beliefs on power and politics.

Barkley’s thesis is that our politicians use the issue of race to “divide and conquer” the populace so that they can maintain their grip on power. In other words, Barkley dislikes that American politicians use their power cynically and not for the benefit of the country. He states that “our system is set up where our politicians, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, are designed to make us not like each other, so they can keep their grasp of money and power.” Barkley contends that because our politicians do not do an adequate job of governing the country, they capitalize on racial tensions to keep the American people busy arguing with each other. I see two problems in these comments; the first is what these comments imply about the American public, and the second is what they imply about power.

The core of Barkley’s argument relies on two premises: a belief in the inherently good nature of human beings and an observation of the contentious state of American politics. In order to reconcile them, he concludes that the cause of the division must be a subset of the population, i.e. the politicians, while the rest of society is good. Although this view seems uplifting, it hides an undertone of despair. In order to explain how a tiny minority can cause such contentiousness, Barkley explains that it is because “we are so stupid following our politicians.” However, how stupid would we actually be if we let a bunch of power-hungry psychopaths continually dupe us? If we take seriously the idea that our politicians are tricking us, then we must be in despair about the intelligence of the American public and our ability to determine our own political outcomes. The idea that politicians control the entire system is a view that infantilizes the American people. If we want to have the responsibility of electing our leaders, then we must be blamed when our leaders govern poorly. After all, a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people cuts both ways. If the American people are too stupid to select good politicians, then they are incapable of self-governance. The entire notion of a democracy is that the citizenry is well-informed enough to be able to make their own decisions, however good or bad they may be.

One possible objection to my comments is that I am too harsh on the American people. This criticism requires a bit of historical perspective. In the days when communication was slow and education was rare, I think it is warranted to blame those in power for the plight of the masses because the general populace neither understood nor controlled the societal situation. However, this is not the case today. In modern America, we have more information than ever before, and are able to communicate faster and to more of our fellow citizens than ever before. At this stage in history, if a small group of people are taking advantage of the rest of society, the populace has more than enough opportunity to stop them.

The reason why my comments may appear harsh is because of a misunderstanding about power. We tend to conceptualize power through our current legal framework, which is laid out in the constitution, along with federal, state, and local laws. However, the people’s power does not reside in this framework, but rather in the ability to override this framework. Even if the people decide not to override it, power comes from the possibility of doing so. Take the American revolution as an example. The colonist’s power did not lie in the letter of the law, but rather in their ability to revolt. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Today, overriding the legal framework is not accomplished through revolt (for hopefully obvious reasons), but rather through political discourse. The philosopher David Hume understood this quite well when he wrote in his Of the First Principle of Government: “Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.” Hume’s words are especially true in our modern age because the political discourse is online, and therefore out in the open. When we educate ourselves on the nature of politics and focus on substantial issues, our politicians are forced to enact change in order to gain reelection. When we gossip about unsubstantial issues or fake outrage, our politicians have no need to actualize change. Therefore, it is not, as Barkley claims, that we blindly follow our politicians, but rather that we choose to focus on issues that do not hold our politicians accountable.

Barkley’s ahistorical perspective on power is further evinced when he criticizes “our system” for serving as a tool that the politicians use to maintain power. Although this criticism is robust on a surface-level glance, its problem lies in the implication that there is another system in which presumably the politicians govern effectively and do not use their power cynically. Politicians using power cynically does not seem to be endemic to the American system of government, but rather a problem that every government, and probably every hierarchical system, faces. The problem of cynical leaders is baked into the structure of power; it is the rule, not the exception. Therefore, we should expect that our politicians will take advantage of us if given the chance. Even if a leader has good intentions, they must have power before they can ameliorate the political situation. Sometimes the leader is able to govern well, but this is often due to a certain confluence of societal forces that allow a leader’s good intentions to actually shift political outcomes. For example, in the past ten years, many western countries have legalized gay marraige, not because of a moral shift that randomly occured in these governments, but rather a shift in the attitudes of the general population. These governments were merely reacting to a change in the incentive structure of power.

I admit that the general attitude, with which Barkley would likely agree, criticizes leaders for their self-interestedness. However, the general attitude often applies this criticism imprecisely. Self-interest is generally treated as a moral failing of an individual politician, rather than a systemic issue of power. These individual failings are not incorrect explanations, but they are insufficient in explaining why the powerful govern poorly. A better method of assessing power is to examine its structure, which means we must ask ourselves what someone must do in order to climb a structure of power. Whom do they have to please? Whom can’t they criticize? Whom can they only criticize? In answering these questions, we reveal the shape of power and its unstated constraints. We do not ignore the topography of history, as Barkley does, but rather gaze at the contours of the political landscape. Politicians have access to large rivers of power that flow through the political landscape, but these rivers can only flow in certain directions. In understanding the mountains and valleys of power, i.e. the circumstances and forces outside of the politician’s control, we see the actual effect of the populace (as well as many other factors) on political outcomes.

Although some may say that Barkley is just a former NBA star and his opinions are irrelevant to the political discussion, this could not be farther from the truth. Barkley’s comments are reflective of what people already think but do not say in such succinct terms. Other political commentators often couch their thoughts in complex language or long monologues, which hide the true instincts behind their beliefs. Barkley’s candid nature, on the other hand, allows us to understand the underlying motivations and assumptions that inform his views. This outspokenness is something that I feel is often missing in our political culture, which is increasingly conformist and narrow-minded. If more people were as forthright as Barkley, these misconceptions would be more visible, and therefore easier to correct.