Confessions of a political dominatrix wannabe

Andrew D Atkin

I am attracted to the idea of forming a political party that can help drive New Zealand and the world in the direction of my own image (and all of us have an image, whether it be an image of control or freedom).

What I realised is that if I did form a political party I would like to do it with me operating behind the scenes, using others to do my public work for me. Not because I'm evil, but because the last thing I would want to have to do while trying to strategise and form "good" public policy is to have to put on a monkey show for the public, and absorb all the stresses that come with that job. It's tedious and I'm too busy!

Indeed, if I had plenty of cash then the only thing that would stop me from employing a puppet would be not being able to find someone that I can trust to pull it off. But then, as my devious mind thought, could I find someone to pull it off? Who would have the right attributes? Ahh...it's surprising how much you realise you know when you put yourself in an employers position, with a specific agenda for what you want your employees to do!

If you're going to use puppets in your political game then I believe you want them to be either infantile, spineless, psychopathic or zealot. (I'm so mean!!)

Infantile: You need to be able to walk up to them, put your hand on their shoulder and warmly shake their hand, tell them that they're doing a fantastic (and tough!) job, and that they're part of a great team and that they're fighting the good fight. And that needs to be good enough for them. If they're living in a cozy la-la land it will be. They will quickly rationalise their own thinking to agree with what you say in terms of the policy you're employing them to push, and so they will reliably buy your propaganda. It's simply too uncomfortable and difficult for them not to, mostly due to their intense need to be accepted (by the group) and impress.

Spineless: These are your indifferent, sleepy bureaucrat types. They will tow the party line, maybe in dismay at times, but they won't actually do anything about that which they don't agree with - not on the level of sabotage, at least. When pushed too far they will simply resign and be happy enough to say "no blood on my hands" if they have prior agreed to confidentiality. These people are not so much puppets but drones that can make up the numbers. They are your classic career politician.

Psychopathic: Psychopaths have an underlying flat, robotic flavour to them that is transparent when you're not being bribed by their "charm". However, they can be paid off to do anything. These are the kind of puppets you want if you're in the business of truly serious corruption.

Zealot: So consumed in a single issue that they don't even bother trying to understand the others. They will be "confidence and supply" to all your other policies. So long as you can satisfy their issue (because it integrates with your agenda anyway) they will be reliable drones on everything else.

And so, as I believe, your real politicians (decision makers) could live behind these character types.

But would this have happened? That is my real point. Are there idealistic people like me, but with heaps of money and contacts, who would want to get on with the job of "good social management" and are prepared to outsource the front-man role?

I can easily imagine something like this developing because I can relate to it. People with really big money probably won't play (public) politics - why should they? And once a strong political movement of this type develops and entrenches itself it could, no doubt, become a massive interlinked corporation in its own right, over time.

So I wouldn't think that the idea of a "government behind a government" as impossible or merely some kind of conspiracy theory. The more I contemplate it the more possible and even probable it seems to me. That is, in terms of something that could and would naturally evolve. And indeed, there is already plenty of incidental evidence suggesting that our visible politicians don't really run the show.

Think about this: How can you think with a the public media constantly beating at your door, looking for a story? No serious minded person/s wants to be a public front-man if they can avoid it. It makes perfects sense to isolate the front-man role from the real policy developers. And then, from here, it makes sense to collaborate with other behind-the-scenes players (if they exist) and incorporate both sides of the political game so as to manage multiple political parties. Strategic co-operation will only enhance your power. The latter of course takes direct contempt for the democratic process, but it's still perfectly possible. And most likely? My best bet is that the real world of politics is much cosier than it appears.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition: 11-11-11

This is defintately an interesting clip. One of my favorite sayings: "You put the money on the table, and people believe what they want to believe".