Power and control by Twitter and Facebook

I had an uncle who was a Mason. He was generous guy. I saw nothing sinister in what is mostly a well-intentioned and benevolent organization. He spoke to me about it a few times.

My father-in-law was a Mason as well. He and my mother-in-law were members of Eastern Star, which is a Masonic-affiliated organization with much charitable activity. Somewhere I still have a book on Scottish Rite that I ended up inheriting from him.

Come to think of it, the landlord of a long ago ex-partner of mine was also a Mason. They’re all over the place!

The secrecy of Masonic ritual is a magnet for the suspicions of conspiracy theorists, who naturally promulgate their scare stories all over the Web–just as they’ve done in whispers and in books before there ever was an Internet. “What could those people be plotting behind those closed doors? Why are they so furtive about it? They must be up to no good!” Indeed, considering the millions of Masons who have been among us, anyone truly paranoid might be tempted to think “They’re all around us, and they’re all out to get us!”

But the truth is really the opposite. The fact that Masonry is so widespread is evidence of its ordinariness among humans. Most things can be put down to human nature–including secrecy, which to be frank is mostly a grown-up form of boyish game playing. “Along with our benign intentions, isn’t it fun to have a ‘secret society’? Isn’t it even more fun to have all those people out there wondering what we’re up to”?

While their rituals might be “secret,” there’s never been anything secret about membership in such societies. Most members are proud to speak openly of it. A truly “secret” society would strive to keep its very existence secret–the Mafia is a prime example–not that they’ve had much success in doing so.

As it happens, I also know someone with Mafia connections–of a kind. Mind you, he’s a perfectly respectable guy as far as I know, and he does do a decent job. It’s his wife who came from a Mafia family. Not that she’s to blame when she couldn’t help being born into such a family. But he described visiting her family in another state, and “Oh boy,” he said, “the atmosphere in that house! You had to be careful what you said and what you asked.” Omerta was the rule!

It is not surprising that numerous American Presidents have been members of “secret” societies, among which Freemasons have been the most popular. Politics after all is a matter of gathering influence and support, calling for the help of an extensive social network. To this end, I’m sure most politicians have participated in a large number of organizations of every kind, which were bound to include a handful of so-called “secret” ones.

In spite of that, according to this Web site, only a minority, 20 out of 44 Presidents, have been members of any such society. (If anyone is thinking Trump is our 45th President, that’s because Grover Cleveland, with his two nonconsecutive terms in office, got counted twice.)

A few of these societies were minor and obscure ones. Richard Milhous Nixon joined the Order of the Red Friars while at Duke University–I’m sure many men joined such fraternities during their college days–but it was subsequently disbanded. Thomas Jefferson similarly joined a college outfit cryptically titled “F.H.C.,” with which however he was not impressed in spite of its lofty goals. Apparently the initials stood for Fraternitas, Humanitas, et Cognotio, but it was informally called the Flat Hat Club after the “mortar boards” worn. Theodore Roosevelt and Warren Gamaliel Harding were both members of a society with the hilarious title of the “International Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo.” Apparently it was a lumbermen’s organization and Teddy was recognized as a member for the best of reasons: his well-remembered work for conservation.

Apart from that, the Skull and Bones society of Yale, founded in 1832, has featured three Presidents in more recent times: William Howard Taft a century ago, who was also a Mason, and more recently both Bushes, father and son. The second most popular “secret society” among Presidents has been the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, numbering half a dozen members, including Ulysses S. Grant and Rutherford Birchard Hayes.

But the list of Masons among Presidents numbers fourteen (incidentally Ben Franklin was also a Mason). Four of them were Odd Fellows in addition: McKinley, Harding, Franklin Roosevelt and Truman. They have included some of our most outstanding Presidents: Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, both Roosevelts, and Truman, along with a few failures like Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Harding. Indeed, as that Web site points out, more than one President, from Taft to Gerald Ford, has cited Masonic principles and integrity as a guide in their quest to manage political affairs wisely.

Nor has Masonry been the exclusive province of one party of the other. Many have been Republicans, while others, like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, have been Democrats. Being a Mason never protected anyone from assassination either. It didn’t protect Garfield from being shot in 1881 by the deluded office seeker Charles Guiteau, or McKinley in 1901 from the anarchist extremist Leon Czolgosz.

If anything it seems a pity that Masonic wisdom and moderation has declined in recent times, when politics has become so contentious. Since the time of Truman, the only Masonic President has been Gerald Ford. It didn’t protect him either from two assassination attempts, one by the Manson nutjob Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, the second by another crazy female radical, Sara Jane Moore.

Meanwhile, a majority of Presidents have apparently not been associated with any “secret societies.” These include illustrious names too, starting with Lincoln, and others like Adams, Madison, Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and the popular Ronald Reagan–all the way down to that frequent butt of jokes, Millard Fillmore.

The full list of non-members numbers 24: John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, Chester Alan Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, John Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Clark Hoover, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, James Earl Carter, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, ending with Donald John Trump.

So I don’t put much stock in conspiracy theories about “secret societies.” However, I must agree that a great many politicians are stinkers, power-hungry and corrupt–granted that it’s unfair to tar all politicians with that brush. But I don’t think secret societies are needed to account for the way many politicians gang up with others to do things that operate against the public interest. They’re perfectly capable of doing this through informal collaboration, based on associations originally formed in all walks of life where their interests are shared: political parties, business and other organizations, attendance at the same college, or just plain social networks at large.

The ability to “get things done” politically involves a great deal of horse-trading among influential people of all kinds who can be persuaded that the resulting action is in their common interest. Unfortunately that does not necessarily mean the outcome will be in the interests of the public at large.

The root of the problem lies in human nature itself. We have to face the fact that life itself, including human life, tends to be competitive rather than cooperative. While altruism certainly exists, people by and large are likely to put their own wishes and interests first, while that of others is secondary. People are selfish. And the trouble with politics is that by its very nature it attracts an undue proportion of the wrong kinds of people. That doesn’t mean all politicians are “bad,” but the very job of politics, after all, involves wielding power and influence.

As this article on Presidential Personality explains, David Winter analyzed the personalities of all the Presidents up to his time in terms of David McClelland’s “Needs Theory,” which proposed that people at large are motivated in varying proportions by three psychological needs. These are Achievement (the need to get things done), Affiliation (the need to connect with others and be liked), and Power (the need for status and influence over others).

These in themselves are normal variations among people, including Presidents and other politicians. If I recall correctly. Jimmy Carter was rated high in Achievement motivation, while FDR was rated high in Affiliation with his famous “fireside chats.” Incidentally someone else has rated Trump as high in Achievement motivation–he’s certainly “achieved” a lot in the financial world!–but pointed out that people thus motivated are prone to frustration when they can’t achieve their goals, which prompts Trump to “lash out” at those who oppose him. However, a great many leftists do the same, as we see from their extreme hostility toward him.

Being high in Power motivation doesn’t in itself make anyone “bad,” and as the above article points out, it is particularly necessary to motivate anyone to become a leader and exert influence in the first place, in any sphere from business and other organizations to local or national politics. And a certain amount of skill at “manipulating” others is needed to get things done in the political world. Those who were good at it, from Washington to Lincoln to the Roosevelts and others, have been rated “great.” Those who were poor at it–significantly including some who merely “inherited” their Presidency rather than being elected to it–Tyler, Fillmore, and most of all Lincoln’s vice-president Andrew Johnson, who despite some good intentions was nearly impeached–were deemed failures.

In spite of all this, it can’t be denied that narcissistic and psychopathic types especially are generally high in Power motivation. They’re more likely than others to be attracted to politics, among other fields of human endeavor where they wreak havoc. The allure of power appeals to them; likewise the “narcissistic supply” they get from the cheers of their supporters. Politics is a matter of winning and losing, and they love to fight and win. It’s also a risky business whether they win or lose–losers end up looking for a job–but the stimulation of risk is an attraction rather than a deterrent to the psychopathic mind. Being cunning and skillful at manipulating others, they’re more likely than their opponents to succeed at gaining political office. They’re clever at lying and pulling the wool over people’s eyes; they know how to “look good” to people around. And once elected, having no conscience or concern for others, they’re likely to engage in wholesale exploitation at the expense of the people they rule.

In short, I don’t believe “secret societies” are necessary to explain the world; only human nature (including differences between individuals), the scarcity of resources people want or need, and human competition for them at every level–which admittedly has often resulted in disaster.