Jim wrote: "one thing that's striking is how humble Bush acted in the 2000 presidential debates and how arrogant his administration has been".
Quite. Maybe like that song "Oh Lord it is hard to be humble ?". To arrogate is to claim or seize without real justification, or to make undue claims to having something (a characteristic, attribute, property etc.). This suggests that arrogance or "cheek" has its emotional relevance in capital accumulation and imperialist conquest, which as Marx suggests, is always in the last instance based on getting something for nothing, whatever emotional duplicity might obscure this or twist it into something else. More generally, the pursuit of power seems to require a certain arrogance, namely the belief that it is fitting that one ought to have power or acceed to power. This can be philosophically justified with an elitarian philosophy such as Straussianism, according to which, egalitarian notions devalue philosophy by rejecting anything that cannot be understood by the "common man". The idea here is that the public is not capable of understanding or accepting universal principles of right. Therefore, they posit the rectitude of the "noble lie" which shields the less enlightened public from knowledge of unpalatable truth, for which the public might hold the philosopher to blame (e.g. Socrates). But lying of some sort might in fact be necessitated by the modern "information society" itself in the specific way that, apart from not being able to cope with the consequences of honesty, still contains the inability to reconcile class or sectional interests with the interests of the community as a whole. I've often had occasion to think about the concept of arrogance, since, as a youthful student in New Zealand my mates thrashed me for being an arrogant upstart. They felt, that Dutch people often came across as arrogant, or that they were naturally arrogant. Returning later to the Netherlands from New Zealand, I had the same irritating experience, but how objective is that really ? Later I've often reflected, that maybe it is not really so much arrogance as a natural self-confidence or over-confidence instilled in children from a young age, of which one could indeed be envious, particularly if, as immigrant, one isn't so self-confident. But it's something that is difficult to be objective about, and I confess I still often get livid within myself about the emotional content of some interactions I experience here. Traditionally Dutch people often have an ability for a confident directness, where other ethnic groups would be much more reserved. The question is then whether this confidence is really justified or appropriate, or whether it has no real justification (maybe just a sort of bluff). It might take considerable emotional and practical insight to understand that. Paradoxically, that the corollary of self-confidence is often the attempt to viciously "cut everybody down to size" in ways, maybe even derogatorily, something which might culminate in the celebration of mediocrity or the lowest common denominator. Status envy and competitive rivalry seems an interminable problem... Machiavelli writes: "Many times it is seen that humility not only does not benefit, but harms, especially when it is used by insolent men who, either from envy or for other reasons, have conceived a hatred against you. Of this our Historian gives proof on the occasion of the war between the Romans and the Latins. For when the Samnites complained to the Romans that the Latins had assaulted them, the Romans did not want to prohibit such a war to the Latins, desired not to irritate them; which not only did not irritate them, but made them become more spirited against them [i.e. the Romans], and they discovered themselves as enemies more quickly. Of which, the words of the aforementioned Annius, the Latin Praetor, in that same council, attest, where he says: You have tried their patience in denying them military aid: why do you doubt this should excite them? Yet they have borne this pain. They have heard we are preparing an army against their confederates, the Samnites, yet have not moved from their City. Whence is there such modesty, except from their recognition of both our virility and theirs? It is very clearly recognized, therefore, by this text how much the patience of the Romans increased the arrogance of the Latins." (Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses, chapter XIV). J.
