As regards authoritarianism, one of my biggest concerns about corporate influence in government is that corporations are about the least democratic institutions on the face of our planet. True, an authoritarian organization can be more efficient than a democracy (which is why it is used by corporations), and is arguably a superior form of governance when the organization faces a crisis (which is why it is used by the military), but the rest of the time authoritarianism tends to be a nightmare for everyone except those at the top….which is rarely desirable in a government.

Sarah- on the local Christian talk radio last week (KJSL http://www.kjslradio.net/index.htm ) the co-hosts were discussing this issue in the context of a fundamentalist Christian marriage. They went to great pains to point out that they weren’t being sexist in proclaiming that the man (not the woman) is ultimately in charge of a marriage. It’s not sexist (they explained) because a man has a duty to treat others with the same respect as he treats himself. Therefore, marriage is actually a partnership after all! Well . . . except for those times when the man and the woman disagree. In those cases, “a ship can have only one captain.”

[This is the same station where one of the shows presents financial investment advice for Christians. That show begins with a prayer before getting down to money. It's the same station where an automobile dealer commercial advises that the car salesman is a really good guy. You can come in and pray with him before or after buying your new car!]

There’s no real examination of whether the model of authority in effect is valid: this is a 65-minute B picture, after all. It is interesting that although it may be true that “a ship can have only one captain”, such a model of leadership is not appropriate in most contexts and yet some people want to apply it to, say representative government. Or what is worse, pretend that each underling is supposed to both be completely loyal to the leader and his wishes, and maintain his independent judgment. I wonder how many officers will do hard time for the atrocities in Iraq, for instance, versus how many enlisted men.

I guess someone could write their doctoral dissertation on movies about authority at sea, because The Caine Mutiny is another examination of authority and power in an isolated context. And all these films begin with the understanding that, at sea, the capain is the ultimate authority.

What do they say about the road to hell? In the case of Will Stone and the current president, the exercise of totalitarian authority (spying, censorship of alternate viewpoints and economic strong-arming through so-called tax reform) always starts with that “good” motive. “Sure, nobody likes it,” these thugs claim, “but someone has to be totally in charge for the good and safety of the country.”

Authoritarian figures always do this mental gymnastic as a prelude to asserting rights over others’ lives in good conscience; I cannot think of a single real life exception. They can thus convince themselves that they are ultimately empowered due to those (ubiquitous) issues that concern matters of life and death. What society doesn’t have such issues? Without that little mental move, what sane person would be willing to assert such control the lives of others to this extent? I therefore agree with you.