The 1789 Discourse: Max Weber on Professional Politics
akg-images/newsom
Max Weber, the German sociologist, and philosopher presented one of the most influential essays on the political leadership of the 20th century in his work, “The Profession and Vocation of Politics”. Weber’s most recognized work was published during a time of great tumult and discord within Germany after the Revolution of 1918 that forced Kaiser Wilhelm to abdicate. The subsequent period of political limbo saw Marxists, Democratic Socialists, and other radical sects vying for power.
World War I was a specifically unique conflict for the world to understand because it was the deadliest conflict up to that point while being almost entirely political. The war was not a response to a dangerous dictator conquering and consolidating territory like Napoleon, nor was it an ideological war similar to the 30 Years War between Christian kingdoms. World War I was a war of politics and vying for position within the world order that might arise out of it.
The patchwork of treaties and agreements agreed upon decades before the war had become a stockpile of powder kegs ready to explode at a pin drop or an assassination of a specific political figure. The elaborate and complex nature of the treaties, alliances and agreements that became the fuse set off by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would take days to fully explain and comprehend. Therefore, Weber understood that the nature of “power politics” had surpassed the capacity for a hereditary ruler, similar to Kaiser Wilhelm, to inherently understand competently.
Who would be fit to lead this new German state? Should the Germans turn towards a career civil servant with an affinity for being a cog in the machines of society, or should the Germans turn to an ideologue with a specific goal that disregarded the consequences of achieving that vision? These difficult questions plagued the German discourse, and it still plays a role for voters in America and democracies abroad when voting for political leaders.
Weber was thinking in terms of an impending civil war that would ravage the state and evaluating what leader the German people should hope ascends to political power. Weber believed that the formation of a state, the rulers and the ruled, was an inevitability of life, and he drew inspiration from Trotsky at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the words, “every state is founded on force”.
In the beginning of his essay, Weber toils with the idea of the “state” and how to define it, and he ultimately comes to the conclusion that the “state” is a group that successfully claims the, “monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. This quote feels eerily similar to something the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, would consider for his Leviathan state.
However, I think you could contrast Hobbes with Weber because of Weber’s emphasis on the ability of political leaders to come from the political machines they would eventually hold authority over rather than an individual or an entity that wields uncompromising and absolute domination of the state similar to Hobbes. Therefore, these men hold strong similarities in their desire for a capable leader, but Weber’s ideals are catered to the modern state and Germany’s political moment compared to Hobbes who was in the midst of civil conflict.
Both men recognized, nevertheless, that an individual or body to maintain the utmost security and well-being of the state to prevent civil strife from tearing it apart. Weber thought that Germany had to compete with the political powers of the world by cultivating a culture that could create effective political leaders capable of leading a modern state.
Weber determined that there were three ways in which a state holds legitimate domination: tradition, charisma, and legal rationality. It is apparent that Weber struggles to categorize the place of democracies within his system of typology from claiming it was non-legitimate to consider it as a form of charismatic legitimacy from the prevalence of democratic officials in the public eye.
From this assertion, Weber deems lawyers and journalists as much more capable leaders within a democracy because of the lawyer’s ability to advocate strongly for a seemingly weak position, and the journalist’s capacity for demagoguery. Weber considered scientists and academics poorly equipped to lead as professional politicians due to their career demanding extensive deliberation compared to the lawyer and journalists who have much more dynamic and improvisational skill sets. Just because certain issues might demand the skills of a soldier or a scientist, Weber deemed them unbeholden to effectively lead the political machines of modern governments.
The English parliamentary system was very attractive to Weber because of it forcing politicians to operate as components of the political machines they aspired to lead. Ideologues and moral absolutists who were unable to function within political structures would be unable to compromise on virtues and responsibilities. The conflict of ethical conviction versus ethical responsibility is a dilemma that Weber famously contends with, and he argues that any professional, any effective politician will have to effectively balance.
Weber neither believed in the dangerous ideologue dedicated to a principle over the welfare of the state any more than the robotic civil servant that merely acted in their responsibility to the state without any sort of direction or goals. As Weber simply puts it, “politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective”.
How do we evaluate this argument with the modern dilemmas we are faced with today? The pandemic has its share of politicians who see the forcible shut down of society as the best solution, while others contend there must be some sort of plan that benefits the individual business owner and the economy as a whole. Well, Weber would argue that a compromise of these absolute positions would have to be agreed upon for the functionality of the state.
A figure like Donald Trump, “unbeholden” to the “political swamp” is not a seasoned politician, however, he has proved himself capable of consolidating authority within the Republican party and effectively arousing his voter base. Despite this security of his base, he has not been most effective at encouraging coalitions within the political discourse. Whether this polarization is a fault entirely of his own, or it is a compounded effect of partisan politics driven further apart due to radical coalitions within each party is up for speculation.
Regardless, the American political machine has historically rewarded those that could most effectively communicate their populist platform to the masses. The likes of Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan seem to validate Weber’s advocacy of those capable of garnering political support from the masses.
A Libertarian would see Weber’s argument as beholden to fascism and federal overreach, but Weber could not have predicted such a figure as Hitler would have so effectively formulated such a dangerous political formula that would lead to the deadliest conflict the world had ever seen. It is precisely for this point that Weber should be so influential in deliberation, but very critically analyzed for the capacity for an oppressive state he puts forth.
