Politicians as Simulants: Who's Fooling Who?

8/14/2019 Politicians as Simulants: Who's Fooling Who?

1/6

Politicians as Simulants: Whos Fooling Who?By Michael McCurley

Androids, avatars, bots, robots, and simulantsIts a brave new world out there

or is it somehow a new version of what we already know? Good question. The fact that

technology changes or transforms what we understand is undeniable, but what wevelearned tends to provide a basis for new discoveries and applicationsfor what works

and doesnt work. Politics has moved quietly to the forefront of roleplay applications,

now and always, for good reasons and for not such good ones as well. The politician is asuperlative simulant.

Role playing has reached new heights in computer simulation programs andgames, but it became common centuries ago, long before fiction in literature became

popular or possible, before computers were ever conceived of or developed. Story telling,

religious dramas, and ceremonial rites all involved role playing where people would

represent and reenact the roles of other characters, either real or mythical. To achieve

their quests for power, leaders have taken on roles that supercede their functions asprivate individuals. Politics in one form or another has been used for power play in

families, tribes, clans, villages, counties, cities, provinces, states, countries, and empires.The leaders of these groups, regardless of their functions or size, have taken on roles as

simulants or representatives for whatever the structure of a particular group might

require. Elders, wise men, shamans, tribal chiefs, priests, witch doctors, councilmen,mayors, governors, law makers, sheriffs, congressmen, senators, board members, CEOs,

presidents, premiers, princes, kings, emperors, ambassadors, consuls, prefects, judges,

principals, representatives, superintendents, administrators, managers, and supervisorsamong many othersall have played roles that surpass their common heritage and affect

the greater interests of humanity in positive and negative ways. All leaders are politicians

who manage some sort of power and play roles that do not represent the private behaviorof common citizens. The power given to a leader is ceded by the members of a particularcommunity. Since it can be given, it can also be taken away (or it may end naturally). All

of this has an effect on the actions and behaviors of leaders who determine how a

particular political system will function, govern itself, and choose its next leaders.

The use of the term simulant (not stimulant) for politics might be considered

relatively new, but both the positive and negative roles of politicians as simulants havebeen practiced (without the term) for thousands of years. Use of the term simulant is

well-known in the gemstone industry. Diamond simulants are natural, artificial, or

synthetic materials that simulate the qualities of diamonds and may be used in producing

jewelry, though sometimes can be used to fool unsuspecting clients. In chemistry andbiology, certain chemical, biological, or nuclear simulants may be used in test kits for

unknown substances, to replicate more dangerous compositions, without exposing the

people who are learning about them to higher risk agents. In science fiction and roleplaying games, simulants may have humanoid characteristics, but are not distinctly

human for one or more reasons (since they may be android, alien, or robotic). In politics

as well, the role of a simulant is humanoid, without being entirely humanvirtual in asymbolic sense, while still being quite physically real. More on that follows.


2/6

A politician is a simulant in the sense that he or she (temporarily) assumes a role

that goes beyond the position the person already holds in society. The position of thesimulant may have nothing to do with personality or ability. It is a representation of

power which is both symbolic (virtual) and pragmatic (real). The persona of the politician

is not the same as who that person is, so in that sense also, the politician is a simulant. Aposition is not the same as a man (though even that distinction is sometimes blurred

isnt that right, Mr. President?). We see what seems to be a perfectly ordinary person,

who may also have power over life, death, taxes, tributes, war, health, education,industry, finance, housing, agriculture, energy, laws, and anything else that might be

relevant to human society. Otherwise, hes just a person, but not really!

When someone achieves a political position, that person becomes something else,a simulant or an avatar, one who becomes the embodiment of the role he or she is about

to play. Behind all of this, however, is an element of performance. The person who has a

part to play is also an actor who may play his or her role well or badly. That, of course, is

for the audience or public to decide. Quoting what Shakespeare once said All theworlds a stage. And all the men and women merely players. He knew human nature well.

So it isnt surprising to see actors who later decide to become politicians, though fewpoliticians ever decide later to become actors. This suggests that the political simulant is

the more sophisticated actor, one who acts in the real rather than a fictitious world. Is it

any wonder when people become concerned about a politicians character? They may

have come closer to the truth than they think.

What makes politics work? I would say belief in the roles politicians play as

simulants is important. But belief is where the peril lies. We follow a leader as long aswe believe he has the power to lead us. Take that belief away and nothings leftthe

powers gone, the simulacrum collapses. With fast moving media, we become used to

rapid news clips with audio and video, picking up a few sound bytes and images fromhere and there to form instantaneous perceptions. This may be absorbing and perhaps

entertaining as an application, but it doesnt lend itself well to complete analysis or

reflection of greater depth. That may seem to be besides the point, but it isnt. Word andimage clips of individuals can be taken out of context or screened for whatever a

commentator wishes to emphasize. This may work for or against simulants, but the range

of limited perception is artificially made to fit within specific contexts. While this may be

natural in terms of the different language registers we ourselves use for various socialsituations (these change with peers, partners, siblings, friends, parents, teachers, or work

supervisors), its not natural when the presentations of public figures can be moldedto fit

different purposes in ways that go beyond the original intent of a speech or dialogue.

The simulacrums or mental models of political systems are important, but these

should not be confused with political realities. The problem comes when people fail todistinguish between these very different components (what is symbolic, simulated or

real), which form our frame of reference. Think of how we use language. A language is

made up of visual and phonetic symbols or signs, which are signifiers for particular

meanings. A word is not what something is. It is a representation of something through


3/6

symbols and signifiers that we recognize are equivalent in our minds to what something

is. Words, in and of themselves, have no other value than what we give them. When we

hear or visually recognize words, language communicates what we understand within thecontext of our general and individual experiences. Translators who struggle to interpret

meanings as they translate from one language to another are often aware that the

connotations and meanings of words may be quite different when they are perceived byother societies or cultures. So the political simulacrum of a particular culture will only

work within that specific culture, and political simulants will work from within that

context.

The preceding discussion gives us an idea of the roles simulants play in politics. It

is essential to examine the strengths and weaknesses of how they function, and identify

how they may fail or actually succeed in doing things we dont want. The general waysthat political simulants function are neither good nor bad, but there are definite rules of

the game we might apply for judging their behavior. That being said, its difficult to

differentiate between simulated sincerity and genuine effort. People arent readily able to

distinguish an elaborate fraud from ordinary routine or incompetence (until after the fact,when the fraud has been revealed). A deeper explanation of this might be the subject of

an entire book, but we can still keep a few things in mind within the scope of this article.

Lets go back to the analogy of a simulant being an actor who represents a

character and consider how the job is done. A good actor will at least temporarily become

the character or role that he or she has to play. Thats what convinces the audience andentertains us. Those who fail may fall by the wayside, but those who succeed could be

watched by millions of people. Who determines how well this process succeedsthe

actor or the audience? Although this question may seem simplistic, it is a lady or thetiger sort of question. The more options you examine, the more difficult it becomes to

arrive at an answer. The audience determines the actors success by its response. The

actor moves the audience to produce a response. The actor is motivated by the audiencesresponse to produce a heightened performance. Which causes which? And, oh, by the

way, how would a real con fit into our judgment of a performance? Would a simulants

performance be any less riveting if his motivations werent real? Would it be possible toconfuse those motivations and think they were something else? Think Bernie Madoff,

and you begin to see expanding possibilities into the infamous.

Oh, butyou would not be fooled, right? Think again. Who is the person that foolsyou? A simple con game needs a mark and a con artist who offers you something

unbelievably good. The first step convinces you that the offer is believable. The second

step leads you to make a small commitment, then the third leads you to fool yourself, thefourth leads you to a form of greed that you may not avoid, and the last step leads you to

the discovery of the con. Add a step, subtract one, mix and match, switch the order, but it

doesnt make much difference. A con is a con. Eventually you discover it for what it is,and you see yourself for the fool youve become. Aha! you might argue, I dont have

to be the mark. But simulacra mixes it up until the spectators become participants who

are actors themselves. You cant remove yourself from the formula and be an impartial

spectator if youre part of the game. Keep this in mind as you take a closer look at what


4/6

political simulants do. As Einstein has mentioned, everything in our world is relative and

interconnected.

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that we can determine in our minds

what is authentic and what isnt (though this is part of the problem we are discussing).

We will determine, for the preceding purpose, what some aspects of a political simulantare. It would then follow from that contrived set, what a political simulant should notbe

though sometimes is. So here goes:

1) The simulant represents a character or figure who leads or governs in a society.

- The simulant as a character or figure is not a real person.

2) The simulant appears to be the embodiment of what people admire and respect.

- The key phrase is appears to be.3) The simulant has the power to control one or more aspects that affect your life.

- You generally cannot avoid that control.

4) You indirectly give the simulant power to control you, or allow that power to exist.

- The simulant has the combined power of government to enforce that control,which you have little power to counteract.

5) A simulants personality is not as relevant as what that simulant can do politically.- A simulant may act in ways which are contrary to what the person appears to be.

6) There is an illusion that who a similant is will determine what that person does

- Hint-a simulant is not actually a person).

7) The simulant creates something for you to believe, but you must interpret it yourself.- Whether you agree or not with what the simulant expects, you may find

unexpected collateral consequences.

8) The simulant appears to follow the same precepts of the society he or she lives in.- The simulant may not actually do or believe what the rest of society expects.

9) Your opinion about what the simulant says or does has no direct bearing on the

control the simulant exercises while in power.- Like it or not, the simulant has the (temporary) advantage of power.

10) You may or may not have the ability to affect how a simulant exercises power.

- You can be sure that a simulant will take maximum advantage of power whileable to do so.

Although political simulants may start out as sincere persons, the act of becoming

a simulant, of acquiring a role and performing it, is artificial. This is more a fault of theprocess than it is an ethical problem and should not be viewed as something detrimental.

You elect a person to a position of government to represent you. How practical is that

idea? It seems (democratic) because thats what youve been taught, but unless youactually participate more that this, how democratic is democracy? A representative

official cannot represent all of your interests. He may, in fact, represent some or none of

them, because he must represent the interests of others as wellincluding himself. In theinterest of economy and efficiency, there is no one to one representative ratio.

Democracy may work well if we are directly involved in a small community, but it may

not work as we would expect it to on a massive scale for a nation.


5/6

People who become politicians quickly learn about the distance there is between

themselves and the people they represent. They learn how government works and doesnt

work, and they adapt to their environment. Perhaps without meaning to, some of thesepoliticians become simulants, who are not genuine representatives of others, but become

receptacles for power. Once this happens, there is more interest in power than there is for

democracy, and the simulants will lose touch with the public that elected them. Thesimulants become part of the machine which is artificially contrived anyway. Those

who struggle to stay authentic are the ones who may seem to be out of sync or out of

touch. The other simlulants will mesh better together because they have stoppedquestioning and concentrate better on their performances.

Aside from these simulants are the citizens who elect them, whose expectations

are no more realistic. For the citizens who believe they have a right to be served bythese elected officials and expect them to get things done, what has happened to the

democratic responsibilities those citizens should have exercised on their own? A

government by proxy is not a pure democracy. So the simulants who are elected have

been chosen to be what they are. This is another way of saying, I dont have the time orenergy for this, so Ill choose someone else to do it for me. While it may be an

understandable sentiment, its not equivalent to doing what and how you want somethingdone yourself. We cant exactly blame the simulants for not doing what we want without

developing better means for controlling what we want them to do. But it doesnt work

that way. They control us instead.

That leads us to one last question. We may be concerned about politicians who do

not seem to actually represent our interests and have an undue amount of control over our

lives. We may feel disappointed when they dont live up to our expectations or we mayeven feel fooled by them if they use their positions to their own personal advantage. This

seems to happen over and over, so we know that its not exactly an isolated phenomenon.

Who is responsible and have we been duped? An honest answer about being fooledsometimes would be a qualified yes, but before we fix the blame squarely on our

adversaries, it might be better to take a closer look at ourselves.

If this begins to sound more like Alice in Wonderland, than a discussion of

politics, its because so much of what we apparently understand doesnt work in the ways

we think. It would be unwise to blame anyone for the dynamics of how a political system

works. But understanding how that system works could at least help us to make informedchoices. Although we cannot easily judge the merits of a representative political system,

it is important that we understand its structure and mechanisms, especially if we question

something we dont like about it. First, we must not confuse what seems to be absurdwith situational irony and humor (though some of us enjoy doing that). No matter how

absurd something seems, it must be taken seriously if it happens to be the truth. Tests for

proof, for example, include independent confirmation of the same phenomenon, so youcan always look for other evidence to see if a claim (like the one in this article) is

supported.


6/6

Getting back to our question: who is responsible for all of this? Although

gambling can be considered to be an addiction, politics might be viewed as more of a

necessary obsession. Should we be ticked off when we try to pull away the wizardscurtain and are disappointed? I dont know the answer to that, but I do think we should

consider the roles we play if we feel weve been deceived. Politics is a form of gambling,

plain and simple. In simple terms, if you place your bet on a winner, like the righthorse, you win. If you dont, you lose. People who fall for Ponzi schemes are duped on a

slightly more sophisticated level, somewhat closer to politics. The simulants who are

expert con artists play on our desires (to make money, for example), simple fears, andgreed. But the primary ingredient of a good con is self deception. We convince ourselves

that the scheme would really work for us, then we begin to imagine how everything else

could be, based upon that motivation. The con artist is simply an able facilitator for that

process. The political simulant plays upon some of those same emotionswe want tobelieve in the candidatewant to believe he or she can do what hasnt been done, change

the system, create something new that hasnt worked previously. But isnt this also a

form of wishful thinking? Isnt it like buying a lottery ticket and hoping youll win

something? Few people have ever sued a lottery organization for selling false hopesbecause most of us know that those hopes are not statistically real for the vast majority

who buy tickets. But that doesnt stop them for playing and paying for a short liveddream. Unless your luck is something more than statistical, youre probably not going to

win anything. So who are the ones responsible? Could it be the simulants? Our ancestors

created the roles and positions that simulants play in politics. Simulants will continue to

play important roles in our societies unless we stop believing in them. The answer isfairly clear: if anyone is responsible for fooling us about the simulacrums of our political

systems, we might as well start by examining ourselves.

For further Reading see Jean Baudrillards Simulacra and Simulation (Michigan:

University of Michigan Press, 1994)Frank Stockton, The Lady or the Tiger (short story)

William Shakespeare,As You Like it Act II, scene 7

This article may be shared for personal or educational purposes only. It may not be

reproduced for any other reason without express permission from the author.

January 2010

About the Author. Michael McCurley is an alumnus of Massachusetts Institute of

Technologys Guided Study Program in System Dynamics for Education that wasoffered through the Internet. He lives in Liberia, Guanacaste, Costa Rica.

Politicians as Simulants: Who's Fooling Who?

Documents

Transcript of Politicians as Simulants: Who's Fooling Who?