But let's return to Carolyn.
Was Carolyn herself “successfully” sinister? Yes and no. In some sense, she wasn't a complete failure—whatever her flaws and deceits, at the very least she stayed out of jail. In a perverse way, her handicap was enlightening. Pinned to the ground, so to speak, both physically and mentally, Carolyn settled for dating drunks, among others, and keeping letters and diaries for amusement's sake. And it is only in reading her diaries that it becomes clear that Carolyn was an impenetrable person because, in some ways, there was little there to penetrate. Her empathy was evanescent because it was only superficial. She showed little guilt because there was little to show.
Both high-tech neuroscience and Carolyn's old-fashioned journal entries have helped me to realize that Carolyn, and people like her, often don't consciously intend to be evil and certainly don't see themselves as evil—despite the blindingly obvious and sometimes terrible consequences of their actions. Instead, these are people who are constrained by the quirks of their neural machinery—often carved by both genes and environment—to act in self-serving, manipulative, and deceitful ways. Evil though the consequences of their actions may be, such Machiavellians are still real people, not caricatures—they can become heartbreakingly lonely, monumentally sad, and their eyes can become filled with tears of pity—even if it is only self-pity.
Whatever their interior feelings or potential for change, however, a dispassionate look at the evidence points to extreme caution in dealing with the successfully sinister. At the personal level, the Carolyns of the world, whether created through nature, or nurture, or both, can turn families into minefields and friendships into feuds. At the professional level, they can beguile and mislead, savaging their companies with their distorted, self-serving cognitions even as they set subordinates, colleagues, and superiors at each other's throats. At the spiritual level, they can twist good intentions into ill, and set entire populations aflame with hatred. At a political level, they can play master puppeteer in the lives of millions, snuffing out entire populations with a wave of the hand and without a second thought.
WHO ARE THE SUCCESSFULLY SINISTER?
Before Hitler's seizure of power, psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer remarked: “In normal times we diagnose them; in disturbed times they govern us.”16 In my reading, however, Kretschmer's quip misses the mark in a number of crucially important ways.
Rather than being diagnosed “in normal times,” it appears that most people who interact with the successfully sinister, even trained psychologists and psychiatrists, have no idea with whom they're dealing—not unless these analysts are given twenty-twenty hindsight clues such as a dead body or unexplained missing millions from a company's accounts. A charming, highly successful lawyer, for example, who beats and abuses his wife and children can almost literally get away with murder without being caught.17 A major company like Enron can run a flagrant Ponzi scheme where dozens of insiders are in a position to know something seriously strange is going on—and still no one says a word publicly.18 Pedophile priests in the Catholic Church can be responsible for the rape of tens of thousands of children, and the church hierarchy not only manages to keep the offenses hidden but knowingly moves the priests to new parishes, where fresh prey await.19 Key members of the United Nations can literally be in “Complicity with Evil,” as described in Adam LeBor's meticulously researched book of that name, in the commission of genocide after genocide. And yet those who allowed these disgracefully corrupt and malign episodes to proceed are granted a golden retirement with plaudits.20 And individuals like Mao not only kill tens of millions but are worshiped in godlike fashion and touted as countercultural icons. Incidental death totals equivalent to a dozen or more Nazi Holocausts are minimized or tucked away from public discussion.
No, rather than being diagnosed, per Kretschmer's quip, highly successful Machiavellians appear to lurk in every human population. With their extraordinary ability to stack any deck in their favor, their relentless need for control, and their self-serving ruthlessness, those with at least a modicum of talent, looks, and assertiveness are more likely to be found in positions of power. This means the closer you climb toward the nexus of power in any given social structure, the more likely you'll be able to find a person with Machiavellian tendencies. It really doesn't matter what the underlying political system is—democratic, fascist, communist, or religious—or whether the social structure involves a company, university, schoolboard, religious group, city council, state government, federal government, or UN-style supragovernment; the larger the social structure and the bigger the payoff, the more Machiavellians eventually seem to find a way to creep to the top in numbers all out of proportion to their underlying percentage in society. Don't forget the growing body of research literature that reveals how people selectively sort themselves into positions congenial to their personalities.21
Machiavellians can have an incalculably restrictive, demoralizing, and corrupt effect on those in their sphere of influence. But what is worse is that Machiavellian behavior in a family, company, religious institution, school, union, or governmental unit—in fact, in virtually any social group—often seems to reach awe-inspiring proportions before anyone feels compelled to take solid action.b.22 Many people simply prefer to go about their everyday lives rather than take up a righteous cause; it is often much easier to simply ignore, evade, justify, or silence the speech of anyone who does speak out than to constructively act against unsavory activities. Ordinary people's emote control also means that sinister behavior can be seen as less important or—because of calcified beliefs about an ideology, institution, or person—even justifiable. Moreover, the utter ruthlessness of some Machiavellians can mean that even the most sincere and altruistic keep quiet because of realistic concerns for themselves and their loved ones. Taking action against a Machiavellian is often a dangerous proposition, and no one takes on such a task lightly.23 (Friends in the know are often just being reasonable when they recommend cautious silence.) All of these factors serve to keep a stable sinister system intact, despite the fact that such a system is often less effective than other, more open systems that make more effective use of the “wisdom of crowds.” (Machiavellians, in fact, often work behind the scenes to ensure their system is not put in a position of competing with other systems.)
Opaque organizations, systems, and ideologies that easily allow for underhanded interactions play to Machiavellians’ strong suit, allowing them to conceal their deceitful practices more easily. Idealistic systems such as communism and some religious or quasi-religious creeds are perfect for Machiavellians because they often lack checks and balances, or don't use them.
When kindhearted people are unaware that a few leading individuals in “their group” are likely to be sinister, they are ripe for victimization. Their own kindness can be turned against them and others. Hitler's greatest strength, for example, was his ability to appeal not only to the worst characteristic—hatred—but also to people's best qualities—faith, hope, love, and sacrifice. As with most Machiavellians, he was a master at turning people's best traits against them. “He confided the secret of his approach to an intimate: ‘When I appeal…for sacrifice, the first spark is struck. The humbler the people are, the greater the craving to identify themselves with a cause bigger than themselves.’”24
Such factors as political instability with no end in sight, worsening economic disaster, and rapid social changes have been pointed out as critical to the rise of successfully sinister dictators such as Hitler.25 In reality, what these factors appear to do is merely allow the successfully sinister—always loitering near the top of every significant social structure—to not only gain ascendancy but also to rewrite the rules. As power is consolidated, the sycophantic cocoon that a leading Machiavellian is able to encase himself in can, it seems, reinforce his own narcissistic thought patterns. (As Ovid is said to have observed over two thousand years ago: “All things may corrupt when minds are prone to evil.”)26 In light of all thi
s, it becomes clear that Kretschmer's comment “in disturbed times they govern us” is true but misleading. Machiavellians are always present in every system that relates to power. It's just that in times of troubles and in nontransparent systems, it's easier for them to reach the pinnacle.
This is not to say that everyone at higher levels is Machiavellian. (One British study, for example, found that only one in six supervisors is thought by their subordinates to be a psychopath.)27 But certainly there appear to be high enough percentages of deeply Machiavellian individuals at powerful social levels to make for very different social interactions in that milieu. In such a high-powered setting, even if one is not deeply Machiavellian by nature, it is difficult to survive without using some Machiavellian strategies oneself.
The devious methods for success used by the sinister help explain why systems of ethics can at times be so surprisingly ineffectual and sometimes even counterproductive. Altruists who draw up rules and legislation to deter Machiavellian behavior are often surprised to find their policy turned on its head and used by Machiavellians for nefarious purposes. “Bad whistle-blowers,” for example, can make frivolous allegations that trigger costly, mandatory, and ultimately fruitless investigations. “Moral entrepreneurs” can find law firm Web sites extolling the money to be made from turning in minor, easily resolvable transgressions.28 Politicians, litigators, scientists—almost anyone with a grudge—can become a Javert of their chosen Jean Valjean, raising their own profile even as they destroy careers. As Peter Morgan and Glenn Reynolds point out in The Appearance of Impropriety:
Over the last twenty-odd years, this nation has engaged in a far-reaching effort to increase public confidence in institutions through the use of ethics rules that stress appearances and procedures. Governmental ethics rules have expanded exponentially, to the point where an entire bureaucracy exists just to interpret and explain them. In the corporate world, ethics codes have proliferated wildly, and business ethics consulting is itself a major industry, worth over one billion dollars a year by some estimates. Yet judged on its own terms, that experiment has been a failure…. In fact, faith in government and corporate America has probably never been lower.29
Many, if not most, new enterprises appear to be started by talented individuals who enlist the help of their friends and others known to be competent and visionary. In evoking shades of gray, it can be helpful if some of these individuals have a few Machiavellian characteristics, such as a ruthlessly competitive streak or an ability to intimidate opponents. But, if the enterprise is successful, and as the group of people participating grows larger and gains more power, the structure begins to act like a magnet, attracting more hard-core, brutally self-serving Machiavellians who gradually find ways to insert themselves into positions of power. This is particularly easy to do if the top positions are held by leaders who are oblivious to the machinations of upwardly aspiring Machiavellians, or who want others to do their dirty work. Indeed, sometimes these upstart Machiavellians are competent—or even, like robber baron Andrew Carnegie, brilliant—and their tactics can prove helpful for the enterprise. The Machiavellian may ruthlessly eliminate business units, for example, that need the pruning others have found too painful to undertake, or they may seize opportunities others, perhaps with more compassionate concerns, have shied away from. More often, however, it seems Machiavellians use their unsavory tactics to climb above their real level of talent. At these undeserved power levels, the Machiavellian can play a cutthroat game of backbiting, back scratching, building a personal power base, reporting falsely rosy pictures of their work, demonizing adversaries, and siphoning assets—activities that strengthen the Machiavellian even as they weaken the enterprise. Such phenomena are obvious in business and academia. But they are also apparent in government, where gerrymandering and blocking of transparency rules for earmarking, for example, are the tip of the iceberg for protecting the more Machiavellian incumbents from public scrutiny and truly democratic processes.
Eventually then, after decades or perhaps even centuries, a corrupt, rickety enterprise, having been kept afloat by well-meaning cadres, can be overtaken or overrun by other, newer social structures—freshly formed businesses, religious offshoots, or political parties—that have had less time for relatively untalented Machiavellians to insert themselves into the highest echelons of the system. This might also explain why the monolithic, protected, noncompetitive nature of the American educational system—which allows Machiavellians to find their secure place in faculties, unions, committees, teaching-related societies, school boards, and school districts—sometimes performs so poorly.30
HOW CAN YOU TELL?
The very rarity of Machiavellians at most social levels can make them difficult to pick out. Shades of gray involving quasi-Machiavellians, or the very real “good side” of a Machiavellian, can make detection even more difficult. (Even I am fooled on occasion. To never be fooled, though, I'd have to be completely paranoid.) But protection can be had by simply being aware of the existence of these deeply deceitful chameleons who, it should be remembered, are often propelled by very different neurological processes. On a personal level, such awareness can cause subtle investigation of relationships that look to become significant. Gossip can be surprisingly helpful here. While a Machiavellian's hoodwinked supervisor, for example, may rave about the Machiavellian's sincerity and talent, coworkers, underlings, janitors, roommates, teammates, cellmates, or simple acquaintances may have a very different story—if you happen to gain their confidence. (That's why books on hiring often recommend, after all the high-level interviews have taken place, seeing what the secretary thinks of a candidate.) Likewise, a boyfriend's mother may warble on about his giving nature, but his many former girlfriends may tell a very different story. The more powerful or influential a person's position or potential position, the more fraught his personal relations may become. Power, in fact, is a magnet for Machiavellians and brings out the very best of their beguiling charm—as when “little Kathy,” Paris Hilton's mother, targeted her mogul, megamillionaire heir Rick Hilton.31 Sometimes it can be almost impossible to believe that someone could be as chameleon-like as others say, and the tendency for those in power might be to ignore the message.c. And it's true that the source for negative gossip herself may be Machiavellian—as with the legendary Roxalena and her duplicitous tales about the sultan's beloved son.
At slightly more distant social levels, the camera goes out of focus—it is difficult to detect whether a mayor, school board member, or union leader, for example, is Machiavellian, unless one has access to people in the know. But at still higher social levels—say, senatorial or presidential—information about a person eventually becomes available, at least in open democratic societies. A strong mismatch between public and private lifestyles is a telling, though not surefire, mark of the chameleon-like behavior of a Machiavellian. Loveless marrying for money or a series of low-key scandals may also provide indicators—indicted Hollingsworth CEO Conrad Black, for example, was early on expelled from an elite private school for selling purloined solutions to examination papers, while Russian president Vladimir Putin—whose critics so often suffer unusual and horrific deaths—appears to have plagiarized large chunks of his doctoral dissertation.32 Intellectuals may snicker at journalism's bad boy Matt Drudge or at publications like the National Enquirer, but there is a reason that totalitarian regimes such as the People's Republic of China ban similar reporting within their borders. (Perhaps surprisingly, the Drudge Report is the must-see Web site for top-ranked journalists, while the National Enquirer carries an excellent reputation among those same journalists for investigative reporting.)33
At high social levels, the game of “find the Machiavellian” can become a house of mirrors, because disinformation is always rampant. Each political party, which naturally includes its own Machiavellians, has a vested interest in characterizing the other candidates and parties as Machiavellian. At the same time, each party's followers can't help but reassu
re themselves that their candidate and party couldn't possibly be Machiavellian, aside, perhaps, from a cursory jot and tiddle. Or perhaps they suspect “their guy” has some Machiavellian traits, but they believe the end justifies the means—at the very least, their candidate is achieving the group's desired goal. Besides, a Machiavellian—with his frequent finger-pointing and rabble-rousing—can often be a lot more exciting than a more ho-hum reasonable sort. (Sure he's a loaded cannon, but he stirs things up around here!) Machiavellian leaders might also actually attract emotionally off-kilter followers who identify with the label of victim and enjoy the heightened stimulation they receive from the Machiavellian's rants.
Perhaps at these high levels, the best an ordinary person can do is to try to lay aside his or her own ideological blinkers and look honestly at public figures. If a given individual seems most interested in vilifying others, proceeds to characterize his own in-group as having been unduly victimized, is ruthlessly vindictive, and finally, is discovered to have cozy, self-serving financial deals, there are reasonable grounds to assume that a person is more than a little Machiavellian and that his or her leadership may be aimed more toward self than public service. Unfortunately, our own tendency, at least regarding leaders who purport to share our ideology, is often to avoid looking too closely.
Both at home and in other countries, the choice is sometimes more difficult, with no right answer at hand. As psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer has written: “The essence of foreign policy is deciding which son of a bitch to support and which to oppose—in 1941, Hitler or Stalin; in 1972, Brezhnev or Mao; in 1979, Somoza or Ortega. One has to choose. A blanket anti-son of a bitch policy…is soothing, satisfying and empty. It is not a policy at all but righteous self-delusion.”34
Evil Genes Page 33