Why "Idiots" Rule: Aristotle, Stability, and the Design Feature of Mediocre Leadership

Why "Idiots" Rule: Aristotle, Stability, and the Design Feature of Mediocre Leadership

 

Human civilization often seems designed to place the mediocre and sometimes the incompetent in positions of power. Drawing from Aristotle’s outlook and weaving in themes across philosophy, psychology, and modern management, this analysis argues that societies—by design—choose leaders for stability, familiarity, and emotional comfort rather than for their sheer brilliance or technical competence. The persistent rise of “idiots in power” is not a random flaw, but a stabilizing mechanism that survives millennia: from Greek democracies through the management structures of modern corporations. Through a close study of these patterns, as explained in the referenced video and buttressed by classical and contemporary evidence, this post shows how cognitive biases, societal needs, and institutional incentives make this outcome almost inevitable. Ultimately, the actual wielders of power may not be the visible leaders, but those quietly scripting the narrative behind the curtain.

The Illusion of Merit: Why Talent Rarely Rises

Human optimism is shaped by a comforting illusion: societies reward excellence by pushing their most brilliant minds to the top. The video challenges this notion with both anecdotal and historical evidence, echoing Aristotle’s warning that truly talented or virtuous individuals rarely find themselves leading a city or state. Instead, it’s often the familiar, unthreatening character—one who reflects the crowd’s own image and provides emotional reassurance—who is chosen to “steer the ship”.

Modern psychology underscores this harsh realism. The confidence bias leads people to mistake assertiveness and charisma for real competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect famously describes how incompetent individuals overestimate their abilities and thereby radiate the very confidence that seduces those selecting leaders. In organizations and politics, those who "fit"—who reinforce the status quo—are more likely to ascend, even as disruptive talent is quietly marginalized.

“The rise of the mediocre is not an aberration, but a systemic regularity” — Adam Grant, psychologist.

Comfort Over Competence: Aristotle’s Core Principle

Ancient democracy’s earliest experiments demonstrated not a zeal for wisdom or virtue, but for comfort and security. Aristotle observed that voters consistently chose the person who felt relatable, even safe, over the innovative or visionary. For Aristotle, the function of power was to keep the collective system alive, not to break new ground.

In this framework, leaders are the “heart” of society—maintaining its rhythm and holding it together—rather than the “brain” that invents or reasons. Aspiring visionaries, who see farther or move faster than the average citizen can follow, are often rejected as destabilizers. Instead, societies prize familiarity: "The best regime is the one that fits its people," Aristotle insisted, underscoring stability over idealism.

This view finds resonance today. Organizational studies reveal that managers select for cultural fit and loyalty, not disruptive excellence, and that even democracies repeatedly pick leaders who reflect and reinforce the crowd’s core self-image.

Eudaimonia and the Retreat of Brilliance

Why do truly brilliant individuals so rarely pursue or persist in power? The video ties this to Aristotle's notion of Eudaimonia—human flourishing—achieved through mastery of self and a life lived according to virtue, not through external trappings of authority.

For Aristotle, genuine fulfillment comes not from command but from the cultivation of excellence for its own sake. Power distracts from this purpose. Thus, those most capable often self-select out of leadership, finding the compromises required by politics corrosive to their pursuit of virtue.

Paradoxically, Aristotle also noted that flourishing required a supportive polity—a society in which ethical self-development was possible. The retreat of the excellent, therefore, both explains and perpetuates the elevation of the less competent, who pursue power as an end in itself.

Emotion Over Logic: Pathos, Ethos, and Authority

Societies do not run on logic alone; emotion and trust are far more potent levers. The video's reference to Aristotle’s Rhetoric is revealing: persuasion—especially in politics—relies less on facts (Logos) than on emotional appeal (Pathos) and perceived credibility (Ethos).

Studies in leadership confirm that the foundation of trust for audiences or voters is often similarity and authenticity. People gravitate to leaders who look, sound, and think like them, rather than those who challenge, unsettle, or outpace them. Ethos, the appearance of shared character, trumps technical mastery and is reinforced by charisma and relatability.

 

The “Idiot in Power” as Social Shock Absorber

Contrary to popular despair, the elevation of the less competent serves a vital function within the system. The video posits the leader as “shock absorber”—a reassuring symbol who translates stress, absorbs blame, and stages the illusion of control.

From ancient Athens to corporate boardrooms, the person on stage is more often a shield than a shaper. Behind the curtain, true power is exerted by advisers, donors, and interest groups—those who pen the script while the leader captivates the crowd’s attention.

Research in sociology refers to this as the “romance of leadership,” a cognitive bias that leads people to believe that outcomes (good or bad) are primarily the doing of visible leaders. The reality is more structural: organizations reward the ability to maintain appearance and keep the peace, even at the expense of progress, originality, and competitiveness.

 

Aristotle’s Spectrum: Polity, Extremes, and Defective Regimes

Aristotle’s Politics foresees the dilemma in three ideal and three defective forms of government. The best is polity (politeia), anchored in a broad, moderate middle class that tempers the dangers of both oligarchic arrogance and populist excess. In the extremes, tyranny, oligarchy, or radical democracy undermine virtue and stability alike.

The “idiots in power” often appear in such “defective” regimes:

Tyrants gain power by performance and manipulation but govern for private, not public, good.

Demagogues excel at winning crowds through emotional appeal but are poor at actual governance.

Oligarchs confuse wealth with all forms of competence, lacking real empathy or virtue.

Each variant weakens society by prioritizing private goods over the common good, perpetuating instability until order is restored by a return to the moderate mean.

 

The Peter Principle: Modern Management and Systemic Incompetence

The Peter Principle, coined in the twentieth century, provides a contemporary organizational parallel: people are promoted based on their current success until they reach a role for which they are unqualified—and remain there. The result is a stratification of incompetence, with politics, like management, rewarding self-assurance and cultural fit over real ability.

Here, too, the skilled technician avoids advancement to avoid the stress of being out of depth, while the “charismatic” but clueless candidate is continuously promoted. This incentivizes stability and peace over true innovation, mapping precisely onto Aristotle’s core warnings.

 

Who Holds the Pen? The Absorption of Blame and the True Locus of Power

By the end, the video leaves us with a provocative question: if the leader is an actor, who writes the lines? Social science and Aristotle alike suggest the true pen-holders are structural—institutions, economic interests, and advisory cliques that script society’s direction, with the visible figurehead acting only as a vessel for confidence and calm.

“The illusion that the right people are at the helm keeps the ship of state steady, even if the hands on the wheel are not steering at all.” — adapted from Aristotle

 

Reflection

Contemporary outrage at “idiots in power” often mistakes a design feature for a flaw. As Aristotle saw, the goal of politics is not always excellence, but the continued survival and coherence of society. Modern psychology and management confirm that emotional comfort, structural stability, and relatable leadership are what the collective crowd demands, even at the expense of progress.

Yet, this is not an inescapable destiny. Awareness of these mechanisms is the first step to changing them. If societies learn to value substantive integrity, humility, and room for contrarians, the system can evolve to make room for more competent, visionary leaders—so long as they maintain enough heart to keep the crowd together. But perhaps Aristotle’s most lasting wisdom is this: every society gets the leaders it can handle. Progress arises when society truly desires not just comfort and the illusion of control, but a deeper partnership between its “heart” and “brain.” Until then, the “idiot in power” remains our collective compromise, a testament to the primacy of belonging over brilliance.

 

References:

"Why Society Will Always Create Idiots in Power? - Aristotle." Think Mate, YouTube, 2023.

Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999.

Grant, Adam. "Why We Value Confidence Over Competence." The Atlantic, 2017.

Peter, Laurence J. The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. Harper Business, 1969.

Aristotle, Politics, Book III.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. "What We Know About Leadership." Review of General Psychology, 2005.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't. Harper Business, 2010.

"The Romance of Leadership." Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B., & Dukerich, J.M., Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985.

Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice. Pearson, 2008.