King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership

Rating:
Summary: A contemporary update of Machiavelli
Review: Despite its hard science dressings, this book is primarily a popular (versus academic) account of modern political leadership. Although Dr. Ludwig is obviously knowledgable about psychology, the scientific discourse in this book is kept to a minimum. Mostly, the book consists of a series of highly entertaining anecdotes about famous political figures, collected to support his thesis that political greatness equates possesing the characteristics of the "Alpha Male". The acceptability of this amoralistic conception of "greatness" - where Mao and FDR are co-ranked the greatest modern political leaders with Stalin a close second - is up to each reader to decide.

Rating:
Summary: A contemporary update of Machiavelli
Review: Despite its hard science dressings, this book is primarily a popular (versus academic) account of modern political leadership. Although Dr. Ludwig is obviously knowledgable about psychology, the scientific discourse in this book is kept to a minimum. Mostly, the book consists of a series of highly entertaining anecdotes about famous political figures, collected to support his thesis that political greatness equates possesing the characteristics of the "Alpha Male". The acceptability of this amoralistic conception of "greatness" - where Mao and FDR are co-ranked the greatest modern political leaders with Stalin a close second - is up to each reader to decide.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: I loved reading this book as much as I enjoyed the funny picture on the cover. The thesis that most if not all leaders of people are similar to primate alpha males in the sense that they have more concubines and children, not necessarily more intelligence or ability but more macho desire to rule over others for the sake of ruling (whether known or not by the agent), and that much in the politics of primates and that of humans is remarkably similar is fun to examine and read about. My only desire was that after ten years of studying and researching for this book, maybe the University of Kentucky emeritus psychiatry professor could have focused even more on the roots of the nature of political leaders, both in the primate and strikingly similar human realms. I expected much from this book and did not get as much as I would have hoped, but it was still an excellent read thanks to the depth of research it contains. All national leaders from the 20th century collated and examined as a whole in comparison with primates: maybe there is ample reason to be disappointed in a 400 page book trying to take on so much. Nonetheless, the accounts of the idiosyncracies of certain leaders, the primate-like actions of many, the sloth and greed of others, and other remarkable accounts make this a fabulous book for almost any reader interested in the imperfections of people, especially the most visable people: leaders.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: I loved reading this book as much as I enjoyed the funny picture on the cover. The thesis that most if not all leaders of people are similar to primate alpha males in the sense that they have more concubines and children, not necessarily more intelligence or ability but more macho desire to rule over others for the sake of ruling (whether known or not by the agent), and that much in the politics of primates and that of humans is remarkably similar is fun to examine and read about. My only desire was that after ten years of studying and researching for this book, maybe the University of Kentucky emeritus psychiatry professor could have focused even more on the roots of the nature of political leaders, both in the primate and strikingly similar human realms. I expected much from this book and did not get as much as I would have hoped, but it was still an excellent read thanks to the depth of research it contains. All national leaders from the 20th century collated and examined as a whole in comparison with primates: maybe there is ample reason to be disappointed in a 400 page book trying to take on so much. Nonetheless, the accounts of the idiosyncracies of certain leaders, the primate-like actions of many, the sloth and greed of others, and other remarkable accounts make this a fabulous book for almost any reader interested in the imperfections of people, especially the most visable people: leaders.

Rating:
Summary: Why Men Rule
Review: It is surprising that the proponents of evolutionary psychology have not paid more attention to this book. Ludwig argues that the human desire to be the supreme political ruler is rooted in the same biological nature that supports the dominance of alpha males among monkeys and apes. He supports this argument with analysis of the 1,941 chief executive rulers of the independent countries in the 20th century. He illustrates his points with lively anecdotes from the lives of the 377 rulers for whom he had sufficient biographical information.

Of the many interesting points that he makes, one is that he can explain one of the universal traits of human politics--that the highest positions of political rule tend to be filled predominantly by men. Political scientists rarely acknowledge--much less explain--this remarkable pattern of male dominance. Ludwig explains it as a manifestation of male primate tendencies rooted in the neurophysiology of the male as shaped by natural selection in evolutionary history. (Surprisingly, Ludwig does not mention Steven Goldberg's book WHY MEN RULE, which makes a similar argument.)

There is one bright spot in Ludwig's otherwise dark vision of politics dominated by Machiavellian brutality--he shows that democratic leaders in established democracies act with more restraint than those in other kinds of regimes. He doesn't explain this. But he could have argued that even this has biological roots by appealing to Christopher Boehm's claim (in his book HIERARCHY IN THE FOREST) that there is a biological basis not only for the natural desire for dominance but also for the natural desire to resist dominance, and that modern democracy expresses that ambivalent political nature by allowing ambitious individuals to compete for high office within the constraints of constitutional structures that protect subordinates from being exploited.

I have developed some of these points in my book DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT: THE BIOLOGICAL ETHICS OF HUMAN NATURE.

Rating:
Summary: Why Men Rule
Review: It is surprising that the proponents of evolutionary psychology have not paid more attention to this book. Ludwig argues that the human desire to be the supreme political ruler is rooted in the same biological nature that supports the dominance of alpha males among monkeys and apes. He supports this argument with analysis of the 1,941 chief executive rulers of the independent countries in the 20th century. He illustrates his points with lively anecdotes from the lives of the 377 rulers for whom he had sufficient biographical information.

Of the many interesting points that he makes, one is that he can explain one of the universal traits of human politics--that the highest positions of political rule tend to be filled predominantly by men. Political scientists rarely acknowledge--much less explain--this remarkable pattern of male dominance. Ludwig explains it as a manifestation of male primate tendencies rooted in the neurophysiology of the male as shaped by natural selection in evolutionary history. (Surprisingly, Ludwig does not mention Steven Goldberg's book WHY MEN RULE, which makes a similar argument.)

There is one bright spot in Ludwig's otherwise dark vision of politics dominated by Machiavellian brutality--he shows that democratic leaders in established democracies act with more restraint than those in other kinds of regimes. He doesn't explain this. But he could have argued that even this has biological roots by appealing to Christopher Boehm's claim (in his book HIERARCHY IN THE FOREST) that there is a biological basis not only for the natural desire for dominance but also for the natural desire to resist dominance, and that modern democracy expresses that ambivalent political nature by allowing ambitious individuals to compete for high office within the constraints of constitutional structures that protect subordinates from being exploited.

I have developed some of these points in my book DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT: THE BIOLOGICAL ETHICS OF HUMAN NATURE.