The Desire For Power

Non-rationalists can only handle power in one of two ways.  By logical necessity, they will either engage in hypocritical, egoistic, cruel, or incompetent uses of power, or they will by sheer, blind chance happen to express power like a rational, just person would.  It is impossible for them to wield or approach power differently.  They are not rationalists, so they are not rational, except perhaps at most in random bursts that they still cannot fully understand divorced from awareness of logical axioms and what really follows or does not follow from concepts.

They cannot deserve power because they do not understand its true nature in light of reason, nor do they have anything but assumptions, emotions, and contradictory beliefs to propel them forward.  Is it any surprise, then, that almost every non-rationalist's ultimate philosophy of power is to assume it is evil when possessed by anyone else and act as if it is rational and righteous when they have it?  If they were to ever have the chance to have genuine political power, no one but rationalists could consistently, intentionally avoid using power selfishly, oppressively, or to try to desperately hide from reality.  Contemporary conservatives and liberals might collectivize this, thinking that power is only morally good or neutral if someone of a certain age, gender, race, or economic status has power.

Sometimes this might be, for instance, the gender or race that they themselves fall into, and sometimes (if they want the approval of a certain kind of subculture) they will trip over themselves to act as if power is legitimate only when held by someone of the opposite gender or some other racial group.  It is quite clear which gender, race, age, and class conservatives and liberals stereotype positively and which ones they stereotype negatively, though they are, of course, all utter fools for thinking stereotypes could possibly be epistemologically valid or metaphysically correct.  Instead of quickly realizing that this is true by necessity, they hold to blatant untruths like the idea that women would never sexually assault men if they had the chance (this is always an individual behavior) or that white people are somehow more fit for leadership than people of different skin colors.

This kind of stupidity can at least in part be derived from an infatuation with power, with the hope of possessing it directly or indirectly.  The desire for power is not irrationalistic or unjust in itself.  Channeled correctly, it is the longing to be empowered as a human and an individual by bowing to reason and morality, while still grasping the freedom one has even in light of them to do whatever one wishes without deviating from these things.  It is false by default that power is legitimized or oppressive simply because it is held by the young, the old, the poor, the rich, men, women, white people, black people, Asians (or any other racial/ethnic group), Americans, non-Americans, and so on.  Someone's worldview and actions make them worthy or unworthy of power.  These irrelevant factors, nevertheless, are what so many non-rationalists prioritize.

Directly or indirectly shackling themselves to falsities, assumptions, and injustices (or at least often the very things they claim are injustices when practiced by others), irrationalists only make themselves undeserving of ever having power over other people.  They squander their opportunities to align with reason and justice in favor of whatever delusion or convenience seems more subjectively desirable at the moment.  Loathing or fearing power when they or someone of their gender or race does not hold it, they are usually rather quick to suddenly think their whims justify any use of power once they are the ones who brandish it.  The desire for power is wasted on insects of this kind, as well as on any irrationalist who cannot tell their left hand from their right hand.