Is power best achieved through publicity or privacy

[Hygro]

The standard view of power is that power comes from fame, publicity, overt leadership. And obviously much does. Whatever money is in place, acolytes to command, ingestors of media to inspire, etc, fame propels it. But those who drive history more than others do, often do it well behind the scenes. The consequence of giant funds, clandestine operations, and industries whose success rises and falls with war, health, and things so immediate to the social makeup of our societies and who wins within them, comes from the efforts of people whose names and faces you don't know. Sometimes eventually they will make a Forbes list, like Phebe Novakovic, who is part of a small cohort incentivized to incentivize (yes) war and imperialism, unless the peaceniks promote even more arm sales than the warpigs can (which is... uh.. hard to maintain). How much of the world is shaped by corporate, media, anything really decisions made deliberately that change our lives materially and relationally done more effectively via the maintenance of privacy?

 

[Narz]

Either. But I'd rather be the one behind the scenes as then you don't have to worry about maintaining a public persona.

 

[EvaDK]

The question is imo not reducible to an 'or' proposition. Power can manifest itself in many different forms and they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Lexicus]

Context is king
Some people, like Richard Nixon, are probably best-suited to attaining power out of the public eye. Someone like Donald Trump hardly has any power if he's not in the public eye.