In my former workplace, there were two large research groups that more or less intensely disliked each other and did everything they could to make life difficult for the other. I never knew the reason why, and over time I never got a good explanation. When I started working there, I worked for the person who was the head of the research institute at that time. My research group leader worked directly for him, and so we enjoyed a rather privileged status in the sense that the institute leader looked out for us and our interests. But he was not particularly friendly with the leader of the other large research group, and when that man eventually became institute leader, he placed his own people as heads of different groups and sections and expanded his reach and power. He also made life difficult for those who worked for the former institute leader. I never had particular problems with the new institute leader, even though I clashed a couple of times with the younger leaders who worked for him. Those clashes became a bit more frequent over time, especially when they involved encroachment into areas that they knew little to nothing about. In the end, it evolved into a battle for control, a battle that our side lost simply because we were no longer in power, and because the politics of vengeance became a dominant force in how our daily lives were run. Tit for tat. If one institute leader's employees had previously been pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it came to important decision-making, the other institute leader made sure, via his lackeys, that the same treatment was dealt out to his opposition when he became the leader. The effect on our department was, as you can imagine, not beneficial. What started out as a diverse research institute with small but productive research groups was little more than a research monoverse headed by one of the lackeys when I left. That lackey had complete control. His attitude toward others was haughty; he was the best, so the rest could get lost, and he did his level best to get rid of the small but productive research groups, something that the former institute leader had not done. The younger people, on whom any research future depends, chose not to do research; they looked around and breathed in the hostile atmosphere and thought, why bother, when we can choose more lucrative jobs in the private sector? And why should they have chosen to do research at our institute, when the only real option was to work for him? Other leaders who looked at the loss of research in the department shook their heads and wondered why. I know why. The lackeys were in complete control, and they wasted no time in trying to get their (perceived) opponents (scientists they deemed useless) to quit by making their lives miserable, under the guise of 'increasing efficiency', 'saving money', and 'improving the kind of research that was done'. I was at meetings where several of my colleagues were publicly humiliated and told that they were slackers who were just taking up space and collecting their salaries. If the lackeys could have fired them immediately, they would have. Luckily, this country has rules in place prohibiting mass firings in the public sector. This type of behavior was still going on when I left my workplace.
I should make the point that academic research science is far from a democracy and is headed by a number of leaders who brook no opposition. If you cross them or don't agree with them, you end up on their 'enemies list', slated for being pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it comes to important decision-making and giving much-needed advice. You can believe it or not, but it's true. The tiny little microcosm of life where I used to work was merely representative of the larger world of government and politics. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to behaving badly and governing badly. Just google Machiavelli and you'll see how far back this goes.
I'm reminded of my former workplace when I look at what is going on at the highest levels of US government. I'd like to tell you that the politics of vengeance is unique to the current administration, but it is not. Eliminating your (perceived) enemies in the name of victory and control becomes paramount to the types of leaders whose goal is to crush their opposition. The question is--who are the enemies of the current administration? All those who did not vote for him? All those who oppose him? All those who tried to undermine him and bring him down? If all of the above, that's going to be a mighty long list of people on whom to exact vengeance. And vengeance comes in all flavors--mocking, public humiliation, bullying, firing, demoting, shoving aside, freezing out. I've been privy to all of that kind of behavior in my former workplace. And I grieved the loss of a civilized workplace for several years after the lackeys took over. We are witnessing exactly this now in the US. And if this is the goal of power in the present administration, the country and its average ordinary citizens will suffer from the fallout. In a few years, there won't be much of a country left to govern. It will have been razed to the ground. Perhaps that is what his supporters want. But they destroy their own lives in the process.
