Machiavelli being Machiavelli
If it were possible to have any meaningful and intelligent debate on public policy in today’s political climate, instead of the kind of shallow and thoughtless partisan bickering that characterizes our public discourse, it would be Machiavelli who would best frame the issues. In his essay, The Originality of Machiavelli, Isaiah Berlin quotes the following passage from the Discourses:
“When it is absolutely a question of the safety of one’s country, there must be no consideration of just or unjust, of merciful or cruel, of praiseworthy or disgraceful; instead, setting aside every scruple, one must follow to the utmost any plan that will save her life and keep her liberty.”
Berlin adds the following explanation of Machiavelli’s thesis: “states which have lost the appetite for power are doomed to decadence and are likely to be destroyed by their more vigorous and better armed neighbors.”
Before accepting that Machiavelli has anything to tell us today, we must ask whether we, as Americans, are under attack. And that question is not whether on September 11 we were under attack, or whether there is a chance that we will experience a repeat of September 11, but whether we face a global conflict which is apt to last generations? If we look back to the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Tanzania, the more recent European bombings, and all the declarations of Bin Laden’s followers, is it a fair inference that we are engaged in an active conflict with radical Islamic fascism, one that can be expected to last indefinitely into the future?
If the answer to that question is yes, then, just by way of example, what is the significance of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Is it appropriate for us to apply the same principles to our treatment of foreigners captured in the course of this conflict, as we would to U.S. citizens, who have been arrested for violation of U.S. law? Machiavelli would unquestionably say no; different principles apply. Contrast that with the approach of say, Jimmy Carter, who would counsel that U.S. interests must, at all times be subordinated to generalized concerns for human rights. In other words, human rights first, safety of U.S. citizens second. Can these concerns be reconciled? Is it possible to protect ourselves, and simultaneously uphold the principles upon which our nation was founded?
Berlin explains that the most disturbing aspect of Machiavelli’s philosophy is that these two systems of morality are fundamentally incompatible. While the Jimmy Cater worldview is fine for a private citizen – one who seeks to guide his life by humane considerations, outside of the sphere of public life—it is impossible for our leaders to follow these principles and at the same time protect our safety and national interest. Furthermore, it’s wrong to characterize Machiavelli as unprincipled or amoral, because there is a clear virtue to preserving a free and open society. In other words, there is a morality which dictates that a free society should triumph over a repressive and fascistic one. And means that allow that free or virtuous society to so triumph are, therefore, moral and ethical, when viewed in the context of this larger struggle. Thus, it’s not that the means justify the ends; rather, it’s that means which might be unethical in the context of private life, are ethical, if used for the preservation of the state. The same standards simply don’t apply to the two systems.
“Men need rulers because they require someone to order human groups governed by diverse interests, and bring them security, stability, above all protection against enemies….” Thus our leaders must have first of all a clear vision of the need for our way of life to survive. Then, “what ought to be done must be defined in terms of what is practicable and not imaginary.” “The qualities of the lion and the fox are not in themselves morally admirable, but if a combination of these qualities alone will preserve the city from destruction, then these are the qualities which leaders must cultivate.”
I know I’m dreaming to think that political leaders, intellectuals, or policy makers would be guided by the teachings of Machiavelli. The name has become synonymous with a kind of reprehensible amorality. But the truth is that, in the context of the challenges we now face, we ignore these teachings at our peril.
“When it is absolutely a question of the safety of one’s country, there must be no consideration of just or unjust, of merciful or cruel, of praiseworthy or disgraceful; instead, setting aside every scruple, one must follow to the utmost any plan that will save her life and keep her liberty.”
Berlin adds the following explanation of Machiavelli’s thesis: “states which have lost the appetite for power are doomed to decadence and are likely to be destroyed by their more vigorous and better armed neighbors.”
Before accepting that Machiavelli has anything to tell us today, we must ask whether we, as Americans, are under attack. And that question is not whether on September 11 we were under attack, or whether there is a chance that we will experience a repeat of September 11, but whether we face a global conflict which is apt to last generations? If we look back to the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Tanzania, the more recent European bombings, and all the declarations of Bin Laden’s followers, is it a fair inference that we are engaged in an active conflict with radical Islamic fascism, one that can be expected to last indefinitely into the future?
If the answer to that question is yes, then, just by way of example, what is the significance of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Is it appropriate for us to apply the same principles to our treatment of foreigners captured in the course of this conflict, as we would to U.S. citizens, who have been arrested for violation of U.S. law? Machiavelli would unquestionably say no; different principles apply. Contrast that with the approach of say, Jimmy Carter, who would counsel that U.S. interests must, at all times be subordinated to generalized concerns for human rights. In other words, human rights first, safety of U.S. citizens second. Can these concerns be reconciled? Is it possible to protect ourselves, and simultaneously uphold the principles upon which our nation was founded?
Berlin explains that the most disturbing aspect of Machiavelli’s philosophy is that these two systems of morality are fundamentally incompatible. While the Jimmy Cater worldview is fine for a private citizen – one who seeks to guide his life by humane considerations, outside of the sphere of public life—it is impossible for our leaders to follow these principles and at the same time protect our safety and national interest. Furthermore, it’s wrong to characterize Machiavelli as unprincipled or amoral, because there is a clear virtue to preserving a free and open society. In other words, there is a morality which dictates that a free society should triumph over a repressive and fascistic one. And means that allow that free or virtuous society to so triumph are, therefore, moral and ethical, when viewed in the context of this larger struggle. Thus, it’s not that the means justify the ends; rather, it’s that means which might be unethical in the context of private life, are ethical, if used for the preservation of the state. The same standards simply don’t apply to the two systems.
“Men need rulers because they require someone to order human groups governed by diverse interests, and bring them security, stability, above all protection against enemies….” Thus our leaders must have first of all a clear vision of the need for our way of life to survive. Then, “what ought to be done must be defined in terms of what is practicable and not imaginary.” “The qualities of the lion and the fox are not in themselves morally admirable, but if a combination of these qualities alone will preserve the city from destruction, then these are the qualities which leaders must cultivate.”
I know I’m dreaming to think that political leaders, intellectuals, or policy makers would be guided by the teachings of Machiavelli. The name has become synonymous with a kind of reprehensible amorality. But the truth is that, in the context of the challenges we now face, we ignore these teachings at our peril.
posted by pops | 4:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home