Machiavelli Was Right - The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care.
Once you read this article, you can fairly well see why their wanton bankrupt moral, ethical and spiritual assaults, they dissimulate so well, are justified in their minds and belief structures. Unfortunately, their way of thinking and believing are so well ensconced into the fabric of American society it leaves little hope for the people to right themselves. What's more, this all happens on a practicing lawyer's website without a word from him.
Here are two excerpts, one from the beginning and one from the end - hopefully enough to get you to read the whole article.
Machiavelli Was Right
The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care.
MICHAEL IGNATIEFFNOV 20 2013,
You remember the photograph: President Obama hunched in a corner of the Situation Room with his national-security staff, including Hillary Clinton with a hand over her mouth, watching the live feed from the compound in Pakistan where the killing of Osama bin Laden is under way. This is a Machiavellian moment: a political leader taking the ultimate risks that go with the exercise of power, now awaiting the judgment of fate. He knows that if the mission fails, his presidency is over, while if it succeeds, no one should ever again question his willingness to risk all.
It’s a Machiavellian moment in a second sense: an instance when public necessity requires actions that private ethics and religious values might condemn as unjust and immoral. We call these moments Machiavellian because it was Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513, that first laid bare the moral world of politics and the gulf between private conscience and the demands of public action.
The Prince’s blunt candor has been a scandal for 500 years. The book was placed on the Papal Index of banned books in 1559, and its author was denounced on the Elizabethan stages of London as the “Evil Machiavel.” The outrage has not dimmed with time. The greatest modern conservative political theorist, Leo Strauss, taught his students at the University of Chicago in the 1950s to regard Machiavelli as “a teacher of evil.” Machiavelli’s enduring provocation is to baldly maintain that in politics, evil deeds cease to be evil if urgent public interest makes them necessary.
************
He insisted that when tough or risky political decisions have to be made, Christian charity or private empathy simply will not serve. In politics, the polestar must be the health of the republic alone. Following the querulous inner voice or tacking to and fro when moralizers on the sidelines object is just weakness, and if your hesitations put the republic at risk, it is contemptible weakness. Machiavelli’s ethics valued judicious decisiveness in politics over the anguished search for rectitude.
So if we return to the Situation Room and to the decisions presidents make there, Machiavelli’s The Prince tells us the question is not whether one human being should have the right to make such terrifying determinations. The essence of power, even in a democracy, is to use violence to protect the republic. It matters to the very soul of a republic, however, that the violence used in its defense never be gratuitous. His is not an ethic that values action for its own sake. Machiavelli praises restraint when it serves the republic. It may even be advisable, for example, for the president to stay the order to dispatch cruise missiles to Syria if he cannot discern a clear target or a defensible strategic objective.
What he refuses to praise is people who value their conscience and their soul more than the interests of the state. What he will not pardon is public displays of indecision. We should not choose leaders who agonize, worrying about the moral hazards of the power they exercise in the people’s name. We should choose leaders who sleep soundly after taking ultimate risks with their own virtue. They are doing what must be done. The Prince’s question about the current president would be: Is he Machiavellian enough?
"Is he Machiavellian enough?" We know democratic Jon, Eric and bolithio are.
--Joe
Aw, shucks, thanks JB.
ReplyDeleteDo we have any chance, as an electorate to solve our problems via the ballot box?
Any so your readers are not confused, I changed by nom de plum to Liberal Jon to avoid besmirching my beloved Democratic Party's name.
I already answered that question, Jon. "Unfortunately, their way of thinking and believing are so well ensconced into the fabric of American society it leaves little hope for the people to right themselves."
ReplyDeleteIf I went back to some of your comments elsewhere, I'd find you answered it for me as well.
So in your previous post when you recommended innovation, what type of innovation? Another constitutional congress? Is Jefferson on the right path? Are you on board with another local blogger who says "violence will probably be necessary and justified"? Is this 1861 again?
ReplyDeleteJon as somewhat of a student of Mahatma Gandhi I espouse non-cooperation. Consequently, I see the Occupy Movement and others re-thinking their purposes to more effective consistent ways for change and survival. The Federal, State and local governments are all cocked and primed, ready for, violent revolution. I expect the U.S. government to go totalitarian-dictatorial before that happens. For all intents and purposes it's already a fascist state, in that corporations and the 500 richest people control. I expect the World to economically, if not physically, isolate this country. Coupled with the internal isolation already taking place, the economy and the dollar will collapse in on itself. Include some extreme weather phenomena adding to the cost of a broke country suffering under extreme austerity and you've got a perfect storm. I hate to break it to you, but this country is broke, bankrupt at its core, but it isn't alone in that. By "core" I mean its people. Another Constitutional Congress is a waste of time when the whole country delegitimizes the current Constitution - this country is in a total state of lawless anarchy. I hope that explanation is not too complicated for you, but since this is my blog, have at it.
ReplyDeleteUgh. Just lost a nice short post. Try again.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I didn't want to post in your nice Thanksgiving thread out of respect. I did want to let you know that you don't have to be religious to see and appreciate miracles and be grateful. I am. I am also grateful for the strong religious tradition in this country that for one helped abolish slavery. There are a great deal of accomplishments our religious traditions have afforded our country - many done on a day-to-day basis.
We might even agree that religion is often used now for many not-so-great purposes too. One of my favorite sights is Right Wing Watch which chronicles on a week-daily basis some of the outrages that come from the political right wing of Religion. Check it out some day if you aren't familiar.
You know I'm agnostic, that doesn't mean I don't have a deep respect for religion - Christians (including Jimmy Carter who seemed to practice his religion and the slactivist who is a great voice for liberal or lefty evangelical Christians) and Islam too including practitioners in my own family. I know that must seem superficial to you, but it is where I am.
First, I got to ask, what does any of this have to do with our previous conversation?
ReplyDeleteJon's first statement says: “Joe, I didn't want to post in your nice Thanksgiving thread out of respect.” “Respect” is then demonstrated by what follows, by what Jon says, including his demonstrated attitude, tone and intent.
He then goes on to say: “I did want to let you know that you don't have to be religious to see and appreciate miracles and be grateful.” I ask, what makes him or anyone else think for one second that I do not already know what “I” have to “be” “to see and appreciate miracles and be grateful”? The inference behind his statement of permission is not only disrespectful, but flat out offensive. To follow that up he says, please note the emphasized words: “I am. I am also grateful for the strong religious tradition in this country that for one helped abolish slavery. ”
Respect is demonstrated by what you do. So, what did Jon do? He identifies my Thanksgiving post for his response. This is the first part of my post: “Did it not come out of the deeply held religious belief that we should regularly express our appreciation and grateful thanks to Almighty God for all of His rich blessings we enjoy in this life?” Respect requires Jon to accept what “I” said and to respond in harmony with what “I” said and not try to change what “I” said to fit his agenda or personal beliefs. I wrote what “I” wanted to say – NOT what Jon wanted “me” to say or what Jon wants other people to believe I said.
Second, my post says absolutely nothing about the “abolition of slavery.” Here's part of what I said: “Second to being alive, is the gift of truly being free. Such freedom is what fully allows thanksgiving, giving thanks, to be meaningful in all aspects of life.” Jon's statement trivializes the import intended in my post about what it truly means to actually be free from Jon's kind of abject slavery as expressed in his comment.
And finally, his accusation that I am “religious,” as if that is somehow relevant to the discussion. What I am or am not is totally irrelevant to the discussion. However, from Jon's perspective he asserts that because I am “religious,” believe in the existence of an “Almighty God,” I am incapable of truly being free like I say in conclusion to my post: “In time, I can affirm, one becomes a living gift of thanksgiving, of giving thanks, that is shared with everyone and in behalf of all peace-loving gracious people.” The inference is punctuated, therefore, by the fact he asserts, that “I” am the true “blow-hard” hypocrite, without any credibility.
What does any of this have to do with our previous conversation? The answer should be obvious.
Joe, do you feel bullied by me? If so I will leave. I don't mean to offend. I was actually trying to help you understand me. This sentence "“I did want to let you know that you don't have to be religious to see and appreciate miracles and be grateful.” Should have been rewritten "I did want to let you know that ONE doesn't have to be religious to see and appreciate miracles and be grateful." I wanted to let you know that I too understood Thanksgiving to be a time to be grateful even if one (I, not you) does not have faith in a higher power. I was trying to help you understand me, because I feel from what you write that you don't. I was trying, to illustrate something we had in common, but express in different ways. I am thankful too, but of course as an agnostic, I cannot, or would it be will not?, thank God Almighty. I do appreciate that you do thank God Almighty. I just can't because I don't share your faith. I still respect you and your right to believe.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the previous conversation, I am very thankful you expressed your views so clearly, I disagree with them almost point by point.
By this ..."By "core" I mean its people"... don't you mean to include me? Don't you think I disagree? How else can I respond but to say - "I disagree". You would have to be specific. What is bankrupt about me to my core? Is it my lack of religious beliefs? I may be amoral if you define morality as defined by a religion - because I don't define what is right and wrong by what a religious text or preacher or imam says. But please don't confuse amoral with a-ethical. I do believe in doing what's right. That is one of the reasons I enjoy the blogs so much, it is where we as a community can discuss what is right and what is wrong - importantly - NOT what is good and what is evil. At least in my opinion. If you believe that is what we are discussing you should continue to say so - as you are.
But again, thankfully, you cannot win an argument in our @system@ by taking the moral high ground if you moral highground is based solely on a religious belief.
ugh another comment deleted.
ReplyDeleteI introduced this article, but now I'll just post it. These are the types of observations that concern me - also things I will never believe we as humans cannot fix. Because if we give in to despondency (as humans OR as citizens), we will be despondent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sunday-review/the-year-the-monarch-didnt-appear.html
btw, blogger makes it very difficult to post with a wordpress identity. I have not figured out how to do this with Fred's or Rose's blogs either. Any assisstance would be appreciated.
ReplyDelete"According to who’s effeminate worthless opinion?"
ReplyDelete"I’m identifying the ADULT, not the corrupt effeminate wannabes that preach lies, betrayal and deception."
Joe - the reason I came here on Thanksgiving in the first place was to discuss your recent use of the word "effeminate" as if it is a bad thing. I'm wondering why you use it? Are you assuming that most leaders will be or are men? Are men intrinsically the best leaders? Are you concerned about the feminization of men in our culture as many on the right (ie Rush and Michael Savage) are? I looked up effeminate in wiki to see if it's general use was frowned upon. It's not I guess, but I do take exception to the way you have used it. I find this sentence intriguing because it gets back to your them of being a slave. "The ancient Greeks, for example, described whole societies as effeminate (malakia) if they were characterized by a slavish, deferential, or autocratic political culture."
(BTW, the use of the abolition of slavery was not meant as an offense. I wasn't thinking of your use of the word "slave" when I wrote it, I was just using a clear example of where a religious movement (the abolition movement definitely had it's root in an overwhelmingly religious movement - here and in England) had one of it's proudest moments in American History. No offense was meant at all.
To you is effeminacy a bad thing because it connotes submission or a deferential stance when individual strength and fortitude is what is needed?
I guess another way of asking the question would be this. In a world where the writing isn't already on the wall, wouldn't an effeminate female leader be a good thing? I just want to be clear on that.
I woke up to quite display of fanfare – four comments, but nothing about the one comment that mattered – the one you skipped over. Jon is still trying to pigeonhole me into one of his classical stereotypes. Here is a copy of the first sentence he posted at 5:30 this morning: “Joe, do you feel bullied by me? If so I will leave. I don't mean to offend. I was actually trying to help you understand me.”
ReplyDeleteRead what Jon says carefully here, “do you feel bullied by me?” I wonder if Rex Bohn and Virginia Bass could ask Marc Lovelace that question right after they publicly sandbagged him. Anyway, Jon continues: “I was actually trying to help you understand me.” That statement, right there, identifies Jon for it is exactly how all bullies justify beating you.
Then he, with all his self-righteous legitimate moralistic judgments, proceeds unabashed with his beating.
Why is it important that I “understand” you when you don't know for a fact that I do not? Where do I say I am “religious” or that “agnostics” are incapable of being thankful? You say: “I do appreciate that you do thank God Almighty. I just can't because I don't share your faith.” Where did you get these ideas?
Your assumptions presume a faith in your own godhood that is not substantiated or legitimate. I define the person I am, not you or your kind. Take a lesson or two from your own book of nefarious beliefs.
"Why is it important that I “understand” you when you don't know for a fact that I do not? "Well, if you can see the writing on the wall maybe you can be a judge of people too. Right?
ReplyDeleteWhere do I say I am “religious” or that “agnostics” are incapable of being thankful? An assumption on my part. Sorry. I'm glad we agree then?
You say: “I do appreciate that you do thank God Almighty. I just can't because I don't share your faith.” Where did you get these ideas? My appreciation of your appreciation of God Almighty comes from my heart. My inability to share your faith comes from my fundamental choice (ie mind to use sbb's language) I made many years ago to leave questions of the supernatural for the next life if there is one.
"Your assumptions presume a faith in your own godhood that is not substantiated or legitimate." OK? I don't presume to be a god, just a man - a man with free will? But again, I allow for the possibility that you know more on this matter than I Joe. Like I said before, it's neither here nor there to me unless you bring it into a political discussion and say my ideas have less value because I am inherently evil. I might have a different take on that, but I would wouldn't I? Wouldn't you if you were in my position?
"That statement, right there, identifies Jon for it is exactly how all bullies justify beating you. "
OK Joe. I'll leave I am sorry to have bothered you. I'm also sorry I skipped over the comment that mattered. I didn't know which one it was but now I'm curious. You can post it in an old thread in Sohum.
Cheers Joe.
... and Jon continues to beat and to justify while saying he's "sorry for bothering me". The ultimate hypocrite. He says he's a "man with free will." He maybe a male, but he's sure no man with any free will. He's so enslaved it's really pathetic.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDo you see that this "He's (me) so enslaved it's really pathetic." I might disagree with? (not to mention the minimizing of actually slavery in this statement) Do I have a right to defend myself here or if I do write further here am I continuing to be a bully?
But better to not be a bully, so I won't argue, but I do enjoy reading your point of view. In the future I will try my best to remember that my views are not welcome here, but if I am called out by name, I think it's fair for me to at least be able to write.."I disagree". If I don't the lack of response may be taken as an implicit agreement.
Jon, for me, this is not about you, at least until you made it about you. This is about what you do and say. I frankly don't give a rat's ass if YOU agree or disagree. Therefore, follow along now Jon, I don't give or take away anyone's "rights" to disagree or even agree. You certainly are not going to assault my credibility on my own web and get me to agree with. You are the one making this a personal issue, not me. That is the root of your slavery, and when you make your slavery the issue, then you force everyone to deal with you that way. And that is the difference between objective observations and worthless unfounded opinions.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, you then come along after-the-fact of many convoluted words, and accuse me of hypocrisy for dealing with you and not the relevant issue in dispute. Point in fact, you accuse me of calling you a bully for arguing – those are your words not mine. Do you not see the bullying in that lie? Where am I arguing with YOU? Where do I take away your rights? You are not sorry for either bullying or arguing, because you just don't stop. Therein resides your hypocrisy.
Here's another example of your bullying: “In the future I will try my best to remember that my views are not welcome here ***.” That statement is a filthy lie. Nowhere did I tell Jon he was not welcome to express his views on this blog.
Problem is, Jon nor anyone else is not going to come onto my web blog and act like a thug bully with their filthy accusations, lies, personal assaults, and innuendo and not answer for what they do and what they manifestly are. The fact that Jon is incapable, if not unwilling, to see what he is doing is what makes him virtually a slave.
"Where am I arguing with YOU?"
ReplyDeleteI get it? You are just telling me? I do not rise to your level where we can be arguing? Is that it?
Comparing a person in today's world to a slave is offensive.
Why would I argue with an enslaved person? Do you believe I am as juvenile as you are? Obviously, you do.
ReplyDeleteNot as offensive as you are with all your abundance of arrogant, self-righteous, self-important judging. You DO NOT GET ANYTHING! That's the point. None of this is ABOUT YOU. YOU are not the issue - even though that's what ALL bullies are about, their own self-important worthless opinions or arguments - making everything be their way, according to their lies and lying accusations. You just keep spewing out your slime everywhere you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
ReplyDeleteLook, Joe I cannot hope to speak with you at your level, that is now clear to me. It's not about me, but you seem to be discussing me all the time. In fact this thread seems to be about me, Eric and b.
"You DO NOT GET ANYTHING!" That's the point. I think I get it Joe, what you don't seem to get is even if I understand what you are saying, it doesn't therefore follow that I must agree. I have different life experiences and observations than you do and we are going to see things sometimes the same way, sometimes slightly differently, sometimes totally differently.
In the end though, I get this. To you this is not an argument because I am too juvenile for a discussion or argument with you. So in the end....I can only say this..
Joe.... I disagree with this post.
And....the use of the slave analogy is offensive not to me, you can call me whatever you like. It's offensive to the real history of slavery in the United States.
Jon, I've engaged you in this blog conversation, if you want to call it that, because I wanted the readers to see you exactly for what you are. I wanted them see the self-defined, corrupt, lawless, convoluted, devious, duplicitous slimy “weasel” called Liberal Jon – a true thug bully. (Notice I did not use your real name.)
ReplyDeleteYou make your attacks personal then turn around and blame the victim for dealing with you on that personal basis, thus justifying your right to judge and to beat the victim in the first place. Then when confronted with your thuggery you immediately become the poor sorry injured person, crying for sympathy and support.
What people like you don't realize is that it is your own actions, words and attitude that betrays you, in that it is what you do that judges you for what you are. Recognizing you for what you are and dealing with you accordingly is the only way anyone can effectively deal with a thug bully. That is how the truth defeats the liar. What I've said here and elsewhere, were it not for your benefit, but only for the reader, that would be disingenuous. I've given you many opportunities to stop you personal attacks. You say your sorry for what you did, but keep right on justifying your right to bully and beat with your outright lies, innuendo, and filthy accusations. In that you prove yourself to be Machiavellian to the core.
If you should happen to notice, what I wrote about was a revealed public course of conduct that could be compared to information in an article I read in the Atlantic about what it truly means to be an effective politician or their apologist as identified by Niccolo Machiavelli. Please note, in your first two posts you did NOT take offense at being one of the three identified. You actually raised questions about issues unrelated to the post. Irregardless, disregarding your obvious Machiavellian conduct demonstrated earlier, I took the time to recognize your questions with an accommodating answer. Here's the link to the fourth comment, just so there is no misunderstanding. (December 2, 2013 at 10:36 AM)
When my issue oriented comment did not fit your predefinitions of me and my intent as expressed in your public narrative, you immediately changed the subject of issues to attacking me personally. In that, you try to get me to agree with you “that 'I' am the true 'blow-hard' hypocrite, without any credibility.” In fact, my very next statement was a question to you: “First, I got to ask, what does any of this have to do with our previous conversation?” From that point forward in this blog thread and elsewhere you never held back with the personal assaults on my character and credibility with your lies, innuendo and false accusations. Notice his last comment at the writing.
"Is he Machiavellian enough?" Was I right? You tell me.
I disagree Joe.
ReplyDeleteWho cares Jon? Whether you agree or disagree is totally irrelevant.
ReplyDelete