In his infamous compendium of advice for aspiring dictators, known now to political science students the world over as “The Prince,” Nicolo Machiavelli – competent bureaucrat and kiss-ass extraordinaire – espoused the following principle, familiar to anyone who has ever opened a newspaper:
“Politics have no relations to morals.”
He was not speaking here of corruption, nor of tapping foots on bathroom floors or stains on dresses. What Machiavelli was advising was that the security of a nation, and of one’s grasp on the reins of power of that nation, required that one jettison any sense of ethics – Catholicism, for instance – and do whatever is necessary.
The ends, in other words, (being the maintenance of princely – or state – power) justify the means (anything – anything at all).
Morals can be feigned, certainly, but to hold the ruler of a fiefdom, or principality, or kingdom, or nation, to the same moral standard as the common man would be, in Nicolo’s estimation, disastrous. “The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way,” he wrote, “necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.”
Thus the behavior that, in an individual, would lead to a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder is, when that individual acts on behalf of the state, good governance. There is no moral imperative for a country – there is only self-preservation.
The Prince is perhaps the first real treatise of political science, and it is taught to all aspiring ruling class lackeys, from Andover to Berkeley. They may not read it, of course (does anyone really read anymore?) but they get the gist somewhere along the line: When Jesus said “play nice boys and girls” he wasn’t talking to Nixon’s National Security Adviser, or his buddies at the Agency. They can perhaps quote the Prince of Peace, but in matters of diplomacy and war, Machiavelli’s Prince is far more useful.
The ideas of Machiavelli, while certainly known in one way or another to all modern leaders, are especially emphasized by “conservatives.” This one will sound familiar: “It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.”
In psychology we would perhaps call this projection – attributing to other the qualities we ourselves have. If I know in my heart I am selfish and violent, I assume others are the same.
After all, how could Machiavelli know this, except from his own experience? Did he have a special instrument to see into the hearts of men? Sounds like, maybe, he had been betrayed himself. Maybe he had a pal in college who stole his girlfriend. Maybe his father beat him. Maybe he got pushed around by the nobility. In any case, you can bet that Republican presidential candidates and AM talk radio hosts would overwhelmingly agree with him: At heart, people suck.
Conservatives see evidence for this everywhere, and I don’t blame them. The world is surely full of nasty business. Even the teachings of Christianity are, for conservatives, a paean to man’s evil. We are all sinners, and the world is eventually coming to a glorious, horrible end because of this fact. Jesus’ commandment that we “love our enemy,” falls by the wayside, and Old Testament behaviors – mainly endless war – are elevated to necessities.
Leftists have a different take. We generally believe that people are driven to evil by circumstance. We interpret Christian teachings to take this as given – that despite being sinners, humans are basically good, worthy of forgiveness, commanded to love, and to treat each other with kindness. Violence, then, is anathema, and one cannot be Christian and Machiavellian at the same time.
Christians teach and practice love. Machiavelli disdains love and preaches power.
In its international behavior, the United States has certainly been mainly guided by conservative (ie: Machiavellian) principles. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was Machiavelli (One of many examples: “There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”) channeled through Teddy Roosevelt (they named a stuffed toy after this guy?) The list of nations the United States has invaded is long and tragic. It includes the Philippines, which was first promised freedom and then brutally suppressed at the turn of the last century (“Kill everything that moves over the age of ten,” Grandfather Macarthur told his men.), the Dominican Republic (multiple times) where sugar plantations were threatened by nationalist uprisings, and, of course, Iraq.
Being against the war in Iraq without understanding and opposing the core values and goals of American foreign policy is a bit like being against your mother’s lung cancer but continuing to buy her no filter Camels and living next to the 710 freeway. The invasion of Iraq is just the latest and greatest manifestation of 100 years (or more) of the drive for American dominance – not because we want to spread democracy; that’s the biggest lie since Washington’s promise that Indians would own Oklahoma as long as the sky is blue and the grass is green. No, it’s capitalism we spread, not representative government, and capitalism means three things: Cheap labor, cheap (or, preferably, free) resources, and open markets (though this last is less important, as it requires the people of the invaded nation to have money, which is not always part of the plan). In service of these three goals, Roosevelt’s “big stick,” whether in the form of the US Marines, or a coup d’etat.
In some sense, the war is not a failure, but a resounding victory for neoconservatives and their financial and political interests. The Project for a New American Century, a so-called “think tank” whose members include Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Don Rumsfeld, has been advocating since the early 90’s for a “permanent [American] troop presence in the Middle East” in order to ensure that Central Asian oil reserves flow our way, and not to China, Russia, or the European Union (Egads! Not the European Union! We must stop the Netherlands before they kill again!). Many of these men were students of University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss or his disciples, who taught that morals are an illusion and only social order (or the lack thereof) is real, thus wise leaders offer the masses “necessary illusions” – such as a common enemy – to keep them in line. “He agreed with Marx that religion was the opium of the masses,” says Shadia Drury. “But he believed that the masses need their opium.” Machiavelli would have been proud.
Neoconservatives have pretended to transform the right-wing approach to geopolitics from Realpolitiks to idealism, when in fact it has not changed at all. Hegemony remains the goal, and high ideals are nothing but a tool. The goal has never been a moral one; morals are besides the point. The goal is American power.
Despite the 4,000 American combat deaths, the spiraling instability of Babylon, the trillion dollar treasury drain, and the untold Iraq dead, I would say PNAC has succeeded. As John McCain has so courageously (carelessly?) pointed out, we are likely to see American soldiers in Iraq for a century.
Meanwhile, Halliburton makes billions. Meanwhile, progressivism activist takes a back seat to anti-war reaction. Meanwhile, the Democrats start looking good in comparison (an accomplishment at least as difficult as managing Baghdad). Meanwhile, the schools and roads and hospitals of Los Angeles County atrophy. Meanwhile, the Muslim world, one billion strong, renews its hatred of the “Great Satan” (for the very same amoral, oversexualized, materialistic tendencies the American religious rights constantly bemoans), and perpetual war (and the ensuing profits) becomes inevitable. Meanwhile, the Bill of Rights looks like a dead letter – and John Yoo’s back at Berkeley to bury it.
This is no failure; this is exactly what Cheney et al wanted, planned for, intended. Is all perfect in the public relations game? Of course not. Does that significantly alter the direction of American policy, or the vested interests of certain political and economic classes? Of course not. There are American troops in the Middle East, where they will remain for the foreseeable future. Hussein is gone, and never got to testify against his American collaborators. Bush served his two terms; McCain’s succession is his to lose. All those lies about WMD’s were just needed to get a foot in the door. Now we’ve occupied the house and the rest is easy.
And let me head this one off at the past. I love America. I love the Constitution, and the people, and the land. I love the idea of democracy, and rule of law, and that I am the boss of the government, not the other way around. My love for America is why I stay and fight for her survival against those who would confuse love of country with obedience to party or president, those who would see America as a tribe with whom they stand against other tribes, rather than a set of laws and ideas which they defend against all enemies, internal or external. I despise much that this nation has done – and so should we all. If we do not, it is likely we have not been willing to confront it. And still it goes on.
Can we agree that the same methods, intentions, individuals and institutions that cause a problem should not, logically or morally, be the methods, intentions, individuals and institutions to set about fixing that problem?
I propose a sort of International Bill of Rights for the people of other nations and their governments. Many of these rights exist in international law (which, for the record, when part of a treaty signed by an American president, becomes the Law of the Land, equal to the Constitution), but I’d like to set them out here in a simple and direct manner.
These rights are in direct contradiction to the actions of the United States throughout its history, particularly the 20th century. The United States has frequently acted to deny these rights to nations, and has often succeeded. The exercising of these rights by certain nations has often been used as a justification for war against those nations. If we recognize these rights, we immediately see that the United States has acted a sort of international gangster, because it has consistently violated them. If we do not recognize these rights for other nations, then we must ask: Do we deserve them ourselves?
Next to some of these rights I have placed, in parentheses, the names of some of countries (not nearly all) that have tried to exercise these rights and been met with the blunt end of the stick of American hegemony, along with the approximate date of that event.
All nations, and the people of all nations, have the inherent right to:
1. Choose their own economic system (Vietnam, 1962)
2. Nationalize their resources, making reasonable repayment for infrastructural improvements made by private companies. (Iran, 1954)
3. Ignore debts incurred in the aftermath of colonialism and imperialism, as these debts were taken under duress. (African nations, 1960’s)
4. Receive restitution payments from the colonial powers.
5. Democratically elect their own leaders without interference or retribution from the United States, as long as those leaders do not commit crimes against humanity. (Iran, 1954; Chile, 1973; Nicaragua 1979)
6. Enforce environmental and labor protections without interferences from unelected representatives of international capital, such as the WTO and IMF. (Canada, 1999)
7. Refuse the presence of American or NATO forces on their soil.
8. Redraw their boundaries in cooperation with neighboring nations, without interference from foreign nations not bordering them. (Kuwait/Iraq, 1963; African nations, 1885-present)
9. Manufacture and distribute life-saving medicines regardless of international patents. (South Africa, 1997)
10. Ally with any nation that is not at that time committing war crimes or directly attacking the United States or its allies.
11. Obtain any technology, whether military or civilian, that the United States and its allies obtain. (Iraq, 2003; Iran, present day)
The recognition of these rights would radically change the geopolitical power structure. If you do not recognize that, consider yourself ignorant of that structure and its machinations, ie: of history. Maybe you can get a cable show.
If you oppose the restructuring of the world order – that is, if you continue to believe the United States has the right to use force to protect its economic self-interest – consider yourself an imperialist.
In other words, consider yourself a Machiavellian.