Machiavellianism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct." Now whether or not American politics today fall under being Machiavellian is a complicated question. I for one believe that this question is two-fold. One, are politicians Machiavellian when running for office? And two, are policy makers Machiavellian when making important decisions?
To answer the first question, I believe that candidates want to appear primarily anti-Machiavellian, but are truly Machiavellian in nature. To win a candidacy, politicians must appear honest and straight-forward, for any secrets or lies are seen as a judgement of character. Take for example Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich, who both lied about affairs, that, when brought to light ruined their chances at the presidency. However, their desire to hide such matters is truly Machiavellian in nature. Machiavelli suggests for a leader to lie and be cunning when necessary, but honest at times other. This is the state that all politicians are in, but as citizens we desire them to be honest in all things, and if that honesty brings forth a truth that we do not accept, then they are just as unworthy of their position than had they been caught in a lie. Politicians must be Machiavellian, for they, like all people make mistakes and have secrets. It is irrational for us to expect them to not be Machiavellian when we would dismiss them no matter when we learned of their faults. Thus, by hiding faults, they give themselves a chance to gain office.
However, it is important to note that I am not arguing that politicians should lie all the time, there are certain things that citizens shouldn't and really don't need to know. Perhaps a politician had an affair, or they were arrested for being drunk in college. Should we expect out politicians to be perfect, or acknowledge that they are human beings and prone to mistakes. However there are certain things that politician should not be Machiavellian in when running for candidacy. For example, tax agendas, war policies, foreign relations etc.
Concerning the second question, I believe that this answer is much more simple, though more controversial. Are policy makers, i.e. congress and the like, Machiavellian in their decisions. But before we answer this question maybe we should consider Machiavellianism in a different light, not only looking to duplicity, but the "dirty hands" that both Walzer and Machiavelli support.
I believe that one, they are, and two they should be. I understand that the first point is truly a subjective measure, and that whether or not policy makers are Machiavellian changes from person to person. However, looking at recent foreign relation decisions in the past century such as the Vietnam war, the war on terror, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. I believe that policy makers have certainly been Machiavellian in decisions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are great examples of Machiavellianism, Was the dropping of two atomic bombs at the end of the second World War truly necessary? Perhaps not, but was the thought process Machiavellian? Absolutely. The bombs were dropped not because they were necessary to win the war (at that point the Allies had pretty much won), but because they were used as more of a deterrent. The means justified the ends, at least at the time of the decision.
But should policy makers be Machiavellian? Take for example Obama's "kill list" which has come into light in the past year. This "kill list" definitely works towards being Machiavellian, but should it exist? I honestly can't say, it really depends on your opinions. Should the executive branch have a list of enemies of the state that should be neutralized (maybe not through killing but through other means)? Yes. But should that list include US citizens? Yes and no. But at this point we are getting into a completely different discussion.
Lets look at a less complicated situation. Take for example a scenario where a dictator creates a regime where the people are tortured and killed, where basic necessities are denied to citizens, where over 95% of the wealth is owned by the top 1% of society. Think of almost a distopia, where children are sold as slaves or forced to work as child soldiers. Ignore any economic trade and only consider political repercussions. Should policy makers "get their hands dirty" and secretly send in a covert team to overthrow the regime? Yes, if we are only concerned with the safety of the citizens. But what happens when there is no one to rule? Machiavelli would say that the man that overthrows the previous regime is now the ruler. But does that mean that the US should now step in? Or perhaps the US should assist rebels, supplying them with supplies and assistance without getting directly involved in a war. Either way, the means justify the ends.
What do you guys think? I know I rambled a bit and I'm sorry about that.
I agree with most of your points when talking about machiavellism and the theory of Dirty Hands. I believe that politicians participate in machiavellism and it is necessary for them to get their hands dirty in order to be productive.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you, however, when you mention how politicians act in Machiavellian ways. Your examples were Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich when they got busted about their previous affairs. Since they lied about to the public about previous affairs they had to end their campaigns. I think your examples are not actually examples of machiavellism, but just politicians getting caught up in lies. They would be considered examples of machiavellism, however, if they broke moral codes inorder to achieve something beneficial for their citizens.
Also I was wondering why you said the use of atomic bonds were not necessary? I think the use of nuclear bombs, in WWII, were essential because it ended the war and it prevented other Americans form dying.
I found your post very interesting, and I agree that politicians today are in some ways very machiavellian. You argue that politicians must be machiavellian, but that they should not "lie all the time" which I found redundant, as being machiavellian does not entail lying "all the time," but lying as an effective way to achieve a means.
ReplyDeleteI was rather confused about the example of Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, as having their affairs was not machiavellian, as their own interests were at heart, not those of the state, which is inherently unmachiavellian.
Also, I think the phrase you meant to use at the end of your second to last paragraph was "the ends justify the means," not the reverse...
@Mark
ReplyDeleteI understand we are getting into some controversial territory here, but I said the dropping of the atomic bomb at the end of WWII was unnecessary because the war was pretty much won at that point. Would have some more people have to have died to completely end the war? Yes. Would as many people have died or would it have such long lasting effects? I believe not. I understand I am being a little anti-machiavellian here because I am not just looking at the US but at more of a world state. But I believe that primarily the reason the bombs were dropped were to act as a deterrent. They made a statement: "Hey, we are the US. Dont F*** with us or this will happen to you to." I see the atomic bomb as more of a revenge for Pearl Harbor and a message to everyone to never pull something like that again. And honestly it worked until ~9/11, but that is a completely different story that requires a whole other discussion.
Very interesting post. I think I understand where you are going with the Herman Cain/Newt Gingrich examples. No one would argue that having an affair was dirty hands. Clearly affairs don't benefit the people. I think the Machiavellian idea comes into play in their choice to lie about their affairs. I don't think it qualifies as dirty hands, but it qualifies under the idea that a politician should use lies and cunning. In this case they were using lies in order to attempt to become president.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the post was very insightful when you wrote about how politicians have secrets and make mistakes like anyone else, but the people generally think that making these types of mistakes is a disqualifier for political positions. Therefore, the need to lie arises. I think this is accurate and interesting to think about.