Through Machiavelli's Eyes

Do repost and rate:

This past Friday, I began reading a book by James Burnham, published in 1943: The Machiavellians: Defenders of FreedomThe Machiavellians, compared to Suicide of the West, is a little shorter but is very interesting. This book roughly begins in Medieval Italy, discussing Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia. For many, this might dissuade them from reading the book. However, once it gets rolling, it’s difficult to put down and there’s a lot to be gleaned from it.

Burnham’s exploration of De Monarchia is specifically designed to emphasize its ridiculousness. However, Burnham has an explanation for its ridiculousness. Burnham suggests that. while De Monarchia is an irresponsible piece, it has real meaning within a specific “space [and] time,” both of which are defined by the “events” or facts of those times. This real meaning is contrasted with its formal meaning. As a formal piece, Alighieri's work is mainly a political polemic. Burnham frankly may be paraphrased as regarding De Monarchia as a poor piece of political philosophy that idealizes the reign of one group of elites while ignoring the facts defining the ascendancy of another.

Burnham then proceeds to juxtapose Alighieri’s work with Machiavelli’s. Burnham regards Machiavelli as one of the first, if not the first, political scientist in history. Machiavelli, unlike his contemporaries, wasn’t defined by his ideals. He was a genuine scientist; he let the facts define his goals rather than letting his goals define the facts. Burnham reflects on Machiavelli’s method, which relies on analyzing historical events, determining the facts defining those events, and then correlating those events, the facts defining them, and whether the political leader was successful together to elicit a general principle that can be applied if the circumstances of a situation permit or require its operability. This makes Machiavelli and Machiavellians political realists. Unlike Alighieri, Machiavelli couldn’t let his dreams or ideals get in the way of his ability to regard the facts as they stood.

Machiavelli had one main goal, and this is clear if you read The Prince: the unification of Italy. At the time Machiavelli wrote The PrinceDiscourses, Italy suffered from internal turmoil and internecine conflict. This factiousness was a product of the times preceding the Renaissance, but by the time Niccolo wrote, it was also a sure way to lose on the world stage. Countries like Spain had already demonstrated that national unification was a genuine possibility, and England wasn't far from realizing that political reality for itself, either. Niccolo wanted this for his fellow Italians, specifically to prevent them from being taken advantage of by foreigners.

To achieve this, Machiavelli had no time for petty formalizations. He needed to see the political world as it stood, objectively. To achieve this, he needed to properly consider where Italy stood in space and time and the events that defined and preceded her position. He needed to weigh which political system would be best for Italy and settled on a republic that emphasized Liberty. Regardless of his feelings, he saw the facts of the human condition, historical fortunes overcome by certain political acts, and the essential and inescapable limits of his existence as pointing toward both.

To fully achieve this, Niccolo needed to observe man as he was, not as he wanted him to be. It would have benefited Machiavelli nothing if he regarded man as limitless in potential and free to exist however he willed himself to be. Machiavelli knew that politicians were liars (as men generally are). He also knew they were ambitious and that through work, fortune, and thumos, they could succeed politically. However, he also knew that not all men could achieve political success. Machiavelli, as Burnham notes, separates man into two groups: the nobility and people. As Machiavelli sees them, the people are moody and changeable, requiring a leader to coordinate and implement their political will. As long as you do not increase the people’s ills (for instance), then you may command them, and should generally disregard what they say about you. They want to be led. In this way, the nobility and the people work in tandem.

Burnham also highlights the fact that Machiavelli did not see the nobility as perfect beings, nor did he consider the people to be the fount of goodness. Instead, he saw both as the flawed beings that they are. While Machiavelli does regard the masses as a tyrannical and capricious horde, given that is the character of the masses, it makes very little sense to regard a noble as above such tyrannical and capricious tendencies. The noble's equal tendency for tyranny requires him, and the people, to be kept in check. You cannot excuse them for some idealistic notion about what they could do for you.

Machiavelli also splits the nobles or potential rulers into two groups: the foxes and lions. Machiavelli regards the foxes as masters of guile and fraud while the lions as wielders of strength and authority or force. The lion is needed to protect the people from the wolves while the fox is required to raid the chicken's coop. A great leader will not express the tendencies of only a fox or lion. Instead, he will express both. The successful noble needs to be cunning; he must be capable of avoiding the snares or scandals laid out before him by his adversaries, yet must also be willing to ruthlessly deal with his enemies when the context demands it of him. He cannot be such a man of letters as to disregard the necessity of the sword, nor can he be so infatuated with the sword, so brutal in his character, that he falls prey to a craftier creature's traps. To know one’s self is to be both Lion and Fox.

Lastly, a good leader or leaders will accord their actions to the times. Unlike Dante Alighieri, successful leaders won't attach themselves to political contrivances that lead to the party’s doom for their airiness. Some circumstances may call for action, others may call for patience, yet some may call for a mix of action and patience. A good leader will attach himself to a situation's circumstances and act in accordance with them. He will make Fortuna his guide but not his master. She may, as Burnham notes, set the stage for him, and he may act his part, but if he fails to keep his wits about him, that part may be fatal. At the same time, she may seemingly deprive him of her gifts, and it shall appear as if providence overlooked him, but in truth, a good leader can turn this to his advantage, and – in time – he may seize (by regarding the facts as they stand) the authority his ambition drives him toward.

Burnham feels that Machiavelli has too frequently been cast as the villain. He attributes this tendency, I must say to an ostensible conspiracy: to the tendency of man to preserve power for himself. What good would it be if the many knew that the few in power generally acquired their power through deceit? Much good, but it also requires the many to deceive the few. No, the rulers will say; it is Machiavelli who deceives you! They, as your leaders, are the ones telling you the truth! You must trust them, they’ll exclaim. Who would want to be cast as an ambitious and avaricious man when he holds power? No one; they’d rather appear to the masses as a benevolent, caring, and empathetic leader; a kind leader. Obviously, this deception affirms the first quality. Few are ever so daring to live as deceivers and accusers. As such, perhaps most prefer to live deceptively as the deceived. Who, too, would want their people to know that it is with force and law that they must be kept in check if they have completely deceived the people for selfish gain, grievously affecting them? No, the leaders will shout; you can trust them, you must trust them, they’ll implore; if you do not, all things you hold dear will fall away like sand between your fingers; must stay unified, and that means must be obedient. In some sense, the elites’ unwillingness to acknowledge Machiavelli for the genius he is, for the longest time, could be directly attributable to the validity of Machiavelli’s claims: no one likes looking at themselves in the mirror, especially if the mirror justly tells them they’re a beast.

I think there’s much to be taken from Burnham’s work on Machiavelli, but there are many questions that, by the end of the first few chapters, I’m left with. My central concern is as follows: what if, as a political formula, no one is concerned with the facts?

Ben Shapiro is not infrequently quoted as saying: Facts do not care about your feelings. This is true. Whether we will admit it or not, Machiavelli’s prescriptions were far more insightful than Alighieri’s, who was an idealist. However, for quite a long time, Machiavelli’s considerations were ignored. If Machiavelli is right, and we have some political goal that we want to achieve, and the facts compel us to act in some fashion, why don’t we always consider the facts? Are we, as Burnham suggests, really deceived into thinking that the words of men like Machiavelli bear no weight? Why are we inclined to prefer idealistic drivel rather than the cold truth? Is it because the former, as I suggest, is more pleasing to the heart and ear? When a leader stands before you and asserts that Man can achieve whatever he fixes his mind to if he is reasonable and knowledgeable, why are so many willing to follow him? How can people believe, without thought, that equality is achievable as they submit themselves to the man who goads them into doing will? From this, who genuinely believes that the success of any collection of men is attributable to their capacity for reason and not the cunning and the forcefulness of a few? I say those who cannot be cunning and use force or prefer an airy comfort to the harsh reality of their existence, which they lack the means to change. Secondly, those more motivated by their passions. Without the capacity to do anything about the facts, the masses prefer to believe in the lie or to construct one.

As Burnham paints him, Machiavelli seems to have a conception of Liberty that is not at all too dissimilar to that which the writers of The Federalistheld. For Machiavelli, Liberty produces and is the product of the conflict that forces the two parties (the nobles and people) to prove their salt. In Machiavelli’s ideal society, Liberty is achieved by lawful rule and lawful rule preserves Liberty. The law could be used to bind the nobles and prevent tyrannical abuses by them. The people could hold themselves to the law, enabling the nobles to bind the people to their duties, as well. Yet a government of laws is only necessary to preserve the power of the people and nobles. That government of laws is ultimately established through force and cunning. These preserve a government of laws, not the law itself. Law, in other words, is a vehicle for one’s ability to be a lion and fox. one is forceful and cunning, he may use the law to preserve his liberties. Yet force and cunning are not sufficient nor is this possible for a single individual. a political body has organized, is a cohesive unit, has the will to use the law to preserve its liberties, and has delegated its authority to a sovereign leader, then it can use cunning and force effectively and, thus, use the law to preserve its liberties. Therefore, if a man cannot use the law to preserve his liberties, then he has not organized with others, they are not cohesive, he isn't sovereign, or they do not have the will to use the law. I shall address this further in a future paper.

In short, the law gives the people a way out and enables the best of them to rise out of their condition. The law also keeps the people in line and is an excuse to use force by the nobles. This kind of Liberty, this conflict between opposites, secures a society in Machiavelli’s eyes. When the law fails either party and threatens their liberty (when two organized parties directing two bodies of people have no more legal recourse before them) to secure their liberties, they must engage in conflict. If they do not, one loses their liberties to the other’s force and cunning.

What does this suggest about people who are forced to act out a lie or who hold onto one? They are conquered. If they were not conquered, the lie would not comfort them; it would be seen as the delusion it is; they would recoil from it as if it were an abomination. When they hold onto the law, but cannot enforce it themselves, this reflects that delusion; they do not want to admit that their bellowing about some ignored but blatantly illegal act can be efficiently silenced via the flash of a muzzle. If they admit this, they acknowledge their defeat and affirm their subjugation. Now and then, to preserve a conquered people for some use, a ruling party may appease them and grant them the legal win they desperately desire, but this is nothing more than a way to contain them. If they were not conquered, they could achieve their ends. In the end, they are conquered (they cannot achieve their goals), they have little recourse but submission, and their fantasy about the sanctity or power of the law, without the capacity to self-enforce that law, is nothing but noise to those with the sword ensuring their authority.

This is important to reflect on, for today, many Right-wing conservatives hold onto the sacredness of the Constitution or reference the constitutionality of this or that action by a Liberal-Progressive politician. Like the Liberals of yesteryear, they ostensibly wish to a.) point out the un-American hypocrisy of the Left by highlighting their unconstitutional actions and disregard for the Constitution; or b.) force the Liberal-Progressive to see the error of their ways. In the latter situation, the Conservative naively believes he can get the Liberal to see the light; act soundly like the good Liberal he is or could be. Of course, this is hogwash. The Liberal isn’t going to be reasonable or act “reasonably,” as their pet dog has defined it. What does a dog know of Reason? The Liberal-progressive will ignore them and carry on as if nothing happened because they know the conservatives aren’t going to, or can’t, do anything about it. As a Conservative, when you tell the Liberal-Progressive about their unconstitutional action, you may as well be telling an Atheist that God forbids them from lying with another man. What do they care? They don’t believe in God; they don’t believe in the Constitution.

These are the kinds of facts that do not leave anyone in a comfortable position. However, the Right must be willing to embrace these facts, but not only that, he must think about how he would reasonably act in accordance with them. For instance, the values and ideals of the Constitution are great, but they do not define his circumstances. His circumstances define the limits of what he can achieve with the Constitution; it is limited by the situation the Right-winger finds himself within. Like an archer, the Right-winger must know what he wants to hit, but he should also open his eyes to know where he’s shooting. If you cannot see, perhaps you should not fire your bow.  

Regulation and Society adoption

Ждем новостей

Нет новых страниц

Следующая новость