James Joyner, often a sane-if-wrong conservative, does so today in a discussion of America's tendencies towards empire or hegemony. Joyner writes that: "It is only during short-lived moments of perceived American weakness, such as the days after the 9/11 attacks, that the international community loves us. The reason was eloquently explained by Nicolo Machiavelli nearly a century before the first British colony was established here". He then quotes Machiavelli's "Prince":
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.and says "And so it remains" as if the facts actually bear out these words of the failed rennaisance politico (or much of the rest of his work).
Because, of course, Japan, the UK, Canada and all the other nations who have been lauded for joining Bush's failed occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan did so only out of fear, right? And come to think of it, the problem with fear is that, at the first sign of weakness, your fearful allies turn on you - as happened with the Soviet satellites as the great bear slumped - or become double-agents as has happened with Pakistan's "joining" the effort to deal with Islamist extremist terrorism.
If you want a far better explanation of why America presents an ever-changing foreign policy face to the world, then Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye has it right.
The problem here is that the United States unlike countries like, say, England or France does not have a foreign policy or, more accurately, our foreign policy is an emergent phenomenon which depends on the actions and interactions of a number of competing and cooperative political forces within the United States. Consequently, the United States is in turn imperialistic, isolationist, and mercantile depending on which force is in the ascendancy at any given time.Or, shorter, the U.S. only does domestic policy, which it then inflicts upon the rest of the world. Dave and I will have to differ on whether that is always a strength of the American method.
Under a Theodore Roosevelt the country may be imperialistic while just a few years later under, say, Coolidge it will be isolationist.
This apparent changeability is confusing and dismaying to friends and enemies alike. But I also believe that the interaction of the different forces which influence American foreign policy has undeniably given our country a strength and adaptability.
Be that as it may, Joyner's use of Machiavelli is a symptom of a worrisome tendency towards a particular kind of American political schizophrenia which is far more prevalent on the Right. They say they believe in government "by the people, for the people" and the idea that "all men are created equal" but they tend to assume a superiority of moral integrity and authority in those they wish to have as representatives of the people. In short, they always think of those representatives as Princes - ruling over rather than working for the people. They then become imbued with the "divine right of Kings" where their pronouncements are considered almost ex deus, which explains their incredible loyalty and message discipline.
That schizophrenia is endemic to American politics and I'm not saying that Democrats are exempt - but, for instance, it is far more common to hear conservatives say things like "respect the office if not the person" when speaking about elected representatives. I cannot imagine someone saying that about the British Prime Minister. Why on earth would anyone want to laud a funny-shaped room as being more deserving of respect than the man who occupies it - especially if the man uses his position of elected power to lie about sex or about WMDs?
It's a natural tendency which comes from a schizophrenia in the American constitution, though. Given the lack of any better model for the Founders than the Britain of the time, they decided to have an elected Monarch we would all agree to call President instead of King during his short reign but who has more power - including that to raise his own unelected noble cabinet to positions of power - than most constitutional monarchs do nowadays. From that disguising of a monarchy under the forms of democracy arises this tendency to think the elected, rather than being the electorate's employees, have become the rulers, the Princes, in truth. The Founders, I hope and believe, would prefer us all to strive to remember that A Man's A Man For All That.
You see yonder fellow called 'a lord,'Whenever you see someone cite Machiavelli's cynical and authoritarian philosophy as a positive thing, you can be sure that he has forgotten that.
Who struts, and stares, and all that?
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He is but a dolt for all that.
For all that, and all that,
His ribboned, star, and all that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at all that.
No comments:
Post a Comment