It may seem unusual that I could see anything positive in the political ideals of Machiavelli, whose political ideals have been enormously influential though frequently denigrated. In the brief space provided here in my blog, though, I will look a bit at the life and works of Machiavelli, and then look at how he saw the right problem in his society (a problem, incidentally, that I see in the society I grew up in), but, lamentably, chose the wrong solution to. In doing so, perhaps the good readers of my blog (however many you are, I do not know) may learn something in the process.
Machiavelli was, in his life, a politician of some repute, an aristocrat with superficially convential tastes in politics and literature. Coming to power with the republic that overthrew the theocracy of Savronela, Machiavelli was a very powerful figure in Florence (the city of Dante) during the period between the two rules of the Medici family. During this time he was intimately involved with the affairs of state, as well as diplomacy between Florence and other Italian states. He also found the time to write a couple of plays, which I will discuss later, as well as the Discourses on Livy, which demostrate his commitment to republican (i.e. non-monarchial) rule. He, and the republicans of whom he was a member, lost power after a seige in which a Florentine border city was taken by forces of the Medici and their allies. Machiavelli then went into internal exile, and, unhappy with this loss of power no doubt, wrote his most famous work, dedicated it to the Medici ruler of Florence, and died shortly thereafter.
The works of Machiavelli that I have read translations of are: The Prince, The Discources of Livy, Clizia, and Mandrangola. The latter two are his two "original" plays. He also wrote an Italian translation of a Latin play, but I have not read that, or his poetry. His political works are pretty explicitly political works, and while the Discources demonstrate a commitment to republican government, the Prince indicates his greater commitment was to power, by any means possible. His political works show a great cleverness in disguising their purpose and in the end demonstrating a ruthless and cynical commitment to gaining and using power without concern for any sort of morality, conventional or otherwise. This same problem is present in his plays. Patriarchy suffers heavily in his plays, as the men in charge are shown as invariably foolish, greedy, interested in women way too young for them, vulnerable to flattery, and seeking to oppress the young men while seducing the young women. Women are shown to be wise and clever, religious figures are shown to be corrupt, servants are shown to be scheming and only superficially obedient (unless their masters are wise and clever), and young men are shown to be passionate, but in need of some seasoning. Conventional morality and religion are denigraded, and eventually the young man gets the young woman, the old man is thwarted (and often humiliated as well, sometimes quite graphically), and the wisdom of Machiavellian conduct is seen to be wiser than the wisdom of the old men in charge.
What, then, is right about Machiavelli? Essentially, Machiavelli was correct in seeing patriarchy as the main problem and source of corruption in society. The same could be said of other societies that place old men in charge of everything, and do not make them accountable to the people. Such people and societies could be named, but it would not be very polite to do so. (Whoever hears, let him understand.) Why is patriarchy bad? Well, it places people in charge because of birth or age, rather than merit. That is its first problem. By placing old fools in charge of wise young men, it represents a society that is, at its core, unjust and dangerous. Furthermore, these old fools are constantly abusing their power. They cheat on their wives, seek to seduce young women to be their mistresses, or occasionally wives (if they are widowers or old bachelors, or divorcees), and in general do not treat women with respect. But then again, they do not treat anyone with respect who is not a part of their patriarchal clique, which is precisely why such societies are invariably corrupt. With no accountability, the behavior of the elites can proceed without any sort of checks (on the human plane at least), and hence there is no justice. There is, instead, a hypocritical commitment to virtue on the face of it (largely to keep the regular people, especially the young men, down) while on the inside there is all sorts of wickedness and vice. Machiavelli correctly diagnosed the hypocrisy of patriachal socities, something which existed then and exists now.
However, Machiavelli, like many others, promoted the wrong solution. Machiavelli (much like the feminists in the sexual revolution) pointed to the yawning gap between the ideal that was preached by the corrupt elites and the reality of their behavior and stated that the reality should be the ideal of all. If the leadership is permitted to act corruptly, then everyone else should be as well. Let there, therefore, be a free-for all where everyone is corrupt and where everyone behaves only with his (or her) best interests in mind. This is the easy way, and hence it is no surprise that Machiavelli and many others were led astray by it.
The right solution to the problem of patriarchy is a more difficult one, and that is forcing all (especially the corrupt elites) to meet the higher standard of virtue, through accountability and the proper setting up from society where leaders are the servants rather than the lords of the people, and stewards of the common good, rather than seeking to subvert the common good for their propserity and wealth. However, such a solution demands that the people who are being wronged act in a virtuous manner as well, even as they put the pressure (through protest and revolt) on the powers that be to change their act as well. In other words, the oppressed of society seeking to create a more just society must restrain themselves from acts of revenge against those who have wronged them. This is a difficult task, but it is what God requires. It is lamentable that Machiavelli failed to advocate the correct solution to the problem of corrupt, hierarchial elites, but he cannot be blamed for his pointing out of the corruption of unaccountable hierarchial elites (whether they consider themselves kings, aristocrats, or merely apostles and pastors and such). No, Machiavelli had the right target, he was just using the wrong ammo.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Mock Mockers After That
Come let us mock at the great
That had such burdens on the mind
And toiled so hard and late
To leave some monument behind,
Nor thought of the levelling wind.
Come let us mock at the wise;
With all those calendars whereon
They fixed old aching eyes,
They never saw how seasons run,
And now but gape at the sun.
Come let us mock at the good
That fancied goodness might be gay,
And sick of solitude
Might proclaim a holiday:
Wind shrieked - and where are they?
Mock mockers after that
That would not lift a hand maybe
To help good, wise or great
To bar that foul storm out, for we
Traffic in mockery.
The preceeding was part of a poem ('Nineteen Hundred And Nineteen') by William Butler Yeats, and it is a worthy poem to reflect upon when one looks upon the issue of mockery and respect. Why is it that mocking is so popular? The wisest among us, I suppose, have the most to legitimately mock, but if they are wise they will refrain from using that privilege except when it is necessary. It is, after all, all too easy to mock the great, the wise, and the good, who set their standards high and act in ways that are difficult to fathom and understand for common humanity. It is interesting, then, that part of this poem appeared in an essay about one of my favorite plays by Shakespeare, Trolius and Cressida.
'Trollius and Cressida' is an interesting play, combining the elements of mockery (mocking, for example, the epic poetry of Homer's Illiad, as well as Chaucer's own 'Trolius and Cressida'), while also containing within it a genuine respect for the heroism of the characters themselves. Since respect and mockery come from contradictory grounds, and it is difficult to reconcile the two, the play has been (in my opinion unjustly) forgotten by many who read plays. The tension between mockery and respect is with us a lot, and it is not without reason that 'Trolius and Cressida' is widely considered a 'modern' play due to its moral complexity. Sometimes as a writer, I myself feel that pull between demands of hagiography and satire. Surely there are many times that call for both. But all too often, I guess, one ends up with both at the same time. Surely we all deserve to be mocked, but who has the grounds to mock us other than ourselves? After all, every critic will themselves be worthy of criticism in some way. Do all then criticize all? Or do we avoid criticism at all, even though it is necessary at times? If we mock the great, the wise, and the good, and then the mockers. Who is left to mock and be mocked? Perhaps we have not come to that point, and perhaps we never will, but it is something worth considering anyway. Consider the poem, the play, and the spirit of mockery behind them to be food for thought. For if we do not lift a hand to help the great, the wise, and the good, we are surely worthy of being mocked ourselves.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
The War of Southern Stupidity
I am constantly amused by those who are supporters of the southern cause in the Civil War. It's amazing to think that after 130 years, a lot of people who defend the doomed and wicked cause of the South still do not have the sense to admit defeat, or even to look rationally at the wickedness of the Southern antebellum society that merited defeat. Obviously, this subject has inspired many books, and is far too large of a subject for the modest scope of this blog, but it is a worthy subject to at least broach. In my many arguments with the misguided spiritual descendents of this wicked tyrants who sought to rebel from the United States and earned their just rewards for unrighteous rebellion (not all rebellion is justified), there have been a few arguments that come with regularity.
Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant.
This argument appears perhaps the most often, and is usually argued by either libertarian or closet-rebel people with a modicum of knowledge in constitutional law, but with a minimum of common sense. For example, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly grants the federal government the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion. Only the most fatuous of southrons would claim that Southern actions were not acts of rebellion. Furthermore, the Constitution bans stats from levying their own troops without federal permission, and allows the federal government to arm any forces necessary to supress insurrections and enforce its laws. Constitutionally, the rebels don't have any ground to stand on. It is interesting that many laws temporarily done in the Civil War for constitutional reasons (the draft, income tax) later became used for illegitimate reasons later on. However, the Union was fighting for survival, and sometimes desparate measures are necessary to ensure survival. Lincoln can hardly be blamed for the 20th century. Jefferson Davis dealt with the same problems in the south, and had many of the same solutions to it. I don't think he can be blamed for the 20th century either. Raising and crushing rebellions is desperate business, and does not set a precedent for normal governmental procedure.
1776 = 1861.
This is another common argument, where would be southern Patriots equate their rebellion against a just government with the rebellion of the United States against British colonial tyranny. There are a few major problems with this equation, however. The first is that the American colonies were colonies in 1776, without any vote in Parliament, and with a government that not only did not consider them equal citizens, but declared the right to pass any laws it wanted, regardless of the consent of the colonists. That is a pretty serious insult. On the other hand, the south was a wealthy region that was, if anything, overrepresented in Congress in 1861, and was in no danger of losing its representation, only its predominance. The patriots in 1776 fought for liberty and justice for all. The rebels in 1861 fought for the freedom to oppress others, whether that was poor whites, black slaves, or anyone who disagreed with the political ideals of the slavocracy. That's no freedom anyone ought to stand for. As a note, in the period after 1776, half of of the nation (that with fewer slaves) saw the proper extension of liberty and ended slavery voluntarily. The other half of the nation became rigid in its immoral defense of a wicked form of tyranny.
Black people didn't/don't deserve to be free.
Usually, at the base of these arguments is a certain racist assumption that only certain peoples are blessed enough to be able to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Certainly, a certain amount of wealth is necessary before democracy can be truly enjoyed (people who can barely survive are not likely to appreciate the need for freedom). However, there is no genetic marker for democracy. It is a solemn responsibility, and one that many people take for granted and misuse, but misuse of the freedoms of the US is a moral issue that is not causually related at all to race (though racial politics itself contributes to the misuse of freedoms and of government in general). Most of the time, this is an implicit part of the argument, but sometimes it is stated directly. We are all God's children alike, and we ought not to judge each other by such superficial qualities.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.
This particular argument will often be advanced if the foregoing arguments have not gone so well. There will be comments about "economic determination" and "state's rights." Each argument is interesting, but rather pointless. The latter is the more important in the case of coming up with fabrige egg arguments to disguise the unpleasant truth. Defenders of the south will argue that their rebellion was over state's rights, against the tyranny of increasing federal power. This is completely flying in the face of the historical record, however. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 was an unjust expansion of federal power against the pillars of virtue in the US equal to Roe vs. Wade in its deletrious effects, if not even more severe, and with the same intent. Roe vs. Wade said fetuses could not be considered human by any law any state (or the US) tried to pass. Dred Scott said a black person could never be considered human by any law that the states or federal government could pass. The harsher Fugitive Act of 1850 was a great expansion of federal power in the protection of tyranny, and was rightly protested as such in the North. During the War of 1812 and the 1850's, there were many northern abolitionists who wished to seceede because of the evil of slavery. Until the election of Abraham Lincoln, northern free-soilers and abolitionists were the foremost state's rights supporters of all. The same is true of all minority parties. When a party is in control of the federal government, they are for the expansion of federal power. When they are out of power, they are for states' rights. Anyone who would pretend differently is profoundly ignorant of America's political history. The other argument--as to economic reasons for the civil war--mostly involve the consequences of plantation monoculture and its effects on industry, technology, and society, and are secondary effects of slavery.
In the end, the case of the south is without merit.
Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant.
This argument appears perhaps the most often, and is usually argued by either libertarian or closet-rebel people with a modicum of knowledge in constitutional law, but with a minimum of common sense. For example, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly grants the federal government the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion. Only the most fatuous of southrons would claim that Southern actions were not acts of rebellion. Furthermore, the Constitution bans stats from levying their own troops without federal permission, and allows the federal government to arm any forces necessary to supress insurrections and enforce its laws. Constitutionally, the rebels don't have any ground to stand on. It is interesting that many laws temporarily done in the Civil War for constitutional reasons (the draft, income tax) later became used for illegitimate reasons later on. However, the Union was fighting for survival, and sometimes desparate measures are necessary to ensure survival. Lincoln can hardly be blamed for the 20th century. Jefferson Davis dealt with the same problems in the south, and had many of the same solutions to it. I don't think he can be blamed for the 20th century either. Raising and crushing rebellions is desperate business, and does not set a precedent for normal governmental procedure.
1776 = 1861.
This is another common argument, where would be southern Patriots equate their rebellion against a just government with the rebellion of the United States against British colonial tyranny. There are a few major problems with this equation, however. The first is that the American colonies were colonies in 1776, without any vote in Parliament, and with a government that not only did not consider them equal citizens, but declared the right to pass any laws it wanted, regardless of the consent of the colonists. That is a pretty serious insult. On the other hand, the south was a wealthy region that was, if anything, overrepresented in Congress in 1861, and was in no danger of losing its representation, only its predominance. The patriots in 1776 fought for liberty and justice for all. The rebels in 1861 fought for the freedom to oppress others, whether that was poor whites, black slaves, or anyone who disagreed with the political ideals of the slavocracy. That's no freedom anyone ought to stand for. As a note, in the period after 1776, half of of the nation (that with fewer slaves) saw the proper extension of liberty and ended slavery voluntarily. The other half of the nation became rigid in its immoral defense of a wicked form of tyranny.
Black people didn't/don't deserve to be free.
Usually, at the base of these arguments is a certain racist assumption that only certain peoples are blessed enough to be able to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Certainly, a certain amount of wealth is necessary before democracy can be truly enjoyed (people who can barely survive are not likely to appreciate the need for freedom). However, there is no genetic marker for democracy. It is a solemn responsibility, and one that many people take for granted and misuse, but misuse of the freedoms of the US is a moral issue that is not causually related at all to race (though racial politics itself contributes to the misuse of freedoms and of government in general). Most of the time, this is an implicit part of the argument, but sometimes it is stated directly. We are all God's children alike, and we ought not to judge each other by such superficial qualities.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.
This particular argument will often be advanced if the foregoing arguments have not gone so well. There will be comments about "economic determination" and "state's rights." Each argument is interesting, but rather pointless. The latter is the more important in the case of coming up with fabrige egg arguments to disguise the unpleasant truth. Defenders of the south will argue that their rebellion was over state's rights, against the tyranny of increasing federal power. This is completely flying in the face of the historical record, however. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 was an unjust expansion of federal power against the pillars of virtue in the US equal to Roe vs. Wade in its deletrious effects, if not even more severe, and with the same intent. Roe vs. Wade said fetuses could not be considered human by any law any state (or the US) tried to pass. Dred Scott said a black person could never be considered human by any law that the states or federal government could pass. The harsher Fugitive Act of 1850 was a great expansion of federal power in the protection of tyranny, and was rightly protested as such in the North. During the War of 1812 and the 1850's, there were many northern abolitionists who wished to seceede because of the evil of slavery. Until the election of Abraham Lincoln, northern free-soilers and abolitionists were the foremost state's rights supporters of all. The same is true of all minority parties. When a party is in control of the federal government, they are for the expansion of federal power. When they are out of power, they are for states' rights. Anyone who would pretend differently is profoundly ignorant of America's political history. The other argument--as to economic reasons for the civil war--mostly involve the consequences of plantation monoculture and its effects on industry, technology, and society, and are secondary effects of slavery.
In the end, the case of the south is without merit.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Leadership Conference
Alrighty, as I mentioned in my previous post, today is a 2 post-day. This post, however, will not deal with the news (which was dealt with before). I am planning on attending a leadership conference in Wisconson (which I have never been to before, actually) over Labor Day weekend. One thing I find interesting--it's a rather outdoorsy type of event, and I'm not that much of an outdoors person. Most people who know me (or who read what I write), realize that I am an indoors person, preferring conversation or reading or writing (all of which can be done indoors, and some of which are more difficult to do outdoors). Besides being a bit of a klutz, I am rather allergic to a lot of things (like poison ivy, mangos, certain plants my stepfather has in the yard--in particular the miniature (or dwarf) schefflera, which causes my skin to break out in hives). Nature doesn't like me, so I don't have much reason to like nature. It's beautiful and all, but at the very least it makes me sneeze. However, that notwithstanding, I think it's a good thing to go to a place I've never been, hopefully meet some people I don't know (though a few familiar faces would always be nice), in one of those atmospheres where I don't tend to go very often and hence would consider a relative weakness. I guess you could say I'm a glutton for punishment. Besides, there will be plenty of seminars as well as a service opportunity, things I am more familiar with. The pontoon ride sounds interesting, though I'm a bit worried about any other kind of boating, because I'm not really into canoeing or rafting or anything like that (don't get me started on that--suffice it to say I'm not particularly strong in the arms, I'm not very coordinated with a paddle (or anything else for that matter), and I've ended up in water a few times, which I'm not fond of). I've even had my canoeing skills made fun of by people who were freeloading off my labor before, which I always find irksome (if you don't like how I do it--do it yourself and leave me alone). However, other than boating, the other activities strike me as very nice, and the accomodations may even be pleasant, which is inversely proportional with how rustic they are. I don't know why camping is such a big deal in the church of God, but such it is, and that must be dealt with. The singalong sounds nice though--perhaps I will be able to sing "Seven Stars," my favorite Appalachian folk song.
Why is the news always bad?
Okay, this is (hopefully) the first of two posts for today. I have been remiss in updating this particular blog, largely because I don't have much time to write about subjects in sufficient detail (I've been a bit hurried, with minimal internet time, in recent days). This post will deal with two pieces of bad news--one largely of local intrest (since I am a Floridian), and the other is of global interest. First, there is much to say about the London bombing (which I found out about when I got to work today). Second, I would like to speak about Hurricane Dennis (repeating a refrain from the early days of this blog--during last year's disastrous hurricane season).
In London, several bombs simultaneously exploded, and a radical Islamic group affiliated with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for it. As far as the news for it, it has been forthcoming from various news sources, and little more needs to be said about it from that aspect. There are really two legitimate lessons that can be drawn from this from a Christian, Western perspective. One, while this event should be taken as the "Tower of Siloam" type of disaster and not as a sign of impending doom for the planet, it is clear that in this mortal life time and chance happen to us all. Nothing in the physical life is guaranteed and certain, except for death. I will leave the specious prophetic speculations to others (who will no doubt be willing to enter the fray). I would like to focus mainly on the second lesson--the civilized world must stand together against the barbaric bullies who would seek to prey on our fear so that they may commit evil without fear of earthly justice. After the initial solidarity of September 11th faded, most of the Western world was hostile to America's desire for a reasonably secure existence. The rest of the Western world (minus Britain and a few other willing nations) was willing to let America fight itself. However, the entire Free World is under potential threat from these third world bullies. Wherever a nation is threatened by these Luddites, let America stand by its side in defense of freedom and liberty. Humanly speaking, a free and democratic society where no one rules without accountability is the best we can hope for. Let us all stand in defense of that, for when one people are threatened with the loss of freedom and safety, all of us are in danger. Fear knows no boundaries, and neither does freedom or human dignity. Okay, enough of that.
Second, Hurricane Dennis is spinning around in the Caribbean south of Cuba, and is expected to make landfall along the Florida-Alabama border (where Hurricane Ivan hit last year). Lots of insurance companies have temporarily stopped issuing home insurance to Florida residents. We'll see where this storm goes, but it's expected to make landfall late this weekend as a category 3 hurricane of about 120 miles per hour. I don't want to rant about this for too long, but I really hate hurricane season. Hurricanes are uniquely horrible as far as natural disasters go in that you dread their coming for several days, and then if they hit you have to deal with their aftermath for a long time. For months one has their eyes glued to maps of the Middle Atlantic, Gulf, and the Caribbean, wondering whether a storm will strengthen, what its track will be, when one's power will return, etc. Okay, let's just say that last year was a bad year, and this year isn't looking so good either.
In London, several bombs simultaneously exploded, and a radical Islamic group affiliated with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for it. As far as the news for it, it has been forthcoming from various news sources, and little more needs to be said about it from that aspect. There are really two legitimate lessons that can be drawn from this from a Christian, Western perspective. One, while this event should be taken as the "Tower of Siloam" type of disaster and not as a sign of impending doom for the planet, it is clear that in this mortal life time and chance happen to us all. Nothing in the physical life is guaranteed and certain, except for death. I will leave the specious prophetic speculations to others (who will no doubt be willing to enter the fray). I would like to focus mainly on the second lesson--the civilized world must stand together against the barbaric bullies who would seek to prey on our fear so that they may commit evil without fear of earthly justice. After the initial solidarity of September 11th faded, most of the Western world was hostile to America's desire for a reasonably secure existence. The rest of the Western world (minus Britain and a few other willing nations) was willing to let America fight itself. However, the entire Free World is under potential threat from these third world bullies. Wherever a nation is threatened by these Luddites, let America stand by its side in defense of freedom and liberty. Humanly speaking, a free and democratic society where no one rules without accountability is the best we can hope for. Let us all stand in defense of that, for when one people are threatened with the loss of freedom and safety, all of us are in danger. Fear knows no boundaries, and neither does freedom or human dignity. Okay, enough of that.
Second, Hurricane Dennis is spinning around in the Caribbean south of Cuba, and is expected to make landfall along the Florida-Alabama border (where Hurricane Ivan hit last year). Lots of insurance companies have temporarily stopped issuing home insurance to Florida residents. We'll see where this storm goes, but it's expected to make landfall late this weekend as a category 3 hurricane of about 120 miles per hour. I don't want to rant about this for too long, but I really hate hurricane season. Hurricanes are uniquely horrible as far as natural disasters go in that you dread their coming for several days, and then if they hit you have to deal with their aftermath for a long time. For months one has their eyes glued to maps of the Middle Atlantic, Gulf, and the Caribbean, wondering whether a storm will strengthen, what its track will be, when one's power will return, etc. Okay, let's just say that last year was a bad year, and this year isn't looking so good either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
