Machiavelli's Advice to Obama - Essay Example

OBAMA Introduction It is interesting to think of the historical past when thinking of the present, in terms of what advice the past can have for the present. Thinking of this can be a fish out of water scenario, in which figures from the past are lost in what is to them, the future. On the other hand, philosophers of the past still give many today a pattern of roles and behaviors. Some of the most popular philosophers in politics include Machiavelli (known as a pattern of ruthless or amoral leadership through subterfuge and the strict maintenance of public image), Galileo (who was persecuted for his scientific discoveries and exposures of the past’s frauds), and Aristotle, who set up intensely intricate categories for reason as well as ethics. It is interesting to think of how today, in this time of change, these political philosophers of the past could advise present president of the United States, Barack Obama. “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics” (Obama, 2009). Obama generally seems to want to break with the past, but he may listen to the advice of a few of these philosophers, if he could talk to them. Specific ideas of political philosophers Galileo was a revolutionary who represented a paradigm shift in society, like Copernicus before him was revolutionary because he proposed that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the system working the other way around. His theory interested many but he could not convince them through demonstrable proof. Later, Galileo determined that Copernicus was correct when he observed the moons of Jupiter through a telescope. He relied on his observations to draw the conclusion that Copernicus had been correct. Galileo thought that he simply had to prove that Copernicus was right and that everyone would naturally see for themselves, and that that would be the end of the matter. He was apparently naïve to the political consequences of his discovery because he considered it rightly to be based on factual observation and not worth contesting. But the entrenched religious society of his day took offense at the suddenly outdated concept of an earth-centered universe, and challenged Galileo openly for his scientific inquiry and theories. Galileo, having discovered for himself and through his own observations the factual nature of his theories, seeing as he had the moons of Jupiter traveling around the planet in orbit, did not fold when challenged, and stuck to his beliefs. The ultimate result of this stand that he took was that the political and religious structure of his day did not accept this fact, and used their power to have Galileo killed. One can only hope and pray constantly that Obama is given a chance to turn this nation around from the mess it is in, if the same fate is awaiting him from some crazy. “We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” (Obama, 2009). Galileo would approve of this message, seeking a break from the past of the Bush administration and its vagaries and abuses of power. Machiavelli may have more specifically political advice for Obama, although it is of a more slippery sort when it comes to morality. From Machiavelli’s perspective, Obama would be the ruling prince who may have committed any number of crimes and acts of cruelty, but as long as the people see them as benevolent and just in terms of reputation and public image, the subterfuge can continue. Machiavelli does not offer a warning against subterfuge. He does not call upon people to open up their eyes and look deeper into the inner nature of things. As a political writer, he is unconcerned with this aspect of life, and is more concerned that the prince whom he is advising learns to be an effective leader in a way that ensures the success of his rule, at whatever cost and by all means necessary. One of Machiavelli’s most important ideas shows how people tend to be taken in by appearances, and are thus easily fooled, and portrays this state of affairs as being one that can be taken advantage of by the effective ruler. People who see the world and its inhabitants in superficial terms rather than looking at them deeply are seen by Machiavelli to be a great resource for the clever prince who is able to use this perceived common trait to his political advantage. By doing so, the successful prince is able, according to the author, to put a veneer of respectability on disrespect, and to disguise cruelty with a mask of benevolence, thus taking the perceived gullible public in and ensuring that the surface of the rule is not necessarily a reflection of its inner nature, which is assumedly ignored by the multitudes, who are more concerned with malleable traits like reputation, which can be used to the prince’s advantage. In establishing this point of view, Machiavelli is going against conventional notions of the importance of morality. Throughout The Prince, the author keeps his distance from any sense of ethical responsibility in which a person’s actions are seen to be judged by either their individual conscience or the moral dictates of a higher power. Machiavelli’s point of view seems to be that such concerns are best left to the clergy; he is writing a manual of practical, real-world instruction to the ruler, not a metaphysical treatise. The sphere of politics is kept separate from the sphere of religion in his text, so that the ruler is given what seems, at times, to be special license to craft their own public image based on principals of subterfuge and covering up rather than popularly vaunted moral ideals of honesty and piety. In fact, Machiavelli’s text works on some levels to subvert these vaunted ideals, which are shown in his text to be more the result of superficial appearance than real inner worth. Although the author shows disdain for some of the baser function of human nature, he does not let this disdain get in the way of his profession of the convenience of some of these baser functions. “You must know there are two ways of contesting,” he writes to the prince, “the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man” (Machiavelli, p. 114). In this section, as elsewhere in his text, perceived necessity takes the place of morality. And in terms of ruling, the formulation of a positive public image despite personal acts of immorality is seen to be a necessity. Aristotle also has ideas valuable to modern politics. It is interesting that Aristotle starts out this way, since the relations between words and things would seem to be the most foundational aspect of anyone thinking of anything: we must form words to describe reality, after all, in whatever capacity we are able, and learn to differentiate and categorize the differences between what we say and what we mean, or rather, what we name and what really is. There is a school of thought that posits that by naming things, we alter their reality to suit our own purpose and thus destroy their own essential reality. Aristotle has a more placid view of essence in its relation to name, although the aforementioned task of naming nature still stands as an effort that requires that chaos somehow be roped in by the philosopher and differences ascribed and similarities recorded between naming a thing and knowing that thing’s essence in terms of what it really means essentially. In Aristotle’s works, the support of authority over liberty becomes clear from a number of angles. This is not to say that the philosopher discounted liberty as an important concept, but rather is to say that Aristotle saw the authority of the state as ultimate, and designed to protect humanity from the liberty of those who would do harm to the greater good. “Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view of some good… but if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and of the highest good” (Aristotle). This shows and reflects on how Aristotle thought of the state as being the highest sort of community, and in the converse realtionship the liberty of the individual is comparatively unimportant, unless this liberty works to serve and protect the state, rather than challenge it or attempt to change it. “The state comes into existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, wehther we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family” (Aristotle). Therefore, Aristotle saw the state as being the full development of a society in which liberty was important. But this does not mean that Aristotle supported liberty of individuals against the state; it is more like saying he supported liberty, but only if it served the greater good. In Aristotle’s view, the struggle between liberty and authority ultimately produced the prized and valued state, in which the citizen has a say in the government and has liberty. Therefore, it must be underscored that it is not the argument of the current report that Aristotle did not support liberty; rather, he supported participatory liberty for the citizens of the state to participate in its government. But he did not place this liberty above the government itself. In terms of the relationship between the individual and the state, Aristotle remarks, “The state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might sepak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that… he who is unable to live in society… must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state” (Aristotle). Aristotle, along with Machiavelli and Galileo, would have different advice to give Obama today. Contriubtions to Obama Galileo could show Obama how he looked at things in a different way, and shook up society, but he also works as a cautionary example not to shake up society too much, because too much truth sometimes is like batting around a wasp’s nest. Galileo saw through his telescope that the moons of Jupiter revolved around the planet. He looked at the moons over a period of time and noticed that at different points in time, they were on different sides of Jupiter and at different distances to the planet. From this observation, Galileo concluded that the Copernican model of the solar system was the correct one. The moons of Jupiter provided a microcosm for the general workings of the solar system, in which moons orbited around planets, which in turn orbited around the sun. This flew in the face of dominant values of the day, which stated that the sun actually revolved around the earth, and put the earth at the center of the solar system. Galileo was labeled a heretic and persecuted. “The deeper I go in considering the vanities of popular reasoning, the lighter and more foolish I find them. What greater stupidity can be imagined than that of calling jewels, silver, and gold "precious," and earth and soil "base” (Galileo, 2009). He went against public image. He would probably tell Obama not to be afraid to stand up for his beliefs. To discuss this relationship, one must first take a perspective on history as being a force that is regarded in terms of representative and unitized progress rather than as something that continues through more mundane and repeated events. From this former perspective, the relationship between advances in technology and human understanding of the universe can be seen to be synchronous and building on each other in a way that progresses over time in terms of expanding knowledge about the universe increasing as technology increases. As human beings have refined their knowledge about the universe, they have largely done so through technological developments that have been advancing since the first telescope to modern developments such as the Hubble telescope and space- stations like Skylab and Mir. Machiavelli would have more sinister advice to give Obama than the other philosophers. Machiavelli states that it is the effective leader’s duty to “know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would take his state from him and to be on guard against those that do not” (Machiavelli, p. 62). In effect, the protection of the state and the prince’s rule becomes the all-important goal, obliterating all other concerns. The author does not dwell on the stain of guilt on the conscience of the ruler; he merely advises that in reality, Obama may have to be paid for the effective rule of the kingdom, and if Obama has only a few pangs of conscience as his main problem, to which the multitudes are certainly not party, he has done well. Other princes may have had to shoulder the burden of destroying extant cultures; even this is irrelevant to the author, since he operates on a political rather than a moral compass. This sense of moral lightening is then carried through to the author’s conception of others who view the prince, whether they be subjects or opponents. Essentially, to Machivelli, Obama is the center of the action as far as the reality of appearances is concerned, and all else is pomp. The author’s slightly negative view of human nature embraces the idea that humanity is not basically attuned towards honesty in terms of action and perception, and would prefer a good show of the status quo to a pious and selfless act in a ruler. The author separates humanity effectively from both the prince and the clergy as a sort of mass audience which is torn between guilt and satiation. “Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom” (Obama, 2009). Obama generally seems more positive than cynical. But from a Machiavellian perspective, seems is the operative. It can be seen that the successful prince, according to Machiavelli, can put their faith in the public to perceive them in superficial terms that are easily controlled by the careful ruler. No matter how heinous their actions, if the prince looks good later in terms of reputation, the means are shown to be irrelevant, and the ends innately superficial. They are consequently perceived as being so by the public, which finds its concerns of surface and reputation satisfied, and the prince can further consolidate his rule. As long as the prince is not seen endlessly repeating cruel actions in the public eye, he can essentially get away with what he likes. “Hence it should be noted that in taking hold of a state, he… should review all the offenses necessary for him to commit, and do them all at a stroke, so as not to have to renew them every day… and so secure men and gain them to himself with benefits” (Machiavelli, p. 38). Guilt is concealed and reputation is preserved, and the vast majority of the people are seen to be satisfied in the bargain (with the added touch of social appearance of the prince being something which inspires fear-based loyalty without cognizance of overt cruelty). Machiavelli’s ideas of princes having to look to history rather than the here and now for role models also seems basically superficial in nature. Aristotle’s advice would be different. The work presents the difference of opposites in a way that places opposites very closely together, or so it would seem, but on the second or third reading the opposites that are presented as absolutes often develop a sort of synchronicity within Aristotle’s definitional structure that is somewhat frustrating: individual man, for example, is presented as both strictly of a subject and also both in and of a subject. Nevertheless, the difference of opposites is at least sought, which also brings to a semantic start or ending the prevalence of the form of language as a form in and of itself in relation to science, in terms of stated exactitude. What the author would present to Obama is a human way of looking at things as they seem, or as they are separated from humanity and classified as nature, which is dominant in the relationship and is the subject of humanity’s striving to append or apprehend it with words and distinctions flung at the essential flux of the ever-changing moment. This is a rich history of attempted appreciation that began with thinkers and philosophers like Aristotle and Socrates, who saw through appreciation to classification and categorization. It is unclear at this point, or at many points within Aristotle’s works, whether this process works to simplify or complicate the processes that are being observed: this is most likely the matter of building a bridge of understanding over waters that could be described as primordial. The underlying paradoxes suggested by Aristotle are also often met with absolutes, which provides a polemical surety to the statements being made, even if they themselves seem at times to be contradictory in terms of absolutes. The grammar used by the author seems to be basically mathematical or prototypical of some sort of mathematical understanding of being as a system. The text reads like a basic framework, and, and again to separate from naïve criticism and voice a legitimate concern, requires an intense amount of sustained energy and direct and immediate application of the concepts presented for the reader to make any sort of headway. Distancing oneself from the text while reading it, personally, resulted in instantaneous confusion and a feeling of profound dislocation and inertia. The text made sense, however, when it flowed smoothly and was instantaneously assimilated in a process of personal and intimate recognition and acceptance. “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame” (Obama, 2009). This passage gives a good view of exactly where Obama stands on the matter of liberty and authority. In terms of advice that Aristotle would give Obama about liberty and authority, he saw that the state should guarantee the indiviudal liberties only as long as its self preservation as the highest good was paramount. He was adamant about the indiviudal owning duties of obeisance to the state, but not so much about rights of challenge and change. Aristotle believed that the moral lives of citizens should be shaped by the state to a great extent, as shown by the example above. “He who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all, since amred injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped with arms, meant to be used for intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends” (Aristotle). This shows what could be called the threat of liberty, which must be controlled by the state’s authority, from Aristotle’s perspective advising Obama. Conclusion Political philosophers of the past would all have different advice to give the current president of the US, Barack Obama. The approach the nature of humanity, politics, and ruling in different ways. Certainly, Obama needs a lot of advice at this point, because as he notes himself, “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly” (Obama, 2009). There are various interesting perspectives to consider. The perspective of Aristotle is very opaque in spots, and presently the report necessitates multiple other readings for full understanding. The Galileo seems appropriate, but the weight of the paradigm shift and the position of religion in society then and now, make this a slightly long reach to give advice to Obama realistically, in a comparative situation. The most interesting advice, perhaps because it is inherently political, comes from Machiavelli. This is significant because a prince, according to Machiavelli, must be able to keep up appearances at all costs. Even in weakness, the successful prince must look strong; even in moments of indecision, they must appear to be dynamic and decisive. According to Machiavelli’s somewhat amoral view, there is nothing necessarily wrong (in the prince’s narrow horizons of here and now) with behaving with cruelty or immorality, so long as the job of covering up and disguising this immorality or cruelty is done immaculately. The public is relegated to the role of the duped spectator in Machiavelli’s text; the ruler is the one who is in on the secret of his personal transgressions against conventional morality, while the public occupies the function of the satiated spectator. This spectator does not even necessarily expect honesty and moral behavior of the ruler; they would rather, it seems, have the appearance of morality and piety. As ideals are often cherished over concrete facts, even in the face of evidence, Machiavelli’s extra-personal public will only see in terms of assumption and façade. REFERENCE Aristotle (1992). The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Penguin Classics. Galileo, G (2009). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue.html Machiavelli, Niccolo (1998). The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Obama, B. (2009) Inauguration speech. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/20/obama-speech-text.html Read More