In the past, many great minds have constructed theories that hold up to
this day. In the field of politics, one such great mind was Niccolò Machiavelli. His ideas on
political science, most notably The
Prince (1513), are still being applied today, although not in an obvious
manner. However, by extensive investigation of political figures and their
actions, it is indubitable that Machiavellian ideas are still applied. A
prominent example of such a figure is Barack Obama, and more
specifically, his speech at the United States Military
Academy in West Point, New York, on December 1st, 2009.
Obama commenced his monologue with stating its purpose:
“I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in
Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests,
and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a
successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point –
where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to
represent what is finest about our country.” [1]
His vocabulary, most notably phrases like “the scope of our interests”
and “stand up for our security”, immediately sets the realistic stage for
Machiavelli’s principles to play their roles.
A key strategy that Obama uses in his speech is appearing to be humane
and benevolent, periodically speaking of things with an idealistic nature.
Machiavelli himself theorized:
“... it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane,
religious, and upright… Everyone sees what you seem, but few know what you are,
and these few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have
the majesty of the state to back them up.” [2]
The most notable portion of Obama’s speech which portrays this attitude
is:
“… I want the Afghan people to understand – American seeks
an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your
country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to
those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow
citizens.” [1]
Of course, how can one be certain that this is what Obama actually
wants? Even if the United States leaves Afghanistan by 2011, it does not mean
that it will not retain diplomatic and perhaps even economic links with
Afghanistan. Afghanistan may very well become an American node of operation and
control in the Middle East. Furthermore, even if this is not the case, the
American effort in Afghanistan (which Obama plans to augment by deploying an
additional 30,000 troops [1]) may very well serve to strengthen the United
States’ international reputation.
From this, light begins to shine down on Obama’s realpolitik. He dictated:
“… by the time I took office the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. … Our new approach in
Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30-billion for the military this year,
and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to
bring down our deficit.” [1]
Why would Obama seek to continue the war effort in Afghanistan on the
basis of moralpolitik if the costs
that the United States have spent and plans to spend are so high? This seems
even more absurd considering Obama cited a financial deficit. One would think
that such wealth would be better spent on ongoing domestic issues, as seems to be the general consensus. It is therefore very likely that America has a concealed objective in
the Middle East, and furthermore, it is evident that Obama achieving this via
his use of Machiavellian principles.
In various parts of his speech, several of Machiavelli’s minor
techniques can be found. Machiavelli, for example, postulated:
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so
severe that his vengeance need not be feared.” [2]
Obama’s attitude reflects this concept when he said:
“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its
capacity to threaten American and our allies in the future.” [1]
Naturally, if the United States is planning to have certain relations
with the Middle East, as I conceptualized earlier, then staying true to this
Machiavellian thought is essential.
Ultimately, there is no doubt that Obama has used and still uses
Machiavellian principles. What is intriguing about analysing his ideology is
that it can give insight into the realistic nature of his politics and how that
sets the general direction of American politics under his presidency.
What do you VogueFascinists think?
Sources
[2] Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. 1513. as found in Ed. Burger, Michael. Sources for the History of Western Civilization: Volume II. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2003.
Further
Resources
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment