The President's Princedom

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

[1] Barack Obama’s Speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York on December 1st, 2009

[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

Full Text of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513)

Idealism vs. Realism: G8 Summit

     

As recently reported by the Globe and Mail [1], Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper focused on the improvement of maternal health and the reduction of child mortality at the recent G8 summit. This has been one of the more interesting G8 topics of the past. Amidst this discussion, however, there exists a clear dichotomy between the two political ideologies of idealism and realism.

The Problem

Pay heed to these statistics relating to children’s health. [2]

> 37% of under-five children die in their first month of age per year

> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000 children / year motherless and vulnerable.

Now examine these goals, to be achieved by 2015. [3]

> Reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds.

Moreover, consider the following statistics relating to maternal health. [4]

> Maternal mortality rate decreases by less than 1% / year.

> 500 000 women / year die from complications caused by childbirth/pregnancy.

> Every year, ~ 19 000 000 unsafe abortions are conducted, resulting in ~ 68 000 deaths.

> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000 children / year motherless and vulnerable.

Afterwards, consider the following goals, to be achieved by 2015. [5]

> Decrease maternal mortality rate by 5.5% / year to a total of 75%.

> Achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015.

For both goals, finances are lacking, and despite steady increases in monetary supplies, the UN calculates that it is not enough to speed up progress so that the goals may be achieved by 2015. Health-wise, the same situation is in place – despite many victories over diseases that threaten child health, for example, the goals are still not likely to be fulfilled in time. The UN writes:

“Despite progress, in 62 countries, under-five mortality is not declining fast enough to meet the Goal 4 target … by 2015.” [1]

This is clearly a grim situation. The statistics – what is really happening – show only slight progress. The goals – what should ideally be happening – are far away. What is even graver is that these goals were established in 1990. This means that despite the twenty years the UN has had to fix the problems up to this point, they are far from being fixed. As the UN stated:

“... it is the area of least progress among all the MDGs.” [4]

This kind of issue calls for international aid, and any willing country can join the cause. This is what Harper has opted for Canada to do.

The Idealistic Approach

On the basis of moralpolitik, a nation should aid another nation in need because it is indeed a moral action and the right thing to do. The nation receiving aid should eventually improve and a mutual relation should be forged between these two countries, ensuring that no conflict will occur in the coming.

The Realistic Stance

The notions of humanitarianism and philanthropy are two of many different methodologies of increasing a nation’s international reputation. However, it also places nations receiving aid in a subliminal position of debt. These nations will be expected to ally their benefactors and support them in future times of economic/military/political conflict.

The combination of humanitarianism and philanthropy thus acts as a way to increase a nation’s power. This is essential from a neorealistic perspective for two reasons:

> All states are rational and unitary actors.

> The acquiescence of power leads to security.

Because states are rational and unitary actors, one of their primary concerns is security. When a state uses power to establish security, this new security will provide a strong foundation for the state to acquire even more power. This can be connected to Hobbes’ writings from his Leviathan (1651). He writes that the cause of the desire for power:

“… is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well which he has present without the acquisition of more.” [6]

In other words, men desire power in order to maintain the power they currently have. This is important because it increases a nation’s odds of survival in an anarchic and innately chaotic world, which Hobbes also theorized.

“… which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. . . .” [6]

Therefore, it is becoming clear that by establishing Canada as a benefactor, Harper’s is taking a realistic stance in his proposition for the combating of maternal and child mortalities.

There is another viewpoint one can take when examining Harper's actions and that is that of the behaviour prescribed by Machiavelli in The Prince (1513). Harper exhibits various qualities of Machiavelli's prince in this scenario. 

Machiavelli theorizes that a prince does not need to be qualitative – he need only appear qualitative. He writes:

“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.” [7]

Harper is most certainly making his G8 decision under this prescribed behaviour, and what better way to make Canada look benevolent on the international podium? If Harper actually does act and make a significant contribution, then he will be exercising generosity, another feature of Machiavelli’s prince (providing it is exercised correctly). Machiavelli dictated:

“… I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed generous, but, nevertheless, that generosity without the reputation of it is harmful because, though it is worthily and rightly used, still if it is not known, you do not escape the reproach of its opposite vice.” [7]

By putting this issue forward to the G8 instead of minor non-governmental organizations, Harper is making a bigger effort to publicize the image of him being an ideal leader and Canada being a compassionate country.

One thing that is interesting to note with this issue is that reducing the problem of maternal and child mortality is not difficult. [8] It is thus no surprise that Harper has chosen this issue to target - not only will it not require as much effort as other millennium development goals, but because of its critical situation, it will likely provide more reputation for Canada relative to the other goals.

Thus, the role that Harper is proposing for Canada to play will be quite significant and will therefore establish Canada (or maintain its position) as a leading nation in international development. In this case, it appears that Canada is taking a realistic approach to the situation. This is not necessarily intentional as there are many who have genuine intentions of providing relief. However, the fact is that a realistic approach is how Canada became a larger world power. It had never had substantial economic or military positions in the international community, but rather, has always taken on a political/diplomatic and secondary supporting role. Canada’s humanitarian efforts today are a manifestation of this role.

What do you think of the situation, VogueFascinists?

Sources

[1] The Globe and Mail: Aid groups pushed for focus on children at G8

[2] Millennium Development Goal 4 Fact Sheet

[3] Millennium Development Goal 4

[4] Millennium Development Goal 5 Fact Sheet

[5] Millennium Development Goal 5

[6] Haberman, Arthur. The Modern Age: Ideas in Western Civilization. Toronto: Gage Publishing Company, 1987.

[7] Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. 1513. as found in Ed. Burger, Michael. Sources for the History of Western Civilization: Volume II. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2003.

[8] The Globe and Mail: Maternal mortality: Why it's a crisis

Further Resources

Full Text of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1660)

Full Text of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513)