MACHIAVELLI THE REPUBLICAN

For those of you who have any interest in political matters or world literature, I'm sure you are aware of the fifteenth century political writer, Niccolo Machiavelli. He is probably best known for a small book which was written to gain favor and perhaps gain employment from the head of an Italian principality. The book, The Prince, is generally described and, for good reason, as a “how to book” for anyone who would want to run a principality, especially a newly formed one. The book is filled with advice that we generally consider immoral or, in more generous language, amoral. So devious is the advice that today we use this Renaissance writer's name to describe an autocratic leader or a politician who is willing to do anything to advance his or her aims. We describe such a politico as Machiavellian. But, like most general assessment of this type, there is more to the story.

Despite the general perceptions of Machiavelli being the champion of autocratic and tyrannical rule, due to this quickly written work, scholars who study him know him as the promoter of republics but only where this type of government can be successful. Read what the translators, Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, have to say about Machiavelli's thoughts as expressed in his more well thought-out book, Discourses on Livy:

In contrast [to The Prince], the Discourses not only includes reasoning about republics but recommends them over principalities. Machiavelli writes a chapter entitled “The Multitude Is Wiser and More Constant Than a Prince” in which he proclaims that people are more stable and have better judgment than princes, that their governments are better, and that the people are superior in goodness and glory. He adds that republics keep their word better than princes and therefore can be trusted more than princes. He also argues that the common good is observed only in republics, whereas usually what suits a prince hurts the city and what suits the city hurts him. So he concludes that “a republic has greater life and has good fortune longer than a principality.” The Discourses praises republican founders and their peoples for their goodness and virtue and their love of liberty, the fatherland, and the common good.¹

Such a description is far from the devious image most have of Machiavelli. But before we go overboard the other way, one of the Italian's concerns for republics is this notion of “goodness and virtue.” What he meant by virtue is not what we generally mean by virtue,² but beyond that, he had as a prerequisite for establishing a republic a populace that was not corrupt. This is the concern I want to address in this posting.

According to Machiavelli, if a populace is corrupt, it cannot sustain a republic. Let me stop here and define the term, republic. A republic is a form of government that mixes the three types of government that are possible: the rule of the one, the rule of the few, and the rule of the many. This three-fold categorization of possible polities comes from the ancient Greeks – Aristotle wrote about them. Each one can be a form supporting good governance. The problem with each is that it can descend into abusive government; it can evolve into tyrannies, oligarchies, or mob rule respectively. The idea of republics is to incorporate aspects of each type. We are a republic; we have in our government an aspect of the rule of the one, the presidency, the rule of the few, the Senate, and of the many, the House of Representatives. Each one aspect is there to check any abuses by any of the other aspects.

Machiavelli was a republican. But he was also a realist. His main concern was to have a polity that could live and sustain stability and peace, because only in those conditions can a polity advance and have the mutual trust that advancement demands; hence, the need for goodness and virtue among the citizenry.

So where are we, Americans, in these central Machiavelli concerns? Joseph E. Stiglitz comments on these qualities of character. I have the bias or belief that corruption begins at the top. I think Stiglitz agrees. He points out that, as demonstrated by the factors that led to our most recent financial crisis, that those at the top income brackets who garner their riches from manipulating money – as opposed to producing goods – used unscrupulous strategies to take advantage of unsophisticated borrowers into taking out imprudent loans. Through this and other methods, an unsavory result has come about:

But now that tacit agreement [of providing jobs for the middle class in exchange for bonuses] between the rich and the rest, which was always fragile, has come apart. Those in the 1 percent are walking off with the riches, but in doing so they have provided nothing but anxiety and insecurity to the 99 percent. The majority of Americans have simply not been benefiting from the country's growth.³

He goes on to point out that against this background of inequality and how we have gotten there, that due to this betrayal of the promise – of realistic chances at success and, short of that, an earned livelihood that pays the rent, puts food on the table, allows a modest vacation, and provides the means to send the kids to college – the values of the society, at all levels, have become compromised. “Much of what has gone on can only be described by the words 'moral deprivation.' Something wrong happened to the moral compass of so many of the people working in the financial sector and elsewhere.”⁴

To finish, let me bring Machiavelli back into this concern: is our republic in danger? Is there a connection between what Stiglitz is pointing out and the inability of our political system meeting the demands we collectively have? I will address this connection in a future posting.

1Machiavelli, N. (1996/1531 – published posthumously). Discourses on Livy. (Translators: Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Citation on pp. xx-xxi.

2My understanding of Machiavelli's use of the word virtue refers to a person's willingness to strive toward social goals. In his day, the word was highly associated with manliness or taking on responsibilities – to have the courage to “go for it.”

3Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company. Citation on p. xvii.

4Ibid., p. xvii.

CONSERVATIVE CONCERN: PATRIOTISM

My last posting was about how some in the Republican Party are suggesting that the method used to select electors for the Electoral College should be changed. I determined that the proposal was both anti-federal and anti-democratic. It occurred to me that this blog, which has been dedicated to the question of which content should be contained in civics curricula, has been overly critical of the GOP. What can I say? After all, one of that party's leaders this week called it the “stupid party.” It has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. But am I giving the impression that federalism, either in the traditional form or in the liberated form, the form I am proposing, is necessarily liberal in its orientation? Actually, if anything, I believe federalism has a conservative bias. If you are a recurring reader of this blog, I'm fairly certain you have judged me to be a liberal – to be honest, I am. But, as a federalist, I hold many conservative notions to be important. So my challenge, as I react in this blog to events in our political world that have relevance to civics, is to think about what conservative ideals and ideas further federalist thought. I need to give those thoughts some space in my postings.

From time to time, I will attempt to post arguments in which I present a conservative position that I think falls within the purview of federalist thinking. This posting marks my first effort.

Conservative thought, among other things, should be about conserving those beliefs that served us in getting our republic started. As I have tried to explain and describe, that tradition, which started with the Mayflower Compact, defines our commitment to the structural makeup of our national political endeavor. That commitment called on the formulation of political entities by bringing individuals together – to become federated with each other – and to form those entities, resulting in our state and national governments. Through these entities, the federated collective could formulate and implement social policy. I will not retell that story here, but I will argue that conservatives should promote the spirit behind those initiating beliefs.

How are they doing? Their ideological biases of late have fallen short in maintaining that spirit. While I understand the Republican Party has almost radicalized the ideal of individualism, I believe they should instead define individualism under the conceptual context of federated collectives. My sense is that under its current views, the GOP sees itself as the voice of business. I also understand why; big business pays its bills. I know that the Democrats also get dollars from those businesses, but as you compare the amounts between the two parties, one can see which party depends absolutely on those donations. Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana recently commented that his party should let go of such attachment to the big players in the business world and pay more attention to entrepreneurs of small businesses.

But, be that as it may, even with Jindal's advice, the emphasis is still favoring those in power or those who strive to be in power. It neglects the other individuals of the collective or the collective itself. I often challenge myself to try to think of some policy that the current Republican Party advances, irrespective of the party's rationale, that doesn't in one way or another advance the financial interests of business owners or help to keep disadvantaged people from improving their financial situations. And while I often hear about how their policies will create jobs – and some do – I can't help noticing that the jobs created due to their policies seem to be low paying and accompanied by other policies that dry up those programs that help improve the competitive standing of the disadvantaged. Look at the jobs being created in Texas, a state which is politically controlled by Republicans and leads the nation in minimum wage employment.¹

I believe there is a way to glorify the individual without radicalizing his/her rights, prerogatives, ambitions, and interests. The individual in a collective obviously has responsibilities to that collective; we should not partake in advocacy that either forgets those duties or argues that they don't exist. Of further unease is a line of thinking that sees any concerns for those responsibilities as signs of socialist thinking. Here, I'm reacting to the constant drumbeat of such an accusation being directed at the President. An individual has status, roles, resources, and ambitions within the collective. Usually he or she has competitive realities with which to contend. But ultimately, the interests of the collective will determine how the individual fares. He or she needs to devise those strategies that balance personal goals and ambitions with the welfare of the collective.

Let me voice the same concern when it comes to labor and the Democratic Party. I feel that the Democratic Party, pre-Clinton, suffered from the same slanted vision when it came to labor unions. Since the unions were (and are) big supporters of Democratic politicians, those politicians had overly biased views when it came to labor relations with business management. For example, such views almost killed the auto industry where union workers priced their labor beyond reasonable levels so that American companies could barely compete against foreign automakers. Not only were wages out of whack, but the level of quality in the workmanship had become highly compromised. This biased view hurt the Democrats – and the labor unions – among the electorate and broke their majority standing that had been established during the New Deal years of the 1930s. It wasn't the only reason for the decline, but their labor positions significantly added to their loss of support. It allowed the rise of Ronald Reagan and Reaganism.

Any position, be it among leadership or follow-ship, that undermines the health of the collective involved, especially if it encourages a de-federation among the members of the collective, will accrue costs. Radicalizing the interests of any segment of a collective surely undermines the cohorts of any endeavor from feeling the bonds necessary to either establish or maintain federation among them. Those costs, if not addressed or allowed to grow, will debilitate the collective, be it a business, a school, a church, a family, or a nation.

And this consideration points the way for conservative thought. We count on conservatives to provide us with the thoughts, beliefs, proposals, and those messages of encouragement that glorify the central ethos of the collective. People don't join collectives to be exploited or mistreated, at least, not voluntarily. A collective that is made up of coerced members is not a federation. But an association that is based on a set of beliefs that enjoys the allegiance of its members can foster federated relations. The importance of those beliefs is based on the spiritual quality that the beliefs have through the life span of that arrangement.

They, the conservatives, are the ones who bolster the messages of patriotism, for example, when it comes to national unity. While non-conservatives might roll their eyes at such messages, somewhere deep down inside, those of good faith, be they liberals or not, have to admit that this whole ball of wax that we know as our nation, needs spiritual impetus in order to keep it going. You don't need to be God-fearing to understand or accept the sacredness associated with our national bond. Conservatives, by their very nature, are disposed to promote that understanding and acceptance. Federated conservatives help us remember our spiritual stake in the nation.

1See Luhby, T. (2011). Rick Perry's jobs boom: The whole truth. CNN Money, website: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/index.htm .