Stephen Cruz
Realpolitik is the idea that politics should be primarily
based on power and on practical and material factors and considerations rather
than ideological or moral principles.
Machiavelli defines realpolitik as such, “ for the distance is so great
between how we live and how we ought to live that he who abandons what is done
for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation; because
a man who wants to make a profession of goodness in everything is bound to come
to ruin among so many who are not good.” For this reason, Machiavelli concludes
that princes should not be obliged to keep their word, especially in instances
where not keeping their word results in the security and prosperity of the
state.
Machiavelli
believes that a prince will be judged by the ends to his means and so long as
he appears to have all of the qualities, mentioned in chapter 18, that are good
(merciful, loyal, humane, forthright, and religious) the people will believe
his actions to be honorable and praiseworthy.
To Machiavelli’s point I find only a
moral problem, but not a problem in reality. The truth is that there are bad people in this world. If you look at most game theory
situations, such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it is not difficult to understand
why those that defect when their adversary cooperates, come out on top. And the only way to counter attack this
is for you to subsequently defect.
The issue pointed out by Machiavelli is that if you always defect, and
do so without any appearance of remorse, the people of your state will despise
you, which is a quality that Machiavelli warns princes against maintaining.
When
I think about this approach I cannot help myself but to think link it directly
to U.S. foreign policy and how it is relayed to U.S. citizens. There are a great many instances where
the United States has justified the means by the ends to its citizens. World War II is a great example. In
order to defeat the Axis of Evil, the United States dropped atomic bombs on
Japanese people, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. However, the result was the end of
World War II, and for that reason the actions taken by the United States were
deemed acceptable by most U.S. citizens.
More currently, there is great debate as to whether the U.S. went into
the middle east for the liberation of the people in the Middle East or for
exploitation of oil. I wont argue
here which one I believe to be true, but nevertheless it shows that the people
of the United States understand that the actions of the government, “Prince”,
are not always as they seem to be. In Machiavelli’s time it was much easier for
a prince to get away with deceiving his people. This is much the case in today’s world as well ( i.e. I’m
pretty sure the people of North Korea believe they have won the World Cup
multiple times because the government has a tight hold in information sharing.
I may be exaggerating, but would it surprise you if this were the case?). However, the same cannot easily be said
for the United States. The
availability of research and the amount of transparency in the U.S. government
makes the government more accountable for its actions. In fact it can be argued that Americans
are slowly beginning to “wake up” to the ability of the government to deceive
its people. So is Machiavelli’s
approach to foreign policy really relevant today?
Maybe
it still is, and a strong argument can be made for this. When dealing with other countries I
believe his approach to be very applicable. Where there is no common judge, such as in dealing with
foreign nations (international community is in an anarchic state), cooperating
at all times may put the prosperity of the state of risk. Most certainly there are situations
that may warrant a prince to not keep his word or to be cruel in order to
secure the state. I believe the issue arises with the liberality of the United
States. (I am in no way against
our liberal state or what it means to be an American) The U.S. government today is held much more accountable for
its actions because the citizens have access to information via the Internet,
television, newspapers, etc. Other
nations are aware of this, and in dealing with the United States, their word
can be seen as much more viable.
At first this may appear to be a positive for the U.S. However, if you are aware of the
benefit of defecting in games such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it may not be
such a benefit for the U.S.
Perhaps
Machiavelli’s approach is still very applicable to the present international
community, but states such as the U.S. may find it increasingly difficult to
implement. In one light, our
government may be more cooperating and loyal to other nations. In another, the U.S. may be seen as
weak because instead of only appearing to have qualities such as mercy,
loyalty, humane, forthright, etc. the U.S actually does maintain them. According to Machiavelli this is not a
good thing. These qualities do not fall in line with political approach of Realpolitik.
I agree with you that the U.S. abides by some of these qualities but it has often relied heavily of hard power when dealing with foreign policies. The use of coercive force is utilized to manipulate other countries to see their view. It has been viewed since 2001 and criticized as a country that uses force to promote democracy and goes to war with opposing countries.
ReplyDeleteOn Machiavelli’s choice of whether it is better to be feared than to be loved. The situation applies to the United States. On one hand, it is loved for its freedom but on the other, it is feared for its well trained army. What I don’t agree with is how you view the U.S. as weak in the eyes of other nations for having these soft qualities. Since the attack on 9/11, the United States has utilized hard power frequently on suspected countries. And it has greatly reduced its soft power image. Most countries like France and Germany view the United States as a tyrant and bully for declaring war without the permission of the United Nations Security Council.
Sometimes the end doesn’t justify the means as the wrong decisions leaders make end in costly wars and far too many casualties. The war in Vietnam was fruitless and created a syndrome for people to access other wars thereafter. People can be convinced to support the war at first with a well phrased sentence but when the number of coffins starts to pile up, they disapprove by using their power as the electorate.
There are certainly differences between Machiavelli's time and ours, and I like that you applied his ideas to a more contemporary setting. I think that his tenets still work, but you are right in saying that media and democracy have played into the government being criticized more frequently. Maybe it is just that a government has to adapt to this kind of of environment and perhaps be more clever.
ReplyDelete