In the most famous example of Machiavelli’s modern, ‘scientific’ approach to government, the Florentine observes there are leaders with the means of forcing the issue and those who must rely on persuasion: the former leverages either fortuna or, better yet, prowess (skill). The prince must understand and even foresee circumstances and boldly, opportunistically match his behavior to the times: the ends justify the means, and certainly the people will judge him on results. (He must know how to act the lion and also the fox, and to seize the womanly fortuna.) His foremost skill should be in warfare. Regarding the populace, men worry less about a ruler they love than one they fear – punishment is worse than dishonor – but he should not be hated. he prince rewards those who increase the city-state’s prosperity, and devises ways to promote the citizenry’s acquiescence and dependency. Governing according to an ideal of how people should live is dangerous to a ruler who must solve for how they actually do live (p.50). Men, especially councilors, will behave badly unless forced to do otherwise (p.77). On the surface, Machiavelli’s realism is no longer shocking and he is well described as the father of sociology; on the other hand, it is clear break with Christian Aristotelianism and the embarkment of modern political philosophy.
Coda: intelligence may lie in understanding things in their own right, in what others will understand, or in neither(?).
Month: May 2022
Philosophy of history versus free will
Philosophy of history – belief in an engine directing events – acts against the free will of men in society:
The intellectual elite claim to understand the direction of history, as well as the scientific workings of the world, and thus feel authorized to impose their rationality on all aspects of society—including areas that had traditionally been regarded as private. This new scientific morality made it possible to present the bureaucracy’s policy preferences as moral justifications for progressivism and administrative rule. There was no limit to the power that could be used to make sure that everyone gets on “the right side of history,” as then-president Obama used to say. But that new morality and those policies could never be made compatible with limited constitutionalism and the rule of law. That is the root of the political crisis we face today.
It has become almost impossible to reconcile administrative rule with self-government. The morality mandated intellectually by our elites has destabilized traditional social institutions and produced a chaotic civil society, undermining any public deliberation and authentic public opinion capable of reconciling morality with the consent of the governed. The technical rule of experts downplayed the role of popular deliberation and public opinion, and also made it harder for any public debate to occur in an intelligent and effective way. Although self-government depends on public opinion to determine what can be done politically, that opinion cannot legitimately be mandated or controlled from the center. It must arise deliberatively from the people in the country at large, and should originate in civil society.
And:
It remains to be seen if the American people understand or will come to understand themselves as political citizens of the nation-state, or as administrative subjects of a scientific global order.
Glenn Ellmers, ‘What Trump and Covid Revealed’