The Real AU and Beyond Response

The Real World: AU and Beyond: Is it always better to take the initiative in poli...: "In my personal opinion, to take chances is always good advice. However, to just go out and make a daring political decision is simple ignor..."


Overall I agree with your argument that making a bold political statement just for the sake of being bold is useless. However, I wanted to point out that this is not the activity that Machiavelli advocated. In fact, The Prince in some ways would support the argument you just made.

Machiavelli makes specific claims on how to act in certain situations, but on a whole he argues that it all depends on the situation. On the issue of fortresses, he stresses that “a ruler who is more afraid of his subjects than of foreign powers should build fortresses; but a ruler who is more afraid of foreign powers than of his subjects should do without them” (66-67). This epitomizes his idea that regardless of what advice Machiavelli provides, it all boils down to the given situation. This directly correlates with your idea that “a well thought out course of action might bring about great results.”

Furthermore, I wanted to iterate that we still don’t have a public option, even with Obama in office.

Regardless, we are in conjunction in what an efficient politician should do. Daring for the simple sake of being daring is utterly pointless.

Blog #3

Machiavelli’s claim that it is undoubtedly better to take the initiative in political life and struggle because fortune always favors the bold is consistent with the rest of his political theory because the overall theme of Machiavalli remains based around the necessity for a leader to prioritize his nation-state above all else. Throughout the novel, he has a tendency to adhere to the idea of control. Control towards political policies and control towards how a leader is viewed by his people. As discussed in class, Machiavelli suggests an allowance towards virtuous acts when it comes to matter of the state. In chapter XVI he discusses how a leader should be respected by the decisions he makes for the good of the state, rather than the virtuous nature of these decisions. During the debate many of us even went so far as to say that the good of state always comes before honesty towards its citizens. The idea of “the ends justify the means” that was a critical point during both debates goes hand in hand with Machiavelli’s claim that initiative in politics is vital.

Whether or not it is good advice to tell a leader that making a quick, maybe irrational decision is better than inaction is difficult to answer completely due to the complicated nature of The Prince. As discussed in the introduction, Machiavelli’s letter could be a satire criticizing Medicci’s ruling style, or it could be a legitimate argument. When it comes to difficult matters, leaders should be willing to make decisions that are often times risky, but necessary for the advancement of a state. However, most decisions should be made rationally and thoughtfully, without necessarily placing such a high priority on initiative itself.

Oh, the Joy of Despotic Values

Machiavelli presents a clear, coherent argument on how to maintain power as an authoritarian leader. He is undeniably objective and pragmatic when approaching this subject. In David Wooton’s introduction, he observes that “The Prince is a manual for tyrants” (xxiii). However, is this what leaders should be working towards?

Machiavelli argues that a leader must always be the strongest in any sort of political issue, in order to work towards the ultimate goal of always maintaining power. This is to ensure that said leader is never overpowered by another. However what if the conjunction of multiple areas is for the greater good of the nation-states as a whole? Would Machiavelli’s advice be beneficial? Take for example the plight of Italy during Machiavelli’s time. It was in complete disarray where each city lived under different rulers. This system debilitated the area, thus preventing the strength of Italy as a united nation-state. Therefore, Machiavelli’s advice is only beneficial from the leader’s perspective, not that of the state.

This specific piece of advice, in always maintaining strategy in political life as a leader, is cogent with the rest of his suggestions in how to keep power. He so radically states “it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her” (76). Although I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement, it sums up Machiavelli pretty well. Ultimately, he is simply a power-hungry political scientist.

Reflection #2

The first time I visited the Spy Museum was as an eighth grader on my school’s field trip to Washington D.C. My friends and I were fascinated by the secret tunnel, in which we could evesdrop on other tourists, and the Aston Martin which looked like it was straight out of a James Bond movie. This trip was very different because of my shift in mind from “oh my gosh this stuff is awesome I want to be a spy” to “This is slightly terrifying.” Much of my newfound anxiety was a direct result of the new exhibit, Weapons of Mass Disruption, consisting of a short film all about cyber wars. The video explained how cyber attacks are the terrorist outlet of the future, and even admitted that the chances of a serious breaching of our country’s cyber security is not possible, but in fact likely. There are even reports that some countries have already been successful in infiltrating systems in order to damage many networks. Today, we begin to freak out when our cell phones have low signal or if we are in a spot with bad wi-fi. One cyber attack could do so much more damage than most people realize. One interesting fact that was brought up in the exhibit was that the effects of a cyber attack would take us back to the technology of the 1700s, within seconds. Our dependence on the usefulness of technology has become so absurd that the threats posed by these cyber attacks would change everything. Although the Department of Defense as well as Homeland Security have started to take less physical acts of terrorism like these more seriously and have attempted to secure our electrical power grid, organizations such as the NERC have even commented that we are not prepared to immediately handle these types of attacks, let alone a full cyber war. Since decreasing our dependence on technology is not a feasible option, and working on stronger security to decrease the likelihood of these attacks is a slow, complicated process, I believe that these organizations should be working on ways to recover from cyber breaches if in fact they are as likely and as devastating as the experts claim.

U.S. vs. Xenophobia

The first thing I noticed when we entered RFK Stadium last night was its vacancy. In How Soccer Explains the World, Foer was definitely accurate on how “hating soccer is more American than apple pie” (240). This sport that is so wildly adored outside the United States, is only half-heartedly embraced here. Looking around at the game also demonstrated that its crowd tends to be “yuppie soccer fans” or immigrants. When examining why there is this unreasonable hatred, it can only be explained by xenophobia.

The “yuppie soccer fans,” also known as liberals, are the group normally affiliated with international ideals and “Europhilic cosmopolitanism” (248). The immigrants, for lack of a better term, are simply celebrating a sport that they are used to celebrating. The group of Hispanic people sitting behind us in the game was the source of most of the enthusiasm on our side. Therefore, if the only supporters of soccer are the ones that see past the United States borders, then clearly the opposition has some fear of the outside world.

However, I cannot fail to discuss the other side of the stadium, where the beloved hooligans resided. We ventured over in order to get a real feel for the game, and we definitely did. There was always a constant stream of cheers, even if the game was not reciprocating in excitement. I especially enjoyed their originality in creating profanity. There also was the intense hostility towards Columbus Crew, which became the most entertaining when Crew fans decided to take a lap around the stadium with their yellow and black flags. The disgust and anger was evident in the eyes of each D.C. United fan. It’s hard to fake passion like that. That side of the stadium truly felt like a European soccer game; so it looks like globalization is having an effect, no matter how xenophobic some of us are.

When a State is Not a State

Middle Eastern democracies are having a hard time grabbing a foothold. Although democracy is the best form of government conceived at this time, and although it has worked for Western nations for a while, developing countries have trouble getting the mix just right. Corruption, voting violence, and breakdowns along ethnic lines all plague nations transferring from regimes to legitimate government. In spatula's most recent, excellent post on the Andorran Atmosphere blog, he discusses the sovereign rights of two disputed states, Abkhazia and Somaliland. Here I take a different viewpoint: except in rare cases, new governments and nations should not be formed except when absolutely necessary, because of the bevy of things that can sour the process of becoming a capable nation.

Here, minds inevitably oscillate back to 10th grade history class, and you recall that the American colonies separated from a stable mother nation and turned out alright. However, there was a distinct reason that European nations eagerly waited for the American experiment to fail: there wasn't any precedent for it succeeding. Indeed, America remains the Great Outlier, having received from England a certain blend of - something - that allowed the States to secede (and succeed) quite apart from Europe. More modern colony-mothercountry breaks have not gone nearly so smoothly.

Let's look at some case studies: Algeria, a former French colony, broke off from France after a violent eight year conflict. French President Charles de Gaulle finally granted Algeria the right to a referendum on its future; Algeria chose independence. Unfortunately, Algeria went from benign French control, to an Algerian president, to a military coup and socialist, military domination within a few years of independence. This regime would last decades, the military still has a heavy hand in politics, and Algeria is currently trapped in the vice grip of Al-Qaeda. In Angola, independence from Portugal in 1975 led directly to a 30 year civil war. Since the assassination of a Populist political figure in 2002, the warring factions have come to a cease-fire, but elections are still not legitimate. For the sake of brevity, I'll stop here, but there are literally dozens of more examples I could have mention (you can check them out at Freedomhouse.org)

Back to spatula's post. As he noted in his post, the breakdowns of the USSR and of the state of Somalia lead to special cases; the "except when absolutely necessary" corollary in my above thesis applies here, and in my opinion Abkazia and Somaliland have at least legitimate reason to try a new government. However, this is no guarantee their gambit will work out soon, or at all - democracy's success is just too unpredictable for that..

The Beloved Duo: American Nationalism and Machiavellianism

American nationalism is a beautiful thing. Combined with the all powerful defense network the United States has constructed, to produce a pro-American foreign policy, we become the embodiment of Machiavellian ideals. Preemptive strikes against enemies, temporary alliances for immediate gain, clearing the way for American corporate interest; it all involves the essential message of Machiavelli's "The Prince" - adjusting your actions depending on the immediate circumstances of one's current situation and environment. America seems to have taken well to the Machiavellian doctrine of modern politics, and it seems to have treated us quite well. A nation of roughly 12% of the global population purchases and consumes 25% of the world's resources. A nation whose "poor" is better off than 75% of the entire world. We have done well. Thank you, Niccolo Machiavelli for introducing the world to secular and rational politics, for without your ideas we may very well still have be mere coastal nation, with an Imperial Spain to our south west, and vengeful Great Britain to our north. Without proactive defense measures, which some incorrectly deem as "aggressive," and a sense of pride we would be weak and malleable, and Machiavelli realized this principle many centuries before the world's last remaining superpower ever existed.