Politics as wish
Howard Rothenburg
Thursday, February 1, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics as wish
By J.R. Nyquist
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
In 1943 James Burnham wrote a book entitled "The Machiavellians:
Defenders of Freedom." It was Burnham's thesis that nine-tenths of what is
written in the field of politics is dangerous nonsense. He argued that
most of the political words we use have nothing to do with political
reality. And having nothing to do with reality, they lead us into
countless errors, including fatal ones.
Take the word "democracy," for example. This word is often understood
to mean "rule by the people." Our political system is therefore described
as one in which the people decide. This, of course, is supposed to be a
good and noble thing. But this, Burnham suggests, is nonsense. Unless
the people vote every day, instead of every two years, they can hardly be
ruling the country. In fact, most people are too busy to vote on those
rare days when they have the opportunity to do so. And what is so noble
about the decision of a large mass of persons who don't understand the
issues they are voting on? Or do we imagine that the masses, in
aggregate, are all-wise and all-knowing? Whether or not the people are
wise, grown men nonetheless use the word "democracy" to signify something
beneficial and even practical.
Therefore we regard polls as divine messages, imperatives from our new
god -- the people. It is a glorious system which leads us into many
absurdities. Burnham cautions us and reminds us that democracy is largely
a myth. As such, it stops political realism from emerging into public
discussion. In consequence, when a citizen wakes to find himself living
in a peculiar sort of oligarchy he is severely scandalized. The outraged
citizen then begins to militate against the system, as if democracy has
been stolen from him. But there was nothing to steal. What he lost was
the comfort of his own delusions. Democracy, properly understood, is a
way of organizing and validating oligarchy, giving it the stamp of public
approval and legitimacy. There should be nothing scandalous in this.
Oligarchy is not only normal, it is inevitable.
In politics, says Burnham, we easily become confused because our formal
aims and goals are always dressed up in noble words. We might refer to
justice, liberty or equality. We might speak of freedom or human rights.
The underlying reality, however, is a competition for power. It is a
desire for promotion and office, for privilege and position. The very use
of noble terms in this context, says Burnham, often makes it impossible
for a political writer to "give a true descriptive account of the way men
actually behave." Because of this, the truth is betrayed. Political
realism, referred to by Burnham as Machiavellianism, is what we need to
protect the imperfect liberties we enjoy. That is one of Burnham's
arguments. Since men seek power, then power must be used to check power.
This means we have to develop Machiavellian devices to guard against
Machiavellian devices.
If we delude ourselves with political myth, if we attempt to advance a
utopian agenda, we neutralize ourselves. It would be nice if men
actually, sincerely, wanted to live in a purely altruistic way. But which
men have done this? Saints, perhaps, who never ran for political office.
Such are clearly outside the nexus of politics altogether. In politics,
wrote Burnham, high-minded words "serve only to arouse passion and
prejudice and sentimentality in favor of the disguised real aims." Think
of Jesse Jackson's career. By opposing racism he made himself rich. What
was his actual intention through it all? Was his intention to get rich or
fight racism. No doubt the world is filled with good men who fought
racism without making a penny. This is not Jackson.
Behind the formal meaning of his words is a simple act of extortion. In
other words, he raises millions of dollars by threatening white people
with an ugly label. If we look at him closely, his words are one thing
but his real purpose is to advance his own personal interests. Besides
democracy and the campaign against racism, there is another high-minded
word that confuses us. At the time of the L.A. riots we heard mobs
chanting: "No justice, no peace." But was the persecution of white police
officers, in terms of an incident involving a black criminal, actually
justice? No, it was a campaign of resentment and revenge.
Time and again, people express outrage that they are no longer living in
a democratic utopia. They are outraged that the courts produce dismal
results. One only needs to think of the O.J. Simpson case to see how a
wealthy murderer can buy his way to freedom with clever lawyers.
Consider, as well, the impeachment of President Clinton, where the
Republican Senate refused to decide guilt or innocence on the basis of the
evidence. There is no utopian system. The very best we can arrive at is
checks and balances which do not always check or balance. Even so, it is
no mean accomplishment to avoid tyranny. Of course, such a system is
going to break down from time to time. This is unavoidable. In Monday's
column I described the case of Gen. Pinochet, who intervened when Chile's
political system broke down. In response, some readers complained that I
had "prescribed" a dictatorial solution. In reality, I did not prescribe
anything of the kind. Machiavelli didn't even prescribe it. He merely
explained how, historically speaking, declining republics have been
salvaged and restored by dictators. In reciting the history of Pinochet
in Chile, I merely offered a modern example which agrees with
Machiavelli's ancient examples. But people do not hear political facts
above the noise of their moralizing. They won't sit still and listen to a
little political history, to a simple description. Political children
want a political fairy tale. They will accept no realism and are
therefore doomed.
Political children live in a world of myths: If only we revolt against
the state, then we'll be free. If only we adopt socialism, we'll escape
the evil ruling class. They want an ideological word to save them from a
practical reality. Only an immature mind believes in fairy tales of a
perfect society or perfectible human beings. The best society, in
reality, is a society in which evils are limited by devices of
Machiavellian construction (as opposed to devices of utopian or
ideological construction). And in order to make such devices, you have to
understand how things work. This is very different from how they "ought"
to work. Burnham said that 90 percent of our political thinking has been
contaminated by our desires. We wish X, Y and Z.
Americans have a peculiar weakness in political thinking because we
think that all bad actions, for example, have bad results. We also
imagine that all good actions have good results. But when you study
politics and history you find something profoundly disturbing. You find
that bad actions can sometimes produce good results, as the case of
Pinochet in Chile or Franco in Spain. We also find a good action, with
the best of intentions, like the prohibition of alcohol in the United
States, produced bad results. This is profoundly upsetting to our
simplistic sensibilities. Yet this is the chief discovery of Machiavelli.
Politics is filled with moral paradoxes. Consider the following: The
war to end all wars only gave us a bigger war. The war against poverty
only encouraged poverty. The war against drugs has empowered the drug
lords. The war against crime coincided with a dramatic increase in
criminal activity. President Bush's emphasis on local control and
participation means, in fact, more power to the federal government. The
reason that things turn out this way has to do with the fact that
high-minded political statements do not reflect political reality.
War, poverty, drunks and drug addicts will always be with us. As for
the federal government, does anyone seriously believe it's going to
shrink?
The only thing that changes hands in all this is power. "The primary
subject-matter of political science," wrote Burnham, "is the struggle for
social power in its diverse open and concealed forms." Take whatever
slogan from the recent presidential campaign you like. The text was: I am
noble and good. The subtext was: Give the power to me! We will never
understand politics if we take men's words at face value. Forget about
the high-minded words. Look at the deeds!
This is why Russia's open declarations of surrender at the end of the
Cold War were meaningless. While declaring that Russia had become a
democracy, the communists continued to rule the country and to modernize
the country's nuclear strike forces. The words meant nothing; the deeds
signified everything.
There is another point that Burnham brings forward that needs to be
mentioned. He wrote that "logical or rational action plays a relatively
minor part in political and social change." This statement, no doubt, will
shock most American readers. It is widely and erroneously believed that
people rationally work out everything they do. But in everyday life this
is not so. Look at your own daily life. Rational behavior is only a
small part of what you do, though we incorrectly assign it a dominant
role. In other words, we flatter ourselves. We imagine that our actions
are more rational than they are. "For the most part," wrote Burnham, "it
is a delusion to believe that in social life men take deliberate steps to
achieve consciously held goals." Burnham's book, "The Machiavellians,"
should be read by all students of politics. Only by thinking and talking
in a realistic way can we safeguard our power, which high-minded citizens
prefer to call their "liberty."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned
expert on America's fatal illusion of an international balance of power;
diplomatic and Cold War history; the survivability of a thermonuclear
world war; and is the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War."
Each month Nyquist provides an exclusive in-depth report in
WorldNetDaily's monthly magazine, WorldNet. Readers may subscribe to
WorldNet through WND's online store.