Replies

Thanks for the link. It is interesting that the professor brought up some similarities between Plato and Machiavelli. But he didn’t, for my liking, comment on Fortuna or accident which both authors mention and which also plays a role in the creation of the state. Plato accepts Fortuna’s power and Machiavelli rebels against it. Perhaps this also highlights the distinction between Ancient and Modern thought. Moderns think that they can conquer nature (thus accident) and human nature through science. This brings forth the possibility of a just state. The Ancients see it as a futile attempt, part of man’s excessive pride that his reason can bring the heavens down to earth in a practical or real way. Better approximate the imaginary kingdoms, accept the Chain of Being and ones station in life. Thus, the Ancients accepted worldly imperfection. They knew Plato’s Republic cannot be actualized. The Christians accepted the same imperfection because of original sin — and they also knew not to question God’s authority or meddle with divine plans.

I also think the lecturer (Scott Erb) is sympathetic to liberals and is playing to a liberal audience in Maine. Reading his lecture reminds me of John Gray’s book “Black Mass” where he puts forth a similar argument: the neocons where utopian idealists who thought that the advancement of liberal Democracy in Iraq would solve its problems and contribute to security in the Middle East. Gray believes this was a religiously inspired, utopian delusion. He took the realist POV. Ironically, his book is now dated because of all the “Americans lost the war” references – he wrote prior to the surge when Iraq was not peaceful. Being a realist Gray argues, like Scott Erb, that Iraq should not have been invaded (no real threat to the US) and sneaky realpolitik tactics would have been the right solution in dealing with Saddam. I disagree with this “realist” approach. First, because it ignores the peaceful political reality of Italy, Japan and Germany who successfully adopted democracy after WWII. Democracy does work in these counties and it is also working in Iraq. Second, this view also ignores the fact that Clinton prepared the US for war with Iraq in 1998 because of the real threat of Saddam’s WMD. Clinton’s speech to the American public sounds exactly like one Bush would have delivered: Iraq being a rogue state with porous borders where terrorists could have easy access to WMD. After 9/11, Bush had little choice but to shut down Saddam and his state-sponsored terrorist activities. In fact, the war was voted for by both Republican and Democrats who saw the threat Saddam posed to the US, to his own people and to the neighboring states. Therefore, it can’t really be called “Bushes war” or solely attributed to the neocons.

One thing I find puzzling with Scott Erb. He says, “But my hope is that we can create conditions where the kind of world confronted by Machiavelli becomes increasingly rare, and that the almost depraved nature he attributed to humans is less true human nature, and rather a result of the beliefs and culture of the times. Perhaps we can construct a world where the pragmatic and expedient approach is also the moral and ethical approach.”(idealist) And yet he still thinks that invasion (democracy and nation building: building western institutions) was a mistake according to Machiavelli’s realism. Can he have it both ways? Realism and idealism?

Another interesting quote from his lecture: “Human nature means that doing what you ought to do according to some moral code simply puts you at a disadvantage because humans, by their nature, are usually willing to throw out such moral concerns if it is to their advantage.” It reminds me of Obama and the Democrats.

Again, thanks for the link.