Abstract
It is well-known fact that people in the US are watched, listened and even recorded against their notice and surely, will. It is also known, that all these undemocratic actions are performed in the name of security. The United States of America is not always related to an advanced technology, high-quality of education and excellent art venues, and Hollywood, sadly, the term “police state” often pop-ups and is being closely affiliated with the America. George J Bush introduced and implemented Patriotic act shortly after September terrorist attacks (2001), however, Barack Obama kept his legacy and Edward Snowdens’ famous leaks precisely occurred during Obama's leadership. Therefore, it is increasingly interesting to compare or imagine what Machiavelli, quite a controversial figure, in terms of him being moral or immoral, progressive or regressive and what he would do if he was in the shoes of Obama or even Bush?
Introduction
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore that the US security forces are given an enormous power over the average Americans. This power is excessively practiced by the police, FBI, CIA and other security units and has the highest toll - Humans freedom. WikiLeaks has been and still is a challenger for the Americas' security and Edward Snowden's further contribution in this respect has been crucial in a realization of the levels of freedom Americans slowly are being deprived in the name of security and fight against terrorism (CNN) (CitizenFour).
Since Obamas’ appointment, he pledged to fight terrorism and return American soldiers to the America’s soil, however, his promise is not praised by many and even found the counter-productive considering recent rise of the radical Islamists in the territories of Iraq, Libya, and Syria so-called ISIS. On the account of Obama are a war in Libya and drone’s campaign in many cases mistakenly killing civilians. Positively, president of the United States found enough courage to admit his mistake in regards to the war in Libya and the way his administration handles the issue (Somin). Sadly, events cannot be brought back either dismissed and the causes of the ‘mistake’ war can be now seen at least partly if not substantially in the rise of so-called ISIS in the Middle East.
George W. Bush also admitted his mistake in the case of the Iraqi war, where based on the flawed intelligence, the US with coalition forces invaded and occupied Iraq (Soldenberg). Indeed, public condemnation and sharing one’s failures is a part of the Americanism, since, there it gives you a second chance to improve the situation; however, the point is, whether there is any use in such actions if every next president repeats quite a similar mistake? Perhaps, it’s time to scale down? Or Machiavelli would do the same be him a Bush or Obama, or just the adviser of them? That answer we will never know, but we may speculate based on the works of Machiavelli and the rhetoric and more importantly, the actions of the presidents.
Thesis Statement
This paper aims to answer the questions in regards to the US leadership’s response to the terrorist attacks (2001) and aftermath actions such as an introduction of the Patriotic Act or perhaps a draconian law and zero tolerance to the terror. However, not many within the US and far less outside of the US considers relevant State's reaction to the terrorist attack and adoption of the patriotic act that undermined the democracy to some extent, the democracy we used to understand in classical terms, that highly values the freedom of individuals. In fact, people are watched and recorded against their notice or will that caused distrust and even intimidation of the average Americans.
Considering the ambiguity associated with Machiavelli, who for some is a carrier of a high moral value while for the others he is precisely lacking the same moral, makes point to view the current US policy through Machiavelli's glance, since the US politics is controversial in its wishes of spreading the freedom and democracy outside of the boundaries, so is Machiavelli’s philosophy. The paper intends to create Machiavelli’s response to the current US policy on terror, whether he would approve it or no and why? If Machiavelli is in present time, what aspects he would find as the most effective for Barack Obama in the fighting against terrorism? What tactics would Machiavelli recommend? What specific criticisms might he level at U.S. police makers? Would he look more favorably on the Obama administration or Bush administration policies? Why?
Machiavelli and His Controversy
Indeed, every epoch and every society treats Machiavelli based on that particular time and so needs. Therefore, no wonder that in Britain in 16th and 17th centuries, evaluated his works as hypocritical and amoral resonating with amoral papist Italy. Even the term as we know it these days, Machiavellian" comes from the English language that is the synonym of deception and bad faith; The same cannot be said about readers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries within the Italian Risorgimento where his works seem to be a cornerstone of Italian unity and independence whereas supporting moral and ethical concerns in political affairs. Hence, as said, "for some, he is the least ethical and for others the most ethical of writers” (Matteo, 2002, p.1).
Certainly, the interpretation of the works of Machiavelli has much depended on the readers and their attitude and aspirations; since those who cherish the idea of a republic as the only proper form of the government would deeply value the work "Discourses", where he largely praises the idea of the republic. Those readers who do not share the same passion about the notion of the republic but rather see themselves in the principality that is governed by the "strong hand", so by the prince, as Machiavelli called the head of such a principality (Matteo, 2002, p.2).
One may think that "history and societies are products of human choice and human agency, or by insisting that history is a series of recurring cycles and that the basic "nature" of people is unchanging and universal, does it profess a deterministic historical essentialism?" (Matteo, 2002, p.2).
The next idea that pop-ups are: shall we leave our ethical ideals, or at least exchange them in order to fit reality so become opportunistic in a way and be part of a realpolitik, that is in line with the modern American politics and represents the so-called immoral side of Machiavellism; or preferably, by emphasizing on the significance of morality as the tool that can monitor and create our events, does it allege that reality can and must be subordinated to our will, which in turn should be managed by common, likely even surpassing ideals of justice and virtue, so that chaos and conflict will not dominate in society? (Matteo, 2002, p.2).
All in all, considering the works of Machiavelli discussed earlier, one may conclude that the author with the same success can be deemed "a monarchist or a republican, an idealist or a materialist, a moralist or a pragmatist, a humanist or an anti-humanist “(Matteo, 2002, p.2).
Obama Personality & Partisan Leadership
In fact, Barack Obama became the president of the United States of America, when the economy was in a poor condition and war on terrorism was in place. However, he found a way to approach his position of the president of the US by applying the partisanship leadership earlier exercised by Reagan and later by Bush.
Hence Obama has pushed an executive-centered party system that depends on presidential candidates in terms declaring party doctrine, boost campaign funds, gather grassroots support, and "campaign on behalf of their partisan brethren" (Milkis, Rhodes & Charnock, 2012, p.57). Similar to Reagan and Bush who practiced their authority for empowering their parties, so did Barack Obama. Since he is in the seat of the president, the Democratic Party has become far stronger and mobile, capable of gathering voters and improve the programmatic objectives. In the meantime, Obamas efforts to unite partisanship and executive power seem uncertain. One may conclude that only time will show the effect of such a leadership that Obama orchestrates since he took the office; perhaps his charisma and good statecraft will result in numerous accomplishments and a new democratic majority or maybe it signals the birth of a new phenomenon such as the cult of personality (Milkis, Rhodes & Charnock, 2012, p.57).
Importantly, Obama's way of leading the country indicates nor personal incompetence neither confusion about his political intentions, instead an attempt to reunite two opposing philosophical and institutional legacies in a New American Party System. The first legacy is a president that is distinct from a party and serves the interests of the people. The modern president has a great support of citizens and is fully in charge of domestic and foreign crises (Milkis, Rhodes & Charnock, 2012, p.68).
A second presidential party leadership arose, notably during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, partially to address the escalating partisan polarization among members of Congress, which was deemed to be a sign today's new party system. As these presidents formed new connections between presidents and parties, proposing the feasibility of strengthening national parties and boosted public participation in politics. They also bound grown partisan leadership to the politics of executive administration, jeopardizing their achievements with alarming infringements of the rule of law (Milkis, Rhodes & Charnock, 2012, pp.68, 69).
As we have observed, Barack Obama has not practiced fully any of these two types of leadership; He decided to pick the bits from each archetype, which has created an obscure, sometimes tricking mix. Perhaps, Obama's conflicted leadership style a positive asset to the presidential system in the US and even can be called a "third-way"? Obamas' campaign and presidency have promoted the development of an executive-centered party system that might finally reunite the modern presidency to the American democratic tradition. (Milkis, Rhodes & Charnock, 2012, p. 69).
The Expansion of Counter-Terrorism Overseas
Since 2001 US was hit by terrorist attacks causing the death of thousands of Americans, Similar to the US many countries has borrowed and adopted anti-terrorism laws that restrict Humans liberties and grant security forces excessive power in the name of national security. Securitization was not ever since so important in the US and beyond it. How exactly the US managed to transfer it’s "trademark" and why the other democratic countries are buying it so easily? This is indeed an interesting question, yet, this paper is rather focused on finding the Machiavellian approach in solving the issues caused by the negligence or incompetence or even deliberate actions of one or more presidents of the US.
Counter-terrorism legislation is pushed by several international channels, most prominently the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee, but obviously, the USA is a major force behind it.
More worryingly, in some countries, the introduction of anti-terrorism laws has equipped leaders with the instruments they need to silence critics of their politics and punish political adversaries. At the same time, there were states where the adoption of this bill caused the healthy debate and promoted civil society activism (Whitaker, 2007, p. 1017).
Considering, the President Bush's pressure when he said: "you are either with us or against us," no wonder that world leaders have welcomed anti-terrorism laws as an effective possibility to demonstrate their co-operation with the US. It is even more understandable, why many of Third World countries easily agree on adopting such a low since the US aid is important and perhaps essential for them (Whitaker, 2007, p. 1029).
Machiavellian vision resonates with the US politics
Machiavelli's major tips in conquering the land resonate with the US policy, only, the US does it temporarily and have no intention to annex but rather to occupy for a while. So, according to Machiavelli, the conqueror shall have a big amount of fortune and great industry for success. Machiavelli considers that one shall be major force and occupant in the territory. Next, one must limit or perhaps even prevent foreign powers involvement in the matter. Further, occupant must either continue living in or, the best option would be, colonize the conquered territory. That aspect is less likely to fit the interests of the US these days, perhaps, some century ago the situation could have been different, but not at this point. Another important aspect is to remove the influential and powerful local force in the territory. Besides, conqueror must collaborate with neighboring, yet, less powerful forces; lastly, one must always think ahead and plan accordingly and foresee the emerging threats (Bennet, 2015).
Machiavelli suggests that the fundamental aspect of security requires that princes or any other leaders concentrate on external rather than internal affairs. Machiavelli declares that efficient foreign policy is efficient domestic policy (Bennet, 2015).
Machiavelli’s attitude towards war and the necessity to be frequently at war with the other powers makes it unrealistic to keep a peace for a long time. This aspect suggests thinking that Machiavelli would rather appreciate George W Bush's aggressive foreign policy rather than of Barack Obama, although the war in Libya erupted even during his presidentship too, if not mentioning Obamas “profound” drones campaign. Since, Machiavelli believes that it is in the nature of a man to worship. Importantly, Machiavelli does not mind aggressiveness and brutality if necessary to maintain power. He even backs princes so any leaders to be as threatening and severe in handling foreign affairs as essential (Bennet, 2015).
Machiavelli’s support of imperialism in "The Prince" and his obvious praise of Rome in the "Discourses" may provide the misleading opinion that he wishes for a new world order that is commanded by a new Roman empire. However, Machiavelli, admits "the Roman republic’s imperial triumph led to the loss of freedom and virtue at home as well as abroad" (Bennet, 2015).
Consequently, Machiavelli proposes various wars that involve many "Romes" competing against one another for supremacy. Certainly, letting everybody approach his guidance of ruling he theoretically gave a push to the world full of principalities and republics which are worshipping and competing against one another for security, wealth, authority, and fame. Indeed, there are the virtues that man absolutely desires to gain and then own. Lastly, this fierce competitive atmosphere is the mandatory conditions for the man to truly flourish (Bennet, 2015).
Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study. First and foremost, the US counter-terrorism has been expanded beyond its territory and the US leadership played a role in its expansion. The US war on terror indeed has crossed a line of civil liberties of Americans and not only. The documentary “CitizenFour” that has been well screened in the US and beyond it shed light on the methods security forces have practiced in order to “secure” Americans by recording and listening Americans and even foreigners in a foreign countries, if they may be affiliated with the threat.
Secondly, the current leadership of the US embraces the strategy that could go in line with the Machiavellian vision of a strong leader-prince who would initiate the war and maintain its presence in the occupied territories. The idea of strong prince-leader could resonate with the Obamas’ partisan leadership and his legacy could further enrich this image. However, if one imagines Machiavellian in its full mode, then Bush administration would be more natural setting for it. Since George W. Bush has been quick and ease with initiating the war and pressuring his allies to be a part of the wars Iraqi and Afghanistan.
It is also known, that Iraqi war a matter of choice by Bush rather than a necessity, that makes Bush more closer to the image of the strong leader depicted by Machiavelli, who would be frequently at war and maintain its presence in the occupied territory; the prince-leader who worships not only to sustain its power but also to expand it. This imperialistic vision of power maintenance sadly resonates with the Bush policy, and not only since it is embodied in the so-called “securing” America’s interests anywhere has it wished too.
Perhaps, it is time to stop securing, since "police state" is no longer appealing and the recent events (Orlando shooting 2016), showed that militarization of the police, violation of civil liberties in exchange for security does not always guarantee the security. Moreover hunting for the terrorists abroad by drone strikes, that is rather Obama’s legacy and killing frequently civilians by mistake should not be an excuse. Whoever is in the president’s seat, Republican or Democrat, sadly, both positively embrace the notion of strong leadership to some degree that well resonates with Machiavellian version of a leader, a leader who strikes and is at war.
References
Matteo, S., (2002).To Hell with Men and Meaning! Vesting Authority in Machiavelli's "Belfagor”. American Association of Teachers of Italian
The National Security Archive. (2001). Volume 1- The Terrorism and US Policy. Retrieved from: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/index1.html
Milkis, S., Rhodes, J., & Charnock, E. (2012).What Happened to Post Partisanship? Barack Obama and the New American Party System. American Political Science Association
Whitaker, E. (2007). Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Somin, I. Obama admits that his handling of the Libya war was his worst mistake – but not that it was unconstitutional: Retrieved from:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/13/obama-admits-that-his-handling-of-the-libya-war-was-his-worst-mistake-but-not-that-it-was-unconstitutional/
Goldenberg, S. (2008).Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview
BBC. Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme. (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964
Bennett, Z. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (1532). (2015) Retrieved from: http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/2015/06/the-prince-by-niccolo-machiavelli-1532.html
Poitras,, L. CitizenFour. (2014).documentary. The US.
