|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
Machiavelli and U.S. Politics
Part 4: War
by
Lawrence M. Ludlow,
August 19, 2005
On the subject of war, Machiavelli offers simple advice
(chapter 14):
Thus a prince should have no other object, nor any other
thought, nor take anything else as his art but that of
war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only
art which is of concern to one who commands.
Again it is important to remember that Machiavellis
chief concern is not the freedom or well-being of
citizens. His sole interest is a rulers ability to
acquire and maintain power. In contrast, James Madison,
fourth president of the United States and author of the
U.S. Constitution, enumerated the many evils caused by
war:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the
most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the
germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from
these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and
taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many
under the domination of the few. In war, too, the
discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its
influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments
is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds,
are added to those of subduing the force, of the
people.... [There are also an] inequality of fortunes,
and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of
war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No
nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of
continual warfare....
In taking this stance, Madison echoed the sentiments of
John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
James Monroe, and George Washington. Moreover, at the
Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison warned us
against the dangers of a standing army:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive
will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of
defense against foreign danger, have been always the
instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a
standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up
under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
When uniformed armies are not used to enslave people
directly, politicians use other techniques to control
them. They invent enemies that appear to threaten the
nation. In his book Crisis and Leviathan,
Robert Higgs showed how wars and economic crises help to
expand the power of government and diminish individual
liberties. In one example, he showed how the Wilson
administration overcame the opposition of Americans to
involvement in World War I by hiding its true costs.
Instead of relying on free-market purchases to acquire
needed resources (and reveal all costs), the government
resorted to command-and-control measures and propaganda
to head off opposition:
In early 1917, when the government committed the nation
to waging full-scale warfare, it became obvious that
raising taxes enough to cover the full market costs of
the resources the administration proposed to employ for
war purposes would generate immense resistance. For the
mobilization to proceed and the government to remain in
power the costs had to be at least partially concealed.
Accordingly the Wilson administration, with the
cooperation of Congress and the Supreme Court, undertook
conscription of soldiers, establishment of priorities for
the use of transportation, fuel, and manufacturing
facilities, price fixing, extensive commandeering, and
even outright nationalization of entire industries. To
divert attention from the real costs of these actions the
government mounted an enormous propaganda campaign to
stir up patriotic emotion and encourage citizens to act
as monitors and enforcers to suppress those who dared to
object or resist. To divide and conquer at the
grass-roots level proved an effective tactic to diffuse
resistance and insulate the highest authorities from
public opposition: witness the thousands of local draft
boards, the legion of volunteer food administrators, and
the far-flung corps of fuel authorities.
Wartime measures also served as springboards to reduce
other liberties. In one example, Higgs outlined an
argument used during World War II to justify centralized
economic controls:
If the military draft provided the crucial link in the
creation of the legislative and administrative chain that
the government wrapped around individual rights during
the war, it served an even more fundamental purpose in
giving legitimacy to the suppression of economic
liberties. Virtually everyone who considered the matter,
from influential economists, bureaucrats, and congressmen
right up to Supreme Court justices and the President
himself, used and accepted the validity of the moral
argument: if A is all right, then X is
certainly all right; where A was military
conscription and X was any governmental
suppression of individual rights whatsoever, especially
any denial of private property rights.... Most
astonishing is the almost universal acceptance of the
arguments premise that military conscription, a
transparent example of involuntary servitude, is morally
untarnished.
Higgs then summarized the 20th-century trend of
crisis-based government growth:
After the ideological transformation that took place
during the Progressive Era, each genuine crisis has been
the occasion for another ratchet toward Bigger
Government. The Progressive ideological imperative that
government must do something, must take
responsibility for resolving any perceived crisis,
insures new actions. The actions have unavoidable costs,
which governments have an incentive to conceal by
substituting coercive command-and-control devices for
pecuniary fiscal-and-market means of carrying out their
chosen policies. Military conscription, wage-price
controls, assignment of official priorities and physical
allocation of selected commodities, countless economic
and social regulations, import quotas and export controls
all confirm the hypothesis. Knowing how much a
crisis facilitates Bigger Government, special interests
always use such propitious occasions to seek whatever
governmental assistance they think will promote their own
ends. Once undertaken, governmental programs are hard to
terminate. Interests become vested, bureaucracies
entrenched, constituencies solidified. More
fundamentally, each time the government expands its
effective authority over economic decision-making, it
sets in motion a variety of economic, institutional, and
ideological adjustments whose common denominator is a
diminished resistance to Bigger Government. Among the
most significant of such adjustments is the Supreme
Courts consistent refusal to protect individual
rights from invasion by governmental officials during
national emergencies. Precedents established during
extraordinary times tilt the constitutional balance even
during ensuing normal times.
Finally, Higgs, who published Crisis and
Leviathan in 1987, issued the following warning to
his readers:
We do know something about the future. We know that other
great crises will come. Whether they will be occasioned
by foreign wars, economic collapse, or rampant terrorism,
no one can predict with assurance. Yet in one form or
another, great crises will surely come again, as they
have from time to time throughout all human history. When
they do, governments almost certainly will gain new
powers over economic and social affairs.
With these words in mind, let us trace some of the
effects of the U.S. policy of interventionism and the
so-called war on terror.
Petroleum markets. Just as wartime measures
concealed the true cost of U.S. involvement in World War
I and II, the current interventionist foreign policy
conceals the true cost of petroleum-based products. U.S.
soldiers, for example, currently are posted in 135
countries around the world many in or near
oil-producing countries. Consequently, the price consumers
pay for heating oil, gasoline, and other petroleum-based
products does not reflect the high cost of maintaining
this military presence or of sending foreign aid to the
leaders of these nations. In other words, the true cost
of petroleum products is unknown because U.S. taxpayers
subsidize their supply distorting energy markets
and other sectors that rely on petroleum.
Economic and social regulations. The next time you
send money to your favorite charity, make sure that the
U.S. government has not placed it on the hit-list of
charities that are suspected of assisting terrorists. Of
course, the U.S. government determines the definition of
terrorism as well as what constitutes a
friendly rather than an enemy nation which can
change from moment to moment.
Nationalization of industries. In many ways, the
travel industry has been nationalized to accommodate our
interventionist foreign policy. Using the phrase
nationalized industry, however, would tend to
undercut the freedom that our
administration claims to hold dear to its heart.
Nonetheless, airport searches, pat-downs, long lines, and
the seizure of threatening objects such as
nail clippers are not typical of free-market
transactions. Similarly, the taxpayer-subsidized TSA
employees loitering in huge, but easily duped numbers
have been imposed by the government. Finally, the
taxpayer bailouts of failing airlines and their bloated
pension plans are the most obvious example of airline
nationalization.
War-time profiteering. Many companies that hold
contracts to reconstruct Iraq (they will do
this several times by the look of things) have been
criticized for failing to document invoices and for
bidding on noncompetitive contracts. Furthermore, the
market for security experts and
security technologies has mushroomed.
Consequently, resources are being drained from other
areas of the economy into this new growth industry.
Propaganda. From the pages of the New York
Times to the broadcasts of the Fox news channel,
the drumbeat for war was incessant in the run-up to
Operation Iraqi Freedom [sic]. Americans have been told
by government officials to watch what we say
and that if youre not with us, youre
with the terrorists. Fearing criticism from the
administrations true believers, one company
withdrew advertising from a late-night talk show because
the host simply pointed out that the 9/11 hijackers could
not honestly be called cowards. Furthermore, we are
constantly reminded that the terrorists hate us for
our freedom and values. With no consistent
commitment to liberty, much of the press remains
uncritical of constitutional violations. Instead, their
chief concern is being cut off from inside sources of
political gossip in retaliation for covering news stories
that are critical of the administration. The specter of
being frozen out of the loop is as frightening as having
the government shut them down or arrest them, as Lincoln
did to hundreds of newspapers and thousands of editors,
legislators, and businessmen who disagreed with his
policies. Then again, has anyone seen an al-Jazeera
broadcast from Iraq lately? The U.S. military blew up its
Baghdad office and killed a reporter there despite
repeated reminders about its exact location. In addition,
the U.S.-backed provisional government shut down
al-Jazeeras offices in August 2004 for one
month, citing national-security concerns. The
offices have remained closed.
Gullibility. Even more important than the
willingness of the press to play follow the
leader, the uncritical populace
educated in government-controlled schools
eats up a steady stream of propaganda. The
willingness to believe lies (even after they have been
exploded) and to trust government authorities is a
testimony to the true product of government-controlled
schooling: blind obedience.
Once again we can trace the pattern of lie, hypocrisy,
and half-truth. Weve already addressed the
administrations 237 lies about WMDs and links to
terrorism (see part 2 of this series). When it turned out that there were no
WMDs and no links between Iraq and the attack on the World
Trade Center, the deception was exposed for all to see.
Even Bush could not bear the charge of being called a
liar not to mention a hypocrite since he
frequently voiced his faith in God and warned of
evil-doers lurking in every nook and cranny. Consequently, the
president concocted a plausible half-truth to cover his
tracks. He claimed he had been misinformed by
intelligence experts. The half-truth, of course, is that
U.S. intelligence agencies are notoriously
inaccurate, and the president knew it. After all, his
father was director of the CIA from 1976 to 1977
so he likely had a closer look than most of us. Among other
examples, the CIA is infamous for vastly overestimating
Soviet strength just before the USSR fell to pieces all
by itself in 1991. More recently, the CIA was part of a
massive government failure to prevent the September 11
attacks. Still, the president knew that
incompetence in government would provide a
safe harbor in which he could wait out the storm of limp
criticism once the war against Iraq was exposed for what
it was another government-sponsored tragedy that
will haunt us for decades by generating anti-U.S.
terrorism. Even worse, the writings of Karen Kwiatkowski
and the contents of the Downing Street memo (see part 2 of this series) already demonstrated that
the Bush administration orchestrated the flow of
misinformation that was used to build a false case for
war.
Unfortunately, this Bush administration much as
the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, the first Bush, and
Clinton administrations failed to take into account the
resentment generated when invaders embark on wars of
aggression in the homelands of other people. The writer
Gore Vidal, however, has made up for this oversight. In
his book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
Vidal lists 201 U.S. military operations that took place
between the victory over Japan in 1945 and the attacks of
September 11. The list was compiled by the Federation of
American Scientists. Think of it: 201 conflicts since
1945. This is what generated the blowback that Americans
still refuse to acknowledge preferring instead to
repeat nonsense such as they hate us for our
freedom.
Lawrence Ludlow (LLSD55@yahoo.com) is a
freelance writer living in San Diego. Harvey C.
Mansfields translation of The Prince
is the source for quotations unless otherwise noted.
|