| Mar. 20th, 2003 @ 07:58 am (no subject) |
|---|
Current Mood:  exhausted
Current Music: Magnitude 9 - The End Of Days
Wandering:"ODERINT DVM DETVANT"
"Let them hate, so long as they fear." Caligula is widely considered to have been a mad despot himself, but he was wise in the way that the insane are sometimes visionary. He also reminds me of myself, in many ways, since as the above commentary says:Further, the only eye-witness account of Gaius's behavior, Philo's Embassy to Gaius, offers little evidence of outright insanity, despite the antagonism of the author, whom Gaius treated with the utmost disrespect. Rather, he comes across as aloof, arrogant, egotistical, and cuttingly witty -- but not insane. The best explanation both for Gaius's behavior and the subsequent hostility of the sources is that he was an inexperienced young man thrust into a position of unlimited power, the true nature of which had been carefully disguised by its founder, Augustus. Gaius, however, saw through the disguise and began to act accordingly. This, coupled with his troubled upbringing and almost complete lack of tact led to behavior that struck his contemporaries as extreme, even insane. So, with that said, let's look at the quote that he uttered that so many say is the core of Bush's recent political choices.
Firstly, Gaius Caligula was surrounded by men (and women) who would be quite happy to possess his power, doing almost anything to bring him down should they not be able to raise themselves. The US finds itself in much the same position today in world politics -- entire peoples hate the US and have hated the US for decades without any more provocation than its success.
Secondly, it gives a clear and compellingly honest openness to the one that states and advocates it. You know, unequivocably, where you stand with one such as this. They will tell you so, in no uncertain terms, and you are forced to accept it as such or create an illusion to hide it away. The hearer must create a lie to block it out if they don't wish to see it. That level of terrible potency of word is extremely rare in today's politics -- if Bush were to embrace it, it would slice the Gordian knot in a hundred ways.
Thidly -- and here's the one you don't see much discussion of, why should this be a bad strategy? Their hate they'll have regardless, they already hate us. Let them continue to do so, but let fear of reprisal stay their venom'd hands. If it saves our lives and propperty, its the best kind of strategy -- one that works.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote an important bit in The Prince:Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge. This is a very, very apt and accurate guide to what to do to those whom you might wrong. If you do so, do it mightily.He goes on to say in Chapter XVII:Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. Now, you may say many things about Niccolo Machiavelli (and history has him almost as revilled as Gaius Caligula), but you cannot deny his insight into the human condition. His work, Discources on Livy, speaks elegantly, eloquently, and at length about the republic. He is clearly not a man of a harsh nature -- save when necessary to the continuance of the state. The Prince pulls no punches, and its advice is sincere.
Taken together, Gaius Caligula and Niccolo Machiavelli provide a framework through which to look at a certain kind of event, that which is ruthless, brutal, but necessary for survival, for security, and for stability. While one might wish to stand by and engage in the wringing of hands, the only thing that accomplishes is being run to dust by those more willing to act with ruthless, honest direction. I believe that's just what we're seeing being played out. |
|  |
annoyed![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}