Is George Bush Machiavelli ?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Is George Bush Machiavelli ? » Is George Bush Machiavelli ?

Is George Bush Machiavelli ?
Never Understimate the Power of Stupid People in large Groups.

Page: 1 2

Is George Bush Machiavelli ?

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 01/30/08 - 12:16 PM: Subject: Is George Bush Machiavelli ?	#1
"Never Understimate the Power of Stupid People in large Groups" is a quote I've heard somewhere. Bush says: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on" Dubya also likes fish: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" but also Fishing: "I love fishing". So to sum up: �If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign.� Make up your own minds. Edited by hypothesis on 02/02/08 - 03:58 PM
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

zig.zag.drag
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 30

Posted 01/30/08 - 12:43 PM:	#2
You can fool some people sometimes, But you cant fool all the people all the time. So now we see the light, We gonna stand up for our rights! -Bob Marley
_____________________ "Power doesn't corrupt. Power allows one to express one's corruption. " - Yahadreas "Google knows more than God and is a lot easier to get answers from. -jdrw

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 468

Posted 01/31/08 - 01:00 AM:	#3
hypothesis wrote: Bush says: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on" Did he really say that? (Yeah, I'd say subtlety is not his forte)
_____________________ There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. � Camus.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 01/31/08 - 05:42 AM:	#4
Bush is out-Quayling Dan Quayle. He was Bush Sr.'s vice president who appeared too dumb to be believed. Since he was only Veep, the people just laughed. Cheney and Bush reversed the formula and look what it got us into.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 139

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 02/01/08 - 10:38 PM:	#5
Bush resembles Machiavelli about as much as chalk and cheese.

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/02/08 - 01:17 PM:	#6
I must agree with those before me that Bush's pratfalls over the English language do not constitute evidence of an intelligently devised strategy to lull us into obeisance. You have made the same mistake as the acting-President himself by ignoring the context of the "evidence" and drawing the conclusions that you want to see. It reminds me of the Nine Inch Nails song Capital G: Well I used to stand for something But forgot what that could be There's a lot of me inside you Maybe you're afraid to see (Okay, maybe that's entirely irrelevant. But it was the first thing that came to my mind after reading your post.)
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 02/02/08 - 03:55 PM:	#7
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: I must agree with those before me that Bush's pratfalls over the English language do not constitute evidence of an intelligently devised strategy to lull us into obeisance. You have made the same mistake as the acting-President himself by ignoring the context of the "evidence" and drawing the conclusions that you want to see. If you're adressing me: You're drawing a conclusion about me drawing a conclusion. It's a question, because it has a question mark. (?) "Is George Bush Machiavelli ?" is not drawing a conclusion, it's asking a question. I ended my OP by saying make up your own conclusion (in your minds).
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 02/03/08 - 04:07 PM:	#8
What are the chances in a fair and equal democracy, of father and son both becoming president? Either this is a supremely talented family, or... As they say in the US, you do the math. Of course here in the UK we have a royal family; we find it cheaper and more managable than your Bushes and Kennedys.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/04/08 - 05:57 PM:	#9
hypothesis Yes, I was addressing you. Given the context, your exhortation to "make up your own minds" is unlikely to be taken seriously. It is a rhetorical trick urging us to reach the conclusion you imply in the beginning, and it is a paper tiger now to rely on the pure semantics of your statement and ignore the implicature therein. You have presented a number of quotes which are humorous on their own. But as I said before, they are taken too far out of context for us to reach any honest conclusion about your question. That you would have us draw any conclusion at all only further underlines the implicature of which I spoke, as well as the disingenuous nature of your response. unenlightened What are the chances in a fair and equal democracy, of father and son both becoming president? The same as the chances of any two specific people becoming President: 9 x 10¹⁶. But that's only if we take pure odds. To address your actual point, however: even in a fair and equal democracy, people should only have an equal opportunity to become President, not an equal likelihood. Americans lost their way when they started thinking of the old maxim that "anyone can grow up to be President" as a sort of Peter Principle as opposed to a goal. It was meant as inspiration, not as a curse -- a promise that those with talent need only to make the appropriate effort to succeed in life. We may laugh at such a notion, but the US was founded on idealism. And our ideals took us pretty far before we got tired and started letting corporations carry us. Of course here in the UK we have a royal family; we find it cheaper and more managable than your Bushes and Kennedys. And the Clintons. Don't forget the Clintons. I can't wait for Chelsea to run against Jenna. By then the debates will probably have been replaced by cage matches or foxy boxing.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 02/04/08 - 06:53 PM:	#10
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: hypothesis Yes, I was addressing you. Given the context, your exhortation to "make up your own minds" is unlikely to be taken seriously. It is a rhetorical trick urging us to reach the conclusion you imply in the beginning, and it is a paper tiger now to rely on the pure semantics of your statement and ignore the implicature therein. You have presented a number of quotes which are humorous on their own. But as I said before, they are taken too far out of context for us to reach any honest conclusion about your question. That you would have us draw any conclusion at all only further underlines the implicature of which I spoke, as well as the disingenuous nature of your response. I'm really confused by this, show me where in my opening post I have concluded either implicitly or explicitly that George Bush is actually Machiavelli. I wasn't asking a rhetorical question at all, but for some reason you seem to think that. Actually, just ignore my above paragraph it's just rhetoric .
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 02/05/08 - 12:27 PM:	#11
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Americans lost their way when they started thinking of the old maxim that "anyone can grow up to be President" as a sort of Peter Principle as opposed to a goal. It was meant as inspiration, not as a curse -- a promise that those with talent need only to make the appropriate effort to succeed in life. We may laugh at such a notion, Looking at GB, you'd have to laugh, or scream in horror. Talent? Can the guy walk and chew gum at the same time? "A lie told often enough becomes an old maxim." Lenin, American president. Americans lost their way, in fact, when they tried to take a short cut from Britain to India. Remind me again, how many black presidents, native presidents, woman presidents, poor presidents? 'Anyone' has a rather strange meaning in politics and old maxims. Unless it's lack of effort.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/08/08 - 08:53 AM:	#12
Hypothesis wrote: I'm really confused by this, show me where in my opening post I have concluded either implicitly or explicitly that George Bush is actually Machiavelli. Conclusions by means of rhetorical tricks are, of course, never explicit. And in their implicity, they cannot be pointed at directly. That's the very nature of implicature. And this question is simply an attempt to request the impossible in the hopes that I won't be able to see through the ruse and answer appropriately. Unfortunately for you, I did and I can. That said, the very asking of the question, the giving of quotes out of context and presenting them as if they were not, as I said, "pratfalls of the English language," and the request for a conclusion all add up to an implication that you do take Bush to be Machiavelli(an), or at least hope that we will. That, or you are thoroughly dishonest and merely wish to ensnare people. The principle of charity requires me to assume the former until sufficient evidence proves otherwise. But hey, you're getting there. Hypothesis wrote: I wasn't asking a rhetorical question at all, but for some reason you seem to think that. Not at all. You, however, seem to be under the misapprehension that the word "rhetorical" (lit. "of rhetoric") has only one use. It doesn't. A rhetorical trick need not refer to a rhetorical question, in the colloquial sense, or even a question at all. It merely relies on the rhetorical features of a presentation to paper over the cracks in its logical features. And it is in that sense that you have pulled a rhetorical trick. Hypothesis wrote: Actually, just ignore my above paragraph it's just rhetoric . No, it's a desperate attempt to save face. Good effort, but you faded in the final stretch. unenlightened wrote: Looking at GB, you'd have to laugh, or scream in horror. Talent? Can the guy walk and chew gum at the same time? Yes, but he cannot swallow pretzels properly. I think GWB is a testament to the American system: as bad as he is, and as much as he has run roughshod over the US Congress, the other checks and balances in the system, including the American people themselves (the most important check of all) have kept him from getting us all killed despite gross incompetence. This isn't to say that he hasn't done plenty of damage. He has. But we'll recover. It's just lucky that the Office of the President isn't nearly as powerful as the aura surrounding it would have us believe. unenlightened wrote: "A lie told often enough becomes an old maxim." Lenin, American president. Vladimir Lenin was a Russian, and thus ineligible to be a US President due to the Constitution's native citizenship clause. Instead, he was the Chair of the Council of People's Commissars, making him the de facto Head of State, for the Soviet Union. unenlightened wrote: Americans lost their way, in fact, when they tried to take a short cut from Britain to India. What? Is this residual angst over the American Revolution? I thought we'd all gotten over that one. And please note that a large portion of the world (Britain included) followed our lead on that whole "democracy" thing. So no, I think I'll stick by my original position for the time being: Americans lost their way when they started seeing winning an election as sufficient proof of one's qualifications instead of qualifications as a necessary element for winning an election. unenlightened wrote: Remind me again, how many black presidents, native presidents, woman presidents, poor presidents? Ask again in November. Besides, the UK has had one female Prime Minister and zero black Prime Ministers. This despite the fact that it is easier to become Prime Minister than it is to become President, and a much different history of race relations. unenlightened wrote: 'Anyone' has a rather strange meaning in politics and old maxims. Unless it's lack of effort. According to most, it's some sort of inherent genetic flaw. Seriously, though, I think you have misconstrued my point. The statement is an ideal, not a statement of reality. And all your cynicism aside, the fact that we have not yet achieved the goal is not a reason to stop progressing. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 02/08/08 - 12:02 PM. Reason: typo
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 02/08/08 - 09:42 AM:	#13
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Unfortunately for you, I did and I can. Well done ! You have strength of character. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: That said, the very asking of the question, the giving of quotes out of context and presenting them as if they were not, as I said, "pratfalls of the English language," and the request for a conclusion all add up to an implication that you do take Bush to be Machiavelli(an), or at least hope that we will. That, or you are thoroughly dishonest and merely wish to ensnare people. The principle of charity requires me to assume the former until sufficient evidence proves otherwise. But hey, you're getting there. con(text), so you just dismiss something because it's out of context, look at his actions then, or do I need to prompt you ? I ask you to analyze Dubya's actions, he ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway. Perhaps this might not seem Machiavellian to you but I think these two share some personality traits. Perhaps Bush is not as cunning as Machiavelli (cunning here is a relative term), but he achieved his objective of invading Iraq, with the world not even trying to stop him. Bush played on this, the fact that no-one would challenge the US whatever he did. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 02/08/08 - 10:09 AM. Reason: removed idioticness
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 02/08/08 - 11:32 AM:	#14
Please don't ask me to defend the UK political system; I poke fun at yours because ours is beyond a joke. Actually yes, you have given me a new and more charitable way to understand 'The American Dream', thanks. There is a perception over here that y'all think it's already a reality - I guess that's just Hollywood. As to the question in the OP. There is a strong flavour of machiavellian amorality to the current US administration - I would say more than 'normal', but I may be biased. I would cite the use of 'extrordinary rendition', legitimised torture of prisoners, disregard for international law, and the exploitation of religion. I think all politics is machiavellian to an extent, and that is the power of his book - it's almost unarguable. But it does seem to me that Bush goes willingly where a great leader might find himself reluctantly forced to go. Actually, you're right, 150 odd years from slavery to a black president, or even a serious contender, is pretty fast. Cynicism somewhat withdrawn.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 02/10/08 - 06:01 PM:	#15
PostModernBeatnik wrote: ... I think GWB is a testament to the American system: as bad as he is, and as much as he has run roughshod over the US Congress, the other checks and balances in the system, including the American people themselves (the most important check of all) have kept him from getting us all killed despite gross incompetence. This isn't to say that he hasn't done plenty of damage. He has. But we'll recover. It's just lucky that the Office of the President isn't nearly as powerful as the aura surrounding it would have us believe. If the Congress and the Supreme Court abdicate the responsibility to insist on the rule of law and checks and balances, by default, the Executive is nearly as powerful as his propaganda portray him. Especially when the people are cowed by repeated warnings of dire consequences if they dare to think for themselves. Getting some lackies to introduce in Congress a bill criminalizing "subversive thoughts and speech" would suggest that the campaign of fear is close to victory.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/26/08 - 11:56 AM:	#16
Hypothesis wrote: Well done ! You have strength of character. Yes, Nietzsche would be proud. Qapla' Balth je' and all that. Hypothesis wrote: con(text), so you just dismiss something because it's out of context, look at his actions then, or do I need to prompt you? So you're admitting you were asking us to draw conclusions now? You presented a series of quotes as if they were sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. In particular, you emphasized this quote: "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." This is where context comes in. Obviously, that phrasing was a mistake and not an admission of Machiavellian intentions. I doubt it was even a Freudian slip. The man just doesn't know how to read a cue card or a teleprompter. The other quotes are either irrelevant or equally lacking in context (and possibly both). This does not mean that I am dismissing the conclusion you wish for us to draw, but that I am rejecting the evidence you present. Hypothesis wrote: I ask you to analyze Dubya's actions, he ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway. Perhaps this might not seem Machiavellian to you but I think these two share some personality traits. Perhaps Bush is not as cunning as Machiavelli (cunning here is a relative term), but he achieved his objective of invading Iraq, with the world not even trying to stop him. Bush played on this, the fact that no-one would challenge the US whatever he did. First, I'd like to clear up a common historical misconception: Machiavelli himself was neither cunning nor cruel. He was, however, observant. The Prince is the culmination of Machiavelli's observations -- seen through a philosophical lens -- of how rulers maintain power and the mistakes made by those who are overthrown (think of it as a sort of precursor to The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People). So while "Machiavellian" is a proper adjective in the sense of "from Machiavelli," it is not proper in the sense of "like Machiavelli." That said, I do not find Bush himself to by very Machiavellian in any sense. They are far too inept to have learned much from The Prince and they do not plan nearly well enough. Instead, I find his administration to be Orwellian and/or Stalinesque. They are avid admirers and employers of the Big Lie phenomenon, and they know how to play their strengths in order to achieve their nepotistic and self-serving ends. Indeed, as much as I may find Bush himself to be sorely lacking intellectually, I would not deny for a moment that he is a formidable campaigner and a fierce competitor. That's why he's the figurehead: his role is not that of the brain or even the hands, but rather the face. A personable guy who is just quick enough on his feet to come up with a generic and inoffensive non-answer to almost anything and can blatantly contradict himself without the tiniest bit of irony or self-doubt plays well in most of the country. No one else in the administration comes close to being even half the politician that Bush is. Unfortunately, his advisers aren't that much more competent than him, either -- and having incompetent lackeys is just about as un-Machiavellian as you can get.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/26/08 - 12:33 PM:	#17
unenlightened wrote: Please don't ask me to defend the UK political system; I poke fun at yours because ours is beyond a joke. Ah, I see. The attitude of Europe becomes a bit clearer! I must admit, however, that there is one thing in particular that I admire about the parliamentary system: the way in which your Prime Ministers must directly engage the opposition. I know that a lot of it is show, but sometimes I would watch Blair argue with his interlocutors and think, "if Bush had to do that, he'd never win re-election." unenlightened wrote: Actually yes, you have given me a new and more charitable way to understand 'The American Dream', thanks. There is a perception over here that y'all think it's already a reality - I guess that's just Hollywood. No, we're pretty clear on the fact that the dream is, as yet, not a reality. Some of us think we got close in the late 50s, but most realize that those people are remembering a time that never really was. unenlightened wrote: As to the question in the OP. There is a strong flavour of machiavellian amorality to the current US administration - I would say more than 'normal', but I may be biased. I would cite the use of 'extrordinary rendition', legitimised torture of prisoners, disregard for international law, and the exploitation of religion. I think all politics is machiavellian to an extent, and that is the power of his book - it's almost unarguable. But it does seem to me that Bush goes willingly where a great leader might find himself reluctantly forced to go. I agree that all political maneuvering is, to some degree, Machiavellian. As stated directly above, however, I find Bush and company to be more Orwellian than Machiavellian -- particularly in regards to those policies you mention. The amorality of it all and the attempt at appearing morally conscientious are of a kind with The Prince, to be sure, but I find the 1984 comparison to be overall more accurate. unenlightened wrote: Actually, you're right, 150 odd years from slavery to a black president, or even a serious contender, is pretty fast. Cynicism somewhat withdrawn. Well, if there's something we Americans are good for, it's our optimism!
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/26/08 - 12:43 PM:	#18
rabeldin wrote: If the Congress and the Supreme Court abdicate the responsibility to insist on the rule of law and checks and balances, by default, the Executive is nearly as powerful as his propaganda portray him. Especially when the people are cowed by repeated warnings of dire consequences if they dare to think for themselves. Getting some lackies to introduce in Congress a bill criminalizing "subversive thoughts and speech" would suggest that the campaign of fear is close to victory. I was, of course, being largely facetious. But we've had the Alien and Sedition acts once before. We'll beat 'em again should they return. And eventually the threat of terror followed by no real harm loses its power. Even the terrorists know that, which is why they have to mount actual attacks from time to time. If Bush were truly craven, he would have allowed another attack. But point taken.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 02/27/08 - 12:13 PM:	#19
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: I was, of course, being largely facetious. But we've had the Alien and Sedition acts once before. We'll beat 'em again should they return. And eventually the threat of terror followed by no real harm loses its power. Even the terrorists know that, which is why they have to mount actual attacks from time to time. If Bush were truly craven, he would have allowed another attack. But point taken. Of course, we have not finished the history of these two terms and the reactions of the American people to them. Certainly there is resistance, the questions we need to answer are: 1) Is there enough resistance for a quick victory? and 2) Will the resistance ever give up?
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/27/08 - 05:31 PM:	#20
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." --Wendell Phillips There is enough resistance that none of the viable presidential candidates for November support continuing Bush's tactics. That resistance will certainly dissipate as things get better (assuming they do), but there are enough eternally vigilant people to rouse the rabble once again when necessary? Will it always be enough? No one can say, of course. But I'm optimistic.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Augustus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/16/08 - 01:21 PM:	#21
Bush is not Machiavelli, Machiavelli was a classical Liberal whose major works were on republicanism not despotism. I hate when people think Machiavelli = The Prince. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 04/16/08 - 05:37 PM. Reason: removing odd line breaks

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 2872

Posted 04/16/08 - 03:52 PM:	#22
No, not Machoavelli, but Leo Strauss.
_____________________ Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 04/16/08 - 05:47 PM:	#23
Augustus wrote: Bush is not Machiavelli, Machiavelli was a classical Liberal whose major works were on republicanism not despotism. I hate when people think Machiavelli = The Prince. I think the original question was really supposed to be about whether or not Bush is "Machiavellian" in the modern sense, not if he was identical with Machiavelli himself. For better or worse, the term "Machiavellian" has made it into the standard English lexicon as a synonym for cunning duplicity. Banno wrote: No, not Machiavelli, but Leo Strauss.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

softtarget
because

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 17, 2004
Location: ininity
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1494

Posted 04/19/08 - 11:55 PM:	#24
I suppose once you're the king, you don't have to be "Machiavellian," you simply proceed as you wish, George Bush has done. I suppose in this sense, anyone who runs for public office is executing a conspiracy to push one agenda or another... Not everyone who follows a just cause can be judged as being less or more easily seduced by some line or mode of thought, than one we asociate with a foolish cause -- so long as they are sufficiently convinced of their own certitude. Naturally we can hope that better ways prevail, and that we are in the moral right-- but many who voted for Bush sincerely believed that he represented their moral argument. Anyone who voted for Bush and somehow feels fooled or betrayed has missjudged this president. As far as I'm concerned, he is exactly as he seems, and thus I feel neither fooled nor betrayed. In spite of my animosity toward this administration, I have found it loathingly predictable. Where then is this cabal? Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 04/20/08 - 11:22 AM. Reason: capitalization
_____________________ softtarget a journey to nothingness

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 04/20/08 - 07:53 AM:	#25
softtarget wrote: I suppose once you're the king, you don't have to be "Machiavellian," you simply proceed as you wish, [as] George Bush has done. Actually, it's only once you are the king that you do have to be Machiavellian. In The Prince, Machiavelli reports which modes of governing and public relations keep rulers from being deposed and which lead to them being removed from power (and often executed). Just doing as one wishes -- without regard to how it will play among the people -- is just about the most dangerous behavior that exists. Many people feel that this is what Bush had done, and many also feel that he stole both elections. But since modern Americans aren't as prone to violent or even political revolution as the Italians were in Machiavelli's time, Bush gets a bit more leeway than Piero de' Medici or Girolamo Savonarola. Indeed, American politicians have less a need to be Machiavellian as they have the advantages of an apathetic American public and the relatively recent advances in Orwellian information control.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.