On May 15, 1:41 pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I'd ask, were the American People so gullible and ignorant in being
> lied into Iraq, because they had read and studied Machiavelli's
> writings ...?
>
> Machiavellian Politics
> Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and
> written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of
> the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is
> Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood
> work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify
> the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is
> "Machiavellian."
>
> This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to
> problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common
> problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were
> mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his
> family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing
> the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came
> analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his
> reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and
> the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble
> out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was
> also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/
> associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred
> resentment among others of property and other members of the family,
> killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new
> adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the
> term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
>
> I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a
> despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply
> the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term
> gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century
> politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for
> a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by
> the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the
> Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is
> normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from
> enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they
> will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend
> serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see
> through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The
> art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched
> earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy
> decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies
> become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives
> their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy
> weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use
> soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
>
> Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of
> that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may
> have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point
> the opposition must be taken into account
> CONT"D
> SEE:http://chuckfor.blogspot.com/2007/03/machiavellian-politics.html
>
> When will they ever learn,oh when will they ever learn...?
I do not fault the American 'people'. Three guilty parties are the
President, the Congress and the press. This is why I can not
understand how Hillary got let off the hook for her suck-ass decision
to sup****t Bush.
|
