[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: What Would Machiavelli Do?

[michael at intrafi.com]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

GARDEN STATE: NOW PLAYING IN NY & LA - SELECT CITIES AUG 6

GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard
and Ian Holm.  NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says "Writer-Director Zach
Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent."
Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and
talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


What Would Machiavelli Do?

August 2, 2004
 By ROBERT WRIGHT 



 

John Kerry, tough-talking war hero, cut an impressive
figure at last week's convention, maybe impressive enough
to threaten the Republicans' time-honored dominance of the
manliness issue - that is, national security. But you can
already hear the Republican reply taking shape: O.K.,
you've shown us your muscles, but where's the beef? What
exactly is your strategy for the war on terrorism? 

It's a tricky question. National security challenges rarely
lend themselves to the programmatic laundry lists that are
tossed at domestic problems, and global terrorism may be
the most complex national security challenge ever. That's
why the few specifics Mr. Kerry did offer on the terrorism
front were underwhelming (he's against closing fire
stations, for example). Still, there is a way for Mr. Kerry
and John Edwards to frame an antiterrorism strategy that,
though not programmatic, would be genuinely illuminating
and politically powerful, cutting to the core of President
Bush's greatest national security failure. And they may be
closer to this formula than they realize, for it fits
naturally into the rhetorical framework the Democrats built
at their convention. 

Mr. Kerry rightly stressed how thoroughly Mr. Bush has
lowered the world's opinion of the United States. In
elaborating, he said that America can't fight a war on
terrorism without allies. That's true, but it doesn't by
itself underscore the penchant for complex thought that Mr.
Kerry attributed to himself in his acceptance speech. Even
Mr. Bush now seems to realize that antagonizing allies is a
bad idea. In fact, since the dawn of recorded history, just
about everyone has recognized this. 

What is new, and uniquely challenging, about the war on
terrorism is that hatred of America well beyond the bounds
of its alliance now imperils national security. Fervent
anti-Americanism among Muslims is the wellspring of
terrorism, regardless of whether they live in countries
whose governments cooperate with us. Yet this is a part of
world opinion Mr. Kerry didn't talk about. 

His reticence is understandable. Fretting about Muslim
opinion sounds a little like worrying that your enemy may
not like you (even though, of course, the Muslims you're
worrying about are the ones who haven't signed on with the
enemy but may be leaning that way). So when Democrats talk
about Muslim hatred, they're just begging to be called
wimps by all those right-wing bloggers who have
Machiavelli's dictum - better to be feared than loved -
tattooed across their chests. 

But, however steep the rhetorical challenge posed by the
fact that real men don't need love, the Democrats have
already gone a ways toward meeting it, and they've done so
on the strength of a single word: respect. As anyone who
tuned into the convention for more than a few minutes is
probably aware, the Democrats want an America that is
"respected in the world." And even if Mr. Kerry's concrete
elaborations on this theme were about the importance of
allies, respect is the perfect entrée to the issue of
Muslim hatred - a way to confront Machiavelli's dichotomy
without winding up on the girlie-man side of it. 

We don't need to be loved in the Muslim world, but we need
to be respected. And even real men want respect. After all,
strength can command respect. In fact, instilling fear can
help instill respect. It's just that fear isn't enough.
(This could be the epitaph of Mr. Bush's foreign policy:
Apparently fear wasn't enough.) 

For a nation to be thoroughly respected, the perception of
its strength needs to be matched by a perception of its
goodness. It helps to be thought of as just, generous,
conscientious, mindful of the opinion of others, even a
little humble. In lots of little ways, Mr. Bush has given
the world the impression that we're not these things. 

Mr. Kerry touched on some of this, noting that global
leadership means inspiring more than fear. But he didn't
carry the respect theme explicitly into the context of
Muslim opinion. 

Doing so wouldn't by itself amount to a strategy for the
war on terrorism. But it would add a new dimension to the
Democrats' emerging critique of the president's foreign
policy - and a potent one. The plummeting regard for
America in Muslim nations like Indonesia over the last few
years is a well-documented fact. If voters can see the link
between this and the security of their children - see that
for every million Muslims who hate America, one will be
willing to fly an airplane into a shopping mall - then
President Bush will have a lot of explaining to do. And
existing criticisms of his policies will acquire new force.
(Given how unpopular the Iraq war was known to be in the
Muslim world, wasn't the lack of postwar planning beyond
inexcusable?) 

The Kerry-Edwards ticket might also profit from the fact
that much of this Muslim antipathy seems to be focused on
President Bush personally. (His unfavorability ratings in
Morocco and Jordan are 90 percent and 96 percent,
respectively.) Changing administrations - "rebranding"
America - could help give us a fresh start. 

Thoroughly addressing the issue of Muslim hatred would pose
some risks. Mr. Kerry would have to stress that he's
willing to antagonize Muslims - or anyone else - when
essential American principles or obligations are involved.
And even that assurance wouldn't wholly buffer him from
right-wing flak. 

But the very difficulty of taking on this issue is part of
its virtue. Mr. Kerry's biggest manhood problem has nothing
to do with Vietnam or the war on terrorism. Rather, it's
the sense that he never attacks an issue unflinchingly -
that he waffles on the tough ones, that his only constancy
lies in the wordiness of his bromides. Maybe what he needs
is to take a sensitive, complicated problem, lay down a
core conviction, and stick with it through thick and thin. 

By the way, Machiavelli might approve. Though he favored
fear over love, he said that being feared and loved is the
best situation of all. And failing that, a leader at least
"ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not
win love, he avoids hatred." If George W. Bush is too macho
for Machiavelli, then surely John Kerry can make the case
that Mr. Bush is too macho for America. 

Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America
Foundation, is the author of "Nonzero: The Logic of Human
Destiny." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/opinion/02wright.html?ex=1092467238&ei=1&en=7791467a61c41dea


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company