|
Masterful Machiavellianism
Southern
Style
by Rebecca Knight
Machiavellianism: The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.
George W. Bush, with the help of his advisor, Karl Rove has mastered the art of portraying himself as a man of great principle, integrity, honesty, caring, compassion, and character. Some morning just tune in to C-Span's Washington Journal and listen to the callers sing his praises. The question becomes what do they find so inspiring and how have they come to their conclusion about Bush when most of the evidence does not back it up?
A very informative article regarding the use of language by conservatives provides some helpful insight.(1) The article's premise, based upon the studies of George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, is that conservatives have mastered the art of "framing" the issues. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them through think tanks. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there, while progressives have done nothing similar. Professor Lakoff states, "It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it."
From the article:
And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.
There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV.
The result? From the article:
…to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.
An example from the article:
The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.
It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues — you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.
It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country — the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.
How are Democrats doing? From the article:
Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that.
Conservatives use "framing" tactics to convince the public that all the policies they advocate are good for "the people" when in reality they are not. The Bush administration is quite adept at this. They apply a wholesome name to a policy and the public is somehow convinced that Bush is taking actions in their best interest.
Three examples:
The "No Child Left Behind Act" sounds glorious, but many believe it is flawed. Bush administration budgets do not even fully fund the program, forcing states to raise college tuitions and local taxes, which hit the lower and middle classes far more than the wealthy.
The "Clear Skies Initiative" is anything but. First, the global warming measures are voluntary. But there are deeper problems: close inspection reveals a dangerous bait-and-switch in the fine print. Though the Bush proposal includes cuts in the pollution that causes smog, soot, and mercury poisoning, these cuts actually aren't as deep as the pollution reductions that would result from enforcing the law already on the books - and they take up to a decade longer.
"Inspired by all that has come before, and guided by clear objectives, today we set a new course for America's space program. We will give Nasa a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own. ...We've undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways." --- George W. Bush, January 14, 2004
Notice the fantastic rhetoric of the new Bush space initiative. Sounds great, doesn't it? Never mind the fact that it is estimated to cost $400 to $500 billion at a time when deficit spending is skyrocketing out of control. Never mind that it may be just another expansion of the military industrial complex as outlined by the PNAC on page twelve of their report on rebuilding America's defenses.(2) And never mind that Halliburton is already being mentioned in connection with the plan.(3)
Recently Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist, appeared on
C-Span's Book TV to discuss his new book, American Dynasty:
Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush.(4) During
his opening statements he spoke of political tactics as shaped by Machiavelli,
the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance or more specifically
from his work entitled The Prince. Phillips stated that Karl Rove,
George W. Bush's political strategist, and the late Lee Atwater, George
H. W. Bush's political strategist, followed the teachings of Machiavelli.
For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting
and keeping power or authority. Everything else, religion, morality,
truth, honor, and integrity, that people associate with politics
has nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics, unless
being moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts
in getting and maintaining power is calculation. The successful politician
knows what to do or what to say for every situation, no matter what
it takes. It is only about winning and keeping power.
The present administration’s Machiavellianism is cunning in that it takes some investigating to understand their true motivations. They are quite adept at masking their real intentions with moral imperatives.
For example, on Bush's recent proposal for changing the status of illegal immigrants, White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said this: "We're addressing an important economic need (and) we're being compassionate to those undocumented workers who are here now ... many of (whom) are probably being abused and exploited,... part of this policy will help make America more secure because we'll know who's here."
Wow, that sounds nice. But what is really behind it? Votes! Presidential advisers believe that Hispanic voters, one of the targets for Bush's reelection campaign, will give him credit for pushing for the changes even if nothing is enacted before the election.
Remember that Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences. Why? Because Bush and Rove have little respect for the press. Rove stated, "He [Bush] has a cagey respect for them -- the press...He understands that their job is to do a job. And that’s not necessarily to report the news. It’s to get a headline or get a story that will make people pay more attention to their magazine, newspaper, or television more."
How does the media respond to this shortage of exposure to the current administration? They bend over backwards to be obliging in the belief that it will gain them more access. Wrong. That is not their job. The Bush administration has the press right where they want them. That is evidenced by the shortage of in-depth investigative reporting. In his appearance on C-Span, Kevin Phillips expressed dismay that the media does not report on the Bush administration more thoroughly.
The Columbia Journalism Review published an interesting article on how politicians are media trained not to give straight answers to questions.(5)
From the article:
But in my examination of some fifty news transcripts, sharp questioning is unusual, raising the larger question of what the audience takes away when journalism appears to be little more than disguised public relations. Does the audience see through the culture of caution and obfuscation that permeates the news business? When TV guests practice question evasion, does the audience think twice about their credibility? Does the public see through polished answers and the platitudinous comments? Does it ask where the real meat and potatoes are?
Such questions bring up others: What are journalists for? Are they to analyze and interpret the news and arbitrate conflicting opinion for the public, or are they to act as mere carriers of other people’s messages?
It’s no secret that journalism has a credibility gap. Maybe it has always and by journalists who try less and less to close it.
Now, combine the skills of "framing" the issues in ways that always keep the opposing political party on the defensive with the philosophies advocated by Machiavelli and throw in secrecy and a distaste for the media. One begins to see a pattern that fits the current administration.
The Bush administration is quite Nixonian when faced with challenges to their credibility. The bogus security investigation over Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, like the outing of Valerie Plame, shows the lengths they're willing to go to in intimidating their critics.
Seventy-four days passed between the Novak column on Plame that pointed to someone outing a member of the CIA and the announcement of an official investigation. Only one day passed between Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes and the announcement of an official investigation into documents O'Neill gave to Suskind. Has anyone noticed that no one has denied the claims made by O'Neill in the Suskind book? No? That is how their Machiavellianism works for them! They have shifted the focus from Bush by accusing O'Neill of doing something wrong! Never mind that they gave Bob Woodward National Security Documents for his flattering book on Bush.
No, they can't have Bush's public persona questioned because his popularity rests upon it. They have built an image of Bush being a masterful commander in chief who happens to be a nice man and no one must get away with tarnishing that image. The public has bought into it! That is why Bush approval ratings remain consistent.
These tactics have led to American citizens growing accustomed to being lied to and/or misled about gravely serious matters. How will they respond in the upcoming presidential election in which massive amounts of money will be spent to give a generally false view of the state of our union? Half of the electorate doesn't even bother to vote. Will the other half tune in or tune out?
Americans deserve to be told the truth on matters of public policy by every President and every candidate. That is a principle that no candidate should violate, regardless of party affiliation. Will the upcoming election be a chance to reclaim the truth? It must be! Now as never before, American voters must educate themselves about realities versus Machiavellian rhetoric!
* * *
Resources:
(1) Berkeley.edu
(2) Newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses
(4) Booktv.org
(5) Cjr.org
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com. © 2003 by Rebecca Knight
