Our fellow Porcher Rod Dreher says Dick Cheney is an outlaw.
Of course he is right, after a certain manner of speaking, and I have no particular comment one way or the other on Cheney’s actions or subsequent apologies. But I always wish people would keep these hard truths in mind when making judgments about things involving statecraft at the highest levels:
Philosophically, the problem of Machiavelli’s ethics consists in nothing but the recognition of the elementary fact that the existence of man is burdened with conflicts of values. A spiritual morality will arrive at the Platonic insight that doing evil is worse than suffering evil. In practice, this insight can be made the governing rule of conduct only at the price of endangering, or making impossible, the realization of other values that also are given in human existence, such as one’s own existence, the existence of the community, and the civilizational values realized in community.
Since the existence of man is social, his actions are burdened with the responsibility for their effects on the values realized in the lives of other men. A statesman who does not answer an attack on his country with the order to shoot back will not be praised for the spiritual refinement of his morality in turning the other cheek, but he will justly be cursed for his criminal irresponsibility. Spiritual morality is a problem in human existence, precisely because there is a good deal more to human existence than spirit. All attacks on Machiavelli as the inventor or advocate of a “double morality” for private and public conduct, etc., can be dismissed as manifestations of philosophical ignorance.
As far as Machiavelli himself is concerned, his attitude toward problems of morality is clear beyond a doubt. We have seen his table of values [ranking men in the order of: Religion Founders, Republic and Realm Founders, Successful Generals, Men of Letters, and others according to their art or occupation]; And we have seen that he never tries to base morality on the necessities and expediencies of existence.
Never for a moment does he pretend that his immoral advice to the prince is moral. It would be a gross misunderstanding to classify his ethics with the sophistic “inversions”of the problems of existence that are characteristic of the Greek enlightenment of the fifth century B.C. and the Western enlightenment of the eighteenth century. The ethics of Callicles, for instance, which Plato discusses in the Gorgias, indeed tries to base the idea of justice on the right of the stronger; here we find the attitude of “might makes right.”
Machiavelli, on the other hand, would say that might makes for the establishment of order, for the liberation of Italy, and generally for the onore del mondo , but he would never say that these values include justice and morality. On the contrary, he is keenly aware that these values can be realized only by actions that in themselves are dishonorable and immoral and, therefore, need justification through the values they serve to realize. If they are used for the realization of power without value, then nothing is left but their immorality. In particular, as the case of Agathocles shows [previously discussed], the conversion of an existing order into an autocratic lordship, for no other purpose than the satisfaction of personal lust for power, must be considered sheer criminality.
This part of Machiavelli’s doctrine, as we have indicated previously, is probably the psychological cause for the excitement of the critics. Every political order is in some part an accident of existence. The mystery of existential cruelty and guilt is at the bottom of the best order; [and] while the dictum that “power is evil” cannot be maintained without qualification, it is true if it is qualified as characterizing the component of the existential accident in order.
By social convention this mystery of guilt is not admitted to public consciousness. A political thinker who through his work stimulates an uncomfortable awareness of this mystery will become unpopular with the intellectual retainers of an established order.
Eric Voegelin, CW VOL 22 (HPI-IV), Chapter 1, The Order of Power: Machiavelli, §8, Conclusion, pp 82-83.
As such, Cheney’s chief sin is admitting these hard truths to public consciousness. If he had read his Voegelin, he would have known the fate awaiting him.
As in Watergate, it is not so much the crime as it is the cover-up that causes any political House to fall. The admitting of “hard truths to public consciousness” have only occurred long after the fact and as a rear-guard effort to control perceptions . Up to this point, the former Vice President has treated the issue as though it consisted of hard truths only he was capable of understanding. With Machiavelli, the various maneuverings of power politics were based upon substantive motivations and aims executed with finesse and confidence. Too much seems made up as it goes along under the current tempest, hence the very apt characterization of the former Administration and its assigns as “Mayberry Machiavelli”….apologies to Mayberry in order of course.
[Voegelin]
So if they knew about the plan to ram planes into the WTC, it would have been perfectly acceptable to let it happen since it let them pass the PATRIOT act, warrantless wiretaps, Rendition, suspend Habeas Corpus, Start a war in Iraq, Torture, etc. because we are all safer and better off with all these things?
The most serious evil is also the most subtle. Wouldn’t being like God knowing good and evil be much better? I know he said not to, but think about it Eve…
It is always portrayed as doing good. We need to help older people with social security. End slavery. Stop violence. Prevent Saddam from giving WMDs to Al Queda.
All serpentine lies. And even Cheney – it was mostly FBI interview techniques that gained actionable intelligence. The torture did get several confessions as evidence to start the war in Iraq – and even the admitted the truthfulness of the Nigher yellowcake documents!
But lets take the other point of the view – that saving innocent life justifies any means. Then Tiller’s killer is a hero. And then Cheney is a monster for not using exactly the same evil means to end the abortion holocaust. Firebomb Drezden but not the tracks to Auschwitz?
And if it will take violence to end abortion? If you wish to invoke Machiavelli, do so, but once his dark spirit is summoned, he will not be contained to only use the few evil means for the few good ends you desire or approve of. Anything and everything can be done legally since there is no law. And the un-morality has been admitted already and dismissed.
It is surprising how much hot gas can be released without ever engaging the actual argument being offered. As usual, DW is spot on.
It is absolutely beyond any possible doubt that torture–er, I mean enhanced interrogation–works to keep a nation safe. For but one example, there was a plague of witches in 16th and 17th century Europe. Thousands of witches were executed and Europe saved from a great plague. Yet the undeniable truth is that not one single witch confessed without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Had Europe listened to the bleeding hearts, the world would by now be overrun with witches. Furthermore, the burning witches provided heat and light to the people, saving valuable fuel resources; it was therefore eco-friendly. Anybody who opposes enhanced interrogation techniques is pro-witch, anti-Europe, and anti-environment.
Speaking of hot gas, what is the carbon footprint of a burning witch?
If folks want to use this thread to discuss the merits or de-merits of torture, who am I to complain, however, it ought to be clear that such a discussion has nothing at all to do with my point (or Voegelin’s for that matter).
Mr. Dreher was the one who first drew me to this site and in conjunction with Dr. Deneen’s celebration of 6 months (it’s hard to believe it has only been that long given the quantity and quality of posts here) I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Dreher that I know I will not be able to repay. Reading the musings and tomes that have appeared on the Porch has given me the opportunity to expand the appetite that was only whetted by a professor in my undergrad days who sparked an interest in Strauss and Voegelin and Eliot among others. Therefore, I thank you all for sharing what you have to give with those of us interested in the matters discussed here, of the gravest import. Having said that, I have always noticed in Mr. Dreher a certain of the “man in search of an ideology” characteristic that does not take into account many of the important, yet often subtle and difficult, points like those so often made here on the Porch. I say this not to demean Mr. Dreher, but to point out that although he may agree with much of what is said here, he is involved in a much different project on a day to day basis than what that of the Porch. Therefore, although I agree with Caleb, I would point out that knowledge of such matters is (as are all things) of Grace, and that such knowledge is not a requirement, nor a reality, for everyone. Pushed, I think Caleb may admit that neither ought such knowledge be a requirement or reality for everyone.
[…] Front Porch Republic » Blog Archive » Dreher, Cheney, the Law […]
It sounds like Caleb has a complete set of the CW of EV…I am envious!
Not quite complete. Still a few blank spaces to fill on the EV shelf, which remains the most prominent one in my library.
[…] This week’s rant of the week alleges that Cheney’s fundamental sin is too much honesty. […]
Comments are closed.