With the recent election, there has been much talk about change. With Barack Obama as our new president, many things are going to be changed, hopefully for the better. After reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, if I were to imagine myself as an advisor to President Obama about the concepts and tactics entailed in the book, I would choose three teachings that I felt he should either employ or continue to use for the betterment of the United States of America and all of its citizens.
The first lesson is from Chapter VI (6) and deals with how princes form new princedoms. The United States has been around for well over 200 years, so I don’t think we have to worry about being seized by another “prince,” however, I believe this can apply in our efforts to end our recession and bounce back into prosperity. The specific part was that princes should follow in the footsteps of others, especially great leaders, in order to be successful on their own part. I see this happening already, in the fact the President Obama has researched President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Programs, and implemented a few of his own, with more sure to come. The two newest, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), show that using FDR’s type of programs have worked in the past, and will continue to work today. I chose this lesson because I feel it is important to be successful, and especially in these hard times, to be successful in the smallest amount of time to avoid other complications. By using something that worked in the past, will eliminate much time that would otherwise be spent developing some type of program to meet this need.
The second lesson is from Chapter VII (7) and addresses those princes who use their power and money to buy their way into positions of power. Princes of merit are far better leaders, and in the end, ultimately achieve a better overall satisfaction rating from the people. This is important when selecting cabinet members and appointing other public officials, because if they are selected because of their wealth, nothing good can come of it. Corruption is something that haunts American politics, and is something that needs to stop. By eliminating this form of leaders, eliminates a major source of the problem. I selected this lesson because I feel that the leaders we elect should serve the American people, not themselves. They are in a public office, and as a result, must act accordingly.
The final lesson is from Chapter X (10) and deals with when princedoms are attacked and/or seized. It goes on to say that if a princedom is attacked, it is best if the prince is prepared ahead of time to react to the attack. I believe that in our world today, war is inevitable, and we must ensure that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our allies. Currently the military of the United States is the largest in the world, by a wide margin. I believe this needs to continue, and I would urge the President to ensure that this happens. It is unnerving to think like this, but one must expect the worst, and in today’s world, that is pretty bad. Our military needs to ensure that no harm comes to the American people and our allies around the world.
While Machiavelli’s teachings and lessons are certainly controversial in democracies around the world, there are certain aspects that take hold in our form of government. The three lessons above reflect, in my opinion, those that we need to be concerned about most in today’s world.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Blog #19: “Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?”
After reading the Taking Sides packet, I have mixed feelings over this issue. First of all, I am convinced to choose the “yes” side, just out of sheer amazement of the length of the “no” side. After dissecting and picking out the relevant parts of both sides, I tend to favor the “no” side, for this major reason: the government of Iran and the people of Iran do not have the same views, intentions, or actions. While the government is extremist, violent, and an “American-hater,” the people are, for the most part, just the opposite. Edward N. Luttwak says on page 139 that, “Except for a narrow segment of extremists, they [Iranians] do not view themselves as enemies of the United States, but rather as an exact opposite...and they wish to restore the best of relations [between Iran and the United States.]” He also states that, “the inhabitants of Iran are human beings just like the rest of us” (138). I challenge anyone who says that it is acceptable to kill people like the citizens of Iran, who are simply innocent people who are stuck with a bad government. They have done NOTHING wrong, and as a result, should not be punished. The government needs to be kicked out, but the people deserve better. It is the job of other countries, such as the United States, to ensure this happens, without injury to the people. This is the most challenging task in our world today, and is something that will continue to be faced by our government, and other countries like us, for many years to come.
The argument is whether to bomb or not to bomb, but rather whether to do it preemptively, or with anticipation of an enemy attack. A comment made by Mario Loyola for the “yes” side reads, “It is reasonable to insist that if the Iranians want advanced nuclear technology, they need to get an advanced government first” (133). This again comes back to the issue of the government versus the people. The government needs to change, but the people can’t be punished in the process.
One of the things I agreed with while reading the “yes” side, was the constant opinion that the United Nations was ineffective at getting anything done about Iran and its nuclear threats. From our earlier articles, I remain firm in my opinion that the UN must change in order to survive as the International Community it was originally designed to be. From Mr. Loyola’s argument, the United States is trying to gain support from other UN members to go after these weapons in Iran, but has been shut down every time. If the US goes behind the UN’s back and investigates anyways, the US risks international disapproval, just because the UN already said no. I relate this to the common, “Ask mom, if she says no, ask dad” routine that many children resort to in order to get what they want. While often effective at first, it causes an eruption from both sides, and an eventual dismissal of the current and future courses of action. In this case, it seems as though the US is stuck.
Perhaps the most disturbing, is the fact that “Should Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons, it may create incentives for other countries in the region...to develop nuclear weapons as well. (145). This is particularly unnerving, as an entire region of extremist governments with nuclear weapons would be a huge threat to the wellbeing of everyone around the globe. However, “[Iran’s] effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb” (139). This provides a little bit of relief, in the fact that they are progressing very slowly, which allows for a US response, if necessary, with enough time to react before an attack is targeted on us. “There is no reason to attack prematurely, because there will be ample time to do so before it is too late—that is, before enough fissile material has been produced for one bomb” (143). We must act, just not preemptively, and certainly not against the “American-supportive” people of Iran.
The argument is whether to bomb or not to bomb, but rather whether to do it preemptively, or with anticipation of an enemy attack. A comment made by Mario Loyola for the “yes” side reads, “It is reasonable to insist that if the Iranians want advanced nuclear technology, they need to get an advanced government first” (133). This again comes back to the issue of the government versus the people. The government needs to change, but the people can’t be punished in the process.
One of the things I agreed with while reading the “yes” side, was the constant opinion that the United Nations was ineffective at getting anything done about Iran and its nuclear threats. From our earlier articles, I remain firm in my opinion that the UN must change in order to survive as the International Community it was originally designed to be. From Mr. Loyola’s argument, the United States is trying to gain support from other UN members to go after these weapons in Iran, but has been shut down every time. If the US goes behind the UN’s back and investigates anyways, the US risks international disapproval, just because the UN already said no. I relate this to the common, “Ask mom, if she says no, ask dad” routine that many children resort to in order to get what they want. While often effective at first, it causes an eruption from both sides, and an eventual dismissal of the current and future courses of action. In this case, it seems as though the US is stuck.
Perhaps the most disturbing, is the fact that “Should Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons, it may create incentives for other countries in the region...to develop nuclear weapons as well. (145). This is particularly unnerving, as an entire region of extremist governments with nuclear weapons would be a huge threat to the wellbeing of everyone around the globe. However, “[Iran’s] effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb” (139). This provides a little bit of relief, in the fact that they are progressing very slowly, which allows for a US response, if necessary, with enough time to react before an attack is targeted on us. “There is no reason to attack prematurely, because there will be ample time to do so before it is too late—that is, before enough fissile material has been produced for one bomb” (143). We must act, just not preemptively, and certainly not against the “American-supportive” people of Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
