President Obama surely has a tough row to hoe. After eight years of mistaken policies and unbridled laissez faire capitalism he is now expected not only to set the country on the right course for the future but the results must also be immediate and to everybody’s liking. Americans are an impatient people who, in contrast to Europeans and especially Asians, have not yet learned the virtue of patience. They are of the “instant” generation which started with instant coffee and fast food chains and culminated in instant Zen via drugs. You can have it all was the lure. Now that this house of cards has collapsed, instead of sober reflection of where we have gone wrong, the expectation is fostered that by the end of the year this “recession” will be over and we can go back to our merry old ways of spending ourselves out of debt.

            This is the hope and message of the true believers but since this would mean that the Democrats would retain their majority in the House and Senate in next year’s midterm elections these expectations must be dashed and the best way to do so is to spread fear. It is true that there are great dangers on the horizon, Obama is aware of them, but the way to meet them ought to differ from the policies of the Cheney-Bush administration. This fundamental insight is still lacking in a substantial portion of our politicians and the electorate. Instead of pulling together, as Obama hoped he might be able to achieve, we are being pulled apart through partisan politics, to the detriment of the country at large.

            Those of us who voted for Obama were a mixed lot. Surely there were some flaming liberals who thought he’d usher in a socialist paradise, but most of us had no such illusions. We merely wanted a competent, well educated Chief-executive who is capable of building bridges across divides on the domestic as well as international scene. The times had called for a pragmatist who faces facts rather than an ideologue who has a direct line to the Almighty, as was the case with President Bush and potential Vice-president Palin.

Let us remember the choice we had last year.  It was quite limited because our two party system has no room for Independents. The religious right, which controlled the Republican Party at the time, could not stomach a competent Mormon and defeated him in the primaries in favor of an ex-Baptist preacher. Political experience played no role because both had been governors of their respective states.  It was strictly religious fervor at play and, as I mentioned in these pages last year, when the choice is between a Mormon and a Baptist the outcome is a foregone conclusion. But since the country at large doesn’t consist only of Baptists, Senator McCain profited from this internecine battle. He was supposed to have been the unifier who, in addition, would keep the country safe. But the elderly, intemperate, military man whose immediate answer to some international nastiness would probably have been a new war, was an unlikely candidate for that role. “Keeping the country safe” was a successful mantra in 2004 and in spite of its failure in 2008 is again vigorously chanted as will be commented on later. 

On the other side there was the young and vigorous Obama, who had deftly defeated his most formidable opponents - by dint of glamour, charisma, smarts and money. Genuine change in the way Washington works seemed no longer “the impossible dream,” but within reach. Since our future and that of the world depends on how Obama will deal with the increasing pressure, domestic and international events are about to bring to bear on him, it is useful to once more assess what we know about his character.

The outstanding aspects seem to be ambitious and deliberative. His life experiences taught him compassion with the underprivileged and the desire to rectify obvious injustices. This is why he first became a community organizer. He soon saw that the effect he had was limited because all the good will was for naught unless he could drum up the money from the powers who controlled the city. The next step was, therefore, Law school and state government. But again, a state senator likewise has only limited influence especially if he belongs to the minority party. Real power was seen not in Springfield but the Senate in Washington. That the ultimate goal was the presidency, with the power it conferred to the officeholder, is, of course, obvious.

There is no doubt in my mind, that he intended and still intends to use the Presidency for the good of the country and the world but he is now confronted with powerful realities. The most important fundamental aspect which Americans have yet to confront is twofold. One is that results are independent of one’s intentions and the other that power, even presidential power, has its limits provided one wants to stay within the constraints imposed by the Constitution. President Obama now finds himself saddled with wars, which were not of his making but which cannot readily be terminated. He is too young to remember the Lyndon Johnson years who found himself in a somewhat similar situation. He didn’t want the Viet Nam war but there was no easy way to get out. I remember Johnson’s dilemma and his wistful statement, “They talk about the awful power of the president. All the power I have is nuclear and that I can’t use.” 

But Johnson said something else in his Texan drawl, which I also remember and which I believe he sincerely meant, “I want to be the President that is loved by all the people.” When I heard this I thought, “Oh my God, the fellow hasn’t read Machiavelli.” The chapter in The Prince, “Is it better to be loved than feared?” had immediately sprung to mind. As it turned out Machiavelli was right and the Johnson presidency ended in failure. The attempt to end the war was left to Nixon who failed for other reasons, which were likewise foreshadowed by Machiavelli.

Our “enlightened” era has given Machiavelli a bad press but he deserves to be studied because he knew human nature as it really is and this will always remain the crucial variable in every political equation. The mentioned chapter explains that being loved by one’s subjects is theoretically preferable over being feared but it is usually not achievable. A choice has to be made in most cases and under those circumstances “it is much safer to be feared than loved.”

“Because this is to be asserted in general of men; that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children . . . when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions is ruined;  because friendships that are obtained  by payments and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation, which owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

One may decry this pessimistic view of humankind but Machiavelli knew what he was talking about. He had a distinguished diplomatic career for his city of Florence which brought him into contact with all the powers of his day. But when the Florentine government changed he was not only exiled but thrown in jail. After his release he never regained his formal stature and had to eke out a living for himself and his family by working a small farm. Those were the circumstances under which “The Prince” was written and published in 1513. His efforts to bring this book to the attention of the Medicis were unsuccessful but he did achieve renown for writing comedies and dramas. His political advice was then sought and given, although he favored a Republican form of government over an autocratic one. When the Republic was re-instituted he tried again to obtain the office of Florentine Secretary, which he had held prior to the Medicis, but was rejected. Although this was merely proof of what he had written about human nature he was devastated and died a few days later on June 20, 1527 at the age of 58 years. 

The information presented above comes from The Great Books of the Western World and it is only fitting that Nicolo Machiavelli shared this particular volume with Thomas Hobbes who held an equally unfavorable view about human nature. I have discussed Hobbes’ contribution to the history of mankind previously (April 1, 2003. The Neocons’ Leviathan) in relation to Robert Kagan’s 2002 article “Power and
Weakness”, which had considerably upset the Europeans. A sentence such as, “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world;” may read as rather strange today but was the leading philosophy which brought us to the current impasse. This April 2003 issue is well worth reading from today’s point of view because it is not 20/20 hindsight but pointed to the inevitable consequences of this type of thinking.

But let us stay with Machiavelli for another moment because he is a reliable teacher. While he gave fear precedence over love he also pointed out that it must not be used indiscriminately lest it engenders hatred, which is to be avoided. The ruler “ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.”  Since every human being also contains within himself an animal nature the ruler should make appropriate use of it. The two animals which are relevant in this respect are: the fox and the lion. The lion is powerful but may fall victim to snares, while the fox although relatively powerless is usually sufficiently astute to avoid them. Thus in combination with a character structure as outlined above these two qualities will ensure effective rule. President Nixon had the qualities of the fox and the lion which earned him the “tricky Dick” appellation but his relative lack of the necessary human qualities in regard to politics was his downfall.

Machiavelli’s chapter XIX deals precisely with this issue, “That one should avoid being despised and hated.” The prince becomes hated not so much when he kills people but when he violates other people’s property. In this connection the current outcry against Obama’s feared tax policies immediately come to mind. The phrase that he will “redistribute wealth” was one of the campaign slogans against him and will persist throughout his presidency. Since taxing the people is unavoidable in today’s day and age Obama will need to be circumspect about it, lest he comes to be regarded as “rapacious.” To quote Machiavelli,

“When neither their property nor honor are touched, the majority of men live content, and he [the Prince] has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavor to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get around him.”

When we look at our past Presidents from this point of view there are not many who measure up, but Lincoln would fit the bill and he is Obama’s role model. Unfortunately Lincoln had to pay with his life for it at the crucial time when he was needed to lead a national reconciliation effort. Our country is again at a crossroads where fear and hatred are being stoked.

The current efforts to derail Obama’s policies involve among others not only the mentioned tax problem but also the revived “national security” mantra. For reasons of his own Obama has muted the idea of having a commission appointed to investigate the various malfeasances of the Cheney-Bush administration and decided to look forward rather than backwards. By the way, the sequence Cheney-Bush is not a mistype but denotes the true power structure of at least the first 6 years of that administration. Obama’s decision not to open the books on the past eight years for public inspection is I believe a mistake. Unless a country comes to grips with its past history it will continue to pursue false goals when they are no longer applicable by changed circumstances. The true causes of WWI and WWII should serve as a warning how to avoid WWIII which seems inevitable unless a genuine change of heart were to occur within the American public, the media and Congress. But this can only happen when the recent past is dispassionately examined.

The urgency of this fact was underlined by the attempts of former Vice-president
Cheney to whitewash the dismal record of the past eight years and the positive reaction his comments have received from a still influential segment of the public. It was known that Mr. Cheney was to give a speech on “National Security” on May 21 before the American Enterprise Institute and inasmuch as his views, which have not changed for decades, were also known, the Obama administration decided to pre-empt the impact of Cheney’s speech by one given by the President a few hours earlier on the same day. The timing was dictated by Obama’s attempt to close the Guantanamo detention facility and the venues of the speeches were symbolic. Obama delivered his in the National Archives where the Constitution is prominently displayed, while Cheney chose the American Enterprise Institute whose members were largely responsible for the failed assumptions which led to the inappropriate response to the 9/11 tragedy.

Obama laid out his plan on how to deal with the rest of the detainees who are still held in Guantanamo in a step by step manner which corresponds to US law as well as international norms. It requires adjudication on an individual case by case basis. He foresaw that some individuals whose detention was no longer required could be returned to their countries of origin or others that are willing to take them, including our own. Prisoners who are found guilty of crimes and represent a danger to society would be sentenced to life-long detention in maximum-security facilities within the U.S. This process makes sense to rational human beings but we are not dealing with this species. We are living in a society which is fear-driven and where fear continues to be stoked.

The irrationality of the public is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that we are willing to send Guantanamo inmates to other countries but completely unwilling to accept them within our own borders. Detractors of Obama’s plan now point out that other countries don’t want to take these prisoners, so why should we? The simple answer, which they don’t want to consider, is that we have put these people in a concentration camp off our soil precisely because we did not want to adhere to international legal norms. We created the problem ourselves and it is only reasonable for others to expect that we would solve it within our own jurisdiction rather than foisting it onto the good-will of the rest of the world. If we don’t show it why should they? For Obama the problem is acute because he has committed himself to closing Guantanamo by the end of this year but Congress has denied him the money he asked for to create viable alternatives.

This is the point where Mr. Cheney weighed in. He roundly condemned Obama’s efforts, praised those of his administration and insisted that unless the path of the past eight years in regard to the “War on Terrorism,” including “enhanced interrogations” is continued America will experience an even more disastrous 9/11 type attack. The problem for our country which arises from this dogma is that a substantial segment of our people believes it and this bodes ill for the future. It is quite possible that a terrorist attack may occur on our soil again, as it has happened in other countries around the world since 9/11, but everything will depend on how we as a country respond to it. It is a truism that it is not the crime which people can’t forgive, it’s the cover-up. The same applies to man-made disasters such as 9/11. Had it been regarded as a crime, rather than an incitement to war, numerous lives and an immense amount of property would have been saved.

When a tragedy is viewed as an opportunity to put preconceived plans into operation we compound it and the Obama administration is in danger of falling into the same trap. While Cheney and company used 9/11 to pursue imperialist hubris, Rahm Emmanuel declared after last year’s financial collapse that “an opportunity should never be allowed to go to waste.” What he meant was that the domestic agenda of the left could now be enacted with relatively little opposition. But the difference between 2001 and 2009 resides in the Chief-executive. While President Bush deferred to the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Neoconservative ideology, President Obama seems to be of a more pragmatic type. But whether or not he will be able to stand up to the increasing pressures only time will tell.

Since the former Vice-President is becoming the voice of the disenfranchised right wing of the Republican Party he must be taken seriously and his views, as expressed in the mentioned speech, examined. For anyone who reads the transcript and has a perceptive mind it is obvious that Mr. Cheney still harbors dangerous delusions about his term of office and America’s place in the world. The key aspect is the opinion that his administration’s policies have kept the country safe from another attack on the homeland since 9/11. Although this mantra, as mentioned above, is good for propaganda purposes it has little to do with the reasons why there was a 9/11 attack in the first place. This deliberate blindness is dangerous. The Cheney group, ex-President Bush is currently out of the picture, keeps fostering the illusion that they took office on the evening of September 11, 2001 rather than in the afternoon of January 20. These crucial eight months when the administration patently failed to keep America safe are deliberately swept under the rug.

Cheney’s speech is classic for unintended truth, ambiguities and outright falsehoods. Here is a key excerpt: 

“The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our president’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of the country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric [closing Guantanamo], but on a truthful telling of history.”

The first sentence is self-serving and in direct contradiction to the ending of the second one. A truthful telling of history is indeed vital and is what most Americans want. But this is predicated on “looking backward” and the opening of archives which are jealously guarded for reasons, you guessed it, of “National Security.” We are to be made secure by ignorance of the past! Cheney then listed the attacks against Americans during the Clinton years and how they should have been responded to differently. He failed to mention that when his administration took over Richard Clark’s warnings were disregarded and that Al Qaeda simply wasn’t a priority.

For a discussion of the rest of the speech I shall use the device of an open letter to Mr. Cheney. Although I harbor no illusion that he’ll either see or read it, the information may be useful to the public at large.

Dear Mr. Vice-President,

In your speech of May 21, 2009 you made several points which deserve to be commented upon. Please be assured hat I harbor no ill-will against you in person but since your views and the attempts to influence current policies are potentially harmful to our republic they need to be aired.

With your professed devotion to America’s security we would like to know whether or not you were aware of the August 6, 2001  briefing which stated that Osama bin-Laden planned to attack the homeland. If not: why not? And if yes: why did you ignore it? What was your schedule during the months of February to the beginning of September? We know about your meetings on America’s energy needs but they are still secret. We request, therefore, that you allow the publication of all the relevant memos, e-mails etc. so that truthful history can be written.

Please also tell us why your administration immediately embraced war instead of first declaring the area of the WTC a crime scene. The latter course would have allowed a thorough investigation of the rubble for clues to the unprecedented collapse of three steel reinforced buildings, one of which wasn’t even hit by a plane. Mr. Vice-President, we who ask these questions are not conspiracy theorists, we simply want the God‘s honest truth, which you have so far failed to provide.

You also stated that “wars cannot be won on the defensive” and this why your administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” Mr. Vice-president, more than seven years have passed and as a result of your decisions we now have more Taliban fighters not only in Afghanistan but also Pakistan, which may be on the brink of collapse. Do you not feel any sense of responsibility for that outcome, and why have you not brought Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to justice; instead of invading Iraq?  

You repeatedly mentioned that the interrogation methods of prisoners yielded actionable intelligence and have prevented further attacks on U.S. soil but you have not provided us with specific examples upon which to judge the veracity of this statement. Doubt is permissible because you also reiterated that Saddam Hussein had “known ties to Mideast terrorists,” which is misleading. The only tie we know of for certain is that he sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. While this showed bad judgment in our eyes it hardly qualifies for invading his country. Furthermore, by now you should know perfectly well that the “intelligence” you and the rest of the administration relied on for doing so was manufactured and/or willfully distorted.

As far as the methods of interrogations are concerned which are currently under investigation by Congress you emphasized that they were “legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do.” But Mr. Vice-president they were legal only because your lawyers were under orders to write opinions that justified your wishes. The idea that “if the President does it, it’s legal” was President Nixon’s defense. It was not accepted then and it will not be accept now unless you are willing to depart from our republican form of government and espouse the autocracy of well known dictators from the past century.  

I believe that you are correct in stating that the Obama administration may have “carefully redacted [memos] to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. . . . Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.”

These are important points and you can rest assured that those of us who want to arrive at the full truth of the events which transpired during your administration will keep asking for it. But this is a two way street you also must personally be willing to release all the information you have and if need be under oath.

In regard to your categorical statement that “Torture was never permitted” I hope that neither you nor a member of your family will ever be subjected to the “enhanced interrogation methods” which you still support. If this were to be the case you would likely conclude that the difference is purely semantic rather than substantive.

We know that you are currently writing a book about your role in the Bush administration but if it is merely a reiteration of what you have told us on May 21 it will have no historical value. On the other hand, if you were to be totally honest with yourself and the American public and included accurate information, which is currently not available, you would provide a service for the country.  

Sincerely

Ernst Rodin

It is obvious that the wish expressed in the last sentence is not going to come to pass because I believe Mr. Cheney is honestly convinced that his course was the correct one; but so was Hitler. This is the current tragedy of our country: we have people in our midst who in their own minds firmly believe to be on the right track, but proceed with blinders which don’t allow them to consider the adversary’s point of view. On the international scene they are all lumped under the label of terrorists and their eradication by bombs and other fire power is the supposed answer. As long as people continue to believe this all the sacrifice in lives, limbs and property the past eight years have engendered will have been in vain.

In previous paragraphs I have referred to Machiavelli’s views about human nature, which unfortunately are quite correct in most instances. But there is another side to the human being which was incorporated in a contemporary of his, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536). He is regarded as the Renaissance man par excellence. While he held no illusions about the inherent goodness of human beings, whom he did consider, similar to Machiavelli, thoroughly depraved, his message of how to overcome this condition was different. I shall have more to say about him in future installments, for now I would simply like to draw attention to his 1517 publication, “Querela Pacis” which has been translated as “The Complaint of Peace.” It is available in The Essential Erasmus, translated by John P. Dolan and ought to be read by everyone who is concerned about world affairs.

In this article Peace, speaking in its own name, is genuinely puzzled why people throughout the ages have always preferred war while professing love for peace. This in spite of the fact that war is so much more expensive, unleashes the worst qualities of human beings and once started is difficult to terminate. For Erasmus, as a devout Christian, albeit one who relentlessly criticized the conduct of ecclesiastic authorities, the way out from incessant wars was to heed the message of Jesus. This will strike the modern reader just as “quaint” as the Geneva Convention was for the followers of the neoconservative ideology. Yet, the concept of Jesus as the Christ provided the foundation of what we call Western civilization and needs to be taken seriously. I shall present the reasons why this is the case later this year in book form.

As a final note I would like to let readers know that the next Hot Issue will not appear on July 1 but during the last week of June because I intend to join my colleagues in the celebration of the 100 year anniversary of the International League against Epilepsy which will be held in the city of its birth, Budapest, June 28-July 3.