Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Walter Russell Mead has gotten some play on these pages, though not as much as deserved (and it is a stain on our conscience that he is not linked here more often). In addition to writing about the collapse of the antiquated Blue Social Model, he teaches a course in Grand Strategery, and fills us readers in. Here he gives us a wide-ranging tour de force on Machiavelli, which wore out my leather-bound, gilt-edged pages and tattered the silken place-marker. Read the whole thing, but let us focus on a particular passage:
Religion teaches Christians that we ought to follow Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount, but it is very hard to square that teaching with the necessities of international politics. It is not even easy to square it with the kind of driving ambition and tactical ruthlessness required for a successful political career in a democratic society. The teachings of Christ might persuade someone to avoid a political career; they offer only very incomplete guidance about how leaders should operate.
The civic values of the western tradition, by contrast, are heavily focused on the virtues that make nations great: patriotism, military and political courage, incorruptibility, a capability for ruthless action for the common good. There is some overlap between these virtues and the Christian ones, but the two sources of moral inspiration on which our culture has historically drawn are often at odds with each other.
I've often thought that Christian teachings are for individuals (turn the other cheek being the most glaring example), but that the ruler or President who follows them is guilty of indulging himself at the expense of his first duty, which is to his people. When you take on the duty of national leadership, you can't afford to put your own soul ahead of the welfare of your charge. That way leads Edward the Confessor and Henry VI.
What say you?
- Comment (83)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Excellent post, and this question has dogged me for years.
Jesus asks us to become like him and follow the martyrs path. Needless to say, most people can't and won't go all the way with that request. National leaders must never lead their people to martyrdom unless it's the national will to do so. Not bloody likely!
Therefore, a middle ground must be found where the chess game of state is played with a minimum of criminal behavior and a maximum of charitable action. The national interest must always come first.
This is the big difference between Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter, who wanted to martyr us.
May '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Ha! Yes, the Donald is probably a student of Machiavelli (and one of WRM's earlier offerings, Sun Tzu; the two make a lovely gift pack). Mead covers a lot of topics in this essay, but the theme is that Machiavelli has moral values. He's not an advocate of reflexive malevolence.
The tension between the Civic Virtues of the Roman Republic and Christianity came to glaring light in Renaissance Italy. The idea that Christ's teachings are for us poor schlubs and not for nations was something I always figgered, but nice to have it so well explained.
May '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
And Mead, we should here note, is a very committed Christian, if you read his stuff. Not an ivory tower atheist. So this is something about which he has thought deeply.
Mar '11
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Part of the problem is reading the Sermon on the Mount apart from the context of the rest of scripture. In one instance, Jesus told his disciples to take up their swords,(apostles first missionary journey). In another, he called King Herod a "fox" (clever and predatory). He never demanded that a follower to resign from the military (Roman centurion) or renounce their political beliefs (Simon the Zealot). In Romans 13, Paul is clear on the point that governments are put in place by God to punish those who do wrong.
As to the admonition to "turn the other cheek" the point is to allow an adversary a second chance to do the right thing, not to absorb more punishment to prove you are a squishy pacifist.
Sep '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Very interesting, but I may need to educate myself before commenting. Just one thing that I see in my ordinary life. There are things well beyond the control of men, even powerful men (in the whole of humanity sense). It is in those things that I find Christian philosophy most comforting, complementary, and wise.
Aug '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Gus Marvinson: ... Jesus told his disciples to take up their swords,(apostles first missionary journey). In another, he called King Herod a "fox" (clever and predatory). He never demanded that a follower to resign from the military (Roman centurion) or renounce their political beliefs (Simon the Zealot). In Romans 13, Paul is clear on the point that governments are put in place by God to punish those who do wrong.
As to the admonition to "turn the other cheek" the point is to allow an adversary a second chance to do the right thing, not to absorb more punishment · Apr 9 at 7:27am
Very true. Jesus says different things to different people, knowing that there can never be a "one size fits all" religious system. He tells the people assembled around him, regarding the Centurion Cornelius "I tell you, I have not found such great faith, no, not in Israel."
We're all on earth to perform the tasks we have talents for. As it says in Ecclesiastes, "To everything there is a season... a time to plant and a time to reap... a time for war and a time for peace..."
May '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
The apostles carried swords (see the scene of Christ's arrest)... probably to defend themselves against bandits while travelling. Jesus did not reject all violence or force. He was against revenge and tribalism (hating people not like oneself).
Well said, Gus and River.
Jun '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
What is moral and just on a personal level may on a national level be evil. Just imagine the results of my personally forgiving the murderer of someone close to me translated to national scale where every murder is forgiven and set free. Christianity demands an individual relationship with Christ not a "group' or national relationship.
Jun '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
I would only add that Machiavelli is all about power over others; Christianity is all about power over self. Big, big difference.
Jun '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Well said, Cas, on both comments. I also agree with most of the above comments -- really some excellent insights.
Regarding your individual role as a government official, it depends on what you signed up for. In America, we must swear allegiance to the Constitution and that must become our Bible for that job. If one sees the Constitution as being at odds with one's own beliefs then that person should decide whether to seek office or not based on one's own conscience. Once the job is accepted, though, it is one's Christian duty to carry it out with scrupulous attention to the rules of the compact made with the people who offer the job.
As an example, this applies to people who are against capital punishment. Governors come to mind. If they sign up for the job, then signing a death warrant is required to carry out not just the will of the people but also the will of God for you as a believer. Your own opinions on capital punishment do not enter into it. You should resign if you cannot carry out the duties of your office. Take your solemnly sworn oaths seriously.
May '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Some great points here. I would point out that, in the context of the time, all you had were bloviating treatises urging rulers to be suckers. Damaging to their countries and people. So Machiavelli shook his head and said you gotta be kidding me. As if Lorenzo De Medici didn't already know the other stuff was a short path to execution and disembowelment in the public piazza.
Here is Francis Urquhart reading the opening dedication. That'll get you in the mood to go on a backstabbing jaunt. "To understand the nature of Princes, one must be one of the People."
Jul '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Why don't we ask Carol Sue Shields and four Seattle policeman whether it's a good idea for, say, a Governor of Arkansas to consult his Christian conscience about paroling violent criminals?
Oh, wait. We can't. Because they're dead - courtesy of Mike Huckabee's merciful preening.
Sep '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
I say you need to read more James Schall, SJ:
Edited on Apr 9, 2011 at 2:39pmMay '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Pseudodionysius: I say you need to read more James Schall, SJ:
Edited on Apr 09 at 02:39 pm
Apr 9 at 2:39pm
Yes, yes, but you go to war with the army you have. I know many libs who have beautiful ideas, dependent on human nature suddenly changing. Good luck to them, they'll need it.
Dec '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Not a student of Machiavelli here, sad to say, but I might be able to contribute to the discussion on the matter of struggling with personal versus public morality. But we should really call Ricochet's own Andrew Klavan who had something to say about it in Empire of Lies!
Jesus was neither a wimp nor a pacifist. As my priest likes to say, if he had been, he'd never have gone to the cross. There's an interesting cultural aspect to "turn the other cheek" we often miss. From Mt 5:39..."But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." As most people are right-handed, to be struck on the right cheek meant a back-handed blow. In Jewish culture, an open-palmed slap was especially insulting, so offering "the other cheek" (the left) was more of a challenge than a passive response. The contemporary equivalent would be responding in words, "Oh, yeah? Try it on the this side." It gives the offender the chance to redeem himself by backing off while also conveying strength in your own position.
Feb '11
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
River: Excellent post, and this question has dogged me for years....
National leaders must never lead their people to martyrdom unless it's the national will to do so. Not bloody likely.
Hitler was chosen by the German people to lead them to world conquest or martyrdom.
It can happen.
Dec '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
I also think we Christians make this love of God thing too complicated sometimes. Love of God is love of good. If we are courageous in this love, we combat evil. The battle takes many forms, sometimes within, sometimes without, and when it involves risking our own salvation for the sake of others, we have to trust that God will be merciful. It is a profound way to sacrifice oneself (lay down one's eternal life) for a friend. I think that was Klavan's point, but maybe we can coax him to answer.
Where I think the social justice crowd goes astray is their "intoxication with their virtue" (can't remember who coined that). Somehow the "common good" is always served by equalizing outcomes -- by trusting "good government" to play Robin Hood rather than sacrificing for the poor ourselves. It is a prideful, and I would argue, mortally perilous outlook.
Edited on Apr 9, 2011 at 4:01pmMay '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Yes, we typically don't look to Hitler as a shining example.
Beautiful point. I think Mead is right, but we also tend to whitewash Christianity to make itall sweetness and light. Like the Conscious Men of Epicopalianism.
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
This is an interesting post and the comments are interesting as well. The original post and some of the comments seem to be expressing the opinion that a ruler might risk his salvation if he applies the Christian ethic of turning the other cheek to the national level. I disagree on several levels.
First, I don't think turning the other cheek requires pacifism either individually or collectively. There is plenty of scripture to support the ideas of self defense of just wars, which you're probably familiar with. Even the "turn the other cheek" admonition referred to a personal insult more than bodily harm. So while I'm sure many disagree, I don't think there is a conflict between a ruler's duty and the moral duty of the individual. The sovereign God whose morality we're discussing isn't inconsistent.
Second, even if there were some kind of conflict, I don't think you lose your soul or salvation by some immoral act, provided you have saving faith in Jesus Christ. I'm an evangelical Christian and Catholics may disagree with this, I'm not sure.
Dec '10
Re: Machiavelli vs Jesus, the Rematch
Could you filll me in on the reference in that last sentence? I didn't catch what you were pointing to.