Absolute Power: A Warning for Victory
By Thomas Posted in Elections — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have in my hand a copy of The Virtues of War: A Novel of Alexander the Great. It is a magnificent book, and that is not a statement I make lightly.
It is also directly relevant to where we -- America, conservatives, the Republican Party, any and all of these three -- stand right now.
How?
Read on.
(Before I go any farther, I note that a less politically relevant review is posted back on my home blog here.)
Virtues is a first-person novel of Alexander's spoken autobiography, basically told in the last short years before his early demise. (His biography can be found here.) The story begins, in classic epic fashion, in media res, with Alexander the head of the greatest Empire ever known, but with his men unable to keep up with his unyielding ambition for kleos, and tracks, from the beginning, haphazardly through Alexander's life, more or less continuously, with returns to the narrative present, each time teaching a different "virtue" in war.
Why is this relevant to the conservative project, to the Republican Party, and America?
It is easy, now, as Americans, to turn to triumphalism: We are unmatched, the world over. No nation could stand against us. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure a coalition of nations could. We are preeminent, not merely in war, but in commerce, in culture, in hegemony. Insofar as the Soviet Union was ever a match for us -- and, as Ronald Reagan long suspected, she was not -- we have outstripped our greatest rival as surely and as well as Alexander outstripped Darius, the Emperor of Persia. Truthfully, the terrorist networks and small dictators we face cannot kill us; they can but badly wound us before we annihilate them. But it is not in the American character to leave a challenge or threat, once identified, standing; we must conquer it.
It is easy, as Republicans, to turn to triumphalism: Our political enemies (whom I stress are assuredly not our actual, life-and-death enemies) are so thoroughly whipped that they are having trouble figuring out what it means to be a Democrat, and why being a Democrat has become electoral poison; utterly isolated, electorally; and, quite frankly, probably headed on a sharp decline for the foreseeable future. We still remember too well the long six decades of the New Deal, when the Republican Party could be easily defined as "Democrat Lite," and, quite honestly, want to do the same thing to our former tormentors. (Fortunately, they seem to be doing it for us: Somewhere, manufacturers of the world's smallest violins are ramping up production.)
It is hard -- even for folks given to constant pessimism, as we frequently are -- for conservatives not to be over-proud, for our opponents have reacted (or at least some have) to abject humiliation by descending into paranoid madness, and accusing over half of their countrymen of the worst sins (they can imagine). As the battles over abortion, marriage, and indeed, our nation's whole cultural attitude are slowly showing, we are winning. We're actually winning. And the Left knows it, and rails in impotent fury.
And in all of those is the danger, both internally and externally. We face the same, twin dangers Alexander did: Of allowing our fire, our inner spirit, our pride, our possession of overwhelming power, to corrupt us from the inside -- a battle Alexander fought to varying degrees of effectiveness; and of allowing that fire to bank, and leave us cold, with no strength to push our majority farther, to accomplish those same ends that Roosevelt managed seven decades ago.
Externally, Alexander's daimon, and his growing embrace of it, lead him to conquests such as no man had ever dared dream. It drove him over ten thousand miles from the place of his birth, in a time when speed of horse or a fast trireme was the best one might accomplish. By land mass, it has had few peers; in the cultures and civilizations conquered, it has had perhaps four equivalents, in the Soviet Union, the Mongol Conquests, the Roman Empire, and China at her greatest reach.
And it drove Alexander to accomplish terrible things, to attack those who not only had done him and his no harm, but who had never wanted to do him harm. Conquest became an end in itself. Alexander lived a constant struggle to live up to the virtues described in Virtues, and while his adherence could yield spectacular successes, his failures could carry terrible consequences.
I do not draw, as some would, an analogy to Iraq here. Even if we assume Iraq was no immediate threat to us, only the most benighted would argue that she intended no harm to us. Rather, I make this point:
If it is true, as Victor Davis Hanson and others have argued, that democracies are the most dangerous of adversaries, because though slowly roused to war, once roused, they are absolutely unrelenting, then we must be terribly careful in the next several years. As easy as Alexander found it to march across untold leagues, dispatching his enemies virtually without fail, we would likely find it easier (Afghanistan proved winnable for us, where it could not be for Alexander); as we have the moral weight of democracy behind us, perhaps even more compelling than the dream of kleos that spurred Alexander's army forward time and again.
It may be right to subdue much of the world, and force them, as best as we can, to choose between benighted primivism and some sort of self-determination that won't have them attempting to blow us up; the old post-Westphalian realism seems to have accomplished precisely nothing in that regard, and pure Wilsonian liberalism has been as ineffective. But each step must be taken carefully, remembering our basic principles, not only so that "the terrorists will not have won," but so that we do not forget ourselves in the winning. History is replete with nations and individuals who bet large, won large, and lost themselves. In Virtues, Alexander pushes his men past the point of exhaustion, because he becomes more and more convinced that this is his destiny; in the process, he loses much of who and what he was. As the world, and our country, become more unipolar, it behooves us to watch that example very carefully.
In short, this book is a good primer for non-policy wonks who want a graphic illustration of the promises and pitfalls of power. For the rest of us, it's a great read, and a great reminder. For a conservative given to some gloating these days, it's a (needed) reminder that under heaven, nothing is permanent.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Twenty-Five Reasons to Enjoy the Weekend — Comments (29) »
Absolute Power: A Warning for Victory 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The "Brightness and Allure" of power has no enemies, only friends, as it pleasingly blinds all in the exact same way.
The eloquent and historically well-grounded points you make so well in this article, I would also caution you that this illusion of overwhelming power itself is not necessarily so, especially given the narrow victory margins Bush carried in many battleground states (as well as the ones he lost by). In fact, I'm worried about exactly the opposite happening: that complacency will accrue from this victory, which was decisive but in many senses narrow, and will cause us to turn away from realizing that the United States probably faces as many people who wish to radically reorganize our society along Socialist lines from within, not from without:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15852
I'd say Democratic Underground has declared itself my enemy, since they won't let anyone register as a new user to participate in their 'democracy', and haven't for the past couple of days. If they're so convinced of the power of debate and exegesis to change minds for the good, why haven't they allowed anyone to register at their site for the past three days?
That's exactly what they tried to do to me right here. As you can see there is literally no way to stop it if it's public, And if it's not public, then it's no longer valid nor does it have much impact.
You can go and it if you want. Tell me who and where they are, and I assure you, you have a friend in that issue and will do what I can, if it's really important
Amos,
Sorry about my last post, I made some blanket statements and you rightly called me on them, by the way my moral high horse's name is "Skippy"
Sounds to me like Democracy is the enemy of peace based on the article. I not sure what the basis of the unrelenting nature of Democracy during war statement is, but given how unpopular the Iraq war is and that the country almost changed it's mind last week, it doesn't seem to apply currently. Kerry himself said he would have done everything different regarding Iraq, why would that not apply if he had been elected? My point is that it seems Democracy is much more reasonable than a dictator the likes of Alexander.
Thanks for the brilliant and articulate piece of writing. I think I agree with the spirit of it. It is important, however, that it not be read as an excuse for complacency. The Left is back on its heels on many fronts and without a solid Governmental base of operations. Their only enclaves are the MSM, entertainment, and academia. This is the time to press our advance.
As far as Specter... dealing with him is not so much about some quest for ideological purity. If that had been the consensus, then he never would have survived his primary. This is about not having a Lt. in your forces that is just waiting to stab you in the back. If he had not shown a near historic level of arrogance in his post election ideological grandstanding, then perhaps we could expect him to be a team player and not an entirely self serving egoist. Alas, pride goeth before a fall.
I would hope that we can continue this rapid, thoughtful activism and work toward a more strategic vision of how to bring real alternatives to the majority for their news needs, entertainment needs, and academic institutions. We need more Red in more places. A great deal of the acceptability of the Left's radicalism of the past year was due to the "fashionability" of it. Losing, however, is not fashionable. There is likely 10-15% of this country that can still be reached and brought into pragmatic, conservative consensus if the influence of those enclaves are rolled back further.
Tyre may have fallen, but we have many battles to go. When we have truly won by liberating these remaining institutions from the one sided dominance that currently allows so many falsehoods to be accepted, then we should return to this post and remember the lesson spoken here. When the Democratic party has collapsed from the hollowness of elitist culpable ignorance on the critical issues of our time and a new party has emerged that provides real ideas and principled leaders for our country to consider, then we can return here and print this post and hang its message on a wall near to us.
We will need these ideas someday, but not yet. We have to finish the work first.
Thanks for this very thoughtful essay, Thomas.
I would also suggest the Peloponnesian wars as a fruitful subject for studying, among other things, the strains that an aggressive foreign policy puts on a democratic state.
Cheers -
It sounds suspiciously like the opposition you're looking is also one that shares your worldview. That seems kind of pointless to this leftazoid.
No, the opposition I look for is one that shares the same global goals for America - not one that sees American power in the world as a source of great concern and worthy of more attention than the many oppressive regimes which profit from the current world order. I look for one that does not suspect my motivations, character, or intelligence because I have a method to reach some goals - educating children, providing healthcare, defending America - that differs from them.
I have a good friend who is a transplanted Conn. liberal. In many way's he's a Tony Blair style Democrat. He was, however, against the Iraq war, supports a roll back of the President's tax cuts, and is pro-choice. Even though we disagree on most things, I can honestly say that we have most of the same global goals for America. We just have different ideas about how to get there. That is what "the opposition" is about. It's not about assuming I'm stupid for holding my beliefs or about considering the US evil, oppressive warmongers for preemptively dealing with threats from know supporters of terrorists who butcher their own people and role them into Mass Graves.
At some level, I suppose you have a point in that they would have to "share my worldview" in the sense that I think that some global set of values need to be in common. The only values I see strongly held by the current opposition is the self serving acquisition of personal power. In other words, there is no soul to it - just the arrogant presumption that they should rule and we are stupid and deficient for not electing them. The elements I look for in the opposition would treat those who hold a reasoned position against them with respect and would not seek to throw into doubt truths and facts that both sides need to make a mature decision.
Two examples of this are the obsession with of the Left that the President "lied about WMD in Iraq" and "Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda." Both of these tenets of faith are truly lies that give simple points to rally support, but require the dismissal of evidence that is absolutely essential to consider and accept to create a reasoned policy. The FACT that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and that the entire global intelligence community believed he had WMD is essential to agree on before we can have a reasoned discussion about whether the policy of preemption is wise or feasible.
The current opposition party (with the support of the mainstream media) has advanced its agenda by throwing critical facts into doubt to advance their pursuit of power. They are not worthy of any leadership or even to be listened to until they reengage with facts and defend their policies with respect to those facts. There are Democrats who do this, but they do not lead the party. I do not see them ascending in the near term. That is why the Democrats are not trusted by the majority of the American people.
This will change. It is only a matter of how. I wasn't sure before this election how fast it would change. I suspect now, that the depreciation of Media authority and Democratic electoral power will continue until they hit a rock bottom. Some type of DLC movement would have to emerge (again), but I'm not sure that is in the cards. I'm not sure how it's going to play out, but I think with enough pushing, it will play out over the next 8 years.
I regret this. We need good ideas at the table and voices for all of the sides. Instead, we are debating over the goodness of American intention in the world. We are debating over the facts, not policy. America choose W's facts. That is where we are. If we had a debate over of policy vs. facts, that would be progress. We haven't had a debate with common facts since the 1992 campaign. 2004 is the logical consequence of the American people realizing that they are safer with those that accept critical facts than those that deny them because they undermine their easiest path to political victory. I see this as more of a beginning than an end.
Thus, my earlier post.
Doctor -
No worries concerning your last post. I owe you an apology as well for the antagonistic tone of my reply.
Best -
I'm not trying to be rude, but are you saying that I was saying Democracy is our enemy? Or at least the enemy of peace?
The "unrelenting" bit is a historical study of how democracies tend to prosecute wars. Contrary to the Left's latter-day fantasies, most folks' discontent with Vietnam, for example, stemmed from the fact that we refused to use unyielding force in that war's prosecution. MacArthur was enormously popular for openly bucking Truman's desire to limit the conflict in Korea (although I agree with Truman's decision to cashier the insubordinate s.o.b.). Democracies -- especially the United States -- tend to see war as a thing to be engaged in only reluctantly, but once begun, to be prosecuted with very little hesitation and very little scruple. (Insert bit about the bloodthirstiness of the masses here.)
Kerry appealed to the only competing strain in our democracy, isolationism. I suspect that a majority of the country is isolationist at heart. It says something, though, about our preferences, that M. Kerry lost.
Dictators -- of which Alexander was only nominally one, as you'd see if you picked up the book -- can call a halt to war at will. They can begin or end them. For a democracy, war is like riding the lightning: Once you're on, its danged hard to get off.
Thomas -
"Contrary to the Left's latter-day fantasies, most folks' discontent with Vietnam, for example, stemmed from the fact that we refused to use unyielding force in that war's prosecution"
I'm somewhat reluctant to open, once again, the Vietnam can o' worms, but I'm curious -- how old are you (roughly)? I don't remember it that way....
Thanks -
I have only years of reading opinion polling and competing anecdotes from the time on which to rely.
I also have Nixon's popularity (God help us all) every time he engaged in large shows of military force.
I also have Nixon's annihilation of McGovern when half of the country allegedly hated him and hated Vietnam (the war, nor the country) unreasoningly. (Sound familiar?)
But for that, you might be right. I suspect it's a matter of culture: In the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, it may have been that most opposed the war; in Texas, most folks still want to go back and finish the job. I'm from the latter, and assuredly not the former.
Thomas -
I was actually living in NY at that time. Opinion there was divided, along the demographic lines you might expect. It definitely was a division along cultural lines.
If folks think the country is divided now, they should take a little trip in the way back machine to 1972.
One question I always have -- as I recall, in terms of the sheer ordinance we were throwing at the country, we were beating the living tar out of Vietnam. From a military point of view, short of nuking and paving the whole country, what more was there to do?
Cheers -
Throw as much ordinance as you like, until you put boots on the ground, and apply maximum power at the point of attack along the whole campaign, all you're doing is engaging in mass killing and wasting perfectly good high explosives. Vietnam, as waged, was like the Allied initiative in World War II until the end of 1943: Lots of airpower, no thrust. We didn't start actually winning the war until we started taking and consolidating territory. Had any one of the Presidents of the time had the [parts], we would have used the structural decimation of the Tet Offensive as our opportunity.
That's actually a good answer, and the first one I've ever gotten to that particular question.
Thanks -
Do you think China ever threatened the U.S. quietly behind closed doors about getting to close to thier border and also causing a refugee problem they didn't wan to inherit. More or less what they did in Korea, but just didn't tell us that time? I'm just asking not saying it as fact.
My point was I thought you were saying democracies are dangerous to peace, not to us.
Ok, I see what you are saying concerning the unrelenting nature of the bloodthirsty masses, considering that, does it not innsuate that democracies are dangerous to peace as they may tend to be moving toward war when faced with conflict? What I am saying is that due to the Isolationist nature of this country(I think that is a true statement) and the mob theory(bloodthirsty masses) that we are telling ourselves to stay out of it, but completely ready to totaly destroy our enemy, with the caveate that is prosecuted properly. Throw in your comment about our tendacies concerning Kerry's lost and past presidents, and we are moving towards war, at least currently.
The Isolationist position is an important piece I haven't heard lately and there is a long history of that position in this country.
I will pick up the book, sounds facinating.
That being said,
Destory Specter!!!!!!!!!!