Opening the year with Machiavelli

What is a freedom and free government? Let his authority speak for itself:

"Republican governments, more especially those imperfectly organized, frequently change their rules and the form of their institutions; not by the influence of liberty and subjection, as many suppose, but by that of slavery and license; for with the nobility or the people, the ministers respectively of slavery or licentiousness, only the name or liberty is in estimation, neither of them choosing to be subject either to magistrates or laws. When, however, a good, wise, and powerful citizen appears (which is but seldom), who established ordinances capable of appeasing or restraining these contending dispositions, so as to prevent them from doing mischief, then the government may be called free, and its institutions firm and secure; for having good laws for its basis, and good regulations for carrying them into effect, it needs not, like others, the virtue of one man for its maintenance. With such excellent laws and institutions, many of those ancient republics, which were of long duration, were endowed. But these advantages are, and always have been, denied to those which frequently change from tyranny to license, or the reverse; because, from the powerful enemies which each condition creates itself, they neither have, nor can possess any stability; for tyranny cannot please the good, and license is offensive to the wise: the former may easily be productive of mischief, while the latter can scarcely be beneficial; in the former, the insolent have too much authority, and in the latter, the foolish; so that each requires for their welfare the virtue and the good fortune of some individual who may be removed by death, or become unserviceable by misfortune" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: IV: Ch.1).

Closing the year with Machiavelli

I don't have to come up with new arguments, because all of them are already written. I don't have to use new words to explain what takes place in Venezuela, as it takes place in all Hispanic-American republics, regarding political parties, avarice and ambition. What today happens in Caracas, happened centuries ago in Florence and ages ago in Athens. I would like to say that it is art and philosophy, but I'm talking about faction and corruption. I would like to say that is only the government, but it is the same with the opposition parties and factions.

For the sake of the argument, just read city as country, liberty as democracy, and Italy as Venezuela.

"Certainly in the cities of Italy all that is corruptible and corrupting is assembled. The young are idle, the old lascivious, and each sex and every age abounds with debasing habits, which the good laws, by misapplication, have lost the power to correct. Hence arises the avarice so observable among the citizens, and the greediness, not for true glory, but for unworthy honors; from which follows hatred, animosities, quarrels, and factions; resulting in deaths, banishments, affliction to all good men, and the advancement of the most unprincipled; for the good, confiding in their innocence, seek neither safety nor advancement by illegal methods as the wicked do, and thus unhonored and undefended they sink into oblivion.

From proceedings such as these, arise at once the attachment for and influence of parties; bad men follow them through ambition and avarice, and necessity compels the good to pursue the same course. And most lamentable is it to observe how the leaders and movers of parties sanctify their base designs with words that are all piety and virtue; they have the name of liberty constantly in their mouths, though their actions prove them her greatest enemies. The reward which they desire from victory is not the glory of having given liberty to the city, but the satisfaction of having vanquished the others, and of making themselves rulers; and to attain the end, there is nothing too unjust, too cruel, too avaricious for them to attempt. Thus laws and ordinances, peace, wars, and treaties are adopted and pursued, not for the public good, not for the common glory of the state, but for the convenience and advantage of a few individuals.

And if other cities abound in these disorders, ours is more than any infected with them; for her laws, statutes, and civil ordinances are not, nor have they ever been, established for the benefit of men in a state of freedom, but according to the wish of the faction that has been uppermost at the time. Hence it follows that, when one party is expelled, or faction extinguished, another immediately arises; for, in a city that is governed by parties rather than by laws, as soon as one becomes dominant and unopposed, it must of necessity soon divide against itself; for the private methods at first adapted for its defense will now no longer keep it united. The truth of this, both the ancient and modern dissensions of our city prove." (Machiavelli; History of Florence: III; Ch. 1).

Pessimism from Exile

Now that Chavez is, again, moving forward his dictatorial agenda with the recent set of measures regarding the University, freedom of speech through the internet and more measures to reduce private property to nothing more than a concession of his goodwill, I need to express some things.

He is waging the same strategy he uses every single year since the students fully enrolled in the struggle against his tyrannical rule; he is advancing his plans during holidays, where most of the people is interested in having a good time with their families than risking their lives participating in politics. However, today, the 23rd of December a group of students gathered at our Alma Mater (I recently graduated from this University, the main University in our country) to make a protests against Chavez's law of universities that would practically end its existence as such.

The truth is, I'm writing from outside my homeland. I no longer share the danger of fighting for Venezuelan freedom, and I ask my people to continue the fighting whilst I'm comfortably sitting on a couch in North Miami. Why do I keep insisting in Venezuelan freedom if I have already deserted it? It's so easy that I actually feel it's shameful.

However I have my reasons. First, my ties to my country remain strong, even though I have been trying to remain away. But most importantly, I have given enough and taken enough risks in fighting for Venezuelan freedom. As an average person, I grew tired. Call me a coward, but I also have other goals in life that I'm no willing to sacrifice.

Freedom is the most important good for a free spirit and mind. We Westerns lean toward the free spirit. I am no exception. Back home I participated in the common struggle against Chavez tyrannical regime. We all faced the police, the national guard, the regime's gangs, even the military. We faced them, and many times it turned violent; and many times, even though fear sprang strongly in our hearts, we kept on going. As with faith, freedom might be among the only goods worth dying for. We tried to trigger the revolution that would topple the government. We conspired, we tried to organize. We, those that do not believe in the hypocritical and mediocrity of political parties and opposition leaders tried our own way. We failed. We tried to create a third way to oppose the tyranny. The parties and their imbecility poisoned our leadership and excluded those that dissented from them.

We were faced with a dilemma; continuing the struggle led by the most short-sighted mediocre leadership, or give up, which means two things: join the regime or fly out. I chose the latter.

Today I see these students that adamantly keep on fighting the tyranny on a 23rd of December. Somehow I envy them, but I also feel pity for them. On the one hand, having hopes to make freedom prevail by turning martyrs is something praiseworthy. On the other, it seems nothing more than a silly insistence to save a people that does not worth the effort. Nonetheless, my hopes are to see the rising dictatorship of Chavez overthrown by whoever have the strength to do so. One of the few things that I have learned from both books and our personal experience is that revolution for freedom is never achieved without violence, blood and death. Only an extraordinarily civil unrest would trigger any of both a capitulation of the regime, or its final triumph over liberty. No one can deny it, we gave it a try. But life goes on, and people have other goals, other wishes for the future. As most of my friends I am exhausted of trying to trigger Chavez's overthrow. Venezuelan people doesn't seem to be prepared for freedom. Those that do want it and do appreciate it might have to go look somewhere else.

A comment on Machiavelli's Florence

"Wars abroad and peace within the city had caused the Guelph and Ghibelline factions to become almost extinct; and the only party feeling which seemed occasionally to glow, was that which naturally exists in all cities between the higher classes and the people; for the latter, wishing to live in conformity with the laws, and the former to be themselves the rulers of the people, it was not possible for them to abide in perfect amity together" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: II: ch.3)

The enlightening thing about reading Machiavelli is the depth and complexity of content we find commonly in so small fragments. By the end of the 13th century AC, Florence had experience a series of revolutions and counterrevolutions that sprang by the division between Guelph and Ghibelline, the main political line of cleavage in Italian Middle Ages. Nobility was divided between the parties of the Pope and the Emperor, a contradiction that caused war, revenge and hostility within almost all Italian Cities (with the extraordinary exception of Venice). Such an ideological antitheses prevented any kind of patriotic feeling from emerging between Italians, as Imperial armies and the Church's excommunication decrees spread all around the peninsula. The critical vision of Machiavelli regarding the Italy of his time is the reason many consider him one of the fathers of European nationalism, starting the 16th century AC.

But once this line of cleavage started to blur, as Emperors couldn't control the Popes' capacity to incite division, the difference among the nobility also lost meaning. Machiavelli shows an early understanding of class division in society that closely resembles later historic materialism. The natural struggle in any society, our Florentine author is well aware of, consists of social class division, and consecutive party allegiances and revolutions will bear this powerful mark. The materialistic division of society is today difficult to deny, as continually it repeats itself in every case,and somehow Marxism doesn't seem so novel after all.

But what is even more interesting is Machiavelli's final statement. The people is interested in the rule of the law, whilst nobility is interested in power. The class struggles assumes a particularly political nature. It is not about welfare or liberty from the world of needs, but we are in the realm of political freedom. The assumption is that democratic forces in society are inclined toward what the Greeks called isonomia, and we translate as equality before the law. As Marxism, Liberalism doesn't seem that extraordinary. The party of the people sees in the rule of self-imposed law the only guard for freedom, whereas nobility is only concerned with imposing its regime of privileges. The aim is not possessing the means of production, which are only but means to become influential. Controlling political power which is what gives food for pride and glory is the real aim of ambitious domination.

This is a general review of a single fragment in one of Machiavelli's most important works, however not so widely famous. My share with you is just part of our entire reflection of politics and the nature of liberty in the republic.

Why being a Republican?

Recent reflexions have led me to think about the current relevance of being a republican. And by this label let it be know that I talk about the comprehensive political ideology that supports a specific form of government as opposed to all the others, as well as the ethical requirements and consequences of such form of government. This said, for now I'm not talking about the republican party of the United States.

I was rethinking about the relevance of being republican because of the fact that the republic as a political program of form of government has triumphed in the Western world. After centuries of struggles, wars and revolutions, at last republican institutions are predominant in our civilization. We don't have to fight the evils of tyrannical monarchs anymore. All those tyrants are defeated. Here in the United States everyone is republican, in the sense that much more than the average citizen acknowledges, defends and admires the republican constitution of their country. Being a republican, as well as believing in its freedom is something "everyone" honestly claims. There is no need to stress its values against its enemies, all of whom seem to be defeated. Why insisting in defending some principles that are apparently redundant in our times?

The difference between parties is less of a dichotomy of republican against democratic principles. Both parties have lost connection to the real meaning of their names, and they serve now only as labels in the day to day public debate. I insist, both democratic and republican parties are republican in the sense that I explained. And they are because both defend the principles expressed in the constitution of the American form of government. None is supporting the establishment of a monarchy or anything closely resembled. Both are sincerely patriotic. Both defend what is commonly referred as the Democratic Creed. What is their difference then? Not a small one I would say. More accurate names for what they really stand for would be: conservative party for republicans, and liberal-progressive party for democrats. And the difference does not lie in opposed conceptions of the republic. On the contrary, both deeply committed to its creed, in what they really differ is in how the republican form of government should be administered. But the republic itself is never into question. In this sense both are republicans as a matter of principle.

Why insisting today in being a republican then? What difference does it makes? If we are republicans, independently of being conservatives or liberal-progressives, why labeling us with a name that does no say anything peculiar of us? It seems to me that the defense of republican values is never outdated, for thinking so is nothing but the naive idea that the achievements that we conquered are eternal. As time goes by the republican institutions corrode themselves, and windows for new threads open. One of them is the standing professional army, probably the latent and most dangerous force in overthrowing republics. Another is the increase of public apathy or malcontent. A third one is the politicians tendency for corruption. A convinced republican must know that freedom is never fully secured and a committed citizen is always on the watch for potential tyrants and foreign enemies. In this sense republicanism makes a call for constant militancy in the ideas and values expressed in the constitution of our republic.

The democratic party had a name with meaning when it got Andrew Jackson to the presidency, and the vote franchise was extended to all adult males without distinction in property nor class placing them all as equals. The republican party had a name with meaning when it got Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, and the emancipation reform that put an end to the existing dominion of some men over others setting them all free. Democratic equality and republican freedom where both accomplished at the birth of their respective parties. But today it seems that both stand for things totally different. Time made common and usual what once was extraordinary and novel. The meaning of being a republican today lies more in the preservation of that conviction in the values expressed in the constitution of the form of government. But also awareness of the future dangers that the republic's freedom will face, and be ready to stand against them with courage and patriotism. Tyrants are murderers of republics, and there is at least one born every new generation of citizens. It is against that possibility that modern republicanism must stand for, and cut and destroy the possible weapons that might be used against its freedom.

The Issue is Marriage

In the United States there are two main ideological division that group citizens between conservatives and liberals. The economic issues and the social issues. The combination of both divisions give fours possibilities: Socially liberals, federalists (social democrats); socially liberals, anti-federalists (libertarians); socially conservatives, federalists (neoconservatives); socially conservatives, anti-federalists (paleoconservatives). Of course this is a coarse division based on generalities that does not contemplate regional differences, but as political scientist try to do, at least it helps picturing the broad sample of all American citizens. I don't even picture myself easily in this lines of cleavage, but I would say I move between paleoconservatives to neoconservatives. Why? Because more than the economy, the issue for me is social values. And I want to talk about what I consider is the center of the debate between social conservatives and social liberals: the issue of marriage. Every specific issue of the broad debate can be traced back to marriage, and from it it springs to all other branches and specific questions. Marriage can be smelled in abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, education, feminism, religion and secularization, etc.

I'm going to call the institution at hand in the United States (and the rest of the Western Civilization if that's the case) Christian Marriage. This is an institution that we have inherited for thousands of years now. The debate is if it must be preserved as originally was given to us, or the movement of history forces us to change it. The problem of why marriage is so important is that it's the institution we have for the preservation of the species in a general sense, and the continuation of the citizenry in a narrower sense. Through it we defeat death and we engender life. Such an important goal always produces debate in a society as free as ours, as to how should we interpret marriage, its purpose and the role it plays in our society. Naturally the defenders of Christian Marriage, acknowledging its importance for the healthy survival of our society, gather around its defense. The perception that one of the holiest of institutions is in danger of being overrun can even turn them irrational contenders, as it usually happens. For a defender of Christian Marriage, the perspective of losing it to liberal forces seems as monstrous as communism itself, because he/she conceives that institution as the spring of everything beautiful and worth living in life and freedom, and the expectation of losing it produces a profound sadness and anxiety.

On the other side, the opponents of Christian Marriage see in it an institution of repression, first of the woman, but ultimately of the individual. Because Christian Marriage demands a level of abdication of the individual's will, and the effort of working together in an almost compulsory way, liberal individualists see in it the embodiment of intransigence. Because what is more intransigent than an ancient tradition that does not answer back with arguments, but with the immense strength of its ancestral authority? Let us remember that the real individualist distrusts any kind of authority, and only justify it in the extremest of cases. The authority of Christian Marriage is not that clear today. Ergo they see it with contempt and move forward an agenda to undermine it.

In what sense the entire debate of social values move around the issue of marriage? Some common cases will illustrate my point, abortion being the most dramatic one. Marriage as the institution that creates family, the ancestral mean of engendering new life and preserve the species and citizenry of a country, is completely annihilated by the idea of abortion. Abortion is the strongest way out of marriage, for it facilitates premarital sex and takes away the goal for what marriage exists. If the engendering of life can be kept away, why marrying? The modern answer is that the goal of marriage is love. Love is a strictly subjective experience, fundamentally necessary for a happy marriage, but not a strong groundwork for marrying, because we can actually fall in love and love another person in the most extraordinary way without ever marrying. As all subjective experiences, love can fade away as it happens all the time, and then the main column of a happy union collapses, from which what springs is divorce. Even more, love as the goal of marriage is a perfect justification for same-sex couples. The idea that love is not the means for preserving marriage but the goal of it turns the relation upside down in favor of the individual and opposed to the union. Its consequences are seen clearly; that interpretation of marriage is one of the main principles that threaten Christian Marriage in the United States.

The same applies to stem cell research, which is an issue close to abortion. But the strongest advocacy against Christian Marriage resides in the feminist movement. It is true that marriage has a long history of male domination and female repression. But I don't think that such a history justify the war feminism has waged against the institution. Instead of destroying marriage, the promotion of more happy unions might be the most reasonable solutions. Male domination must be eradicated, that is true, but the destruction of Christian Marriage is not a mandatory requirement for that goal. With feminism stands secularization, a very controversial theme these days. The case for the secularization of political institutions is clear, but, in the case of marriage? The belief that God is the supremest authority in sanctioning the union of a man and a woman is very important for a lot of people. It is the strongest argument against divorce, and also the strongest argument in favor of making an effort to fix a demoralized marriage. It takes away from the individual the capacity to choose, because God is a judge no one can get away from. Usually secularization comes together with atheism (not always and not necessarily, but usually).

Education, is it in the hands of the State or is it in the hands of family? If marriage is a holy institution as Christians are led to believe, then the strongest argument goes for family. No better judge and better educator of their child's good than their parents. Secularization thinks otherwise. The State as the supreme regulator of social life chooses what is better to be imparted to the new generations. Christian Marriage as the institution that engenders life loses another space of action (and justification to continue existing) when the State kicks in.

Everywhere I see, the debate between social conservatives and liberals reaches its ultimate consequence in the nature, principles and purpose of marriage in society. The line of cleavage here is strongest than anywhere else, and the ability to reach agreement is close to impossible. The good thing is that in the United States this issue has been discussed by parts, in the different segments of the topic, and not as the center of the whole, which has given some space for compromise.

Live as Seasons in Spengler's words

One of the most beautiful, and also real metaphors that explain all living experiences, from the most basic unit which is the individual life, to the broadest bodies of civilizations, was given to us by the German philosopher Oswald Spengler. A man today forgotten by contemporary thinking and academics, and relegated to the field of history of philosophy as a tangent thinker. I think nothing could be more unfair. The metaphor consist in interpreting every living phenomena with the four calendar seasons. There is in everything that has to do with living things a spring, a summer, an autumn and a winter, that embodies all life since its birth till its death. This metaphor is explicitly in thought as old Goethe (as far as I know. I might be wrong), but the first, and apparently until now the only philosopher that has taken it seriously is Spengler.

The Spring signals everything that comes after birth. Even a human person, when it is born, its first three decades (more or less) are dedicated to learning. And the form and content of this learning determines the shape of the entire life. Whether a person dedicates to sciences, to arts, to business, to politics, to humanities, or whatever; these first years are the moment when all the creative production takes place. It also happens to cultures and civilizations, when a new principle of collective self-consciousness appears in a body of pre-cultured people (what is more commonly, and usually contemptibly called barbarians or savages). What I also called the heroic moment: the stage of culture where polities are still primitive, but a new ethic and aesthetic standard is raised, and a caste of warriors is actively pursuing honor, glory and adventure (the times of the War of Troy for ancient Greece and Rome, the time of Moses and King David for Jews and Semites, the time of the Martyrs for Greek Christianity, the times of Mohamed for Islam, the times of the Crusades for Western Europe, etc.). Spring is where the groundwork for individual and cultural life takes place, and honest religious piety.

The Summer is the moment of plenitude, the period where all the wealth grows, spiritually, intellectually and materially. As it is the warmest moment of the year, it is the period of life with more energy, with more heat. Where the individual develops his/her career to his fullest, and the respective culture gives birth to its greatest artists and thinkers, and usually a moment of religious dogma. Victory and defeat can be definitive in this stage, for, contrary to spring which is the moment of trial and error, a mistake can be devastating. But definitively is a moment of much activity and intensity. All the possibilities laid down at the spring are fully developed at the summer. This is so actual, that even in love relationships and marriages it takes place; the moment when passion is more present and sex is more common. Depending on how well the energies of the period are used, the reserve for autumn and winter will make life, creativity and love prevail. If they are depleted, autumn and winter might be a fast and certain death. If they are wasted, all those energies rotten, and autumn and winter are long, sad, cold and foul smelling.

The Autumn is a moment of soft decline. If all energies weren't depleted in summer, autumn might last. Otherwise winter will be longer. This is the period where a person is getting old, and is enjoying the fruits of his/her life, but with little creative energies to continue to grow. Some new things might be worked, but usually are repetitions or footnotes. Happiness might be more identifiable in autumn, for is the moment where all the efforts of youth are clearly visible. The success of a career, or of a political movement, or of a cultural endeavor, or of a marriage, is visible in autumn. But what seems the pinnacle of life is precisely the signal of the decline. The philosophy of Aristotle for Antiquity or of Kant for Modernity show the ultimate effort of a culture to grow, but it only leads to decay, for all creativity is gone, and only systematic and humdrum thinking is left (Stoicism, Marxism, Positivism, etc.). Not a Plato, but an Archimedes, not a Newton but an Einstein. Autumn, as it signals old age, it also means a lose of faith and hope.

The Winter is nothing more than cold and sour old age. If life was vastly productive, old age might be livable. But in itself, is a lack of life, for it is a lack for energy and productivity. Is nothing but a waiting time for death. Like waiting by the fireplace, not venturing outside, winter is nothing but wait. And it that process we feel lost, because we don't know what to do; because actually there is nothing else to do. Cultures that reach winter are stroke by skepticism. Religion and great ideas no longer convince nobody. And those that still believe do it with a glimpse of fear, not of God, but of the lack of God. Cynicism, crude realism or simply giving up are the typical behaviors of cultures in winter. Marriage or love relationships, when they reach winter, there is a taste of unpleasantness but conformity. Those famous couples that are to used to themselves and don't risk a break up, even though they don't love themselves anymore. That is winter. Those civilizations that indulge in nihilism, because pleasures or suicide are the only things left. That is winter. And for those that want to remain alive, nothing but power and money substitute vaguely the vacuum of the absence of faith, hope and love leave.

I find Spengler's philosophy absolutely compelling, and empirically demonstrable by actual historical and contemporary facts. The problem is that his philosophy is too strong to bear, and even though its exposition seems so reasonable, people usually are too afraid to face the facts. Westerns are too focused on making things work, when actually there is nothing less to work on. Spengler told them that, and they stand in negation. Naive ideas of progress and absolute happiness or freedom are nothing but a long for immortality. In the end life and history is but pure tragedy, and destiny is something that cannot be stopped.