Dog Eat Dog World: Dirty Hands Are Necessary

    I strongly believe that it is OK to dirty your hands as a politician as long as the ends justify the means. Following the neo-classical model, it is important for a politician to learn how not to be good because I believe that it is a dog eat dog world. If a politician fails to take devious actions because they are against his morals, then someone will walk all over him who is willing to do it. As long as one's actions have the states best interest in mind, then it is acceptable to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end goal.
      

 I myself am not a very religious person and am not against sinning in the position of a politician. If a person thinks that sin should never be committed in life, then that person should not be a politician. In order to be a strong politician, a person must be bold and adaptable as well as always being one step ahead of everyone else; and if the only way to get one step ahead is through strategic amoralism, then so be it.

       Personally, I do not care if my leader is a nice person with a kindred spirit. What I look for in a leader is a strong person who is willing to do whatever is necessary to ultimately benefit the state. There is no being nice in politics. The nice guy is the guy who is easily manipulated and gets taken advantage of. Everyone always has their own self-interest at hand and if a person isn't willing to do wrong things to put him ahead, then he will fall behind.

I do not think it's important to actively threaten your citizens with physical punishment in order to instill fear in them. That's what laws are for; they serve as a threat to the people, which is what keeps them in place.

As far as the moral issue is concerned, I'm not saying that being evil is how a person ultimately ends up successful. I am saying that as long as the 'good' that comes out of the situation outweighs the 'bad' that is put into it, then it is acceptable. If you are able to get the job done and be successful, your people will learn to love you whether or not you act immorally or unethically.

Why the Machiavellian Theory Does Not Work for Large Scale Societies

The Bolshevik Revolution led to a new government in Russia  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/leninandbolshevikrevolutionrev1.shtml)

As a student of history, we always hear about monarchies and large scale societies that have fallen due to uprisings or virtual disarray and essentially they fall apart. We see Russia when they both had czars and communist leaders, fall to a new government through the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and perestroika and glasnost in the 1980's that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the end of 1991. We saw a great monarchy of England fall first in 1215 with the creation of the parliament due to the Magna Carta. While the monarch still had control of the country, he needed to consult with Parliament. The consultation of parliament led to arguments and the Civil War in 1642 that led to military rule by 1651. When the monarchy was reinstated it met its demise in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution that put the king in little to no control with a constitutional monarchy. France, Spain, and Germany all had monarchies or at one point that was based off of the principals that Machiavelli wrote about in The Prince, and at some point they all did fall. While we do see countries like China, Cuba, and North Korea survive off communism that has totalitarian roots and has Machiavellian principals, they do have their fare share of problems. What is the point I am getting at?

The beheading of Louis XVI led to a new government in France that was democratic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/leninandbolshevikrevolutionrev1.shtml)

Totalitarian rule does not work on a large scale system. As you can see, these are all large scale countries with a lot of people and a lot of land to govern over. While the ruler is looking out for the people and is trying to do what is best for the people, at times the people do not want to be imposed on these rules. Part of it was back then there was no such thing as cars and planes so in order to reach the people you needed to go on horseback or if it was late enough, you drove by train. These people all the way in the corners of the country may not receive news until days or weeks later. Why listen to someone when they are so far away from you? You might as well at that point govern yourself. Also, they were in a time where new ideas were going around. People latched on to these ideas and knew that their government was not treating them fairly and wanted a new government or reform. The monarchy tried in its power all that they can to quell these ideas of democracy and human rights but at times they just angered the people which led to revolt. In the case of Germany, Hitler led his totalitarian government to his own demise. He was trying to do what was best for himself and his people, but his ego got in the way. He fought a two front battle and in the end, his country fell apart and he ended up dead in a bunker. Both the Russian revolution and the dissolution of the USSR as well as the end of the French monarchy had to do with money issues. The inability of leadership and new ideas from leaders also led to their demise. But why can't one ruler control all of these issues to lead to a happy and successful country?

As one ruler, he needs to control everything that goes on in his country. Even though he has people that tell him what the country wants, he cannot serve all of the people in the country and everyone's interest. He has to make decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country. By not serving the rights of other people and not voting on laws like a democratic society, someone is going to be angered by the results. You cannot vote out the ruler so he can essentially do as he pleases while angering his constituents. After years of pissing people, there will be discontent that can lead to a revolt. Large scale monarchies can not control everyone and cater to everyone's needs. Since the ruler can not cater to the ruled, it creates dissension and can lead to revolt.

Also, new technology can play an impact in the way countries fall. New ideas and new technologies lead to the demise of countries. France and the Russian monarchy have fallen apart to new ideas such as Rousseau, Locke, Montesquieu and Russia fell to the ideas of Karl Marx. New technology leads to demise of countries as well such as new weaponry and cars and planes and trains. It helps new ideas spread and helped connect conspirators to help lead a revolt.

Monarchies and Machiavellian principles can only work in small scale societies. Countries like Brunei, Oman, Qatar, and Swaziland have worked because they have such a small area to control it is easier to control and cater to the needs of the people to do what is best for the people. They are also countries that aren't as developed as countries like England, France, and Russia. These countries can keep their monarchy in tact and not worry about revolt for now because they are catering to the needs of the people.

Do you think an absolute monarchy or another form of government can work under a large scale society such as the US and Russia? Do you think there are problems that will arise as well with these societies? Can a small scale Machiavellian society truly survive?

How Universal is Cosmopolitanism?

Nasa image taken from the ISS ( http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080412.html )

To preface, this post is mostly in response to ideas directly brought up in the video of Kwame Appiah explaining the basics of cosmopolitanism. In the video Appiah explains that cosmopolitanism is based on the sharing of ideas among different people of the world, and that cosmopolitans aren't making judgments on others values or asserting that their way is right. This second element of cosmopolitanism, a type of cultural and moral relativism, leads to some logical inconsistencies within cosmopolitanism itself that reveal it to be untenable and poorly conceived.

For people of the world to accept cosmopolitanism, in the way Appiah would have it, takes at least one major presupposition. This being that all individuals of the world are equal and can engage in relationships of mutual respect. When looking at different cultures in the modern world, this value is not even close to being recognized as universal. The caste system and the sexism and homophobia inherent in Sharia law are just two examples of major groups of people that don't accept the value that all people are equal, and are therefore excluded from cosmopolitanism. These cultures are not able to engage in cosmopolitanism since they can't form mutual relationships of respect. If these cultures are excluded, then you just have societies based on western thought left in the discussion. Cosmopolitanism aims to bring people of different values together, but many cultures inherently prevent such relationship from forming, thus rendering cosmopolitanism impossible.

The only way cosmopolitanism could work is if all the different groups agreed on the basic western moral idea that all individuals are equal regardless of sex, race, religion etc etc. Without this, it seems that cosmopolitanism is unable to operate. In conclusion, you could say that either Appiah failed to consider his western bias, or perhaps he thinks that different groups must all agree on at least one thing before being able to discuss their other differences. Either way, cosmopolitanism seems untenable and unrealistic in the way Appiah presents it.

Machiavelli's Leadership Style

I would like to begin by saying that I do not agree with Machiavelli's leadership style. I'd like to believe that through being on the board of several student organizations that I am able to understand what a good leader is. After reading about how he leads people, I am not surprised that he was eventually exiled for a period of his life and lost his position of authority.

Machiavelli's states that being bad is necessary because no matter how good you are there will always be bad people that are around you. I agree with this statement however, I don't think that it serves as a justification for being bad. I think that a good leaders should follow their own principles despite what other leaders may be doing. By also becoming bad, I believe that you are further perpetuating the problem rather than solving it.

Machiavelli explains that excessive leniency leads to chaos on bloodshed. I also disagree with this statement. Many of the most oppressive political regimes such as Iranian monarchy under Shah Palavi, China under Communist rule and Russia under communist rule have all resulted in violent revolutions. I believe that within an organization whether it be within a company, society, or a student organization - individuals thrive in a free environment rather than a restrictive one.

Last of all, I disagree with Machiavelli's idea that it's better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli states being feared is better than being loved because being feared is a result of the leader themselves. If a leader is feared, I believe that fear will lead to hatred and dislike. However, if a leader cares for the individuals they lead then the those individuals will be more productive and supportive in the leader's causes.

Do you agree with Machiavelli's leadership style? What do you think makes a good leader?

Identities

We talked a lot in discussion about what makes up our identities: gender, race, and social systems, but what about other contingent things that affect the way we are treated in society. One of these things I've been thinking about lately is birth order.

There are some studies showing how the first born in a family is more likely to go to college than younger siblings and a more prestigious colleges at that. There is also the stereotype of parents to be more strict on the older children, and become more easy going on the younger children. I can speak from experience when I say this does affect children as they grow up.

I am the oldest of two in my family and it is easy to point out circumstances where I was given higher standards than my sister to follow. Because of this I have exceeded academically throughout my high school career and this is one of the reasons I came to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor as opposed to the Flint campus, which is closer to where I grew up. We don't know where my sister will go to college or what rank she will get in her class, but already I can compare how I was pushed harder by my parents. I was expected to get perfect grades and test scores where my sister isn't held to such high marks.

This difference in how my sister and I were treated is not taught in some social system or part of a social stereotype, so why do they exist? There is a correlation between birth order and children's futures and goals, but where does this come from? Is it engrained in us from birth or is it part of our experience?

Blog 1: Socrates the Man

Since I first learned about him in a Freshman Philosophy class, I have always thought of the great Socrates as nothing more than a pompous ass, who thought he was better than everyone else, and yet would feign ignorance when approached by a member of authority.  For example, in "The Apology" when Socrates is being asked why he thinks that he is the wisest of all men, he explains that it was the oracle of Delphi that told him that he was the wisest man in the land, thus putting the blame on the oracle to cover his ass.

 As much as I dislike his methods and question his philosophical ideas, I have to give him credit for the way he used the trial to his advantage.  Socrates flipped the meaning of the trial; what was suppose to be the conviction of an atheist who corrupted the minds of Athen's youth, turned into the martydom of the greatest philosophical mind Athen's had ever seen.  The trial worked in his favor, allowing him to express his views to the public, and showing that Athen's system of justice being declared by majority rule, was in fact wrong.

This is how I feel about the distinguished philosopher.  He was a manipulative person who would cover his ass when in trouble, yet was a genius when it came to swaying the publics opinion of him.  I now ask you, aside from all the material that gets into how great of a philosopher he was, "how do you feel about Socrates?"

Test Post

This is the blog for sections 8, 10, and 15 of Political Science 101 at the University of Michigan!