On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:22:34 -0000, "€ Dr. Artaud €"
wrote:
The Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli
I suspect that most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli,
nevertheless, it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been
accepted, praised, and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White
House and his precepts are blindly adopted by the so-called
“Christian” Dominionists. Kevin Phillips tells us in his masterful
book, American Dynasty that Karl Rove, political strategist for
President George W. Bush, is a devotee of Machiavelli, just as Rove’s
predecessor, Lee A****er had been for the elder Bush.[26] In fact,
there has been an incredible effort to dilute the immoral implications
of Machiavelli’s teachings. Today’s best apologist for Machiavelli is
one of the most influential voices in Washington with direct
connections into the oval office.
Michael A. Ledeen was a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic
and International Studies and a counselor to the National Security
Council and special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander
Haig in 1985. His relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least
to the early 1980’s.[27] Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for
military intervention in Nicaragua and for assistance to the Contras.
(Ledeen was also involved in the Iran-Contra affair.)[28]
Today, in 2004, Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative think
tank, the American Enterprise Institute and according to William O.
Beeman of the Pacific News Service, “Ledeen has become the driving
philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the
military actions it has spawned.”[29]
Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show during the
1980’s. Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson
interviewed him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion:
“What would you recommend if you were going to advise the President
[Ronald Reagan] as to foreign policy?”
Ledeen responded:
“The United States has to make clear to the world and above all to its
own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then we must make it
clear to everyone that we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to
defend those interests, so that people will not cross the lines that
are likely to kick off a trip wire.” (Emphasis added.)
If Ledeen’s advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellian—it may be because
it is Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes the
existence of something or several things that are life threatening to
the nation by the use of the word “vital.” Yet Ledeen asserts that
which is life threatening must be made manifest or defined. If an
interest must be defined, then it is not apparent; yet the nation will
nevertheless ask its sons and daughters to fight and die for something
that is not apparent. Therefore, whatever “interests” Ledeen wanted to
be defined, cannot have been vital interests, which are apparent—so in
reality he advised the President to call discretionary interests
vital—which is a lie.)
Be aware that Ledeen is in complete accord with Machiavellian
thinking. And so is Pat Robertson.[30] Robertson agreed to virtually
every nuance Ledeen presented. In fact, it’s not clear which of the
two first proposed invading Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the
1980’s,[31] a refrain that also echoed in the reports of the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the major homes for
neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen and Robertson targeted the same
nations that PNAC lists as America’s greatest enemies in its paper,
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (published in September 2000.)[32]
In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership:
Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five
Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin’s Griffin, N.Y. 1999.)
Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents a
modern Machiavelli:
“In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may
have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made
Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are
drawn to him still…” (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
“Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than
war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph
of evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the
victory of a good cause.” (p. 93)
Ledeen clearly believes “the end justifies the means,” but not all the
time. He writes “Lying is evil,” but then contradictorily argues that
it produced
“a magnificent result,” and “is essential to the survival of nations
and to the success of great enterprises.” (p. 95)
Ledeen adds this tidbit:
“All’s fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill
your heart’s desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!” (p.
95)
William O. Beeman tells us about Michael Ledeen’s influence. Writing
for the Pacific News Service he says:
“Ledeen’s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz…He basically believes that violence
in the service of the spread of democracy is America’s manifest
destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of
the American occupation of Iraq.”[33]
In fact, Ledeen’s influence goes even further. The BBC, the Washington
Post and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times report that Michael
Ledeen is the only full-time international affairs analyst consulted
by Karl Rove.[34] Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove. The
Washington Post said, “More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas faxed
to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric.”[35]
|