If you're familiar with Niccolò Machiavelli's work The Prince, you know something of virtù. You also know why a leader had better possess plenty of it, and you are aware that it's been in short supply for a long time. You'll be interested to know, then, that it looks like virtù has returned to the White House. If, on the other hand, what you know of Machiavelli is the Cliff Notes version (like, for example, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post) -- and, if you want to consider the use of virtù in the torture situation -- well, then, read on.
First, here are the statements that have become obligatory almost since the day The Prince was published. Machiavelli was a product of his times, and was writing to impress a potential patron. Much of the less than savory aspects of his argument reflects those twin realities. In addition, Machiavelli's arguments in The Prince were deliberately not framed as moral judgments; virtù (which I'll define below) can be a force for good or for evil. The purpose of quite a bit of the nasty stuff is to acquire power, and we have developed an alternative method called democracy since Machiavelli's time. Finally, many seem to get their Machiavelli from BrainyQuote.com, and miss the subtleties of his argument. Here's Ruth:
...[I]f, as Machiavelli advised, it is better for a leader to be feared than loved, it's fair to ask whether Obama has been scary enough. Leave aside Republicans -- among Democrats in Congress, who's afraid of Barack Obama?
Here is the whole passage in question, with my emphases:
Here the question arises: is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa? I don't doubt that every prince would like to be both; but since it is hard to accommodate these qualities, if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved. For it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain. While you serve their welfare, they are all yours, offering their blood, their belongings, their lives, and their children's lives, as we noted above -- so long as the danger is remote. But when the danger is close at hand, they turn against you. Then any prince who has relied on their words and has made no other preparations will come to grief; because friendships that are bought at a price, and not with greatness and nobility of soul, may be paid for but they are not acquired, and they cannot be used in time of need. People are less concerned with offending a man who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared: the reason is that love is a link of obligation which men, because they are rotten, will break any time they think doing so serves their advantage; but fear involves dread of punishment, from which they can never escape.
The part of Machiavelli that Ruth misses is that the objective is paramount; the tactics used to gain the objective are those needed -- no more... no less. Fear is not a prerequisite for results. If passing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act requires no more than a pair of votes -- if it costs you nothing -- well, then, get it done. If you can pass a stimulus package that gives you 90% of what you asked for (and, maybe, you asked for 110% in the first place!), well, consider the cost; if you get enough for the price (or if you can regain some of the cost later), then OK. If you can't immediately get what you want, but you think you can wear down your opponent and get some of it (this is where I think health care reform is going), that's an acceptable tactic. It's the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared. Use fear, if fear must be used. If not, not.
Let's use the Somali pirate standoff as an example. The long-term goal -- eliminating piracy -- could not be accomplished by any immediate action Obama could take. That leaves the next best objective: the safe return of Captain Phillips, which ideally should be done in a way that would not hinder the long-term goal. That ideal is negotiation; however, negotiation is no longer the best tactic if the Captain's life is in clear danger. Hence, the directive from the Commander in Chief was to shoot to kill if that situation arose. Machiavelli would have applauded this plan.
If, as I suspect, Obama is steeped in Machiavellianism, we should expect to see measured actions, neither timid nor aggressive, but resolute. We should expect to be angered by some things he does as often as we cheer other things. We will love some tactics; we will hate others. Sometimes it will be hard to tell from the tactics if the objective is what we think it is, because at a tactical level, too much transparency can be a bad thing -- it can hinder achievement of the goal. (As an aside -- this is precisely the argument defenders of torture make, though they forget the corollary: it's not hard to assume that the worst physical tactics will be used, and to plan accordingly. That renders the entire argument of disclosure moot. Psyops are much harder to guard against, which is why we should prefer their use.) This is the essence of Machiavelli's virtù. There's no easy translation, but a close approximation is the intelligent use of power. We haven't seen that lately; the last President saw power as something to wield outside the system. That method may accomplish some objectives; but in a democracy, extra-system results are nearly always undone later.
Of course, we can expect that Obama will let some of us down on some fronts. It seems obvious to me, but Obama's objectives aren't always going to be our objectives. Still, we must be careful to distinguish tactics from goals. There are likely to be times when the tactic strikes us as something awfully close to a lie. In a perfect world, I would certainly prefer that the two (tactic and goal) be absolutely moral and synchronous; it should go without saying that this is no perfect world.
Let me give you the final words of Machiavelli's chapter XVI:
...I conclude that since men love at their own inclination but can be made to fear at the inclination of the prince, a shrewd prince will lay his foundations on what is under his own control, not on what is controlled by others. He should simply take pains not to be hated.
I suggest that Obama is laying his foundations on what is under his own control, and that's one mark of a potentially great leader: a leader with virtù. In no way am I suggesting that we should assume everything he does is right. Take, for example, the tactics in the torture situation.
Most of us are reading the actions so far as essentially condoning, or at least accepting, the actions of the Bush Administration. I acknowledge that's a fair reading, and may in fact be the correct one. If it is, I oppose it. However, let me sketch a more Machiavellian set of tactics that might be at play here.
In my sketch, I assume some things that might be incorrect, but are not implausible. Obama's primary objective may be to get legislation that makes it harder for this situation to recur, with a secondary objective of prosecution of officials who provided the legal cover. Arrayed against him are some current and former high-ranking CIA officials, many Republican Congresspersons, most of the previous Administration, and some in his own party. He needs also to be mindful that the CIA, run properly, is an integral part of national security. He also remembers his history, specifically that the Iran-Contra scandal produced a hero in Ollie North and left the public unsure where to draw the line on covert activities.
What might Machiavelli do? First, release the memos. Promise no prosecutions against agents, because that provides the opportunity to gain the trust of the CIA rank and file. Let a firestorm build from those opposed to release, and draw out the arguments. Get pressure to build from those who believe that prosecutions are integral (that's us), so that Congress has incentive to act.
That has all happened, of course. What we don't know is what cards remain in Obama's hand. Will agents involved in torture now testify for the closed door Congressional inquiries? Is Eric Holder gathering information for prosecution of higher ups? If Obama has succeeded in gaining both CIA and Congressional cooperation in building a case against Bybee, Yoo, et al., then he's advanced the objectives I posit considerably. He's already provided the media (both types) with lots of grist for the mill, which should help build public opinion to act -- especially if there are solid counter-arguments already lined up to respond to the Michael Mukaseys of the right.
If Obama released the memos without expecting both our reaction and the reaction of the Bushies, well, then, he's a fool. I doubt that he's a fool; therefore, he either plans to ignore the controversy, or he intends to harness it. I don't know which is right; but I'm pretty sure which one Machiavelli would recommend, and I'm hoping that Obama's copy of The Prince is well-thumbed.
The Machiavelli quotes come from The Norton Critical Edition, Second Edition, translated and edited by Robert M Adams, 1992. There's lots of good stuff there in addition to the translation itself.