Harper, Machiavelli and Sparta

Anyone who has paid attention to the Canadian political scene since Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006 would have noticed the emergence of so-called Spartan ‘virtues’ across the country.  Harper’s own self-discipline and robotic dryness, the government’s austerity measures in the light of a militant drive to balance the budget, the shift towards a rather boisterous – as opposed to ‘fair minded’ - Canadian foreign policy, and the pervasive sense of “war psychology” are all key indicators of a country being remade in a Spartan image.

Where does this picture come from?  The answer is: Machiavelli.

While this is not the place to give a full exposition of Machiavelli’s works, it is clear that there is much that Harper has learned from him: for example, “war psychology” and the problem of “evil” (Machiavelli was tortured as a diplomat in his day).[1]   Machiavelli (and Hobbes) look to the art of politics as a secular “science”, a distinct turn towards realism away from the Church dominated Middle Ages (however, Harper’s own indebtedness to Calvinism is a form of Renaissance revisionism – or “Reform-ation” in the Conservative sense).  Looking to the cycles of history, Machiavelli - and Hobbes again, who is more directly influenced by Copernicus - provide similar explanations for the Conservative Government’s constant campaigning: “all human things are kept in perpetual movement, and can never remain stable, states either naturally rise or decline …”[2]

Writing during the period of the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli turned the dial back beyond the Middle Ages - and the so-called Dark Ages before them - to the time of the Roman Republic, and then to Sparta.  In fact his admiration of Lycurgus, the legendary law-giver of Sparta, goes unmatched:

Some have had at the very beginning, or soon after, a legislator, who, like Lycurgus with the Lacedaemonians, gave them by a single act all the laws they needed.  Others have owed theirs to chance and to events, and have received their laws at different times, as Rome did.  It is a great good fortune for a republic to have a legislator sufficiently wise to give her laws so regulated that, without the necessity of correcting them, they afford security to those who live under them.  Sparta observed her laws for more than eight hundred years without altering them and without experiencing a single dangerous disturbance.[3]

Here Machiavelli goes to some length to praise Sparta’s (dubious) 800 year history, but there is little mention of Athens in either The Prince (1513) or The Discourses on Livy (1517).  In The Prince Machiavelli does give a quick nod to Theseus, the mythical founder of Athens who “could never have exercised his energy [virtu] if he had not found the Athenians in confusion.”[4]  But there is no mention of Athen’s famous lawgiver Solon (circa. 600 BC), known for his “middle way” policies between the uber-wealthy and the poor.[5]  In fact Machiavelli seems to expunge Solon (and with him Aristotle) from the history books when he writes “a precise middle course cannot be maintained”.[6] Again, these thoughts against the middle - or the alleged golden mean - are later echoed by Hobbes, and Harper.

Harper, the consummate tactician who borders on being an autocrat, is steeped in quintessential Machiavellianism, wrestling with incumbent Fortune by “slicing and dicing” and giving bread away to the voters, not unlike the Romans.  Electoral success (in the light of, for example, the “Fair” Elections Act and the consequent voter suppression of non-desirables) is reduced to nasty Party science (the only science that counts in Canada these days, by the way).  And it was Machiavelli who was inspired by the ‘virtuous’ model of Sparta (vir being Latin for ‘man’, whose potential is (re)discovered in the Renaissance - meanwhile Canadians suffer under the persona-less rule of one, champion of the light-armoured vehicle).  Go figure that Canada is now largely being remodelled according to Renaissance ideas of Sparta generated from conflict-ridden Italy.

---

[1] See J. Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition: from Leonardo to Hegel (New York: Harper, 1975), pp. 28-43.  This blog entry was inspired by Bronowski and Mazlish’s chapter on Machiavelli.  And by the “Harper Government”.  For the reference to “war psychology” see page 38.

[2] Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius in The Prince, 2^nd ed., Robert M. Adams ed. and tr. (New York: Norton, 1977), p. 97.

[3] Ibid., pp. 91,92.

[4] Machiavelli, The Prince, 2^nd. ed., Robert M. Adams ed. and tr. (New York: Norton, 1977), pp. 16, 17. 

[5] Paul Cartledge, Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 52, 53. See Bronowski and Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition, p. 37.

[6] Machiavelli, Discourses, p. 98.

Flanagan's "Game Theory and Canadian Politics"

The blueprint for today’s Conservative Party can be found in Tom Flanagan’s work Game Theory and Canadian Politics (1998).  The discovery that Harper’s erstwhile mentor has written a book on Game Theory - not a very interesting one, mind you (a selective read is recommended) - makes the evidence of the proverbial smoking gun become clear. Game Theory explains the so-called Fair Elections Act.

This blog first broached Game Theory in my review of Lawrence Martin’s Harperland, and I returned to the matter more philosophically with my discussion of “Harper and Hobbes”. Rather than repeat myself excessively I invite the reader to consult the aforementioned entries, but allow me to point out that Game Theory began  in 1944 with the publication of The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, the joint work of John von Neumann (a mathematical genius) and Oskar Morgenstern (an economist).  It was also later developed by Princeton’s John Nash (“A Beautiful Mind”), for which he won a Nobel Prize.

Stephen Harper would have encountered Game Theory in his study of economics, and this fact has been missed by his many observers – and critics.  Game Theory is also rooted in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, particularly his Leviathan (1651), published in the wake of England’s Puritan Revolution – and the execution of King Charles I in 1649.  Central to both Hobbes and Game Theory is what Flanagan describes as its “Methodological Individualism” which is inherent in “Rational Choice”: “… rational choice is sceptical about speaking of vague aggregates such as ‘society’ or ‘the nation’ because such terms are often used to disguise very real differences among the people who make up the collectivity.”[1]  Game theory argues from the premise of “rational actors seeking to maximize their own self interest”[2] (two questionable assumptions, indeed), and Flanagan twists himself into knots (indicating shallow imagination) over the altruism of Mother Teresa.

According to Game Theory there is essentially nothing but rational self-interest, a rather paranoid vision of the world, which helps to explain Harper’s penchant for secrecy (and John Nash’s bout with schizophrenia).  Game theory also argues that is rational not to cooperate, which implies – logically speaking, of course - that a Game Theorist would never trust his or her Doctor, who must have an ulterior motive.  True to form, Game Theory flouts public health concerns and gives legitimacy to those who avoid vaccinations, dubiously described by Flanagan as “a rational exercise in pursuit of self-interest.”[3]  Apparently Flanagan – and Game Theory - forget David Hume’s famous contention in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”[4]

As discussed, Game Theory also has no sense of collective values: Medicare can be privatized and the CBC slashed, raising the question of what is Canada, outside of Harper’s symbolic esteem for the military and (of course) the “cult” surrounding our Prime Minister’s excessive “leadership” (thus tearing a page from Hobbes’s Leviathan).  Because Game Theorists have no sense of the public, how is it that the “Harper Government” deigns to speak in terms of elected “public service” – surely a relic from a bygone age.  Conservative “parliamentarians” are actually living a public lie at the public’s expense by acting only in their self-interest: hence the so-called Fair Elections Act.

It is important to note that Pierre Poilievre, the Democratic Reform Minister who is responsible for the “Fair” Election agenda, attacks our Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand in vitriolic terms derived from Flanagan’s book: “he wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability” as quoted by the Globe and Mail in their record eighth editorial opposing the Fair Elections Act.[5]  Compare this with Flanagan’s text who writes in his conclusion of Game Theory and Canadian Politics: “Nevertheless, the evidence of self- interest is all around us … [for example] public servants seeking bigger budgets and career advancement.”[6] In other words, Poilievre’s speech writers are dipping into Flanagan to justify their case.

Meanwhile Flanagan laments in his forthcoming book Persona Non Grata that Harper is “Nixonian” and treats people as “disposable”, surely one of the hazards of Game Theory when only the “individual” counts – society be damned.[7]  Allow me to recommend by way of conclusion some folk wisdom, which comes from an observation of nature (Game Theory is also big in biology today): a tree does not grow in solitude; trees need other trees around them to survive and flourish.  In other words, we as people cannot thrive as self-interested individuals alone, a fact which indicates that the asocial and atomized model behind Game Theory as it applies to Canadian politics should be jettisoned lest it poison the public any further.

---

[1] Thomas Flanagan, Game Theory and Canadian Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), p. 5.

[2] Ibid., p. 164.

[3] Ibid., p. 73.

[4] David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Ernest G. Mossner (Toronto: Penguin, 1985), p. 462 (Book II, Section 3 “Of the influencing motives of the will.”)

[5]  Globe and Mail, “If only evidence could vote,” Saturday April 12, 2014, p. F9.

[6]  Flanagan, Game Theory and Canadian Politics, p. 164.

[7]  Globe and Mail, Thursday April 10, pp.A1,A4.

Canada and remembering the Magna Carta

Did you know that the year 2015 represents the 800^th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta by King John, who, by so doing (after being forced by English barons) acknowledged that the monarchy was under the law?  By raising the question of who sets limits on the authority of the King, the Magna Carta (or Long Charter) contributed to the rise of parliament.

Unfortunately James Moore, former Minister of Heritage, and our current Minister of Heritage, whose name escapes me, along with the rest of Cabinet, as well as, assuredly, the Prime Minister, have focussed their attention on more recent events to mark.  First there was the recognition of the War of 1812, and since then preparations have long been under way to remember our boys at Vimy Ridge in 1917, and the First World War in general.

This emphasis on our military history brings out a certain Roman sense of virility. But what about the medieval history of the “mother of all Parliaments”?  Surely the Government of Canada should want to celebrate the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy on such an auspicious occasion.  Or are the Conservatives suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance?

At any event, let’s also remember that 2015 is also our election year, and it’s our opportunity to set limits on the authority of our King Prime Minister.

Letter to Ukraine

Recently you were visited by our Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, but I am sorry to say he failed to make a stopover at Runnymede, site of the signing of the Magna Carta, before he ventured into Ukraine to promote your democracy.  You see, what Harper says in Ukraine is the opposite of what he does in Canada, and on this particular occasion he did not have his music band with him to serenade you with current Beatles hits.  If his band were reunited (God forbid), and if our Prime Minister were to sing, may I recommend “Hello, goodbye” (“I don’t know why you say goodbye. I say hello”).

Here at home the “Harper Government” has introduced the so-called “Fair” Elections Act, which has garnered criticism from all corners, including the Globe and Mail, our newspaper of record, which has published an unprecedented 6 editorials eviscerating the legislation, which is being rushed through Parliament, as with all government bills since the Conservative Party election to majority government.  You would think that if the bill were “fair”, and given that it has everything to do with how our elections are run, the government would not limit debate; maybe it would even consult some of the opposition parties.

The same Conservative Party that had trouble with the scandal of robo-calls in the last election are now gutting Elections Canada, the body responsible for investigating such irregularities.  Canada was widely regarded as an open democracy, but now voting rights are being limited by a hidden problem we did not know even existed until the legislation was drafted.  The real problem is now voter suppression, and the real targets are the young, who are not likely to vote Conservative.  Moreover campaign spending is protected by a curious loophole that benefits mostly, you guessed it, the Conservative Party. And now, as well, each incumbent will have the power to appoint election officials, formerly the domain of (non-partisan) Elections Canada.

This is really the tip of the iceberg, but it is also the tipping point.  While he was jetting off for Ukraine, Canada’s Supreme Court declared that Harper’s monkeying around with his appointment to that same august body “illegal” and “unconstitutional.”  If it were not for that major embarrassment, dragged over six months, and if not for the implications the decision bears on Harper’s fiddling with the Senate, Canada would be ever closer to the “Alberta model”, where there once was a “King Ralph” and where the same party has ruled for 43 years.  The “Harper government” needs its comeuppance, but Canada’s Parliament is not up to the task of Runnymede, because Canadians no longer live in a meaningful democracy, saved only by the Supreme Court.  This is why, I respectfully suggest, Ukraine should say “goodbye” when King Harper comes to say “hello”.

"Fair" Elections Act Tweet

The Cabinet: A Room Lined by Mirrors

On Harper's "Fair" Elections Act (Bill C-23)

Bill C-23 requires that “citizens” produce (and, of course, pay for) government-issued photo ID in order to vote in the next federal erection election.  May I remind the reader (and the “Harper Government”) that the Robo-call affair was not about “citizens” casting multiple ballots. Given that our election day is fixed to September, students especially, along with seniors and other marginalized populations, will find themselves even more readily disenfranchised, assuming that some of these groups even wish to exercise their right to vote, a questionable matter these days. While also emasculating a so-called “bureaucracy,” headed by the Chief Electoral Officer (who acts in the public interest – a notion alien to right wing thinking), Harper is adding (though, in effect, not equally among us) a bureaucratic (and as I suggest - expensive) prerequisite to voting. Is this truly a Fair Elections Act when our rights are as such transformed?  

The truth of our beloved “Harper Government” emerges as each anti-democratic step follows another.  There is no need for confusion.   We are witnessing the corruption of Canadian democracy, first withered by small-minded ideologues now plotting to maintain every dark corner of electoral advantage in an effort to perpetuate power ad nauseam.