For the Fun of It: Politics as Entertainment

     The following is an interview with Machiavelli on the topic of  same sex marriage.  His responses to my questions are reported precisely as they were channeled to me for this blog.

Salvatore Rosa: As a historian, writer, diplomat and philosopher of Politics, Signore Machiavelli, what do you think of President Obama?

Machiavelli: I love him! He is the perfect political animal. He is more fun than my fellow Italian, Berlusconi, even though Berlusconi is a better clown.

 SR: Why do you say that?

M: Because deep down, Berlusconi  knew he was a clown, but Obama takes himself very seriously. So he provides us with more amusement.

SR:  Us?  Signore Machiavelli, before we continue the interview, may I ask where you are at present? Where are you speaking to me from?

 M: Certainly you may ask, and it is also certain I do not answer the question.

SR: I beg your pardon?

M: It was given me to speak to you about your president. That, I will do. Any more than that, I am not obliged to do. 

SR: But where you are speaking from is important. It affects your credibility.

M: Perhaps in your eyes, it does. I believe my words will speak for themselves. Do not waste my time further. Begin!

SR: Ah, why do you call President Obama a “perfect political animal?”?

M: The man is skilled at playing off one group against another. He knows when to take risks and when not. He is able to build coalitions, manipulate the liberal media, exercise power, and yet appear to be above the fray. He motivates others to go for his agenda while making it seem to be theirs, raise money, and in short, does whatever it takes to get what he wants.

SR: And you find all that admirable?

 M: Absolutely! “The end justifies the means” is the gold standard of Politics. Principles are a luxury, for princes, presidents, prime ministers, and politicians.  Remember, History is written by the winners. It doesn’t matter if the losers are right, since they have no say. What matters is what works to get you what you want.

SR: Do you think his endorsement of same-sex “marriages” was an act of courage?

 M: It was nervy, yes. But courageous, I think not. It was only one more baby step, the smart move to make at the time, that’s all.

SR: What’s the difference between “courage” and “nerve”?

 M: Aha! That is the difference between what you call a statesman and a politician. Courage is an act from the heart, a giant step, an act of bravery and heroism, a standing for a great good that can only be achieved by sacrifice and struggle. Courage is the noble dedication of oneself to a Cause that is greater than oneself. Gandhi was a man of courage. Your Martin Luther King was a man of courage. So was your Malcolm X.

SR: And “nerve”? How do you define “nerve”?

M:  Nerve is the energy of the petty, it is small-mindedness in action. Nerve is cunning, calculation and careful posturing. A good example to explain nerve I take from your own day and age, the example of the surfer.  What does a skilled surfer do? He rides on top of a powerful wave. To keep his balance, sometimes he has to shift his position to the left, and sometimes to the right. Sometimes he has to freeze himself and stay absolutely still, lest the slightest shift throw him under the wave. His only aim is to ride the wave as long and as far as he can, and if the wave runs out, try to catch onto another wave and keep going. As long as he stays on top of the waves and rides, he wins.

 SR: How does this apply to Obama?

 M: Look at how wonderfully he uses language. He should be an Italian poet. Look at what Obama calls his “evolving”. It was no evolution, merely his balancing act. He had been in favor of same sex “marriage” many years ago, but knew it would kill him in the polls back then if he said so. The wave of public opinion wasn’t where he was yet.  So he goes through this evolving. The public gets the impression he was trying to make up his mind.  Wonderful! Really, he was only biding his time, balancing on top of the wave, leaning to the Left by endorsing same sex unions, leaning to the Right by not endorsing same sex marriage, saying yes and then no, no and then yes, and  then maybe.  Even now when he has taken a stand for same sex marriages, he also tries to mollify and placate his opponents by also saying the issue should be decided by the states.  

SR: If you think he is nervy instead of courageous, a politician instead of a statesman, why do you admire him? 

M: Statesmen win by losing, by sacrificing themselves for an ideal, by dying for a cause. Obama is no Don Quixote tilting at windmills, or serving a queenly Dulcinea. He wants to win by destroying his opponents, not by foolishly sacrificing himself. He is promoting his ideology, not any Cause.

SR: I don’t follow you. What is the difference between an ideology and a Cause?

M: You are going off topic. It is a related subject you mention, but perhaps for another time, no? Continue with your questions directly on your president.  

SR: Let’s go back to the endorsement of same sex marriages. Do you think Obama means it when he says  the states should make their own decisions on this subject? Does he really hold that this question belongs in the arena of the states to decide and not the Federal Government?

 M: Of course not. It is part of his balancing act, this strategy of his. He is not naïve. He knows that just as you could not have Slave states and also have Free states, so you cannot have states where gay marriage is legal and other states where it is illegal. He knows if he gets elected again, and makes another appointee to the Supreme Court, he can make gay marriage legal for the whole country no matter what the states say.

 SR: Why do you think he came out for same sex marriage now? What good does it do him?

 M: Any number of reasons: one. It gets him a huge bundle of Hollywood money for his campaign war chest; two, it distracts people from all the other issues, like the global economy; three, it consolidates the gay and liberal bloc solidly behind him; four it makes him newsworthy, gets him spotlight attention, and gives his campaign a boost forward, providing momentum; five, it starts another battle on another front and divides the energy and forces of his opponents who are fighting him on several fronts already.

SR:  So, how should we fight him? You’re supposed to be the expert on this kind of conflict. What advice do you offer? 

M: Another time, my friend. Ask to speak with me again. In the meantime, why not enjoy the comic soap opera of politics as the campaigning continues?