Prince or Pollster? - Review

National Review, July 26, 1999 by Noemie Emery

Ms. Emery is writing a book about American political dynasties.

Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago, by Michael A. Ledeen (St. Martin's, 202 pp., $22.95)

The New Prince, by Dick Morris (Renaissance, 252 pp., $22.95)

Niccolo Machiavelli, expert, it seems, on all things political, is having a revival of late. He has received the attention of two current courtiers: Michael A. Ledeen, former advisor to President Reagan; and Dick Morris, the political consultant whose most notorious former client is the sitting president. Both have written books that evoke Machiavelli-at least on their covers.

Ledeen's book is actually about Machiavelli, whose precepts he explains to a new generation. Morris's book is all about Bill Clinton, and not incidentally about himself. Ledeen and Machiavelli care about governing, while Morris and Clinton care for campaigns. Ledeen cares about genuine strength, as measured in morale and in armies. Morris cares for its appearance, as measured in polls. To Ledeen, and to Machiavelli, the role of the leader is to secure the long-term interests of the state and its people.

Nothing shows better that Ledeen and Morris are living in two different universes than their different conceptions of strength. To Machiavelli-and to Ledeen-strength is the true bedrock of leadership, the bringer of order and liberty, peace and stability. Strength can be badly misused by evil individuals; but the best intentions in the world will be meaningless in its absence: a simple idea readily grasped by Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln, both of the Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

In Clinton's view, fear and power are to be used for his own survival, not that of his country; and to Morris, strength means high polls. When Morris quotes Machiavelli on the subject of fear, the results are highly questionable: "How is a candidate to get the blessing of his party's leaders? Remember Machiavelli's dictum that it is better to be feared than loved. Rather than focus on being attractive to the party's leaders, a candidate must be attractive to the voters . . . Those with good poll numbers prove irresistible." "Irresistible" to whom, and where? Bosnian bullies and Chinese Communists certainly aren't moved by these numbers.

Then there is the question of evil and good. In the surreal universe of high- pressure diplomacy, evil deeds such as lying and killing can lead in the end to beneficent outcomes, while deeds that on the face of things appear to be moral can lead to more dire events. "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil,'" Ledeen maintains, quoting Machiavelli. "It is wrong to behave ethically if in doing so you open the door to enemies who will destroy all possibility of an ethical world." Thus Ledeen cites the decision of Jimmy Carter to rule out assassination as a method of dealing with terrorists, because Carter thought singling out one man for death was immoral. But then, the only tactic left becomes bombing raids, which kill many innocent people. Another example would have been a decision to go to war for the Rhineland in 1936, which would surely have caused bloodshed but prevented the horror that came on four years later, claiming some 40 million lives. And then there is Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan.

To Clinton and Morris, at least from the evidence of The New Prince, morals are relative, and war is simply politics by other means. Thus one can bomb to try to distract from a personal scandal; start a half-war in an effort to postpone an impeachment; and go to war because it may look, or feel, good. To Ledeen, one must strike an enemy with all the force needed to obtain the objective; to do less than that is immoral.

In the Washington Post of May 27, Morris outlined a Bosnia strategy, based on poll data. Instead of bombing from 20,000 feet or sending in ground troops, he suggested sending in helicopters at 400 feet, a strategy he thought more dangerous but also more effective. "The President made the sine qua non of American involvement that there would be no casualties. But that's misguided.

Polls and past experience suggest the American people would accept 25 to 50 deaths." And what are these "acceptable deaths"? Apparently the number the public is ready to swallow without starting to turn on the president. Even the master might retch.

Nothing divides the Machiavelli of Ledeen's understanding from the Machiavelli of Morris's as much as corruption in office itself. To Ledeen and his mentor, it is an insidious poison, capable of dissolving the government enterprise. "Free enterprises . . . must relentlessly fight corruption," Ledeen tells us, "and when improper actions are found, the malefactors must be quickly demoted or dismissed." Morris, on the other hand, cares little if his Prince is waist-high in perdition. After all, "Once a politician is indicted . . . voters turn away from him, but not before." (It's nice to know that people may still have some standards.)