Machiavelli on politics / war
Make no mistake about it. Unlike some, who in good faith make analogies to politics being like shopping in a store and selecting a favored brand to purchase, I take a different view.
From the (Comment) recycle bin we find an objection:
War may be the continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz wrote, but election campaigns and military campaigns are profoundly different
I contend that they are not.
Let us then look to the dictionary, to see about "strategy"
Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship"[1]) is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. In the sense of the "art of the general", which included several subsets of skills including "tactics", siegecraft, logistics etc., the term came into use in the 6th century C.E. in East Roman terminology, and was translated into Western vernacular languages only in the 18th century. From then until the 20th century, the word "strategy" came to denote "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.[2]
Strategy is important because the resources available to achieve these goals are usually limited. Strategy generally involves setting goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be intended or can emerge as a pattern of activity as the organization adapts to its environment or competes. It involves activities such as strategic planning and strategic thinking.[3]
Henry Mintzberg from McGill University defined strategy as "a pattern in a stream of decisions" to contrast with a view of strategy as planning,[4] while Max McKeown (2011) argues that "strategy is about shaping the future" and is the human attempt to get to "desirable ends with available means". Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system of finding, formulating, and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success if followed faithfully."[5]
Let's focus in on this definition:
"a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.
This surely means that there is no sharp cut-off between politics and war--but more about this later.
Let us now look to dictionary for the meaning of "tactics."
tactic |ˈtaktik|
noun
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
• (tactics) [ also treated as sing. ] the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy. Often contrasted with strategy.
Now, the Master of War, Sun Tzu speaks:
Sun Tzu, the Master of War
Add to this:
On strategy and tactics
My contention is that there is no clear cut line between politics and war. Prime example: Josef Goebbels was indicted for war crimes (although he cheated the hangman by killing himself after killing all his children). How many people did Herr Goebbels directly kill? None. Zero. Zilch. Physically Goebbels was a weak man, who, unlike Himmler, could not strangle a chicken with his own hands. He was the Minister of Propaganda. He told lies, outrageous lies--politics you say! No, murder I say, because his anti-semitic, anti-gypsy, anti-Catholic diatribes helped lead to the death of millions. "Politics"? No. MURDER.
Think about this some more: when we go to the store and by Cheerios instead of Lucky Charms, what happens? We get the breakfast we prefer and no one suffers. Of course there are innumerable similar analogies to be made--but they self-evident. Superficially, this mat seem like "retail politics." But what did we get when more Americans shopped the political market and chose George W Bush over Al Gore? We got war, pure, unadulterated WAR. Hundreds of thousands of innocents made homeless, maimed, slain, totally devastated.
We, as a country, have elected Repuglican law-makers (aka defilers of the Constitution and basic human kindness) who have made war on our own citizenry. In the name of freedom, they gave us the Patriot Act, FISA, and other abominations.
In the name of "free markets", they gave us unfettered, unregulated high stakes gambling on Wall Street with ordinary poor American footing the bill. Is that not class WARFARE?
I belong to the Democratic wing of the Democrat Party. I believe in fighting for our principles. The Party platform has not yet taken shape during this primary season, but when it does, I will support it vigorously, regardless of who our standard bearer is. I have kept faith with Saint Ronnie's 11th Commandent and I shall not deviate from it--I will not speak ill of any Democrat but I will support and promote the candidate who best represents what I think is just and fair. Not all of us agree on the details. So be it.
But when the primary campaign season ends, I profoundly hope that we will FIGHT because THIS IS WAR!
Repuglicans have cut social safety nets, protecting our old, our infirm, and our underprivileged--all in the name of Plutocracy (er…my bad--democracy). This has resulted in starvation and indeed death for thousands of our citizens. DEATH--is that not a consequence of warfare?
When we the People invited Repuglicans into positions of power, did they not proceed to confiscate the meager holdings of the underclasses, in a reverse Robin Hood maneuver. Is not the stealing of wealth under pain of imprisonment unlike coercion under "the color of law"?
Repuglicans understand very well that politics is war. Starting from Watergate up to the present they have engaged in armed robbery of the American people, often WITH LETHAL CONSEQUENCES. Is this not WAR?
I am dismayed but not surprised at the polite level of debate in the Kos Pond. That is as it should be. But when we start campaigning for politics and ideals, remember that the consequences are DEADLY serious.
Do we need more examples of the blessings of Repuglican presidents and Repuglican Congresses? Are you not sick of this?
This is not about choosing Quaker Oats over Kashi. This is about life and death. Talk about death squads--the Repuglicans are the party of death--look to the poor, the underprivileged, the persecuted, the infirm, the sick and the old. Do you find their current state to be the benign result of retail shopping in a grocery store?