In Machiavelli We Trust

I’m going to be blunt – it’s almost two in the morning, I’ve got classes starting at 8:30 tomorrow, I’ve just finished my five-page Macroeconomics paper, and Subway was out of chicken breasts and bacon. I’m in no mood to start blogging now, so this time I’ll try to refrain from the usual lengthy diatribe.

The one thing that struck me about Friday’s class was how many people seemed to agree with Machiavelli’s principles and the idea that territorial integrity is a foremost concern. I know for a fact that our group consists of a diverse bunch of people with differing political views, so I found it out-of-place that we were all agreeing with the same basic premise. If I had to attribute this to something, I would say it was a result of group mentality; many people were placed in that state of mind by the blog question, and either didn’t think or didn’t comprehend that it was their right to disagree with the idea. Now, I have always considered myself a political realist, and my views on certain subjects have been characterized by some more pacifistic people as on the “militarist” or “Machiavellian” side, though this is not always the case. I would venture a guess that we have more idealists, or more differentiating opinions, in this group than we have been led to believe. Once we look into other theories, we’ll see who still stands by realism, and who migrates towards other theories.

The subject of territorial integrity was the main topic of discussion on Friday, and we seem to have re-characterized the question into “What is the purpose of territorial integrity?” Why do leaders care so much? What makes land so important? Several answers were put forward, some of which merit some thought. For one, land serves a military advantage; as Machiavelli stated, a prince should repeatedly patrol his country’s borders, wary of places where the enemy could invade from. Owning large tracts of land allows more time to prepare defenses to deflect invading forces away from the capital. Also, we discussed how defending land can be a means of defending ideals and ways of life, too. I brought up how Rhodesians were unwilling to cede power to the black majority not due to racism, but due to African countries’ track record of chaos and war. The same principle of defending ideas by defending land can be seen in various other scenarios, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Revolutionary and Civil wars. Then again, these ideas can even be as simple as national pride, which can drive countrymen to defend every inch of their land simply for the sake of keeping it. In the end, a war over land is really a war of ideas.