Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery (18 page)

18. Constructing such an elusive message was an intentional strategy of Netanyahu’s campaign advisers, such as Arthur Finkelstein: “Arthur read the data, thought a little bit, and said, ‘Jerusalem go for it.’ The slogan, ‘Peres will give up Jerusalem,’ was rejected by Arthur. ‘Peres will divide Jerusalem’ got his confidence. Less technical slogan, said Arthur, less obligated.” See Caspit, B., and I. Kafir, Netanyahu: The Road to Power (Galey Alpha Communications (in Hebrew), 1997), 272 (my translation).

19. The political structure of Israel, the parliamentary coalition government, necessitates that an efficient and useful campaign has to appeal mainly to the swing voters. This point, as one might expect, was hardly lost on Arthur Finkelstein, Netanyahu’s American chief adviser who “...demanded a large number of surveys, and those were sent to him to U.S.A., including segmentation of swing voters—who they voted for in the past, general political views, occupation, et cetera. The Gallup institute provided the data and Arthur the analysis. ‘You are in the picture,’ he said to Bibi after he examined the surveys. ‘It is possible to win this election.’ “ See Ibid., 268.

20. As reflected in Keren Neubach’s descriptions (The Race: Elections 96, Tel-Aviv: Yediot Achronot Press (in Hebrew), 1996, 314.), the potential of the slogan, “Peres will divide Jerusalem,” to seize the voters’ mind was well known to the members of the Likud, who watched the confrontation between Peres and Netanyahu: “...Pretty close to beginning of the debate, while Peres committed faith to Jerusalem, a big smile rose on the faces of the Likudniks. It seemed that this is exactly what they had expected.” (my translation).

21. Ironically, precisely during this campaign “it was published...in the inner pages of the news about the de facto division of Jerusalem.” Netanyahu’s senior campaign adviser, Moti Morel, estimated that Jerusalem was the winning card: “Morel was struggling how to instill in them fighting spirit and searched for a battle slogan. The Golan issue did not look effective to him. Half of the nation is in favor of giving the Golan back. Palestinian state?—Most of the people do not care. Jerusalem? In Jerusalem there is potential.” See Caspit B., H. Kristal, and I. Kafir, The Suicide: A Party Abandons Government (Tel-Aviv: Avivim Publishing (in Hebrew), 1996) 69 (my translation).

22. For a further discussion on myths and their impact, see Shoham, G. S., The Dialogue Between the Myth and the Chaos (Tel-Aviv, Ramot: Tel Aviv University Press, 2002, in Hebrew).

23. See Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 23). It is almost inevitable to recall Silone (
The School for Dictators
, 168), who makes fun of fascism and brings the fascist propagandist opinion upon such a sensitive and delicate issue: “The doctrine of suggestion...asserts that suggestion only becomes effective in a state of excitement. Ridicule and fear are both reactions, states of excitement, which favor the intervention of suggestion. Ridicule gives a feeling of superiority, because where there is laughter there is also the prospect of victory. But a strong feeling of fear leads directly to action, because of the sense of danger it gives. Thus ridicule and fear are two components of propaganda which are indispensable for its success. (Hadamowsky, Propoganda und nationale Macht)”

24. Local authority election petition 98/94, “Jerusalem Now” faction headed by Arnon Yekutieli v. Shass, p. 4 (my translation).

25. Ibid. (my translation).

26. Ibid., 3 (my translation).

CHAPTER 8

Spotlight on Leadership: Manipulative Peacemakers

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

Achieving an effective change in human behavior requires employing a certain degree of manipulation. This trivial observation encompasses almost every aspect of social interaction from helping an individual by psycho-therapeutic means to leading society to overcome an essential crisis like a civil war or intractable conflict. Nevertheless, the academic discussion surrounding the use of dubious moral means in order to do “good,” at least in the final account, is relatively new.

It is
The Prince
, written by Niccolo Machiavelli 500 years ago, that entered into the academic agenda the connection between immoral means according to reasonably acceptable standards and the greater benefit of society. By introducing a brutal, manipulative gangster as the ultimate redeemer of the Italian society, Machiavelli succeeded in shocking almost every reasonable human being and in shaking up the interminable political-social debate over the conduct of a good society. Machiavelli’s outlandishly grotesque proposal, which seemingly contradicts our very basic intuition of ethics and morality, was an innovation at the time it was composed.

Machiavelli’s time is well remembered as a period of social crisis. It was a tragic age of endless wars and bloody civil strife, rending Italy into violent regional rivalry. In contrast to the destructive reality, however, the conventional wisdom was that any decent society should be directed according to moral ideals rooted in traditions, such as those of the church and of moral philosophy. The general idea, which sounds simple and attractive, was that a moral, decent society has the potential to diminish evils, wrongs, and destruction. Accordingly, professional politics and statecraft were understood as an ethical mission for well-educated intellectuals who possessed special expertise in ethics and morality. It was a utopian vision of politics, which blocked any possibility of developing a political strategy to lead society to overcome the endless bloody conflicts.

Machiavelli, by writing
The Prince
, turned conventional wisdom on its head. It seems that the author understood very well—sometimes too well—that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. To shake the very foundations of this utopian vision, Machiavelli called a manipulative gangster to the Italian crown. By employing his sophisticated, manipulative cynicism, Machiavelli actually proffered Satan’s services toward national salvation.

A MANIPULATIVE REDEEMER FOR SOCIETY IN CRISIS

The Prince
is a unique exploration in the mystery of politics. It is an advice book for the common authoritarian leader who has an unlimited appetite for political power. Machiavelli’s horrible and shocking recommendations leave a strong impression that politics and morality are concepts and practices that are worlds apart. With his sharp, manipulative cynicism, Machiavelli seems to stretch this point to the very limit.

As strange it may sound, our sophisticated author does not separate statecraft from ethics. Machiavelli has constructed his political agenda on a clear ethical perception. He introduces to his readers a monistic ethical world view, an ethical perception that centers around one specific core value that must be defended almost at any price. The leading value in Machiavelli’s thought is the survival of the prince.

According to Machiavelli’s distinctive moral perception, any means are qualified to maintain the prince’s regime. To put it another way, the ethical value of any political action is measured by its contribution, usefulness, and efficiency to the survival of the prince. The prince himself, Machiavelli’s candidate to the Italian crown, is no more than a manipulative gangster.

However, we should not forget the context of Machiavelli’s writings: endless civil wars and social strife. To justify his unique perception, Machiavelli offers his readers a simple arithmetic exercise, illustrating that the evils of a dictator who succeeds to stabilize his regime are much smaller relative to the complete destruction of protracted civil wars: “...a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal; for with a very few examples of cruelty he will be more compassionate than those who, out of excessive mercy, permit disorders to continue, from which arise murders and plundering; for these usually harm the community at large, while the executions that come from the prince harm one individual in particular.”

No doubt that we lack good solutions to tragic situations of civil wars, intractable conflicts, and social collapse. Unfortunately, history shows that most conventional methods, techniques, and strategies of peacemaking and conflict resolution did not bring satisfactory results. On the other hand, to propose the service of an authoritarian gangster as the ultimate cure for social crisis smacks of gallows humor or, at least, a dangerous thought of the first modern political scientist who lacks any reasonable social-political theory to offer for such difficult situations. Several questions arise: Are these accusations appropriate? Is Machiavelli’s school of statecraft an advanced course in the academy of crime? Is a manipulative criminal able to save a society in crisis?

It is quite acceptable that Machiavelli, by writing an advice book for the common authoritarian leader, had turned the study of politics into an applied science. The dismissed diplomat (that is, Machiavelli) sketches a more realistic picture of politics than the conventional wisdom, which identified efficient statesmanship with ideals like kindness, generosity, and social justice.

However, no person has ever achieved a position of power and leadership by applying Machiavelli’s advice. In other words, the thinker who introduces a “special” monistic ethical perception, the survival of the prince at all costs, seems to be a bad adviser or a sinner according to his ethical perception. To understand the logic behind Machiavelli’s seemingly grotesque proposal and the lessons it enfolds for society in crisis, we must remember that
The Prince
is only one of Machiavelli’s great political treatises.

THE MACHIAVELLIAN SHIFT

Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous political treatises are two compositions that seem to be in direct contradiction:
The Prince
and
The Discourses
.
The Prince
is composed in the manner of a handbook for the common authoritarian leader, while The Discourse is an exceptional republican treatise. Ironically, in the dedication of each of these books, Machiavelli claims he is presenting everything he knows. Therefore, one might wonder if Machiavelli, the author whose creations and compositions have been subject of nigh infinite research and unlimited discussions, actually suffered from a split personality. Or is there something more beyond what appears to be such a diametric self-contradiction? Who was the real Machiavelli—a champion of authoritarianism or a passionate advocate of republicanism?

It looks like part of this mystery can be explained in the last chapter of
The Prince
. In this section Machiavelli opens his heart and reveals his prime political dream—the unification of Italy and the restoration of glory to Rome. In this final chapter it becomes clear that in The Prince Machiavelli tried to motivate and even manipulate a hungry leader to develop the political power necessary to unite Italy and restore glory to ancient Rome. Accordingly, it is possible to see
The Discourses
as the natural continuation of
The Prince
.

The Prince
is stage one—stopping the civil wars and uniting Italy.
The Discourses
is stage two—preventing the new social order from sliding back into chaos by building the foundation for a decent, stable republic.
The Prince
presents a desperate solution to intractable conflict and civil wars, while
The Discourses
provides the recipe to build and preserve a peaceful, stable republic. The glue that connects those two stages is a criminal manipulative leader (The Prince) who miraculously transforms himself into a benevolent dictator who wins his place in history forever as the founder of a free and stable republic (
The Discourses
). The leader who begins in infamy ends in virtue. It is of little surprise that a dramatic Machiavellian shift can be found in the biography of the hero of this chapter, Anwar Sadat, the former president of Egypt whose dramatic initiative led to a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

THE MACHIAVELLIAN TRADITION

The classical republican interpretation of
The Prince
, which I briefly sketched in the last section, may sound very attractive. However, it is not clear at all whether it is true, half true, or completely false. Moreover, it gives Machiavelli a saintly image, when it is not at all clear if he deserves it. In any case,
The Prince
remains notable in the pantheon of social ideas partly because
The Prince
is a signpost in the beginning of a long tradition of scholarship embracing the idea that a post-civil war peaceful social order can emerge only after a strong authoritarian transition period. This tradition, begun with Machiavelli and continued with Hobbes, also encompasses contemporary thinkers, such as Samuel Huntington, and protagonists of the free-market system, such as Friedrich A. Hayek.

Paradoxically, these well-known advocates of personal liberty believe that the only solution to desperate situations of civil wars and intractable conflict is a state builder-dictator. The idea is that the transformation of social chaos to a decent social order can only emerge after a transitional authoritarian period in which the institutional and constitutional foundations for stability are established. In societies that lack the tradition of liberty—such as in cases where the dominant social-political experience is endless violence—it is sometimes necessary to have a “strong leader” to establish the foundations of a good society.

Friedrich Hayek, a passionate advocate of the free-market system as the only feasible alternative to tyranny and fascism, formulated it forcefully: “When a government is in a situation of rupture, and there are no recognized rules...it is practically inevitable for someone to have almost absolute powers...It may seem a contradiction that it is I of all people who am saying this, I who plead for limiting government’s powers in people’s lives and maintain that many of our problems are due, precisely, to too much government. However, when I refer to this dictatorial power, I am talking of a transitional period, solely. As a means of establishing a stable democracy and liberty, clean of impurities. This is the only way I can justify it—and recommend it.”