After thinking about our conversation on what makes a more powerful leader, I am still unsure what is the most effective way to gain power. In America our system seems to be completely controlled through legal issues in terms of who gains the presidency or makes it into any office, its through the electorate. At the same time, why do other country's cooperate with the U.S.? I do not believe it is from our mind boggling and impressive legal system. Instead, I think our nukes and big guns make us the biggest baddest dude out there. No one wants to mess with "the Dude". Legal systems can be shifted to introduce new ideas but when someone has bigger guns, there is not much you can do if he does not like you.
As we noted, in the case of Dune Paul makes use of both these elements to prove his legitimacy. This leads me to wonder, because Paul's status as Duke was built up through his family line and his abilities as a mentat brought out through his mothers teachings, can legitimacy be induced within an individual? Eventually, a person could acquire training in powerful fighting techniques and gain connections through powerful friends. But even if someone gains legitimacy through legal issues, not everyone will believe that person. Legitimacy only works if everyone follows that political system. When that system fails, legitimacy shifts hands. The biggest baddest dude will remain in his status until someone eliminates him entirely. Even if his arsenal were destroyed, his reputation would precede him and would still open doors. Therefore, while Weber was a fan of the political legitimacy idea, I think he would quickly change his mind if he were to encounter "the Dude".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree that the US as "the dude" would make Weber change his mind. I think that the implication that nations cooperate with the US only because of our firepower is not accurate. People DO want to mess with "the dude"--look at the challenges to the US by the non-Aligned movement, the Socialist countries in South America (particularly Venezuela), and other countries like France that have protested against US actions as of late, mostly concerning Iraq (and I have a feeling that is what you are basing your example off of). The US did not just go in with firepower--it exercised the traditional avenues of making the force "legitimate" by at first going to the UN, then by having Congress vote on the war, and then by seeking allies among the world's other countries, adding to the "legitimate" nature of our invasion into Iraq. Whether you believe in the reasons our country entered the war in Iraq or not, one must admit that there was much effort to operate under the current system and make it appear morally legitimate. Now, whether or not one believes the system in place is fair and just is a different story for another time.
I think that other countries who cooperate with us do not do so out of fear of our bigger guns (literally), but for a multitude of other reasons. Machiavelli said that it is better to "Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break when it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes" (Machiavelli 62--cited on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/). Yes, people fear us, but not only militarily---I think economics is just as important a motivator.
He also said that, if given the option, a ruler will be much more effective if he persuades rather than coerces by use of force. Given these two in tandem, I believe that the countries that do support the US do so because it benefits them economically and according to their security. Countries act according to what is in their best self interest (if you take the Realist stance), and so if countries go along with the US, it seems that they do so because it is in their best interest to do so, not because they fear military attacks from us.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think Weber would change his mind because the government would not be able to exercise the force that we do without legitimacy, domestically and internationally.
Post a Comment