“Man is by nature a political animal.” - Aristotle
Most Americans would not understand Aristotle’s claim that man is, by nature, a “political animal.” Admittedly, most Americans don’t think about politics. They are busy working and taking care of their families. They are watching TV and playing video games, having love affairs and pursuing hobbies. How, then, could they be “political animals”? The answer is very simple. The modern American belongs to a nation: arguably, the most successful and powerful nation in the history of the world. Belonging to a nation – large or small, rich or poor – is highly significant. If you lost your nationality tomorrow you would quickly come to miss it. Belonging to a larger group is a fundamental human reality, much like sexual identification.
Men and women are political creatures because they are compelled to combine with others for safety and to preserve their property. Men and women are born into families that belong to a larger ethnic grouping – prepackaged with notions of identity and enmity. If you are born on the West Bank or Northern Ireland, you are born into a political situation. You are formed by it. Politics is given at birth. The liberal theorist who imagines he can free himself from the reality of belonging to a specific nation is fooling himself. He may deny the significance of his birth, but the world knows who he is by the language he speaks, by his accent and his customs. If some foreign power decides to wipe his tribe from the face of the earth, his dismissive attitude toward tribal identity won’t necessarily save him.
Political combinations are necessary for self-defense. The ancient Greek historian, Thucydides, once noted that “the Grecians in old time … became thieves and went abroad under the conduct of their strongest men … and falling upon towns unfortified …rifled them and made this the best means of their living….” Contrary to the claims of extreme libertarian theorists, anarchy is not a blessed state. “For once they were wont throughout Greece to go about armed,” wrote Thucydides, “because their houses were unfenced and traveling was unsafe, and accustomed themselves … to the ordinary wearing of armor.” Here we find “the war of all against all” described by Thomas Hobbes. Under these circumstances, wrote Hobbes, life is “nasty, poor, brutish and short.”
If pirates and bandits combine together, it is only natural that the rest of humanity should combine to stop piracy and banditry. “Every state is an association,” noted Aristotle, “and every association is formed with the view to some good purpose.” Political association arises from natural causes. Man and woman form an association called “the family” so that the human race will continue and multiply. Aristotle says this “is not a matter of choice” but due to “our natural urge … to propagate one’s kind.” Families normally belong to a village, clan or tribe. In this we find the association of ruler and ruled, essential “for the purpose of preservation.” Society is naturally hierarchical, says Aristotle. There must be leaders who determine the rules and enforce order. There must be founding fathers, so to speak, and “conscript fathers” – as the ancient Romans called their senators. These organize the defense of the community.
In all ancient societies we find the title “father” at the center of political authority – at the center of the state. Even today we speak of our “Founding Fathers.” We say that George Washington was the “father” of his country. The word “patriot” is derived from the Latin word for father. The kings of old were addressed as “sire,” which signifies fatherhood. The first concept of political hierarchy is demonstrably derived from the dread concept of patriarchy. It is intimately connected with the family, with the growth of population and the requirements of prosperity. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with this ordering of things. This is simply the way things developed, the way history “naturally” unfolded. It might be said that politics derives from sexuality – from the masculine urge to dominate (observable in other mammals, especially the “alpha males”).
This leads us to touch upon the iron law of oligarchy, insofar as organization implies oligarchy. A disorganized community is no match for an organized community. If a citizen is to enjoy his “rights,” he must be secure from enemies. All our concepts of freedom assume the existence of oligarchy – whether we like it or not. We cannot enjoy protection without organization. We cannot have organization without hierarchy. Everyone cannot be the boss. Only the few are actually in charge of affairs. Rule by the few is, by definition, oligarchy. Political freedom is never absolute freedom. It is freedom within an accepted straightjacket of rules. Hopefully these rules involve a system of checks and balances.
The state is an association for the preservation of society. It arises naturally. It is constructed according to notions of order and hierarchy. But there is also danger in the state. As a natural thing (like an apple), the state can turn rotten. It can weaken. Disorder can creep into its inner-workings. It can fail to defend society. It can even become the instrument of a criminal gang (e.g., Russia). The state can fall into the hands of fools, incompetents or weaklings. Despite the possibility of misfortune, the state is nevertheless as necessary as it is natural. The need for defense is always there. If the state should fail to defend society or if it should become the instrument of unnatural tendencies in the body politic, society will suffer accordingly.
Grand strategy is the highest standpoint of the state. It is at the intellectual core of the state’s function and derives from the special perspective of national defense against foreign enemies. A state either lives or dies by the decisions it makes with regard to armament, war readiness, and strategy. In an era of mass destruction weapons it is unthinkable that a great country, like the United States, should be wiped off the map. But the age in which we live, and the technology that has been developed, tells us that such an outcome is entirely possible. The survival of every individual, and the survival of the nation, depends on the cultivation of strategic thought. Since the United States is a “democracy” in which leaders are elected, the voting public ought to know enough of geography, history, international and military affairs to make an intelligent choice at the polls. What we find, however, is general disinterest in such questions as well as ignorance. Curiously, the country as a whole is caught up with political questions touching on “life styles” and consumption. “It’s the economy, stupid,” was a successful political slogan of years past. This is an alarming symptom, not to be approved.
In discussing issues ranging from “women in combat” to homosexual marriage and abortion, the perspective of grand strategy is forgotten. How does feminism, for example, affect long term-prospects for national survival? Would amnesty for millions of illegal aliens facilitate national cohesion or encourage balkanization and national disintegration? Is trade with China effectively arming a future enemy as it erodes domestic industries and capabilities? We find in these questions a neglected debate, having more to do with our grandchildren’s prospects than our immediate convenience. It is a debate we don’t care to have. Everything today, and everyone, seems to be in favor of immediate convenience. Every policy adopted by a state has a short-term and a long-term impact upon the state’s ability to defend society from its enemies – and on the society’s ability to resist enemies, both foreign and domestic. We have forgotten this. We have forgotten the primacy of national survival. We use the state to satisfy our wants when our wants are the responsibility of the individual. The state is used for every purpose, it seems, while national defense and the military are decried as instruments of imperialism.
Man is a political animal because he seeks safety in combination, and the state is thereby formed. Safety is best gained through good strategy, and good strategy means the harmonization of various elements to one end. Insofar as we are a society, we are not free to destroy the work of our ancestors or condemn our grandchildren to penury. There is such a thing as “duty” and also “decency.” This has also been forgotten.
