Snaut

This whole situation is not particularly interesting. People either support or oppose Tusk depending on whether they perceive his actions to serve their interests - whether materially and politically within Poland itself, or polemically, elsewhere. Either way, the strategy of the Right™ is once again to call out "liberal" or "leftist" hypocrisy. This is, of course, not a winning strategy. Even if hypocrisy and contradiction are at play - which they are - neither has ever prevented an idea or political movement from succeeding. In any case, I think there is good reason to revisit Machiavelli. In Chapter VIII of The Prince, he draws a distinction between power and glory. Although the two may overlap, they are ultimately distinct ends. One can acquire power without glory, just as one can attain glory without seeking or acquiring power. In Chapter XVIII, Machiavelli says that the prince must understand how to act against morality when necessity demands it, while retaining the appearance of virtue - and, by extension, glory. Cruelty is therefore a political instrument justified under particular conditions in pursuit of particular ends. What matters is not simply whether the prince acts virtuously, but whether he can maintain the appearance of virtue while doing what political necessity requires. There is ultimately a distinction between political self-preservation and political greatness. Power and security are indispensable, but glory is more difficult to attain. For Machiavelli, the prince's glory is ultimately connected to the common good, i.e., his ability to establish, preserve and strengthen the political order. The exercise of power, even when it entails cruelty, can therefore be justified in the name of the preservation of order and the advancement of the common good. So, is there "liberal hypocrisy"? The problem with the Right™ is that it mistakes exposing contradictions in liberal theory and practice for acquiring political power. The Right™ thinks that exposing a discrepancy between someone's professed principles and actual conduct is, in itself, politically damaging. But this is to misunderstand the relationship between appearance and reality in politics. A contradiction does not have to undermine authority. It can be utilised, rationalised and even celebrated, as long as the political actor has the capacity to define the meaning of events and maintain the appearance of serving a legitimate purpose. The highest form of power is to make subjectivity appear as objectivity - to exercise control over the meaning of symbols, whether they take the form of actions or something else. The question, then, is not whether Tusk or his opponents are being hypocritical, because they are. Nor is it whether the same actions would be celebrated or condemned if the Right were doing what Tusk is doing, because they obviously would be. The more interesting question is who has the political capacity to turn these actions into a source of legitimacy, consolidate their position and shape the institutional order. Machiavelli's distinction between power and glory is relevant here, but it also raises another question: glory in whose eyes? Is it in the eyes of the prince, the establishment, the people or future generations? These are not the same audiences, nor do they necessarily define glory according to the same criteria. Power can be exercised without glory, just as glory can be claimed without the possession of power. But the most successful political actor is he who can bring the two together. To exercise power effectively while convincing others that the exercise of it serves something greater than the interests of the person(s) wielding it - this is the highest ambition of the prince. Will Tusk fail? Time will tell.