Reason triumphs over the Gods in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. A model of balance and objectivity, Thucydides explained all events using natural -- as opposed to supernatural -- explanations. Best of all, The Peloponnesian War contains Pericles' Funeral Oration, one of the most magnificent speeches ever given.

Thucydidean Man does not dispense fortune. His battles rumble with tumult and confusion; plagues and earthquakes strike at any moment. While Thucydides demonstrated words cannot be taken as deeds -- nations are often compelled to act through fear, prestige, and interest -- he also showed the self-destructive consequences of removing moral and ideological considerations from political decisions. This is not political realism.

Why must men practice justice? Thucydides repeatedly paints human nature as inclined to savagery; man can only find salvation in religion, philosophy, custom, and law. Revolutions reverse all values, giving birth to every form of evil. As the Athenians acknowledge at the beginning of the war, "Men who practice violence have no longer need of law."

Thucydides does not shy away from the heroic nature of Athens, a fact making its corruption and downfall grand and tragic. Beautiful, sophisticated, honorable, and free, we find Athens, the best city, worthy of power and celebration. Its spirit is innovative, bold, commercial, revolutionary, democratic, allowing individual achievement based on merit. Pericles remarked that[blockquote]We alone do good to our neighbors not upon a calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom and a frank and fearless spirit. In short, I say that as a city we are the school of Hellas; I doubt if the world can produce a man, who where he has only himself to depend upon, is equal to so many emergencies, and graced by so happy a versatility as the Athenian.[/blockquote]Pericles claimed the best statesman inspires others to follow a rational policy, while loving his country and possessing incorruptible character-- an ironic contrast to those who follow him. Cleon, the defender of realpolitik, lacked foresight. Nicias, a virtuous man without boldness, fell victim to his delays, compromises, and half-measures. Alcibiades could not escape his own treachery. Thucydides clearly suggests a city such as Athens needs Periclean leadership.

Ideology makes a difference. Thucydides judged oligarchical Sparta -- slow, cautious, and conservative -- as "the most convenient of enemies." Democratic Syracuse proved far more formidable, having a constitution similar to the Athenians. But in terms of power politics, the Sicilian expedition appeared feasible. Syracuse almost lost; bold leadership could have delivered victory.

Political realism, as it corrupted Richard Nixon, corrupts a democracy. By following realpolitik, Athens corrupted itself, bringing on oligarchy. The Melian dialogue reached its highest irony when Athens lectured no honor can be found in fighting a superior adversary. Athens itself gained its power through a noble resistance against the mighty Persian Empire, and a belief in the superiority of its cause.

War is a violent teacher.

Leo Strauss is pretty interesting on this stuff, isn't he?

My main curiosity is how people can conceive Thucydides as some sort of 19th century realist. His underlying political vision strikes me as having more of an aretaic character. I've also read the Kagan book on the Peloponnesian War, which makes strategic considerations intelligible, and the VDH book, which is more focused on how the conflict was lived and experienced.

In City and Man, if I remember correctly, Strauss noted how Thucydides emphasized the limits of democratic government-- the second-guessing, grandstanding, and the hyper-criticism. His take was that both Sparta and Athens each have their virtues and vices one can learn from. Strauss made a strong Aristotelian hint that strong states need to find a steady mean between overreach and pusillanimity.

David Bolotin, in the history of Political Philosophy edited by Strauss, placed emphasis on the speech by Diodotus. Diodotus couldn't make a moral argument not to slay everyone in Mytilene, so he used deception, using self-interest to argue against self-interest. Cleon, a demagogue, was appealing to the mob, claiming it was in Athens' interest to kill the men, enslave everyone else. Thucydides point seems to be that power politics is too narrow and too reductive a conception of political self-interest, ignoring many other factors.

But why was deception required on Diodotus' part? If one argues for lofty motives to a corrupted public, such as the Athenians after the plague and years of war, one will be met with skepticism. I can even make an analogy today-- people still think Bush went to Iraq to enrich himself with oil profits, amazingly even with another administration now in charge. Democracy simply sounds too saccharine and goody-goody to the cynical, vulgar ears of a tired demos.

I don't know enough to comment Bowden, but man you sure make me want to learn more about it. You are a hell of a writer, man.

[quote=JHBowden]
I can even make an analogy today-- people still think Bush went to Iraq to enrich himself with oil profits,
[quote]

That would be a rather extreme subset of "people".
Perhaps made extra extreme....like...a straw dog?


[quote=JHBowden]
.. amazingly even with another administration now in charge.
[quote]

"Amazingly".....how? If were true or false, having another
administration in charge, or even the passage of a thousand
years, shouldn't alter whether someone's belief about
somone else's actions on a prior years was
"amazing". Should it? Sort of a weird backdating
in that logic.



Democracy simply sounds too saccharine and goody-goody to the cynical, vulgar ears of a tired demos.


This is fascinating. You have swapped some other
villian into the role of Strauss. I suppose Strauss would
be pleased by the projection.

And yet....this seems to confuddle the actual
historical example you were trying to make in the
first place. And the "cynical" and "vulgar"
(codewords used by Strauss for the masses manipulated
into allied positions) are applied to the opposition in
your case. The swapping of labels across lines of
persuasion actually seals the projection deal.

I am a little less impressed. I do think you are better at
the projection game than Michael Savage, though.
Much better.

Leonitis--

If you really want to be annoyed, reflect on Brasidas, and how the inhabitants of smaller Greek states looked upon him as a liberator, despite his authoritarian anti-democratic master. Brasidas was the ancient equivalent of Che Guevara.

I personally like Athens much better than Sparta. Sparta was a fair, austere society that didn't trade with anyone-- everyone ate the same rationed black slop made in Laconia. It practically was a police state-- the Spartans trained to keep the helot population from rebelling. And of course, Greek intellectuals living in Athens, a much more free environment, found ways to glorify the Spartan way of life. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

There's something about democracy which can bring out the worst in people. This wasn't foreign to the founders of the American republic, which is why Madison and Hamilton write so much about the evils of "faction" inherent in democratic life. The sought to find the best strategy to avoid its deleterious impact.

In American life today, the right definitely has its kooks too-- during the 90s, a lot of people believed Clinton was working with the communists to help the UN establish a one-world order. Today, the Obama Nirth Certikifit is the latest paranoia. The Stolen Election and the War for Oil stuff on the left was just as kooky and paranoid.