|
|
|
|
Wang 1 Brandon Wang Mrs. Verenkoff English 2H, Period 5 17 November 2011 Climbing the Pyramid of Power: Pragmatism Versus Idealism in Government Rulers from each and every human civilization have debated how to best lead their country to greatness. While a plethora of policies have been attempted over the years, history reveals that the finest rulers have utilized the policy of pragmatism. Leaders who practice this policy use any means they deem necessary to maintain the welfare of their nation, and if they are competent, reside comfortably in power as well. Despite the claim of renowned idealist Sir Thomas More in A Man for all Seasons, by Robert Bolt, that “when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties…they lead their country by a short route to chaos” (Bolt 13), many pragmatic statesmen prove otherwise. Richard Rich, Elizabeth I, and Joseph Stalin demonstrate that pragmatism is an effective method of obtaining and maintaining political power. Their practices lead their countries to status as world powers of their respective times. Although not his intention, Bolt’s characterization of Richard Rich in A Man for All Seasons reveals that pragmatism is the best method of maintaining power and national peace. Bolt’s play opens portraying Rich as a poor, yet ambitious, middleclass lawyer. Rich utilizes his allies and willingness to deceive in order to advance his personal standing, and as the play progresses, he uses his deceptive techniques to gain power and influence. For example, in order to earn a better occupation, Rich spies for Secretary of State Cromwell on the actions of Sir Thomas More (Bolt 42-43). Later, Rich commits perjury, or lying under oath, during More’s trial so that Rich can gain a promotion to Attorney General of Wales (Bolt 90-92). Rich’s actions eventually earn him this prestigious position; and in the end, he outlives Sir Thomas More, the idealist, who attempts to act according to his conscience by defying King Henry VIII’s Act of Succession. Following More’s death, Rich was raised to the powerful office of Lord Chancellor of England and oversaw English religion throughout the reign of Mary Tudor (Bolt 74). Because he did not make any drastic changes or offend the Protestants or the Catholics, Rich always was a part of the victorious faction in English politics and prevented England from falling into a religious civil war. Although he resigned the position of Lord Chancellor prior to Elizabeth I’s reign, Rich helped his country rise to the status of most powerful country in the world by raising support for the war in France during the Virgin Queen’s reign (Jokinen). While Sir Thomas More’s idealistic philosophy earned him a gruesome beheading and nearly incited another English Civil War, Rich died of old age after living a long, comfortable life as a powerful politician (Bolt 74). Despite his early, questionable actions, Rich managed to attain impressive power and wealth that far exceeded his humble beginnings. He aided both Mary and Elizabeth and assisted in executing a balanced policy of political power and tolerance that led England to greatness during Elizabeth’s rule. The pragmatist, Rich, succeeded where the idealist, More, did not; Rich stayed in power and managed to both maintain relative peace and empower England while doing so. Richard Rich’s pragmatic actions as Lord Chancellor contributed significantly to England’s rise to power during the sixteenth century. Queen Elizabeth I of England, however, was an even more successful pragmatic ruler who, because she disguised her policy of pragmatism as idealism, gained sizeable popularity with her people. This potent combination of pragmatism and popularity enabled her to succeed even where Rich did not. Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn, who was later charged with adultery and beheaded. However, when both Edward VI, Henry’s son with another wife, and Mary I, Elizabeth’s older sister, died of illness, she ascended to the throne in 1558 (Eakins). Once crowned, Elizabeth demonstrated true Machiavellian leadership despite her perpetrated façade of idealistic policy. She eliminated or weakened her enemies or rivals, including Mary, Queen of Scots, and King Philip II of Spain (Palmer 125-127). Elizabeth also cleverly manipulated Parliament; she used it to aid in legislature and day-to-day affairs but retained absolute authority over the assembly (“Elizabeth”). However, Elizabeth remained popular in the eyes of the English people as a result of her better-publicized actions. Following Mary’s death, England was in a state of religious discord, having suddenly switched from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Religious civil war was a distinct possibility. Elizabeth dealt with the situation shrewdly, returning to the more popular belief of Anglicanism. However, she discretely allowed religious tolerance, but proclaimed herself to be “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” (McKay 474). In this way, she pacified both major religious groups and retained absolute authority of religion in England. Elizabeth’s action not only increased her personal power but also gained her popular support from most of her people. Another pragmatic policy that both popularized and empowered Elizabeth was her dealing with foreign nations. Primarily utilizing her single status, Elizabeth constantly shifted England’s alliances to put her nation in the most powerful position possible (“Elizabeth”). She gained allies using the promise of marriage, but cast them away once they no longer aided England politically. Elizabeth’s pragmatic policy ensured that England emerged relatively victorious in any European conflict, which obviously aided England’s rise to power greatly. Overall, both Elizabeth I and Richard Rich were pragmatic rulers who significantly aided England’s ascension in Europe. The pragmatic statesman, Rich, and well-liked, yet pragmatic queen, Elizabeth, proved that pragmatism is essential to governing a country well. As a result of these successive Machiavellian leaders, England emerged as one of the chief powers of modern Europe during the later sixteenth century and beyond. England was not the only European nation to greatly benefit from Machiavellian rule; Joseph Stalin’s pragmatic leadership catapulted Russia into the spotlight of the world stage during the mid-twentieth century. Born Joseph Dzhugashvili, Stalin (later renamed) was the son of a shoemaker who originally studied for priesthood. After getting expelled from theological seminary, however, Stalin joined the Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin, in 1903 (McKay 958). For the next twenty years, Stalin slowly rose through the ranks of the Bolshevik party as they gained control of Russia following the Russian Revolution, World War I, and the Russian Civil War (McKay 959). During this time, Stalin utilized his pragmatic policy to his advantage, and he gradually gained allies and turned the majority of the Bolsheviks in his favor and against his primary rival, Leon Trotsky. By shaping Bolshevik decisions from behind the scenes using amoral methods, Stalin amassed sufficient power to seize control of the Bolshevik party after Lenin’s death in 1924. Stalin quickly banished Trotsky to Siberia in 1927, expelled him out of the country in 1929, and finally had him quietly murdered in Mexico in 1940 (Palmer 748-749). Following Trotsky’s expulsion, Stalin aligned with the moderate Bolsheviks and crushed Trotsky’s remaining allies, the radical Bolsheviks. Stalin then turned against the moderates who opposed him and defeated them as well during the Great Purges. After conquering his enemies, Stalin collectivized farms the Kulaks (relatively wealthy peasants) to increase government land and capital. By the end of 1928, the pragmatic Stalin stood unopposed as the leader of both the Bolshevik party and Russia (McKay 959). Stalin continued his success as a Machiavellian leader following his rise to the position of sole ruler of Russia. Once in power, he instituted the Five-Year Plans, which were designed to industrialize Russia and make it more self-sufficient. These plans were enormously demanding and, in order to achieve them, cost the lives of many peasant workers (McKay 960-961). From an industrial standpoint, however, the plans were enormously successful, increasing the production of iron and steel by 400% and that of coal by 350%, more growth in ten years than any other European country (Palmer 753). The plans also decreased the number of unemployed individuals and generally increased the standard of living (Palmer 755). The Five-Year Plans, though costly, eventually increased Russia’s economic and political power and allowed it to rival other powerful European nations in terms of wealth and influence. In addition to improving Russia through industrialization, Stalin displayed pragmatic rule in his ability to remain in power despite numerous rivals and opponents. Stalin utilized both propaganda and show trials to satisfy the majority of Russians and silence those who endangered his rule. Throughout Russia, Stalin produced posters, pamphlets, and other material, which told that the temporary hardships of industrializing Russia would soon be replaced by glorious life in the world’s first communist country (McKay 962). Most Russians believed in the communist doctrine and the success it would bring, and thus accepted the difficulty of life without excessive complaint. For those who did oppose Stalin, mainly the old Bolsheviks from Lenin’s time, Stalin openly eliminated his major opposition in show trials, or public executions, that frightened other opponents into submission (Palmer 757-758). By the time of Stalin’s death due to natural causes in 1953 (McKay 1003), he had transformed the formerly agricultural Russia into an industrialized power that emerged victorious from World War II. Because of his pragmatic policy, Stalin had risen from the son of a shoemaker to the leader of Russia and had led his country to power and greatness; Russia was arguably one of the most powerful countries in the world when he exited. Richard Rich, Elizabeth I, and Joseph Stalin were Machiavellian rulers who lead their respective nations to status as world powers. Each proved that pragmatism is an efficient, successful method of obtaining personal power and bettering one’s country. While idealists such as the late Sir Thomas More believe that pragmatism leads to pandemonium, history proves the harsh truth that idealism rarely succeed in politics. Even modern leaders such as American presidents, who appear idealistic, are actually pragmatic. While America has publicly been a champion of liberty and justice, the government privately tortures criminals, invades personal privacy, and uses other pragmatic means to remain the most powerful country in the world. As clearly proven by both distant and recent history, pragmatism, no matter how disguised, is the path to political success.
Works Cited Bolt, Robert. A Man for All Seasons; a Play in Two Acts. New York: Random House, 1962. Print. Eakins, Lara. "Elizabeth I, Queen of England." TudorHistory.org. 23 Apr. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. "Elizabeth I of England." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 9 Nov. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. Jokinen, Anniina. "England Under The Tudors: Richard Rich, 1st Baron Rich (1496?-1567)." Luminarium: Anthology of English Literature. Luminarium: Encyclopedia Project, 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler. A History of Western Society. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print. Palmer, R.R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer. A History of the Modern World. 10th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
|
|
