Propaganda in America: Its Nature, Effectiveness and Future

“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good behavior.”
- 1 Corinthians xv. 33


Although propaganda was used with great effect by some of the most horrifying and murderous regimes in history, it is not automatically evil or even inherently untrue as many Americans seem to think. In fact, America has used propaganda for great good in the world, though few know it. They are ignorant because of our failure to communicate clearly and consistently our triumphs and accomplishments which is the purview of propaganda. In order to retain our standing and power in the world, we must embrace propaganda and fully integrate it into the National Strategy and all that it entails.

What Is Propaganda?

Vagueness about the meaning of the terms propaganda and political warfare has come about because of its incorrect usage in the modern lexicon. Political warfare and propaganda have become pejorative words through their use in unjust regimes; with the result that no one knows what they mean anymore. Therefore, it becomes imperative to understand first the words’ meaning and then their purview before any meaningful evaluation of their proper usage or future as an instrument of statecraft can be made.

Propaganda is defined by the dictionary as “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”[1] However, it is much more than this. Propaganda is any communication directed at a primary target to accomplish a specific goal, namely, to persuade the targets to behave as the communicator desires.

Propaganda is a broad term that encompasses political warfare and psychological operations, which are different aspects of the same thing. These terms refer to the nature of the propaganda, its goals, and the battle space in which it is used. Psychological operations are propaganda used in the context of military operations and are primarily tactical. “Psychological Warfare is a long-standing term of military art designating the employment of certain dedicated communications assets in support of combat operations.”[2]

Political Warfare, on the other hand is necessarily a more vague term because it is used to describe propaganda implemented for political and military strategy. “Political Warfare is a term that is less well established in usage and doctrine, but one that seems useful for describing a spectrum of covert and overt activities designed to support national political-military objectives.”[3]

The Relationship Between Propaganda and the Other Tools of Statecraft

Propaganda must be rooted in the actions of the other tools of statecraft. What would political communication achieve if it had nothing on which to communicate? Propaganda, like all communication, must be supported by behavior; otherwise it will be labeled as empty words and promises, and become worse than useless. “Both the history and all our experience with the instrument conclusively shows that, if it is to be effective, what a people says must be backed up by what a people does.”[4]

Furthermore, the nature of propaganda is such that it amplifies the actions of the other tools of statecraft. Coordinated and directed action can appear to be so much ill-advised flailing if it is not explained by intelligent and considered communication. More importantly, the potential benefits from actions can be overlooked if no-one takes advantage of them. For example, propagandists were not informed, and therefore not prepared for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “In consequence, our propagandists faced the greatest strategic crisis of our history with no forewarning and no chance to plan what should be done for maximizing favorable effects, and to offset bad ones…”[5] In addition to showing the need for cooperation between propagandists and the agencies responsible for the other tools of statecraft, this statement highlights the nature of propaganda as an amplifier and interpreter of actions.

The Requirements for Effective Propaganda

In order for propaganda to be effective, and therefore good, it must be more than just a snappy catch phrase on a pamphlet. Like any other art, it requires patience and ability, but even more than these it needs a well thought-out goal, a specific target, credibility, a means of communication, and most importantly, integration into a larger strategic plan whose objective is to achieve national policy goals. These are the standards by which the following cases will be analyzed.

“One of the first and most important rules of propaganda [is to] be absolutely clear about [your] objective.”[6] It is absurd to disseminate propaganda without a clear idea of what its purpose is. Is the aim to get soldiers to surrender? Do you want to bolster your allies’ flagging morale? If the question of the goal of the propaganda is not answered sufficiently, then your attempts are neutralized before they even begin.

Once a propagandist has a firm idea of what he would like to do, he must then decide to whom he desires to do it. “This also points out…another of the important ground rules of propaganda: a clear idea and knowledge of the target which is being aimed at.”[7] Without a clear and distinguished target propaganda will be ineffective, because a message must be tailored to the audience in order for it to be influential.

Credibility is the next perquisite for effective propaganda. While the propagandist may have picked out a vulnerable audience and a worthwhile aim, it will do him no good if no one will listen. “The message that he [the propagandist] is trying to get to his target must carry credibility. If it does not, he is not likely to win his target’s attention or, should he have won it, retain it for very long.”[8] Propaganda must be more than clever, it must be believable.

In the past, propagandists were limited to pamphlets, rumors and, later on, radio. Now, telecommunications technology is much more advanced. However new the technology is, the principle remains the same; a propagandist always must have some way of contacting his audience.[9]

Cooperation and Integrated Strategy are the Most Important Aspects of Effective Propaganda

While the preceding requirements are essential to good propaganda, integration of propaganda into a coordinated strategy with the other tools of statecraft is the most important aspect of effective propaganda. Included within this is cooperation between propaganda and its allies, both with the other tools of statecraft as well as national resources. However well propaganda may be worded, or as widespread as it may be, if it is not integrated into a strategy, then it will almost certainly cause more harm them good.

The tools of statecraft exist to empower a nation to achieve its national goals.[10] However, the disparate natures of the tools do not lend themselves to natural cooperation towards an agreed-upon direction. If they are allowed to go their own ways, then they will most certainly pursue their own objectives, and, in the process hinder each other and subvert the larger strategic plan. Therefore, propaganda must both be in tune with national objectives and its fellow tools of statecraft. “The allegiance political communication owes, and must owe, is to the over-all national policy, not merely its military aspect…Political Communication [propaganda] is a curiously intricate and continuous process requiring the utmost teamwork if it is to be effective.”[11]

There are many examples of propaganda being both effectively and ineffectively applied. However, there are three that stand out as being ideal cases for examination. The first is an instance where the most important rules were broken, leaving the propagandist’s nation worse off than before. The last two illustrate the power and value of well-planned and executed propaganda that is in line with National Policy.

Case 1: German Propaganda on the British Blockade in World War I[12]

In 1916, the blockade by British forces against the Entente powers, specifically Germany, was starting to take a significant toll. In fact, food had become so scarce that there were “meatless days, fresh vegetables had to be rationed and so had butter and milk, even for the young.”[13]

Up until this point, Germany had refrained from its earlier use of unrestricted submarine warfare because of the negative political effects. Due to the increased shortages however, the German High Command was seriously considering a return. The downside of this policy was that it might provoke already neutral countries into the war. The dilemma was how to re-instate the old U-boat policy while keeping new belligerents placated.[14]

Count Bernstorff had the answer: show the Americans the hardships the German people, and particularly the children, were facing. “[Showing America the shortages] was the only way in which to justify in American eyes a return to unrestricted U-boat warfare on the part of the Germans.”[15] So the Count gathered up journalists of all political and economic stripes and shipped them to Germany “to report on the sufferings inflicted on children in Germany as a result of the British naval blockade.”[16]

Unbeknownst to him, the Berlin War Ministry was organizing a tour of a different set of American journalists. Its purpose was to prove that “Britain’s naval blockade was having no appreciable effect on Germany’s food supply; in fact that as a result of the blockade the diet of children was more balanced and healthier than it had ever been before.”[17]

When Count Bernstorff found out about the other tour, he cancelled his own, wasting a valuable opportunity to persuade the Americans about the necessity of the unpopular German strategy. Due to this failure, America entered the war on the Allies side two months after the re-establishment of unrestricted U-boat warfare.[18]

The most egregious error that the Germans made in this case was not cooperating with one another. If they had an integrated strategy, and were communicating with one another about it, then such an obvious (yet disastrous) conflict of goals and messages would not have occurred. “Experienced authorities in this field are unanimous in concluding that there should be close and frequent interchange between the makers of national policy and those who will be responsible for explaining and interpreting the significance of the policy.”[19]

A second error was made in choosing the means of communication. The German High Command’s choice to target the British for their propaganda by means of American journalists was nonsensical. The logistics of it, considering the state of technology at the time, approach the impossible. How would the British even know what the Americans had seen? And, as the author points out, American news articles are written for American sensibilities, not British.[20]

If the German High Command had thought about it, they would have easily seen that keeping America out of the war was infinitely preferable to showing the British that their blockade was ineffective. After all, the British were not only keeping supplies from reaching the mainland, they were keeping the German Navy bottled up, and no amount of propaganda (especially propaganda targeting civilians) was going to persuade them to lift it. However, if the Germans had thrown all of their efforts into explaining the absolute necessity of their return to the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and generally trying to keep America neutral, they might have succeeded, thereby winning the war.

By taking the path they did, the German government did more harm to itself than if it had stayed silent. If they had not put out the story that the blockade was failing, then the return to submarine warfare would have looked like a necessity and would have been more forgivable. As it was, it was construed as cruel and gratuitous. The most important lesson to take away from this case is that without integrated national strategy and inter-agency cooperation, propaganda becomes ineffective and often counter-productive.

Case 2: U.S. Propaganda Efforts and the 1948 Italian Elections[21]

“The general elections in Italy in the spring of 1948 were among the most crucial of all those in postwar western Europe.”[22] At the time, the Italian Communist Party was very strong in Italy, and was considered to be the inevitable victor in the upcoming elections. The concern in America was that once the communists gained power they would overthrow the democracy and impose dictatorial control, severely disrupting the delicate balance in Europe.[23]

“Italy thus became, for about a month in 1948, the principle battleground in the cold war and the scene of a notable democratic victory.”[24] No American effort was spared to affect the outcome of the elections, with the United States government coordinating disparate agencies, businesses, foreign policy and civil institutions all for the purpose of denying the communists Italy. “American officials distributed leaflets outlining the object of the Marshall plan. Special exhibits, consisting of attractively presented photographs, statistical charts, and the like were prepared for exhibition among low income groups.”[25]

The government marshaled American business resources to influence the election, most notably the movie business. “Films, both documentaries and full-length features were employed effectively. The leading American distributors in Italy pooled their resources and cooperated with the U.S. government information personnel in giving the widest possible dissemination to selected American films on a non-profit basis.”[26]

In international politics, America made moves certain to show the U.S. in a positive light and cast the U.S.S.R in an unfavorable light. Unstinting application of The Marshall Plan to Italy was only one aspect of this effort. “The American propaganda effort was accompanied by certain moves in the field of international politics that without any question won many votes for the anti-Communist side. Noteworthy among these were the tripartite step for the restitution of Trieste to Italy and the discussion at the United Nations of Italy’s application for membership. Both put Russia in a bad light.”[27]

One of the most effective and unusual tactics used was a letter writing campaign. The government enlisted the help of various Italian-American civil institutions and the Catholic Church to help defeat the communist party in Italy. They distributed form letters that Americans would send to relatives in Italy, and, as the first Italian in America to urge the sending of the letters stated, “I started the campaign, realizing that the people of Italy would believe the truth when it was told by a brother, or friend, or a blood relative…”[28]

The definitive aspect of the campaign, however, was the massive coordination between diverse groups made possible by the opposition of both the American government and people to communism. They all gladly collaborated with the aims of the National Policy. “The Catholic Church in New York and New Jersey took up the circulation of the form letters among their parishioners. Various Italian-American organizations also participated.”[29] The benefits were immediate and definitive.

By fully committing all available assets in accord with National Policy, the United States managed to not only positively affect the elections, but did so in such a devastatingly complete way that even the term “communist” became a dirty word in Italy.[30] The Communist Party, which had justifiably high hopes for the 1948 election, was soundly defeated by the pro-American Christian Democratic Party. “Step by step as the anti-Communist parties developed their campaign, in which American propaganda played a not inconsiderable part, the Popular Front’s [Communist Party] stock sank readily. When all the votes were in, it was found that the Popular Front’s share was only about 31 percent.”[31]

This instance showcases the full scope and power of a concerted propaganda campaign. It brought together very different elements of American society, and coordinated them to one common purpose. Most importantly, it was the effective use of propaganda in a Public Diplomacy[32] campaign which would have not been possible without a clearly articulated National Policy and cooperation between the government and the American people.

Case 3: Propaganda’s Role in the Surrender of the Japanese During World War II[33]

On August 10th, after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japanese government approached the United States with a conditional surrender offer. America, in accordance with our National Policy of unconditional surrender, refused this offer. The news of the offer and the U.S.’s refusal was disseminated throughout the world, except in one place: Japan itself.[34] “The Japanese Government’s motive was clear. So long as its own people did not know of the offer, the Tokyo Government could continue fighting, could bargain hard for its conditions, and could even back out of negotiations. If, on the other hand, the Japanese people learned of their government’s surrender offer, the fighting spirit would go out of them, and the government would find it… impossible to continue hostilities.”[35]

This presented America with a unique opportunity, and the government seized it. Working together, the State Department and the Office of War Information suggested that the news of the surrender offer should reach the Japanese people directly. A half hour later, the president approved the operation, and its implementation began immediately.[36]

The problem was one of communication. The Japanese had an effective jamming technique they used against the Voice of America, and strict punishments for those caught listening to it. While this problem might indicate the deployment of an alternative, namely a pamphlet campaign, the “difficulties were enormous”[37]. “The mere problem of preparing an appropriately worded announcement, translating it, printing leaflets by the millions, and delivering them over Japan would take days if customary procedures were followed. Short cuts had to be found.”[38]

The U.S. spared no effort in preparing and executing this propaganda campaign. The State Department, the military and the various U.S. propaganda organs worked together intensely over the course of the next twenty hours. By the end of this time, Japanese citizens were reading three million pamphlets and, for those who dared, listening to the news of the surrender proposal on Voice of America.[39] “Months later, Japanese officials confirmed that the leaflet had tied the Tokyo Government’s hands, giving it no choice but to go through with the surrender on our terms.”[40]

The previous case showed the overwhelming effectiveness, scope and magnitude of an integrated propaganda campaign; this case shows that not only can properly coordinated propaganda be large and diverse but that (in concert with other agencies and national resources) its goal can be accomplished swiftly.

The Future of Propaganda

In the modern world the smallest regional incident can become a major international issue overnight because of the increased availability of advanced communications technology. As technology gets more advanced each passing year and capable of reaching a larger audience, the employment of propaganda will become both easier and more imperative, especially for America.[41]

A consequence of advanced technology becoming so cheap and prevalent is that it has also become more democratic. A single person has the ability to broadcast himself or write about ideas on the internet, and the results are visible from anywhere there is an internet connection. As the individual’s voice becomes more pronounced, people are becoming more influential in the affairs of a nation. “The information revolution has meant that more power is in the hands of individuals: the power to communicate globally, the power to engage in international dialogue and the power to influence their leaders.”[42] The scope of propaganda, therefore, becomes almost boundless. Each person that a propaganda campaign reaches can reproduce it personally on the internet increasing the circulation and impact exponentially.

Just as any mistake in speaking is amplified by a microphone, poor propaganda will have farther reaching consequences now than in the past. The increased potential of the tool means that the guidelines for good propaganda will become even more important. In order to get the most out of the increased potential of the instrument, full integration into a strategy and access to national resources are absolute essentials. “However, as international public opinion continues to influence the success of American foreign policy objectives, an aggressive strategy and increased allocation of resources are necessary…”[43]

Conclusion

America has wasted many opportunities to advance itself and improve the world because of its unwillingness to fully engage itself in propaganda. For reasons of heritage America and her institutions are skeptical of the ethics of propaganda.[44] America can no longer afford such scruples on the matter. International politics and diplomacy has become more about image and public relations than about hard power because of the democratization of communication. If America is to be as successful in the present and in the future as it has been in the past, then we must wholly embrace propaganda and incorporate it into our larger national strategy, giving it the support and cooperation that it requires.

Endnotes:

[1] Propaganda. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda.
[2] Lord, Carne. Barnett, Frank R., Political Warfare and Psychological Operations: Re-Thinking the US Approach (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press Publications, 1989), page xi.
[3] Lord. Barnett, Political Warfare and Psychological Operations, page xi.
[4] Dyer, Murray, The Weapon on the Wall: Re-Thinking Psychological Warfare (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), page 35.
[5] Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall, page 2.
[6] Roetter, Charles, The Art of Psychological Warfare (Briarcliff Manor, NY: Stein and Day Publishers, 1974), pg. 13.
[7] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 14.
[8] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 16.
[9] Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall, pg. 87.
[10] Waller, J. Michael, The Public Diplomacy Reader (Washington, DC: IWP Press, 2007), pg. 30.
[11] Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall, pp. 75-76.
[12] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15-16.
[13] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15.
[14] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15.
[15] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15.
[16] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15.
[17] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 15.
[18] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 16.
[19] Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall, pp. 75-76.
[20] Roetter, The Art of Psychological Warfare, pg. 16.
[21] Daugherty, William E. Janowitz, Morris, A Psychological Warfare Casebook (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958), pp. 320-326.
[22] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 320.
[23] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 320.
[24] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 320.
[25] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 321.
[26] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 321.
[27] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 322.
[28] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 322.
[29] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 322.
[30] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 325.
[31] Daugherty. Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, pg. 320.
[32] Cull. Culbert. Welch, Propaganda and Mass Persuasion, p. 327
[33] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon, pp. 12-14.
[34] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon, pg. 12.
[35] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon, pg. 12.
[36] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon, pg. 12-13.
[37] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon , pg. 13.
[38] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon , pg. 13.
[39] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon , pg. 14.
[40] Barrett, The Truth is Our Weapon , pg. 14.
[41] Waller, The Public Diplomacy Reader, pg. 388.
[42] Waller, The Public Diplomacy Reader, pg. 388.
[43] Waller, The Public Diplomacy Reader, pg. 389.
[44] Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall, pp. 75-76.

"Peace" 3

Jake:

"Absence of conflict is not something that can be achieved because it is not a positive goal." -- And killing people is a positive goal? Removing diverse people and culture from the face of the earth seems negative."By becoming homogenous with those that hate us, we would remove conflict because we would be the same as them. (However, this is more or less the peace of the slave.)"-- Wouldn't you think that the majority of people in Iraq feel that America is forcing their beliefs on them? But I guess that doesn't matter when you're not the slave in the equation, so long as you're the master, right?

Me:

Jake, I am amazed at how you could take 6 full length posts, find two things that you don't like (because you don't understand, not because I am wrong) and act like you totally disproved me. When I said a "positive goal", what I meant was that it was something, as opposed to nothing. In this context, positive doesn't mean good so much as not negative, I can't make it any simpler than that.

As for "removing diverse people and culture" statement, that is typical liberal double speak. We aren't removing them, unless you count terrorists. What we are doing doesn't even bear a marked similarity to genocide. Don't be ridiculous. That is a seriously stupid thing to say. Oh, and diversity for diversity sake is idiotic. You tell me why diversity is a good thing.

Lastly, we aren't forcing our beliefs on anyone. We are forcing a government on them. Not quite the same thing. We don't have re-education camps and people denying Islam, do we? And the government is better for them anyway. So keep the melodrama at a minimum. It blows me away sometimes how liberals can just completely parrot overblown and absurdly exaggerated rhetoric. Do you have anything worthwhile or reasonable to say?

Jake:

I understood the context of negative vs. positive goals, but to achieve the absence of "terrorists", for example, is negative, isn't it? You want the absence of certain people; we want the absence of war. And I don't see what's so stupid about referring to the idea of killing people as removing them. It's not like terrorists are the only people being killed in Iraq. There are civilian casualties, too.The only thing I've been trying to say, as evidenced in the group title, is give peace a chance. I'm not the one butting in on a group dedicated to non-violence to promote killing people and forcing our "government" on them.

Also, if your six full-length posts provided anything that proved that killing human beings is a good thing simply based on where they live or the system of government they've been brought up with, I would have mentioned it, but you talk pseudo-intellectually about things that are hardly related to the simple thing we're saying: give peace a chance. I don't see why that statement is so controversial to you.

Tom:

Jake, you obviously haven't really read, or thought, about a single thing I have written. Instead, you are simply repeating your previous position as though I haven't said anything. That means you are either an idiot or a drone. However, I will humor you, and answer your hair-brained objections.

"...that proved that killing human beings is a good thing simply based on where they live or the system of government they've been brought up with..." Well, it isn't that simple, is it? Liberals always over-simplify a situation that they don't like. I will put it to you this way, though. Killing human beings based on where they live or their system of government is a good thing if those things contribute to their desire for our total annihilation.

You may say that I am pseudo-intellectual (and I am not sure exactly how that is either true or relevant) but at least I am not a simpleton. "Give peace a chance" isn't a national security strategy, or a way of dealing with the world, it is a slogan. One which may encapsulate your feelings on the matter, but it isn't proven or coherent, and is completely without subtext. I mean, we have given peace a chance, right? For example, right after we left Vietnam. Or, more recently, when the Marine Barracks was bombed. We didn't go to war then, and, surprise, surprise, terrorists acts continued to happen. So, "peace" (as you term it) had its chance, and failed. In the meantime, cowardly running away from the situation, and acting like everything is ok as our heritage and civilization falls apart around us, is what makes the statement "so controversial" to me.

Civilian causalities aren't the objective, and therefore are not part of the discussion. Less would be killed in the long run if they cooperated and took control of their own country. However, be that as it may, the war isn't against civilians, so you can't act as though we are some evil giant smashing the innocent. We are just people, and mistakes happen.

As for your complaint about the "forcing" of our government on them, perhaps you should observe that the Iraqi government is RUN BY IRAQIS! If they didn't want anything to do with it 80% wouldn't vote in the elections; they just couldn't have it before because Saddam was a brutal dictator. So, that's enough of that.

The reason I am here is to help you realize the silliness of your collective ways, and to hone my rhetorical and debate skills by kicking your behinds in every argument I get into. Does that answer your question?

Opposition to Peace: Part Two

Jake, who is quickly becoming my straw man, said:

"How about this for peace: the absence of war and other hostilities. That's all we're talking about. "

I rejoined:

I have already explained that a) That isn't possible as such and even if it were, B) It isn't desirable. That was one of my options, though perhaps you didn't see it.

Abscence of conflict is not something that can be achieved because it is not a positive goal. In the case of the middle east, or even just in general the only way to achieve an abscence of conflict is to surrender our way of life and our principles, and adapt those of our enemy, that is to say, the party with whom we have a conflict. By becoming homogenous with those that hate us, we would remove conflict because we would be the same as them. (However, this is more or less the peace of the slave.)

Thank you for the segway into my next point though. More to come later.

Opposition to Peace: Part One

The rude liberal, Jake, said:

Well, the group's about peace. Unless you're going to provide logical arguments against it or you agree with the cause, I don't see why you've decided to grace us with your opinion at all.

And this was my answer:

There are several different types of peace, but four in particular come to mind: The Peace of the Imperium, The Peace of the Desert, The Peace of the Cold War, and, lastly, The Peace of Tranquilitas Ordinis.

The “Imperium” peace is the peace of an empire or hegemony, where internationally and domestically, order is maintained through military domination and oppression (just like in the good old days.)

The peace of the desert (and this is my term you understand, not an official one) is the peace of a graveyard, where one party annihilates another, removing them as a threat. Unfortunately, this often means genocide.

The peace of the Cold War is the peace of Mutually Assured Destruction. There is a noticeable lack of operational conflict between two hated rivals, and fear is the only thing holding back a world war. (Instead they snipe at each other through all sorts of political warfare.) However, the most important principle to take away from this sort of peace is that the peace itself is merely in the lack of open, operational conflict. In this sort of peace, one must be constantly vigilant, because war is always on the cusp. The last type of peace, and the only true peace, is the peace of Tranquilitas Ordinis, or, in English, the Tranquility of Order. A term coined by St. Augustine, the Tranquility of order implies a society based on, and obedient to the law, who see the importance of civil order. Furthermore, they must have a Harmony of Interests, where they want to cooperate with each other to have a peaceful society. It is the willing, co-operative and well-ordered society that is the most peaceful.

Tranquilitas Ordinis is a powerful concept, because it works at the smallest social stage all the way up into the international. It essentially means, however, that true peace cannot be had while some countries are intent on undermining the law or the social order, or refuse to act with enlightened self-interest.

For instance, Iran continually is trying to undermine the social order in the Middle East so that it can have an easier time exercising Hegemony, and perhaps one day, empire. Their long-term strategic goal is to destroy Western Civilization (us), and replace it an inter-cultural caliphate. This strategy is not conducive to the peace of order, in fact, it is the opposite thereof.

This is why the "peace at all costs" movement is not only stupid and naive, but dangerous. You are willing to accept a tactical retreat from a belligerent actor as peace. That is to say, that if the belligerent party were to back down from a position while engaged in diplomacy, you'd think that it was diplomacy that brought about peace. However, what is actually happening is that the belligerent Country is in fact using the concession as means of manipulating you while it works toward its strategic goal. This is why it is more important to look at the long-term plans and patterns of actions, rather than the more recent, and probably more ostentatious, behavior of a state. Strategy is what will tell you if a nation is peaceful or not.

In order to have peace, then, there must be opposition to nations, and non-state actors, who intentionally get in the way of peace, because they don't see their self-interest in peace. These parties must be opposed, or they will destroy any chance at peace that the rest of us have. Therefore, whether it is the war in Iraq, or a future war with Iran, we must dedicate ourselves to the short-term conflict in order to achieve OUR strategic objective of peace. If you do not do this, all you are doing is assuring that, after the short-term "peace", an even bigger conflict will loom.

What will happen when one day we aren't able to hold back the rising tide, because we lived well for a day, and ignored the writing on the wall?

Backlog: A Modern Knighthood

I am going to clear out some of my earlier writings and post them occasionally in order to both have them on record and for your, dear non-existent reader, reading pleasure.

The Modern Knighthood: An Exhortation


"In the beginning… no man was higher then any other, for all men were descended from a single father and mother. But when envy and covetousness came into the world, and might triumphed over right…certain men were appointed as guarantors and defenders of the weak and the humble" - The Book of Lancelot of the Lake

What is a knight? Many people think of him as a mindless brute, a sort of blunt instrument used for oppressing the proletariat. Others romanticize him as a totally selfless warrior, a perfect man. Obviously, neither of these views is correct, for mainly, the knight was an integral part of the workings of an extremely complicated, yet useful, form of government called feudalism. The part he plays within this system is more important than any other aspect of his life, and it has left us with a compelling, and potentially useful, example to follow.

In order to understand the usefulness of the knighthood in the modern context, we must first examine it in its original medieval context. The knighthood began during the Carolingian era in France, or, as it is sometimes called, the "Dark Ages" (tenth century A.D.). It evolved with the rise of feudalism of which it is an integral part. The kings of this era were almost powerless to exert power anywhere except the places they directly controlled. Because of the breakdown of the social order, the local magnates became more powerful. "The kings, therefore, appointed the magnates to be… counts, charging them with the defense, administration, and the judgment of disputes according to local customs." These counts were the backbone of the feudal system, not only because they ruled for the king, but also because they were responsible for maintaining a small army for defense of their county, which could in times of need be called upon for service in the king's army.

The knight was originally a wealthy peasant who owned enough land to buy his equipment and horse. This land was a grant from the king or local lord, and it bound the knight to fight for them in their army. At this point there was no concept of chivalry or defense of the weak. Instead they were just well armed and slightly wealthy brutes. "In his person, the real-life knight of the tenth century had little in common with the courtly heroes of the Round Table. Ignorant and unlettered, rough in speech and manners, he earned his living largely by violence, uncontrolled by public justice… The unarmed segment of the population, the Church and the peasants, were the victims or the bystanders."

However, time and the church forged the disparate and individualistic knights into a distinct class of society. The church's ministers, as I said, were often the victims of the erstwhile knight. They sought to change the role of knights from bullies to guardians, and harness its power to maintain order and stability and ennoble society. They did this through the movement known as the 'Peace of God'- "[In] the 'Peace of God'…spiritual sanctions were threatened against anyone who plundered or violated a church, struck an unarmed member of the clergy, or robbed a "peasant or other poor man". The prohibition was later extended to attacking other unarmed laymen- specifically merchants- and to destroying mills or vineyards and attacking a man on his way to or from church."

In addition to the civilizing influence of the Church, the knighthood went through one last defining reform, that is, the institution of the code of chivalry. All knights pledged to be faithful to the code of chivalry during their knighting ceremony. The code demanded that the knight "protect the poor people from the rich", "maintain and defend the holy Catholic church, … [and] uphold and defend his worldly or earthly lord." The last part of chivalry has to do with women and holiness: "You will soon be a knight… If you encounter, near or far, a lady in need of help, or any damsel in distress, be ready to aid her if she asks you to, for all honor lies in such deeds. When a man fails to honor ladies, his own honor must be dead. Above all, I beg you to go to church, to pray to Our Lord to give you honor in this world and grant that you lead your life that you may come to a good end." Part of the code was also the need for honor and valor. A knight must value his honor more than his life, and should rather die than allow himself, or anyone else, to impinge it, he must "…prefer death to dishonor…".

Thus the knight was no longer a man who fought exclusively for a lord or for private gain, instead, he was transformed into a holy warrior, beholden to his lord, his church and his high ideals. As the knighthood was formed mainly by the church, it became in many ways, the church's private cache of warriors. This influence on the knighthood is what made it such fertile ground for the crusades and for the establishment of what many argue is the pinnacle of the knighthood - the Knights of the Temple and the Knights of St. John, (or, as they are commonly known, the knights Templars and the Hospitalers.)

These knights were also monks, which meant they were completely under the auspices of the Catholic Church. They protected the pilgrim roads in the short-lived Kingdom of Jerusalem, and, after its fall, they defended Christendom from the Muslims. However, because they were under the Church and not the local rulers, they were able to act independently. Their code of conduct was much harsher than the normal knight's, because it was both religious and secular order.

The knights of this period who weren't Templars or Hospitalers were used for the defense of the country they were living in, and, more importantly, for the mediating of disputes. One of the knight's most prized possessions was his honor, in fact he must "…prefer death to dishonor…" and as such, he would be an impartial judge. Any problems, ranging from land disputes to Barbarian raids, the subjects brought to a knight to remedy.

The knighthood makes sense in the chaotic world of the middle ages. However, what possible good could it do in the modern world? Nowadays, at least in most Western countries, there isn't a need for roaming judges, castles, or a warrior class. However, that isn't what a knight is, it is just the form he took in the past. A knight is a man who dedicates himself to an ideal and lives and dies by it. Seen from that angle, a modern knight is possible. He wouldn't have to be a rich and powerful high-born man, just someone who was willing to dedicate his life to the principles of chivalry.

At first glance, it is understandable how one could mistake this idea as simply a fit of nostalgia. However, assuming the logistics, it would be easy to bring back the knighthood as a significant aspect of society. All the things we need are there for the taking, the ideals, the code, and the natural desire of good men to be great and honorable. We also have the history of the knighthood as it existed before to learn from. With a few changes to adapt the code to the modern world (obviously knights wouldn't need horses or swords) it could fit in quite nicely.
Before any construction of a new knighthood can begin, its foundations must first be laid. A reformed code of chivalry will be the basis of the new knighthood. Without chivalry the knighthood could not exist, it is essential for it to perform its duties. As the knighthood will need to be a completely independent entity, it will not ally itself with any church or faction. Partisanship will only get in the way of the knighthood's other goals. The part in the chivalric code that deals with the "[maintenance] and [defense of] the holy Catholic church" will have to be left out, not only so the knighthood is autonomous, but also so that people of all faiths can participate.

Spirituality will have a large influence on the knighthood, because the dedication to a belief in uniform truth is usually found in men of faith. Those men who don't have the concept of a god will fill that need with the chivalric code of the knights, the knighthood will become their higher power. It is absolutely necessary that the knight have the idea that he will have to answer for his actions, so he does not abuse the power entrusted him. That being said, religious belief will not be forced upon him, as long as he wholly dedicated to his code as a knight. Therefore, belief will be incidental and traditional in the knighthood, instead of institutional.

Implicit within the knights code is the defense of the weak against the oppressors. In the medieval code it was stated thusly, "protect the poor people from the rich", however this was just the way the need for protection most often revealed itself. In the new code of chivalry it would be revised to be clearer yet more transcendent. Namely, to protect the helpless against those who would take advantage of them. This revision would require a knight to save anyone in trouble, not just a poor man. It would make the knighthood a protection everyone could enjoy, not just those specifically named in the code.

In our "liberated" times, the part of the chivalric code concerning women would be considered outmoded and sexist. There would be a lot of objection if it were allowed to remain in the code the knights operate on. However, there is more of a need for this aspect of the code than ever before. Men have become, in a large part because of feminist groups, either weaklings or brutes. They have been taught to believe that women do not deserve any special consideration, so they are disrespectful and immature. Women have felt the loss of chivalry, and are becoming more and more dissatisfied with men. "I have deliberately tried to figure out the nations through its most important institutions of moral instruction-its families and schools-is turning boys into responsible young men. Young women, always the natural judges of the male character, say emphatically "No". In my experience many young women are upset… [about] how they are being treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them." In short, the average women is now feeling the loss of chivalry. She is unable to find a man who treats her like she knows she deserves, in other words, she cannot find a knight.
The disgust that women feel for men is a growing problem, and could account for the out-of-control divorce and single mother rates. Women, on the most part, try to civilize their men, but when the man has no real idea of how to behave properly to women, often these attempts fall on deaf or hostile ears. "When [boys are] asked this simple question, 'When have you ever been taught to what it means to be a man?' they are typically speechless and ashamed." As a result, women can't stay with boys who are abusive to them, and boys are more likely to leave their disillusioned and dissatisfied mates. The new code of chivalry (to be instituted by the knighthood) could go a long way in fixing this problem.

An extremely important aspect of the code of chivalry is the code of conduct concerning women. "When a man fails to honor ladies, his own honor must be dead." They must always respect, and be willing to prove that respect, to women. In this way the knight will shame the other men into behaving in a more chivalrous manner. Women will also grow accustomed to being treated well, and will eventually demand it from all men. Eventually the men won't need to be shamed into behaving correctly, they will act that way naturally because they will have been taught and influenced by the knights.

The part of the code of chivalry that will be the most emphasized, however, is honor and valor. Upon these values all other beliefs and aspects of the knighthood lie. An unflinching dedication to honor would ensure that knights behave properly, because they rightly recognize that whatever they do will reflect upon them and the knighthood. He must subjugate all his other desires and ideas to his honor, so that what he does will always be the right thing. An emphasis on valor, a large part of which is courage and fortitude, will ensure that a knight will have the bravery to do the right and honorable thing once he has recognized it. The most important purpose the new knight will serve is setting a good example through their actions.
The knighthood will be much more open to everyday interactions with those they protect than the medieval knights were, in fact, it will absolutely necessary that they are. Not only are they going to be need to be protectors, they will also need to be teachers. There method won't be in a classroom, instead the examples the knights set will be their lessons, and, when young men is ready he may join the knight in his patrols, to learn more what it is to be a knight, and perhaps join them.

In the book The Knight in History, Frances Gies says that the concept of chivalry and knightliness had so permeated society that even brigands would only assault knights one at a time. They did this because of the example the knight set. Often we hear the bemoaning of society that there are no role-models, that the rappers, sports stars, and politicians that people look up to are all morally bankrupt. On the whole, they are right. If we re-instituted the knighthood, however, there would be plenty of good role-models.

This function as a role-model emphasizes the need for honor. It is what separates the knights from these other morally bankrupt and weak characters. Only with by holding onto his honor can a knight hope to ennoble those around him, otherwise he will just be called a hypocrite. In particular, if he is to be an example for the lost men in the modern world, the "wimps and barbarians", he must always put forth an unflinching and unashamed strong masculine ideal by following the code of chivalry.

In order to be effective, the knighthood would need to be ever-present. The necessity of this will be addressed later in the essay. For the sake of argument, let us assume that it would always be present. Knights would be assigned to a particular area and, unless of some emergency, would stay in that area indefinitely. This would allow them to get to know the area well, but it would also have the advantage of letting the area get to know them well. As the knights have dedicated their lives to the chivalric code of their own volition, the people would get to see their upright nature, but also know and trust them as people. This would make the knights well suited as role models, because they would be righteous yet accessible.
Their function as role-models would also be the knighthood's best recruiting technique. Young men yearning for a purpose or belief could attach themselves to the knights instead of to a gang or some other deviant subculture. As they got old enough, these young men could follow the knights as they went about their patrols, and begin training for the knighthood, becoming squires. Even if they decided against becoming a knight, they would still have the positive and ennobling experience of helping to make their neighborhood become a better place.
Medieval Knights started their military training when they were seven years old, and, as a result, they were formidable warriors by the time they were knighted. Obviously, I am not suggesting that we start sending children to train for war. However, military training for knights is a necessity. Without it the new knight would be a paper tiger.

This military training would have two advantages. The first is that the new knight could patrol the streets with confidence in his ability to defend himself and bring relief to an ailing police system. The second is that the knighthood would be unified group of militarily trained and disciplined men not under the control of the government.
The modern police force is rife with corruption, under-funding and lack of man power. In many places, the police are scorned and hated, and their ability to do their duties is diminished because of it, as is evident from the lyrics of any rap song. As the police, especially in high crime areas, are understaffed, the knighthood could take up the slack. Not as law enforcement, but as a moderating influence. They could patrol the streets, and perhaps intervene in local disputes. The advantages of having good men who are willing and able to do the right thing always present is obvious.

These men would not be above the law, nor would they be an extension of it. That requires that you work for the government, and they wouldn't be. These knights are not to be another part of the executive branch, but civilians who have an upright moral code and the will and strength to carry it out. The knights, because of their training, beliefs, and the voluntary nature of the knighthood, would not be likely to go on crime sprees. On the impossible chance that they would, they will be treated like any other criminal and therefore easily contained by local, state, and federal police agencies.

The knights would be unsanctioned by the government, however, they would be able to act as independently as citizens. The constitution guarantees its citizens the right to move about as they choose and defend themselves. Whether they move as individuals or as a coordinated as part of a group is unimportant. After all, demonstrations are a huge amount of people gathering together for some goal unrestrained by government. The knights are people who would be walking around, setting a good example, helping people and, if necessary, interrupting crime. The knighthood is to be a civilian group neither for or against the government.

That being the case, what is the difference between a knight and a normal citizen? In short, the answer is that a normal citizen runs away from danger or catastrophe, while the knight runs toward it.

In the instance of crime, especially violent crime, the knight could put himself in a position where he could legally use force. For instance consider the situation of a mugging. The knight sees the crime in progress and proceeds to interrupt it as he is honor bound to do. He demands that the mugger stop and places him under citizens arrest. If the mugger complies, then the knight has successfully stopped a crime that could have become violent at worst and just illegal at best. If instead the mugger turns his weapon on the knight, the knight would have legal justification for using deadly force on the man threatening him. With the extensive training the knight would be able to deal with his assailant and either disarm of kill him. Thus, without breaking the law, a knight has protected an innocent person and brought justice to a criminal.
At first there will be many criminals who will resist the knights, and certainly, there will be knights who fail to defend themselves. (As a matter of practicality, the knights would probably patrol in groups of two or three in order to back each other up. This would also lower the casualty and raise the success rate among knights) Those knights will be small in proportion to the criminals who are brought to justice because the knights are better trained and because they are fighting for a cause. Once enough criminals have been captured or killed, and they see the knighthoods determination and vigilance in standing against them, there should be a dramatic drop in the crime rate. People commit crime cause they think they can get away with it. Once they don't think they can anymore, then they will stop attempting it.

If this protection was spotty or sporadic it would be pointless. It would be an added deterrent to crime, but criminals are used to overcoming obstacles. The knighthood, then, must be ever-present. Only by maintaining a constant presence, day and night, in an area could they hope to truly stifle crime. In the case of inconsistent protection, the criminals would not be assured of the inevitability of their capture. They would be much more willing to take the risks. By flooding the streets with knights, however, the criminal could be certain that any illegal act would be observed and dealt with.

Just fifty years ago, to be a part of a neighborhood was to be a part something bigger than yourself and your family. You were part of a community. Neighbors would talk to each other, and know each others' problems, and if things got tough, the neighbors would bind together. However, nowadays, there is no feeling of belonging to a community. With the upsurge and prevalence of crime people are afraid to leave their apartments, and technological advances, especially television, make it very comfortable inside their self-made prison.
The new knighthood could bring back, through their constant vigilance, a close neighborhood. People could feel safe about leaving their doors unlocked at night, and letting their children play in the park without worrying about someone trying to kidnap them. Along with this feeling of security, the desire for socializing with neighbors could be acted upon free of fear. Thusly the neighborhood would become as close-knit as before, like its own little world.

The youth watch T.V. to be entertained and are saturated by it. If you asked the average teenage boy about the American founding they would be befuddled, but if you asked them about what so-so did on the Real World, they could tell you in intimate detail. Part of the reason for this fixation on television is that the world does not challenge them. Allowing young men to join the knighthood as squires (and eventually knights) would solve this problem. How much more exciting would helping a modern knight fight crime be compared to some contrived sitcom or sappy drama?

Having young men participate in the knighthood would have another benefit. It would make for a better generation of young men. The squires would help the knights, and, in return, the knights would teach the youngsters about chivalry. The seeds of morality planted within the young men would germinate as they got older, and they would use them, thereby enhancing their own, and everyone around them, quality of life.

This is the more abstract and universal benefit of having an active modern knighthood. It would make good men. Society is cooperation between people. Its value is decreased by people who don't work to maintain and improve it. In the contemporary western world, apathy and disinterest are prolific. Not enough people care about the direction society is taking. As evidence for this I offer the terrible voter turnouts of thirty to forty percent in the last fifty years of elections. Voting is a civic duty and it is necessary to maintain a republic and not enough people are doing it. A knight's life is his duty, and a modern knighthood would produce men who would feel honor bound to fulfill it. These knights would raise the worth of society.

The knighthood, then, could be expected to revitalize politics without really participating in the political process, except through education. Most people would either have been exposed or participated with the knights. By observing the seriousness with which the knights take their duties, the citizens who did not actually train with them would still be inspired to take their own civic duties more seriously.

Similarly, the quality of politicians would improve because the people actually running for office would have been influenced by the knights, and would therefore try to be chivalric and upright. The next generation of leaders will be those trained and influenced by the knighthood. They would take their duties as public servants seriously and with a view to the public good, and not re-election. They would have as their example knights who gave their lives to protect the people. Compared to this, how inconsequential it will seem to lose a re-election? If the politicians are interested in serving the common good even at the expense of their own political career, then the caliber of politicians and politics will be greatly increased.

The people would also demand more from their politicians. After observing the self-sacrificing knights, day after day, month after month, year after year, giving up their lives to keep them safe, the people will begin to expect more from their public figures. They would not tolerate the flaky and fickle demagoguery that has become statue quo among modern politicians, because it would contrast sharply with the prime example the knights set every day.

Locke speaks about a people's right to revolution. In his time, it was possible for civilians to band together and oppose a tyrannical government, because the gap of quality between government and civilian soldiers was not that large. Nowadays, the government has soldiers with advanced training and equipped with technology that has capabilities far beyond anything a civilian could copy. As a result, an extremely important check on government is gone- fear of the people. With this fear gone, and with all its the military and technological advances, the government has nothing to keep it honest. A knighthood, separated from the government and trained up to the standards of military, but whose goal is the protection of the people, would be a significant check against a potential tyranny.

It is important to understand that the knighthood would not be an active check against government like a watchdog organization. They would not hold rallies or protests, endorse political candidates or investigate government abuses. The knights existence as a coherent group of trained and potent individuals will, instead, be a passive check against potential tyranny. The mere knowledge that there exists a group with the means and the will to resist any move on the part of the government toward despotism should be a sufficient safeguard.
These are only the most significant of the potential benefits that the reinstitution of the knighthood would bring. Our society, it is often lamented, is falling apart, but it does not have to be that way. We need men who are willing to stand and fight against corruption and moral bankruptcy, to return the nobility that is so lacking in our society. The knights that existed in the past have left us with a great legacy. Instead of leaving it in the realm of stories and reminiscence, let us make use of it and save our own society. Let us have a knighthood again.