If you haven't read the Godfather article in The National Interest yet, do yourself a favor. It's the best thing written about politics or the movies this year. Here is Michael Corleone, the political realist, searching for a middle path between neo-conservatism and old school liberalism:
If the U.S. is going to succeed in the 21st century, we'll need to have someone who is not so committed to the old battles of the 20th, like the McCains and Clintons of the world.
The neo-conservative position is here represented by Sonny, the paleo-liberal by Tom Hagen. The genius of Michael is to side-step those positions and not get caught up in fighting old wars, or re-arguing old debates. Instead of fighting for the status quo represented by his father's era, he responds to the changing times, and uses strategic thinking to reposition his family and protect it from new threats.Viewing the world through untinted lenses, he sees that the age of dominance the family enjoyed for so long under his father is ending. Alone among the three brothers, Michael senses that a shift is underway toward a more diffuse power arrangement, in which multiple power centers will jockey for position and influence. To survive and succeed in this new environment, Michael knows the family will have to adapt.
First, Michael relinquishes the mechanistic, one-trick-pony policy approaches of his brothers in favor of a “toolbox,” in which soft and hard power are used in flexible combinations and as circumstances dictate. While at various times he sides with Tom (favoring negotiation) or Sonny (favoring force), Michael sees their positions as about tactics and not about ultimate strategy, which for him is solely to ensure the survival and prosperity of the family. Thus, he is able to use Sonny’s “button men” to knock out those competitors he cannot co-opt, while negotiating with the rest as Tom would like. This blending of sticks and carrots ensures that Michael is ultimately a more effective diplomat than Tom and a more successful warrior than Sonny: when he enters negotiations, it is always in the wake of a fresh battlefield victory and therefore from a position of strength; when he embarks on a new military
campaign, it is always in pursuit of a specific goal that can be consolidated afterwards diplomatically.
If the U.S. is going to succeed in the 21st century, we'll need to have someone who is not so committed to the old battles of the 20th, like the McCains and Clintons of the world.
