It’s that time of year when millions of people binge-watch the Netflix series “House of Cards”. The protagonist, Frank Underwood, is a ruthless, manipulative, and Machiavellian politician who seems to embody everything that people hate about Washington. Frank makes promises he can’t keep, blatantly lies to the public, runs smear campaigns, bends and breaks the law, bullies those who stand in his way, and ruins the lives of innocent people. It seems that there is nothing he won’t do to achieve his goals. And yet, for all his cynical and amoral methods, there is no denying that Frank Underwood gets results. Throughout the show, he gets things done, pushing legislation through a Congress that refuses to budge.
While many of the political exploits in “House of Cards” are very unrealistic, the basic premise is accurate: it’s the backstabbers and schemers who get things done in politics. Americans always seek an ideal politician who gets things done while remaining honest and principled. Such politicians simply do not exist.
The hard truth of the matter is that politics is a dirty business. In order to do a dirty business, you need people capable of doing dirty things. Sending honest people to Washington is like sending a mouse to a snake pit; it’s better to send a snake of your own.
Take the example of Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson shared many similarities with Frank Underwood. In fact, showrunner Beau Willimon has acknowledge LBJ as an inspiration for Frank Underwood.
Like Frank Underwood, Johnson was a Machiavellian bully. Johnson kept detailed biographies on every Senator when he was the Senate Democratic leader. He used this information to manipulate his fellow Senators, figuring out their desires and weaknesses so he could exploit them.
Johnson was a master at navigating through the tangle of partisan politics. He frequently compromised by adding amendments to legislation or making promises about future legislation in order to satiate opponents. When drafting legislation, Johnson was like a general crafting detailed battle plans, estimating the opposition as if it were an enemy army and calculating votes like troop numbers.
Johnson also had cruder tactics. As President, he often met with his cabinet in the bathroom while defecating as a way to demonstrate his power over them. He also invited foreign dignitaries to go skinny-dipping with him in the White House pool in order to intimidate them (Johnson was supposedly very well-endowed).
One of Johnson’s favorite tactics to pummel people into submission was to literally get in their face. Standing a few inches from a troublesome senator or businessman, he would peer down at them (at six-foot-three, Johnson was taller than most of his victims), jam his index finger in their chest, and spout off until they finally gave in. A contemporary described the famous “Johnson treatment” as “an incredible blend of badgering, cajolery, reminders of past favors, promises of future favors, predictions of gloom if something doesn’t happen. When that man started to work on you, all of a sudden, you just felt that you were standing under a waterfall and the stuff was pouring on you”.
Johnson’s use of intimidation and manipulation got results. Johnson’s Great Society was the largest series government reforms since the New Deal, ushering in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Johnson’s War on Poverty resulted in the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line to decline 43 percent in just six years. Even when his political capital tanked as a result of the Vietnam, Johnson was able to push through reforms at breakneck speed.
A striking example of Johnson’s use of ruthless pragmatism and pragmatic ruthlessness do get results is in regards to civil rights legislation. When Johnson ran for senator in 1948, he distanced himself from all talk of civil rights in order to win an increasingly conservative Texas constituency.
In fact, Johnson often used the n-word in private conversations with white southerners. Yet once he was senator he pushed through the first piece of civil rights legislation and as president he signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. While this was a case of flip-flopping and pragmatic maneuvering, if Johnson had been honest in his support of civil rights, he would never have been elected in the first place and would never have been in a position to make meaningful change.
Johnson is hardly the only example of politicians being bad for the greater good. Franklin D. Roosevelt was possibly even more Machiavellian than Johnson. Knowing the importance of public image, he made sure that the public never saw him in a wheelchair, going as far as having his staff destroy photos highlighting his disability.
Even Roosevelt’s marriage was one of political convenience; he had an affair with Eleanor’s secretary, but they stayed together since a divorce would destroy FDR’s political career. H.L Mencken summed it up when he said that if Roosevelt “became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he so sorely needs, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House backyard come Wednesday,” Yet in the end, Roosevelt’s political scheming got the nation through the Great Depression and World War II.
Even politicians who have reputations as honest turn out to be quite devious on further inspection. Abraham Lincoln was known as “Honest Abe,” but in reality he had no problem with playing dirty politics. His greatest achievement, the Emancipation Proclamation, was a masterpiece of political scheming. For one thing, it was a complete flip-flop; Lincoln had promised while campaigning that he only wanted to stop the spread of slavery and had no intention of eliminating slavery where it already existed. Not to mention the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t technically legal; the Constitution does not give the president the power to make such an order—even in a time of war.
However, no one cares about these technicalities because the Proclamation freed millions of people. In the halls of power, the ends really do justify the means. What do ethics matter when compared to the welfare of an entire nation? Why is principle more important than the lives of millions? Those who hold power must sometimes do awful things for the greater good.
The simple fact is that politicians who refuse to fight dirty will be chewed up and spit out by those who have no such qualms. Attempts to make real change inevitably face resistance and this resistance can only be overcome by being cunning and ruthless.
A cautionary example of an idealistic and honest politician is Ron Paul. Ron Paul gathered a following for his honesty and relative consistency. He also achieved nothing of substance during his political career. Of the 620 bills he sponsored in Congress, only one was signed into law, a success rate of less than 0.3 percent. Ron Paul ran for president three times and never came close to winning. Even if you love his political stances, it doesn’t matter because he was never in a position to make a difference.
Some would point out that ruthless politicians have also used wily methods for the greater evil. In an extreme case, Adolf Hitler was also quite Machiavellian. However, the answer to evil schemers is not honest leaders. One cannot fight wolves with sheep. Hitler was ultimately defeated by Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, all devious leaders in their own right.
2016 is an election year. Do not vote for the candidate who is squeaky-clean. Vote for the candidate who has noble goals but is willing to get their hands dirty along the way.