Subscribe
In the last of my articles I spoke of that rebellion or revolution or reaction of human virtues that must accompany the electoral and political victories of conservative parties and movements in Europe. I referred to sincerity, as a human virtue that the electoral party system does not encourage or promote; neither the politician – for promises or flattering words are rewarded even if they are not fulfilled – nor the electoral body, which prefers to listen to lies as long as they do not require personal sacrifices.
Today I will talk about prudence. Prudence is a virtue that inclines human beings to choose on all occasions the means best suited to the ends they intend to achieve. Of the classic cardinal virtues (justice, fortitude, temperance and prudence) the one that best suits the leader, the boss, is prudence. Of course he must be temperate, and just and strong; but the leader’s job is to make decisions, and prudence is a virtue that fundamentally refers to making the decision and executing it.
Prudence is at work when it comes to forming a government, or breaking it up, building coalitions, aligning internationally or choosing the right people to lead an electoral list.
Without prudence, no politician can direct or order his actions to the intended end; and therefore, he who acts without prudence is certain to fail. It was an imprudent decision for Napoleon and Hitler to invade Russia; and it is imprudent, ordinarily, to raise taxes when they are already causing harm to the middle and working classes. It is unwise to criminalise the primary sector and prudent, however, to allow families and local communities to do for themselves what they can do for themselves effectively.
But prudence cannot be confused with selfishness, comfort or cowardice. Prudence is common sense, balance and weighing of circumstances, but it is not moderation, fear or indecision. Sometimes the seemingly risky move, the change of course, the courageous action is the prudent decision, because it is the one best suited to the intended end.
If we look at American policy, the Marshall Plan was prudent and bold, but the emergency exit from Afghanistan was imprudent, leaving hundreds of thousands of Afghans in the hands of the Taliban, especially women, especially after having been on the ground for several years, leaving human lives whose sacrifice was futile, and billions in infrastructure and military equipment behind.
The prudent man, before acting, deliberates and thinks through what he has to do, taking advice from experienced men; and if it is a party, from its consultative bodies. Once the politician has formed his judgement, he must then choose the means best suited to the end sought; and in implementing them he must measure the circumstances existing in each case and adapt himself to them.
Adapting is undoubtedly the most difficult part of prudent decision-making, for politics is more like a game of chess than a marathon. Not everything depends on your preparation or your capacity for suffering. It is a game of chess where, in addition, the pieces are moved by many subjects; political, economic, financial, national and international.
But prudent action cannot fail to be audacious if it really wants to produce another effect more typical of modern politics, which is surprise, the communicative blow, the media impact. A prudent decision is to put an end throughout Europe to aid, subsidies, payments and subsidies to immigrants who enter and stay illegally on European territory.
A measure that is both necessary and appropriate to the desired aim, which is to combat illegal immigration, to harm the business model of the human trafficking mafias, and to give more value to foreigners who enter and reside legally in our societies, working, respecting our laws and contributing with their efforts to the common good and the prosperity of our nations.