Looking at what people do and have done tells us more about them than listening to what they say. This rule partly defines the essence of Machiavellian Political Science. To express this concept, Burnham turns to Pareto’s theory of Residues and Derivatives, which will be the bulk of today's topic.  

In his discussion of Pareto, Burnham clarifies that the majority (if not all) of formal political theories are non-logical. To understand what he means by non-logical, it will be helpful to understand what he means by logical political theories. A logical political theory or action must have a “deliberately held goal or purpose”; the goal must be possible; and the “steps or means he takes to reach the goal [must be]… appropriate for reaching it” (p. 156). In other words, if an action is logical, then it has a goal, that goal is possible, and the steps taken to achieve that goal are appropriate or relevant for achieving that goal. If an action does not have a goal, the goal is impossible, or the steps taken to achieve the goal are inappropriate and irrelevant to achieving that goal, then the action (or theory) is non-logical. Again, if any of the necessary conditions that define logical action are not fulfilled, then it is non-logical (p. 157).

As I think is the case, and I believe Burnham and Pareto would concur with this sentiment, the majority of human action and, thus, political action, is non-logical. Burnham notes that Pareto places a heavy emphasis on unraveling non-logical action. For instance, Burnham states that “[Pareto’s] book lists many thousands of examples [of non-logical actions], and each of these could suggest a thousand more of the same kind” (p. 158). While some believe that logical action is the defining feature of Man, Pareto thinks that non-logical action is the predominant form of human behavior. I.e., Humans are generally non-logical actors. Given that a political theory must attenuate its goals to the facts of the human condition, a savvy political actor will organize the masses non-logically.

This fact about political action being non-logical requires the political scientist to look past what is stated about any given political theory. Democrats may advocate for equity, Republicans may advocate for tradition, the Catholic Church may advocate for equality, or the communists may advocate for the liberation of Man from capitalist oppression. Still, these goals are too ambiguous to be considered genuine goals and cannot communicate to the masses how they should appropriately act. Therefore, these goals may be regarded as unachievable. The Communist, for instance, may advocate for a Classless society, but to achieve this goal, he inevitably divvies his comrades' labors up, creating the very classes he’s trying to avoid. Consequently, he manifests a ruling elite or expert class. The Catholic Church may advocate for equality, often citing Galatians 3:27-28 in the process, but they never take this statement to its logical conclusion. They would stop going to church if they did: If everyone is equal, particularly men and women, how can any man hold a position of authority over you? Since a man has authority over you, you are not all equal with him. Why should there be a Pope? A Cardinal? Any Christian religious leader? If you claim greater expertise on this matter and simultaneously advocate for equality, you’ve logically negated your own argument. We can infer that these Christians do not genuinely want an equal society. As such, the Communist does not genuinely want a classless society, the Republican a traditional society, or a Democrat equity.

Regardless, these actions are no less important to examine because they are non-logical. Instead, they should be of particular interest to the political scientist. Of course, they haven’t been and continue to be disregarded. Pareto believes this is rooted in Man’s tendency to disregard what is for what he wants to be the case, making an example of Aristotle in the process. Secondly, Man also has a tendency, as Burnham notes, to come up with just-so stories. These just-so stories make our actions seem rational and logical. However, the action, political or not, can occur without being rationally considered whatsoever. Because we tend to want to believe Man is rational, we “conjure up a rational explanation” for his actions. For example, “Many Jews, following the lead given by the medieval rationalist, Maimonides, explain that the Hebraic taboo against eating pork was really the means used in the days of the Old Testament to guard the people against the lack of refrigeration for keeping pig-meat; with which explanation, which has not the remotest basis in historical evidence, the taboo becomes respectably logical” (pp. 164-165). With the recognition that Man is a generally non-logical actor, Burnham proceeds by investigating Pareto’s theory of Residues and Derivatives.

By Residue, both Pareto and Burnham mean “the stable, common element which we may discover in social action, the nucleus which is ‘left over’ (hence, perhaps, Pareto’s choice of the word ‘residue’) when the variable elements are stripped away.” Burnham also emphasizes the fact that Residues are a sociological rather than a psychological or biological concept. To discover a residue, you must compare “a large number of social actions.” A Residue likely “corresponds to some fairly permanent human impulse or instinct or, as Pareto more often calls it, ‘sentiment’” (p. 168). By Derivatives, Pareto and Burnham mean “the manifestation of the residues, the outward forms” (p. 173).

Pareto identifies six classes of Residues, and some of them appear to overlap. A Class One Residue is an Instinct for Combinations. “This is the tendency which leads human beings to combine or manipulate various elements taken arbitrarily from experience.” This kind of residue impels “men to ‘system-making’ – that is, to elaborate logical or rather pseudo-logical combinations of ideas and mental elements in general, to theologies and metaphysics, and ideologies of all sorts. Thus it is this class of residue that chiefly accounts for ‘derivations,’ expressing man’s need to make his own behavior seem rational” (p. 169). Class Two residues are called Group-Persistence residues. “When once any combination has been formed, forces come into play to keep that combination sustained and persisting [emphasis added]” (pp. 169-70). Class Two residues “are usually accompanied by a willingness to use force in order to maintain the solidity and persistence of the entities in question – to ‘save the nation,’ or the ‘true faith,’ for example” (p. 170). These are the two most significant residues of the six.

The third class of residues correlates to the Need of Expressing Sentiments by External Acts – Residues of Self-Expression and Activity. This class of residues relates to Man’s need to do something about some matter at hand, whether it’s a problem or not. This class is also a subcategory of Class One residues and relies on connection-making to generate a solution (pp. 170-71). The fourth class of residues is Residues Connected with Sociality. Class four residues relate to Man’s desire to conform to his group, to have a social identity, or to be a part of a group. It should also be noted that Class Four residues are a subcategory of Class Two residues (pp 171-72). The fifth class of residues relates to the Integrity of the Individual and His Appurtenances. “[T]hese are the feelings that lead men to guard their personal integrity, to maintain themselves and the conditions of their existence, together with whatever they happen to identify with themselves and those conditions of existence” (p. 172). This residue can cause Man to identify with a social structure or institution that, while he doesn’t belong to it, he regards as relevant to “the preservation of [his] own integrity.” According to Pareto, this residue is responsible for Man’s need to restore his integrity, baptize himself, and cleanse himself of his sin or wrongs. It also motivates Man to vengefully destroy people who have degraded his character or an institution he’s identified with his character. The heretic is burned by this instinct, sentiment, and residue (pp. 172 -73). This residue appears, at least to me, to be a combination of Class One and Two residues. Lastly, there are Class Six residues: The Sex Residue. “The sex residue functions only where it receives an expression that is at least partly verbal, where theories and literature and moral rules and religious doctrines are used as the ever-varying but always present disguises and distortions of the sex impulse” (p. 173).

Out of these six residues, we find four derivatives. Class One derivatives are Assertions. “These, the simplest and most direct and often the most effective of derivatives, are mere dogmatic assertions.” Typically, they “take the form of maxims and aphorisms.” These derivatives serve as propaganda’s bedrock. Class Two derivatives are defined by their reference to Authority. Most authoritative appeals are seldom justified and, therefore, non-logical. Class Three derivatives are Accords with Sentiment or Principles. These derivatives “convert sentiments into abstractions, persistent realities, and everlasting principles.” Lastly, Class Four derivatives are known as Verbal Proofs. “These are the familiar derivations that depend upon verbal confusions and fallacies, ambiguous terms, the intrusion of emotive expression in the place of statements of fact, metaphors and allegories taken for proofs, all of which have been recently so much discussed by the many writers on ‘semantics’” (pp. 174-75).

The fact that the residues are more significant than the derivatives does not make the derivatives any less meaningful. By examining the words of political actors, which shall take the form of the four derivatives discussed previously, vis-à-vis their actions, the true intent of the political actor(s) can be identified. When the Republican or Conservative advocates for Tradition, he's using a verbal proof, motivating his constituency via Class Two, Four, and Five residues. When the Democrat appeals to Equity, he's using a verbal proof and generating a theory inspired by Class One and Five residues. When the Catholic advocate appeals to Equality, he is motivated by Class One, Four, and Five residues. This model allows the political scientist to ignore what is stated, as it is often incoherent with itself, unachievable, or not an actual goal. Instead, derivatives and residues give meaning to the political actor’s actions. His actions' indecipherability dissolves and their light is made evident.

The group’s myth, discussed by Sorel, perhaps is one of the most powerful combinatory forms of these derivatives and residues. Sorel’s conception of myth suggests that it is neither true nor false. Citing Sorel, Burnham states that “'A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions’” (p. 110). The myths of any political group express a “determination to act” (p. 111). These myths, thus, have their roots in Class One, Three, Four, and Five residues. They motivate the masses to act on behalf of the elites by providing the people with a coherent theory that motivates their inherent impulses, provides them with a social and individual identity, and tells them the institutions of the opposing elites are theirs, and that those institutions have been corrupted (therefore, they have been corrupted). Because the enemy elites have corrupted the institutions, property, and sanctity of the body that the masses feel are theirs, the elites must be removed, their institutions captured, and their ‘corruption’ cleansed.

In a democratic society, the elites, speaking on behalf of the people, use the power of myth to coordinate and organize the people. They provide the people with a target, a personal and social identity, a raison d'etre, and a feeling that what has been taken from them must be returned. And, when these democratic elites, in the sense Mosca provides us, seize power, the masses gain a new-founded national identity and, thus, develop a strong Class Two residue. However, the new elites gain a stronger Class One residue or instinct. Here blooms the enduring split between the Lions and Foxes. In time, Foxes always destroy the nations they gain power over. They become weak, desire a diplomatic solution to problems that require authoritative force, heavily rely on fraud and deception, and seek solace in their theories, ideologies, or formulas. And when these fail them, they abandon their formulas, theories, and myths. Their sense of identity dissolves, and from without or within, the Lion ascends and takes his rightful place, only to, in time, be replaced by the managerial foxes once again (pp. 197-198).

It should be obvious that, by now, the United States as a world power is collapsing. Her elites are either incompetent or can't adapt to changing circumstances or corrupt beyond belief and willing to sell out their people for momentary pleasures. They have abandoned past myths of equality or “character before race” for myths of equity, transhumanism, and AI Communism. The myth of equity speaks to a burgeoning elites', whose competence is highly questionable, desire for other people's wealth. Transhumanism communicates to Class One residues, specifically, the masses or elites’ desire to become whatever they please to avoid the limits of their circumstances, which are more likely than in times past to destroy them. This heavy emphasis on a derivative of Class One residues suggests Fox-like tendencies. Therefore, this neo-mythos may be highly alluring to America’s contemporary elite. The myth of AI Communism communicates a utopic desire for transcendence. In the myth of AI-Communism, there’s a world free from pain, suffering, hard work, and the ineradicable and essential problems of Man and, thus, a world free of Humanity itself. This myth so exceedingly communicates Man’s desire to cleanse himself that it belies the West’s wish for self-annihilation. None of these are apt to wholly preserve Mankind and exemplify the deteriorating state of the West and her satrapies.

The West’s current myth hinges on massive amounts of people, who support the democrats, feeling as if they’re being attacked by the ‘reactionary’ Right. This is a form of Sorel’s violent myth. The myth of violence can serve two purposes: firstly, it can motivate people to act to protect themselves from some violent actor, for example, the Right; secondly, by putting violence at the front of one’s mind, it can decrease the frequency of violent acts; it can contain violent actors. I'm skeptical of this last point, although Burnham suggests it's the case, alluding to historical examples to justify it. However, what the West’s elites, who are generally Liberal and Leftists, use the myth of violence to achieve is power consolidation against internal resistance. A timely though dour example of this is the recent sinister action in Tennessee. Before its occurrence, the Left pointed to the Right and stoked the Left’s fears of the Right. The Left takes the Right’s justifiable critiques of the Trans-movement as an existential threat. The Left has generally apologized for the sinister action by claiming the shooter was a victim of her circumstances. In either case, the Left uses the narrative to activate their base or use it to reconfirm the group’s solidarity (Class Three and Four residues). The Right must recognize that the Left’s tendency to treat their side’s actions with kids’ gloves signals that they do not see the Right as people worth protecting. The Left feels this because they regard the Right as an existential threat to their power. Given that the Left is promoting or indifferent to conflict within the United States done by their side suggests they are on extremely shaky ground.

The elites’ indifference is, as Burnham notes, a sign of their collapse and that a shift is occurring. The first sign that Burnham notes is that the elite are unable “to handle possibilities opened up by technological advances and by the growth, for whatever reason, of new social forces.” For example, today’s elite may be wary of artificial software and unable to synthesize their current operations with its potentialities. Secondly, they may not be able to handle the consequences of being a mercantile empire constituted by various ethnic groups, each trying to signal their victimhood for status. Because these groups help to consolidate the elites' power, they expect payments from them, hence their obsession with concepts such as “equality” and “equity.” They are saying they want money, power, or prestige when referencing these formulaic derivatives of Class One and Five residues. However, they only acquire said resources through those (the Lions) capable of generating them. As such, they sap, from the nation, the very vitality they seek to acquire, dooming themselves.

Secondly, “when a considerable percentage of the ruling class devotes little attention to the business of ruling, [turning instead] to such fields as culture, art, philosophy, and the pursuit of sensuous pleasures.” From this second condition, we see why the elites, and their masses, may be moved by transhumanist myths. Such myths allude to the decadent pleasures a perpetual life could offer.

Next, “when an elite is unable or unwilling to assimilate rising new elements from the masses or from its lower ranks.” When the Liberals and Left deny Conservatives or members of the Right-Wing intelligentsia access to elite institutions or puritanically remove them from their institutions, they must do so at a cost to themselves. This is a form of ostracization, and since ostracization is a form of punishment, it is costly. As such, the ostracization of the Right-Wing intelligentsia (who are more Lion than Fox) is costing the Left and is a sign they can't maintain power for themselves.

Penultimately, “When large sections of the elite lose confidence in themselves and the legitimacy of their own rule; and when in both elite and non-elite there is a loss of faith in the political formulas and myths that have held the social structure together.” Many Americans no longer have faith in traditional American values, institutions, or myths that animate them to preserve their society. We might go so far – at least I would – to say the American elite hate themselves.

Finally, “When the ruling class, or much of it, is unable or unwilling to use force in a firm and determined way, and instead tries to rely almost exclusively on manipulation, compromise, deceit, and fraud” (p. 208). In part, I’m glad this is generally the case. If the elite were willing to use force in their current state, I am confident they would not use force effectively. This was precisely Burnham's concern about America’s elites at the end of Suicide of the West; he thought they couldn't use force appropriately. Regardless, there are some cases, particularly internal issues concerning protests outside Supreme Court Justices’ homes and during the BLM riots of 2020, where a stronger use of force would have been entirely appropriate but was withheld.

As should be clear, America is a.) collapsing and b.) elite rule is on the verge of shifting. The problem: in whose hands will power fall? I do not think it will fall into the West’s hands. This shift will benefit, at least for a time, other world powers like China. By the end of The Machiavellians, Burnham makes clear that genuine elite power shifts are less likely to occur at the local level as they did in Machiavelli's time or be meaningful if they do. Rather, looking at the potential hot, and ultimately cool, conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, he believed that genuine, contemporary power shifts occur globally. This means that as America's elite falter, her position on the world stage will be lost. Given it looks like her elites are failing, America's world dominance will likely fail with them. Her world dominance is contingent upon the position of her elites. As they fall, so shall she.

Bibliography: 

James Burnham, 1943. The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom.