Rationale (pronounced rash-uh-nal)
(1)
The fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.
(2)
A statement of reasons.
(3)
A reasoned exposition of principles, especially one defining the fundamental
reasons for a course of action or belief; a justification for action.
(4)
A liturgical vestment worn by some Christian bishops of various denominations
(now rare), the origin of which is the breastplate worn by Israelite high
priests (a translation of λογεῖον
(logeîon) or λόγιον (logion) (oracle) in the Septuagint version
of Exodus 28)). The French spelling (rational)
of the Latin ratiōnāle was used in
Biblical translations.
(5)
In engineering, a design rationale is the explicit documentation of the reasons
behind decisions made when designing a system; it was once used of what now would
be described as a set of parameters.
1650-1660:
From the Late Latin ratiōnāle
(exposition of principles), nominative singular neuter of ratiōnālis (rational, of reason).
After some early inventiveness, the modern sense "fundamental
reason, the rational basis or motive of anything" became standardised
during the (1680s). In the nature of
such things, many rationales are constructed ex post facto. Rationale is
a noun; the noun plural is rationales or rationalia.
Prince Metternich & Dr Rudd: illustrating rationale & rational
Portrait of Prince Metternich (1822), miniature on card by Friedrich Lieder (1780-1859).
Rationale and rational are sometimes confused. A rationale is a process variously of explanation, reason or justification of something that need not be at all rational (although many fashioned ex post facto are re-formulated thus). To be rational, something must make sense and be capable of being understood by the orthodox, accepted methods of the time. That something may subsequently be shown to be irrational does not mean it did not at some time appear rational; one can construct a rationale for even something irrational. To construct a post-Napoleonic Europe, Prince Metternich (Prince Klemens of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein (1773–1859); foreign minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & chancellor 1821-1848) built a rationale for the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) that was well understood. It was vision of a Europe, divided between the great powers, in which was maintained a perpetual balance of power which would ensure peace. That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from Metternich’s rationale. Some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly and while it’s not true the consequence was a century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a good number of decades in that time were notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed.
Dr Rudd at the ceremony to be conferred DPhil, University of Oxford, September, 2022.
By 2009, Kevin Rudd ((b 1957); Prime Minister of Australia 2007-2010 &
June-September 2013), having realised being prime-minister was a squandering of
intellectual talent, embarked on a re-design of relationships in the
Asia-Pacific, structured in a way to suit what was self-evidently obvious: he
should assume regional leadership. These
things do happen when folk get carried away.
Not discouraged by the restrained enthusiasm for his good idea, Mr Rudd
penned one of his wordy rationales which, to him, must have sounded rational
but less impressed was just about everybody else in the region including his
own cabinet and it’s difficult to recall any hint of interest from other
countries. Mr Rudd quibbled a bit,
claiming his use of the word community was just diplomatic shorthand and he
wasn’t suggesting anything like what the EU ever was or had become but just
better way of discussing problems.
Anyway, it for a while gave him a chance to use phrases like “ongoing and continuing discussions” and
“regional and sub-regional architecture”
so there was that. By 2010 the idea had
been allowed quietly to die and he had more pressing problems.
Attaining the premiership was Rudd’s mistake. Had he never achieved to position he’d probably be spoken of as “the best prime-minister Australia never had” but instead he’s among those (and of late there have been a few) remembered as the Roman historian Tacitus (circa 56–circa 120) in the first volume of his Histories (circa 100) wrote of Galba (3 BC–AD 69; Roman Emperor 68-69): "...omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset" (everyone would have agreed he was qualified for governing if he had not held the office). His background was as a senior public servant who provided advice to others so they could make decisions and he enjoyed a solid career which was clearly well-suited to his skills. Unfortunately, when occupying the highest political office in the land, he proved indecisive and too often inclined to refer to committees matters which he should have insisted came to cabinet with the necessary documents. His other character flaw was he seemed unable to understand there was a difference between “leadership” and “command”, unable to realise there was a difference between the structured hierarchy of the public service and the swirling clatter of politics. His career in The Lodge (the prime-minister’s official residence in Canberra) can be recalled as the Italian historian and politician Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540) noted of Pope Clement VII (1478–1534; pope 1523-1534): “…knowledgeable and effective as a subordinate, he fell victim when in charged to timidity, perplexity and habitual irresolution.” With that, the Italian writer Piero Vettori (1499–1585) concurred, writing: “From a great and renowned cardinal, he was transformed into a little and despised pope”, a sentiment familiar in the phrase repeated in militaries around the world (outstanding major; average colonel; lousy general) to describe that truism in organizational behaviour: “Everyone gets promoted to their own level of incompetence”.
That
aphorism was from The Peter Principle
(1970), written by Raymond Hull (1919–1985) and based on the research of
Laurence Peter (1919–1990), the idea being someone who proves successful in one
role will be promoted and if competent there, they will be promoted again. However, should they fail, within the hierarchy,
that is the point of their incompetence, the implication being that the
tendency is, as time passes, more and more positions within a corporation will
be filled by the incompetent. The
exceptions of course are (1) those competent souls who for whatever reason decline
promotion and (2) the habitually successful who will in theory continue to be
promoted until they reach the top and, if they prove competent there, this
results in the paradox of the typical corporation being run by someone
competent but staffed substantially by the incompetent. In politics, reaching the top means becoming
prime-minister, president or some similar office and as Winston Churchill
(1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) described it: "...if he trips he must be sustained.
If he makes mistakes they must be covered. If he sleeps he must not wantonly be
disturbed. If he is no good he must be poleaxed. In one of the more amusing recent episodes in politics, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) decided Dr Rudd had been promoted to the relevant point and poleaxed him, a back-stabbing which remains one of the best organized and executed seen in years. Subsequently, the party concluded his replacement was even more of a dud and restored Dr Rudd to the job, a second coming which lasted but a few months but that was long enough for him to revenge himself upon the hatchet men responsible for his downfall so there was that.
Still,
after his political career (which can be thought a success because he did did reach the top of the “greasy pole” and the delivered the ALP a handsome election victory although their gratitude was short-lived (a general tendency in democracies noted (sometimes gleefully) by many political scientists)) he has been busy, even if the
secretary-generalship of the United Nations (UN) (an office which is an irresistible
lure for a certain type) proved elusive.
Recently he became Dr Rudd, awarded Doctorate of Philosophy (DPhil) by the University
of Oxford. His 420 page thesis, written
over four years, explores the world view of Xi Jinping (b 1953; general
secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and paramount leader of the
People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013) and the relationship of his
ideology to both the direction taken by the CCP and the links with the thoughts (and their consequences) of Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong 1893–1976; chairman of the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) 1949-1976).
Dr
Rudd says his thesis argues “…there has
been a significant change in China’s ideological worldview under Xi Jinping
compared with previous ideological orthodoxies under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin
and Hu Jintao [and summarises] Xi’s
worldview as a new form of ‘Marxist-Leninist Nationalism’”. Dr Rudd says he preferred “Marxist Nationalism” because “the term contains within it three core
propositions”: (1) “Xi’s Leninism has
taken both the party and Chinese politics in general to the left” (and he
defines “left” for these purposes as “…the reassertion of the power of the party
over all public policy as well as elevating the position of the individual
leader against the rest of collective leadership”), (2) “Xi’s notion of Marxism has similarly taken
the centre of gravity of Chinese economic thought to the left” ("left" in this aspect defined as “…a new
priority for party-state intervention in the economy, state-owned enterprises
over the private sector and a new ideology of greater income equality”) and
(3) “Xi has also taken Chinese
nationalism to the right (“right”
here meaning “a new assertion of Chinese
national power as reflected in a new array of nationalist ‘banner terms’ that
are now used in the party’s wider ideological discourse.”) Dr Rudd views these three forces as “…part of a wider reification of the overall
role of ideology under Xi Jinping. This has been seen in the fresh application
of Marxist Leninist concepts of dialectical materialism, historical
materialism, the primary stage of socialism, contradiction and struggle across
the range of China’s current domestic and international challenges. The role of
nationalism has also been enhanced within Xi’s new ideological framework. This
hybrid form of Marxist Nationalist ideology is also being increasingly codified
within the unfolding canon of Xi Jinping thought.”
“Finally, the thesis argues there is a high
degree of correlation between these ideological changes on the one hand and
changes in the real world of Chinese politics, economic policy and a more
assertive foreign policy on the other - including a different approach to
Chinese multilateral policy as observed by diplomatic practitioners at the UN
in New York. The thesis concludes these
changes in Xi Jinping’s ideological worldview and its impact on Chinese
politics and public policy is best explained by a theoretical framework that
integrates Authoritarian Resilience Theory, the realist and constructivist
insights of the English School of International Relations Theory, and Foreign
Policy Analysis.” Clearly, Dr Rudd
thinks the CCP has come a long way since comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader
1924-1953) casually dismissed Maoist theory as “ideologically primitive”.
Since
March 2023, Dr Rudd has served as Australian Ambassador to the United States,
the announcement of the appointment attracting some speculation there may be a
secret protocol to the contract, providing for him to report to the prime-minister
rather than the foreign minister. It was
mischievous speculation and there has been little but praise for the solid work
he has been doing in the Washington embassy.
Dr Rudd’s role attracted headlines in March 2022 when a interview with Donald
Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) was broadcast in which the former
president was acquainted (apparently for the first time) with some uncomplimentary
assessments Dr Rudd had made of him including describing him “the most destructive president in history”
and “a traitor to the West”.
Having doubtless heard and ignored worse over the years, Mr Trump seemed little concerned but did respond in his usual style, observing he didn’t know much about Dr Rudd except he’d heard he was “a little bit nasty” and “not the brightest bulb”, adding “he’d not be there long” if hostile to a second Trump presidency. Trumpologists analysing these thoughts suggested the mildness of the reaction indicated the matter was unlikely to be pursued were he to return to the Oval Office, noting his habit of tending to ignore or forget about anything except actual threats to his immediate self-interest. After taking office in 2017, when asked if he would pursue the legal action he’d during the campaign threatened against Bill (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) & crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) (mostly on the basis of crooked Hillary’s crooked crookedness), he quickly brushed it off saying: “No, they’re good people” and moving on. It’s thought Dr Rudd won't end up in the diplomatic deep-freeze, the most severe version of which is for a host nation to declare a diplomat "persona non grata" (the construct being the Latin persōna (person) + nōn (not) + grāta (from grātus (acceptable)), the consequence of which is an expulsion from the territory and the worst fate he may suffer is not receiving an invitation to a round of golf (something unlikely much to upset him). Others however should be worried, in a second Trump White House, there will be vengeance.
Like "diplomatic toothache" and "null & void", the phrase "persona non gratia" has become part of general language, the utility being in few words describing what would otherwise take many more. Impressionistically, it would seem "troubled starlets" are more than most declared "persona non gratia".