Niccolo
Machiavelli was a great political thinker during his time even though he did
not consider himself a philosopher. [1]
He saw Italy as a corrupt nation and wanted to find a way that an independent
state could run effectively within that nation.[2]
Machiavelli was trying to advise and inspire future leaders of the state by
writing The Prince. Many political
figures have used Machiavelli’s advice to gain power in their own countries
however some have not followed the advice to create the leader that Machiavelli
was trying to create.
Some
of Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince
could work in our current political system, while some advice could not. Although
Machiavelli was a great political thinker, he did not foresee the issues that
the United States would encounter. A few of these issues are; problems with
ethics, special interest groups, and the idea of politicians changing their
views or “flip flopping.” I intend to
argue that virtu, fortune, and the idea of the lion and the fox all have a
place in our political system and society today. However, I will argue that
Machiavelli’s ideas of republican liberty, prudence, and the chameleon are all
bad theories that don’t work or are not ethical in our current political
system.
Throughout
time it has been understood that leaders would gain the respect of their
townships by being morally upstanding and virtuous therefore earning the
respect of their followers.[3]
The Prince outlines the way that a
leader should act to gain the respect and power of a municipality which is by
any means necessary. Maureen Ramsey states, “Machiavelli was concerned to
establish from historical example and factual evidence the kinds of qualities
rulers must have and the actions they must take in order to achieve political
success.”[4]
Machiavelli’s ideology is that in order to rule a leader will need to do some
things that may not be thought of as ethical. Cary Nederman explains that
“there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate
and illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially
coequal.”[5]
The idea is that Machiavelli did not think actions were ethical or not rather
that the basis was all in gaining power and being able to assert control and
then rule over people in a way that brought glory to the leader. Machiavelli
did not believe that a good and just leader could maintain political stability
by being just and virtuous so he wrote The
Prince in order to explain how to acquire political office and then keep
it.[6]
In The Prince he teaches that fear is way
to keep people in line when he says “fear holds them fast by a dread of
punishment that never passes.”[7]
Machiavelli believed that the people needed to have a very basic knowledge of
politics and only the leaders of “forty or fifty” would know what was going on
behind the scenes because it was done behind closed doors.[8]
He did tell the leader to be virtuous when he could, however he would need to
be flexible when the time came to use means that may not be virtuous.[9]
He also told the leader that he would need to exhibit traits that were not so
good and explains “as to the actions of all men and especially those of
princes…everyone looks to their results.”[10]
Although a leader needs to learn how to be not so good the results would justify
his actions regardless if they were perceived as ethical or not. From this
concept is where political thinkers come up with the idea of the ends justify
the means.
There were a few
ideas that Machiavelli held that would work within the political realm in our
current system. These ideals offer the prince a way to gain power and respect
without losing the authority that he has over his people and his leadership.
The idea of virtu helps the prince become a good leader and is something that
is seen in politics today. Every politician needs some good fortune in winning
political office however some have been ousted out of their seats because of
bad fortune. We have seen the lion and the fox work for some politicians and
hinder others. These concepts make Machiavelli relevant today.
The concept of
virtu is one that best describes the requirements for the prince.[11]
Ramsay explains how a Machiavellian politician should act when she states, “He
must be bold, resolute, flexible, prepared to break promises and act against
charity, truth, religion and humanity.”[12]
The prince needs to be able to do what is necessary to win at all cost.
Machiavelli states this when he writes “For anyone who wants to act the part of
a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he as
to deal with will not all be good. So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants
to hold onto power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and
when it is not necessary to use this knowledge.”[13]
Machiavelli knew that it would be hard for a leader to be honest in all things
when he would be dealing with others that were not honest.
Machiavelli’s idea
of virtu can be seen in today’s political system. Candidates are willing to do
whatever it takes to get ahead or keep their office. An example would be
political attack ads seen during elections. Machiavelli did not see the media
as being a major force in our political system because there was no media at
the time. However, the media has made virtu easier for candidates and a must in
the political realm. Attack ads are able to bring opponents worst attributes to
the surface. In this way it is imperative that politicians have virtu to traverse
through the political landscape of today.
The idea of
Fortune is a key concept that Machiavelli uses to describe things that happen
to a political leader that he cannot explain. In The Prince, Machiavelli states, “Those who, having started as
private individuals, become rulers merely out of good luck [fortune], acquire
power with little trouble but have a hard time holding on to it.”[14]
Ramsay says, “When he [Machiavelli] could not explain events, he attributed
them to the quasi-superstitious workings of fortune.”[15]
The concept of fortune can be defined as luck, either good or bad. Ramsay
explains that virtu is used to balance fortune in politics.[16]
Machiavelli believed that a leader could have good or bad fortune and that
virtu would be used as a means to balance that leader’s bad fortune or his
opponent’s good fortune.
Machiavelli’s
concept of fortune has a place in our political society as we see good and bad
fortune befall political leaders all the time. One example is of politicians
who get caught doing things that they thought they would never be caught doing.
Sexting, affairs, and frequenting houses of prostitution are a few of the
examples of bad fortune that gets some politicians headed out of office. These
examples can also be examples of good fortune for opponents. The Watergate
scandal of President Nixon was an example of bad fortune for him, however, it
was good fortune for Jimmy Carter who ran as the honest candidate who was going
to be bring integrity back to Washington. The idea of fortune cannot be attributed
to Machiavelli alone. However, he is the thinker that contributed to the idea
of fortune and virtu working hand in hand to create the politician.
The final concept
that is useful for politicians to posses in our current political system is of
the lion and the fox. Machiavelli discusses in chapter eighteen of The Prince the concept of being both a
lion and a fox. He states, “A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to
adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot
defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves.
Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to
terrify the wolves.”[17]
His idea is that a politician will need to be cunning and strong in his endeavor
to gain power. The politicians that are strong can gain power but cannot always
keep it and those that are cunning don’t always have the strength to retain
their office.
The idea of the
lion and the fox works well in our political system. One of the ways that
Machiavelli explains this working is through the political inner circle. He
explains, “The easiest way of assessing a ruler’s ability is to look at those
who are members of his inner circle. If they are competent and reliable, then
you can be sure he is wise, for he has known both how to recognize their
ability and to keep them faithful.”[18]
He continues to state that if the inner circle is not reliable and faithful
then it is a poor choice on the part of the ruler.[19]
A ruler may use his inner circle to gain the strength or the cunning to rule
his people. Larry Arnhart argues that it is not a good idea to act so beastly
in a leaders governing.[20]
However, I believe that in order to rule a country the prince will need to be
both strong and cunning whether he himself or through his political inner
circle.
There are three
concepts of Machiavelli that don’t fit in our political system or wouldn’t go
over well with the populace. Those three ideas are of prudence, the chameleon,
and republican liberty. These ideas could have worked for a prince in Italy but
in the United States’ political system it would be hard to get everyone to
accept these concepts.
To most people
today republican liberty means individual liberty and freedoms. In the sense
that Machiavelli uses the term it is meant as people free from captivity.
People today would think that personal liberty meant small government with
limited power. Arnhart explains that Machiavelli’s idea of republican liberty
was that the prince had all the power and does not even mention individual or
personal rights.[21]
Machiavelli writes, “[They] are easily satisfied by institutions and laws that
confirm at the same time the general security of the people and the power of
the prince. When a prince does this, and the people see that by no chance he
infringes the laws, they will in a very little while be content, and live in
tranquility.”[22]
His idea is to
take control and as the people see that the prince is abiding by the law then
they will be content. However, this would not work in our society today. Many
people feel that they are knowledgeable about politics. These same people claim
that President Obama is a socialist and is taking away their personal freedoms.
People on the left felt the same way when President Bush enacted the Patriot
Act, they argued that his administration was infringing on their personal
rights. Machiavelli’s concept of republican liberty would not be an idea that
Americans could stand behind today. As Arnhart explains, “James Madison, in his
famous Federalist essay Number 51,
warned that in establishing a government we have to take into account the
selfish nature of human beings.”[23]
Machiavelli
explains that “Prudence consists in knowing how to assess risks and in
accepting the lesser evil as a good.”[24]
The concept of prudence is one that everyone could accept and admire in a
leader. Leo Paul de Alvarez states that Machiavelli uses Cesar as an example of
prudent leadership and as someone that other leaders can look to as an example.[25]
Being a prudent leader means making the hard decisions and being able to make
that decision for the greater good.
Prudent leadership
would be hard to attain in the United States political system today. Many
leaders want the glory but are not willing to make the hard decisions due to a
variety of factors. Some politicians are not willing to make the hard decisions
for fear that they will offend their constituency. Others have special interest
groups telling them what to do rather than weighing the options and making tough
decisions. And some are afraid of the backlash they may take if they decide to
run for a higher office, taking the safe route rather than making a decision
that may be unfavorable. In today’s political arena, prudence is not looked at
as an admirable trait but a weakness.
The final concept
is that of the chameleon. Machiavelli says, “People are by nature inconstant.
It is easy to persuade them of something, but it is difficult to stop them from
changing their minds. So you have to be prepared for the moment they no longer
believe.”[26]
In order for a politician to please his constituency he will need to be attuned
to the will of the people. In this regard he will have to swing on the pendulum
of the people and what they find important at the time. This means shifting in
ideology to coincide with what the people are thinking. This concept is one
that validates Machiavelli’s idea of by any means necessary.
Although this
concept is one that is important it does not work in our political landscape.
In the 2004 election John Kerry was deemed a “flip flopper” because he voted
for and against similar bills. During the 2012 republican debates Mitt Romney
has also been seen as a flip flopper and someone who does not know what party
line to follow. The American people want a candidate who is willing to be himself
all of the time, even though his ideologies might have changed. I see Mitt
Romney as being a Machiavellian in the idea of doing whatever it takes to
become president even though that might mean being too moderate for
republicans. The concept of the chameleon doesn’t work in our system today
because of the media cycle and how Americans can see what a politician has said
every time he has spoken. Although Machiavelli is right in his idea, it is not
something that is easily attained in the American system of government.
The Prince offers great insight into how
a prince should run his government. All of Machiavelli’s advice seems sound in
the context of Italy at the time. However, in our political society some of the
advice works and others do not. The concepts of virtu, fortune, and the lion
and the fox are still relevant in our system. These ideas continue to work for
politicians in a variety of ways. The concepts that don’t work are the ones
that seem to get in the way of special interest, the twenty-four hour news
cycle, or our idea of personal freedom such as prudence, republican liberty,
and chameleon. The Prince offers
great advice and although Machiavelli does not come out and say the ends
justifies the means his writing can be perceived as such. Politics can be very
entertaining due to Machiavellian attitudes and ideals.
Bibliography
Arnhart, Larry. Political Questions: Political
Philosophy from Plato to Rawls. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc., 2003.
Beiner, Ronald. Civil Religion: A Dialogue in the
History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2011.
de Alvarez, Leo Paul. The Machiavellian
Enterprise. Dekalb: Norhern Illinios Press, 2008.
Duff, Alexander S. "Republicanism and the
Problem of Ambition: The Critique of Cicero in Machiavelli's
Discourses." The Journal of Politics, vol. 73, no. 4, 2011:
980-992.
Edwards, Alistair and Townshend, Jules (ed). Interpreting
Modern Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002.
Hulliung, Mark. Citizen Machiavelli.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Najemy, John M. Between Friends: Discourses of
Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513-1515.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Nederman, Cary. "Niccolo Machiavelli." The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall Edition 2009.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ (accessed March 22, 2012).
[1]
Cary Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli,” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall edition 2009, accessed March 22,
2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[2]
Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli 1469-1527” in Alistair Edwards and Jules
Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political
Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2002),
21.
[3]
Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[4]
Quoted in Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Alistair Edwards and
Jules Townshend, Interpreting Modern
Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002), 22.
[5]
Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[6]
Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[7]
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
quoted in Cary Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall edition 2009,
accessed March 22, 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[8]
Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 23.
[9]
Quoted in Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy,
22.
[10]
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince,
quoted in Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Alistair Edwards and
Jules Townshend, Interpreting Modern
Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2002), 22.
[11]
Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
[12]
Quoted in Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy,
22.
[13]
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince,
chapter 15, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.
[14]
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince,
chapter 7, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.
[15]
Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy,
29.
[16]
Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy,
22.
[17]
Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 18, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.
[18]
Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 22, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.
[19]
Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 22, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.
[20]
Larry Arnhart, Political Questions:
Political Philosophy from Plato to Rawls (Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.,
2003), 122.
[21]
Arnhart, Political Questions, 125.
[22] Machiavelli,
The Prince, chapter 16, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince16.htm.
[23]
Arnhart, Political Questions, 127.
[24]
Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 21, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince21.htm.
[25]
Leo Paul de Alvarez, The Machiavellian
Enterprise: A Commentary on The Prince (Dekalb: Northern Illinois Press,
2008), 34.
[26]
Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 6, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm.
