This may sound like a ridiculous question, but I’ve been on a role lately.
I just saw a video of a speech that Congressman Rob Paul gave a couple of years ago. It’s an interesting speech about the patriot act, but what I found interesting is that he said Michael Ledeen’s book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership was handed out at a recent Republican strategy meeting.
I have really no knowledge of Machiavelli, other than that the word “Machiavellian” often seems to have a very negative conotation and that he said that fear was a useful tool in governing.
Anywho, I rented some books by Machiavelli today from the library, but I always like a healthy political discussion on the SD.
Doing a quick google search shows that Machiavelli was a republican, but is that the same sense that we use it here in the states?
Also, when he said that fear was useful, did he say it was good?
Finally, are republicans machiavellian, and, if so, in what sense?
Small “r” republican means you favor the republican form of government (as opposed to monarchy). It means the same thing now as it did in Machiavelli’s time, but don’t confuse that word with the Republican Party in the US.
Machiavelli is underrated and grossly mischaracterized. I’ve read The Prince. It’s far les extreme than you might think.
For example. Machiavelli promoted the idea that the ends justify the means. This does not mean that any ends for you justify any means at all. Instead, he encouraged people to do what they must to get what they need. He would not have approved of low-class villainy in general. In fact, he encouraged rulers to be largely trustworthy and decent, because it had good benefits when dealing with both the public and other rulers. On the other hand, he did not advocate suicidal honor.
In short, Machiavelli was all about maintaining good, sensible rule. He acknowledged that a power figure was at least partly self-interested, and accepted that fact. He definitely did not like idealists, because they tended to promote chaos and instability. He seems to have hoped that one of the many contenders in Italian politics would prove successful and popular enough to absorb all the other states; Italian disunity was considered a huge problem by many of the writers and thinkers that lived there.
If you’re interested in finding out what Machiavelli was all about, I suggest you go to the source and read Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” It’s very short and an easy read. You could knock it out in a couple of hours. It’s basically a book on the most effective way for a monarch to maintain power during the Renaissance.
The overriding theory behind the book is extreme practicality without sentiment. For example:
But Machiavelli wasn’t all about extreme pragmatism. He also had a number of fairly middle of the road opinions, and seemed to think that the best state protected liberties as much as security. Those opinions don’t get as much press because a) they aren’t as sexy; and b) they weren’t written about in “The Prince,” which is Machiavelli’s best known work.
Machiavelli was not a member of the Republican party. According to Wikipedia, the guy lived from 1469-1527. In other words, he lived roughly 300 years before America won its independence, and 400 years before the Republican party was formed in America.
It appears that Machiavelli was a republican in the sense that he felt that a monarch – even one as wonderful as the French monarch – probably couldn’t do as good a job adapting to protect the people as a republic could. So he thought a republic would be a better form of government than a monarchy. But that’s not exactly a part of the modern Republican party’s platform (I’m pretty sure Democrats support representative republics over monarchies, too).
See above. And keep in mind that Machiavelli wasn’t writing about what was good or bad; he was writing about what was effective. He said it was “safer” to be feared than loved, meaning that it people are less likely to rebel against a leader that’s feared than one that’s loved.
Depends on whom you ask. Personally, I think Republicans and Democrats are both Machiavellian to some extent insofar as they’re practical and realistic, but they’re not Machiavellian in the sense that they follow his philosophy.
There’s an interminable controversy among historians as to whether Machiavelli really meant the things he wrote in The Prince or intended the book ironically from beginning to end. I incline to the theory that he published it as a resume, hoping to impress some ruler enough to hire on the recently unemployed Machiavelli as an advisor. The Discourses, which is about running a republic as opposed to a monarchy/dictatorship, might be a better guide to his true beliefs.
I don’t know what Machiavelli himself really meant or not, but the activites many attribute to Karl Rove when Bush was campaigning for the nomination seem to fit the modern negative connotation of the word “Machiavellian”. Google “Karl Rove” McCain “push polls”.
I recommend Thomas Sowell’s book “A Conflict of Visions” for, what seems to me, to be a good analysis of the types of thinking that separates much political thinking, and can shed some light on Machiavelli.
In general, political conservatives have not believed in the perfectability of the human being, and are therefore skeptical about programs designed solve poverty, or policies to end war, etc. Human nature and human society are not perfectable, but a good ruler can do some good. In this sense, I would see M. as something of a classic conservative, a centrist Republican or Democrat in today’s terms.
I have read “The Prince” a few times over (a short, good read, as has been suggested). I find it to be a sensible, humane, and rational book. I sum it up in one passage, where he says, something like, be a proper human being when at all possible, but realize you have enemies, within and without, who fight like lions and foxes. If you want to stay in power and do some good, you have to be able to fight like a lion or a fox when necessary.
In essence, to do some good, you have to stay in power. Your enemies, foreign and domestic, are sometimes beasts, and you have to be able to fight them, and they often are not going to fight by any rule book. And if you care to fight, you must fight to win.
Emphasis on the need part. It wasn’t just about doing evil for fun. You did bad things because they were neccessary to keep your state together (and probably to survive - this was a fairly violent age sometimes). But you shouldn’t kill people because it was convenient, or because they had something you wanted.
Machiavelli said this not because he wanted bad men to rule, but because he wanted good men in power. Lynwood Slim summed it up nicely. In Machiavelli’s view, refusing to play dirty was like giving yourself a death sentence. Too many rulers of Italy in his day came there by murder and money; Machiavelli’s works can be considered a primer on how decent men could go toe-to-toe with them and survive.
Consider this as an example: You’re in power in the Populist Kingdom. Hitler or Stalin (your pick) is gaining power. What do you do? Machiavelli would say that you were a fool if you didn’t stoop as low as neccessary to defeat them. I’m not so sure it would be wrong.
Of course, today we’re a little better off in the specifics; our liutenant governers don’t assassinate the head honchos to gain power. Still, the general principles hold; and remember, his advice was equally applicable on an international scale as intra-national.
But, you are using the word “need” very broadly, as in, “I (the Prince) need to stay in power.” Anything that smacks down a challenge would be justified.
But, by those standards, how do we tell the bad men from the good? The only reliable criterion appears to be that the “good” are those who hold power at present and the “bad” are those who conspire to take it from them. That treads perilously close to the (utterly indefensible) IOKIARDI principle.
And what (in kind, not degree) would be the difference?
