Machiavelli Then and Now

Though The Prince was written several centuries ago, it is still relevant in modern times even when monarchies no longer exist as a primary form of government. According to Machiavelli, in other for a state to be successful and stable, a prince has to posses several qualities which make him admired by both the people and his army. The Prince must act in the interest of his people; in modern times, a President or leader also strives to work in the interest of his people. It is often necessary or in his best interest to have military knowledge, questionable moral and must prioritize domestic affairs above foreign ones.

Military knowledge is useful in discerning war strategies used in previous wars or used by the opposing country. According to Machiavelli, it is often advantageous for a leader to be able to navigate war plans and predict an opponent’s moves. It also grants the leader credibility and respect from his armies, since he has experience and can extrapolate decisions made then into the current situation. In the modern day, we often send spies to monitor activities in target countries and although this is frowned upon by society, it has saved the country several costly wars and terrorist attacks. Also, I agree with the author about a leader having a knowledgeable adviser or counsel. This is seen in the president’s circle as the personnel often advise the President on political decisions. Since the leader’s decisions affect the public, a bad one such as going to war unprepared may create a hazardous relationship with the people.

It is agreed that a leader or Prince’s moral is different from that of an average man. This is based upon the fact that however distrustful he acts, is in the benefit of the people. They often deal with uncomfortable decisions such as assassinations, spying and working with the enemy for the betterment of the people. The situation then was different than now. Then, a Prince often had to assassinate rivals in other to stay in power, now a leader had to assassinate an individual who poses a threat to the society. The assassination of Osama bin Laden last year was thought to have led to a reduction of the number of recruits in the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Yet this decision was not made lightly as it was thought to have broached some serious allegations of human rights violation. But above all a Leader who prioritizes domestic affairs over foreign ones is often loved and revered. Although Nicolo Machiavelli wrote this book, several centuries ago, when wars broke out often, some of the traits needed for a good leadership can still be seen in effect in modern day politics.

response to elizabeth's post

Machiavelli's address of Fortune was a topic that intrigued me as well upon reading it in chapter twenty-five. The fact that he states that fortune is inevitable rather it is good or bad, but what truly caught my eye was that Machiavelli states that it is the prince that must be the one to be ready for fortune to strike and do everything that he can before hand to limit the effects of fortune. The fact that he compares fortune to as you stated in your post "one of those violent torrents that flood the plains,destroying the trees and buildings hurling earth from one place to another...and everyone yields to the force with being able to stand up to it". Yet it was Machiavelli who stated that the Prince must be able to stand up to fortune. I find it intriguing that he once again holds the prince to a different standard than those of regular citizens. 

Comment Paper One: Machiavelli

            I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw that Machiavelli was our first assigned reading. In popular culture, references to “The Prince” are rarely used within a positive connotation.  Some of the words that come to mind when I think of Machiavelli are ‘despot’, ‘cunning’, ‘manipulative’, etc. And considering this class is about United States foreign policy, which may not always have the best reputation, it’s hard not to make those kinds of connections between the two.

            However it’s important to realize that reading “The Prince” as an amoral treatise is an oversimplification of Machiavelli’s ideals. I find this book more as a guide to the bottom line: people are self centered and driven by their own gains and if you are going to succeed in the world you have to understand this and behave accordingly. It’s easy to find his tenets cruel and lacking empathy for others, but I think that it’s an incredibly insightful look into how humans really work. For example, Machiavelli warns against being “changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, and irresolute.” These traits could certainly be attributed to someone who relies on every word and opinion of his constituency. And moreover we may want this kind of ideal in a leader, but I know that I would not be able to respect a politician who is unable to make steadfast decisions in the face of disagreement.

            This sort of interpretation of “The Prince” works well when applied to US foreign policy. It’s undeniable that the United States is a world superpower with military strength. Many countries would benefit from the downfall of the US, and in this light it is important that it pays mind to Machiavelli’s ideal of virtue-being prudent and doing what is right for the country, among other things. I’m not saying that every bit can be applied at surface level. For instance Machiavelli’s bits about the necessities of cruelties may stretch a bit far. But his realistic look at human behavior is surely applicable to the international realm. 

Comment Paper 1: Machiavelli and U.S. Foreign Policy 
Stephen Cruz

Realpolitik is the idea that politics should be primarily based on power and on practical and material factors and considerations rather than ideological or moral principles.  Machiavelli defines realpolitik as such, “ for the distance is so great between how we live and how we ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation; because a man who wants to make a profession of goodness in everything is bound to come to ruin among so many who are not good.” For this reason, Machiavelli concludes that princes should not be obliged to keep their word, especially in instances where not keeping their word results in the security and prosperity of the state. 

            Machiavelli believes that a prince will be judged by the ends to his means and so long as he appears to have all of the qualities, mentioned in chapter 18, that are good (merciful, loyal, humane, forthright, and religious) the people will believe his actions to be honorable and praiseworthy. 

             To Machiavelli’s point I find only a moral problem, but not a problem in reality.  The truth is that there are bad people in this world.  If you look at most game theory situations, such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it is not difficult to understand why those that defect when their adversary cooperates, come out on top.  And the only way to counter attack this is for you to subsequently defect.  The issue pointed out by Machiavelli is that if you always defect, and do so without any appearance of remorse, the people of your state will despise you, which is a quality that Machiavelli warns princes against maintaining. 

            When I think about this approach I cannot help myself but to think link it directly to U.S. foreign policy and how it is relayed to U.S. citizens.  There are a great many instances where the United States has justified the means by the ends to its citizens.  World War II is a great example. In order to defeat the Axis of Evil, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japanese people, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  However, the result was the end of World War II, and for that reason the actions taken by the United States were deemed acceptable by most U.S. citizens.  More currently, there is great debate as to whether the U.S. went into the middle east for the liberation of the people in the Middle East or for exploitation of oil.  I wont argue here which one I believe to be true, but nevertheless it shows that the people of the United States understand that the actions of the government, “Prince”, are not always as they seem to be. In Machiavelli’s time it was much easier for a prince to get away with deceiving his people.  This is much the case in today’s world as well ( i.e. I’m pretty sure the people of North Korea believe they have won the World Cup multiple times because the government has a tight hold in information sharing. I may be exaggerating, but would it surprise you if this were the case?).  However, the same cannot easily be said for the United States.  The availability of research and the amount of transparency in the U.S. government makes the government more accountable for its actions.  In fact it can be argued that Americans are slowly beginning to “wake up” to the ability of the government to deceive its people.  So is Machiavelli’s approach to foreign policy really relevant today?

            Maybe it still is, and a strong argument can be made for this.  When dealing with other countries I believe his approach to be very applicable.  Where there is no common judge, such as in dealing with foreign nations (international community is in an anarchic state), cooperating at all times may put the prosperity of the state of risk.  Most certainly there are situations that may warrant a prince to not keep his word or to be cruel in order to secure the state. I believe the issue arises with the liberality of the United States.  (I am in no way against our liberal state or what it means to be an American)  The U.S. government today is held much more accountable for its actions because the citizens have access to information via the Internet, television, newspapers, etc.  Other nations are aware of this, and in dealing with the United States, their word can be seen as much more viable.  At first this may appear to be a positive for the U.S.  However, if you are aware of the benefit of defecting in games such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it may not be such a benefit for the U.S. 

            Perhaps Machiavelli’s approach is still very applicable to the present international community, but states such as the U.S. may find it increasingly difficult to implement.  In one light, our government may be more cooperating and loyal to other nations.  In another, the U.S. may be seen as weak because instead of only appearing to have qualities such as mercy, loyalty, humane, forthright, etc. the U.S actually does maintain them.  According to Machiavelli this is not a good thing. These qualities do not fall in line with political approach of Realpolitik.

Comment Paper One: Machiavelli

While reading Machiavelli’s The Prince, certain issues brought up by Machiavelli in order to convey how to be an ideal ruler stood out to me.  What I found most interesting is how Machiavelli addresses the power of Fortune over men, and how to successfully minimize the impact of Fortune’s turning wheel of good and bad. In Chapter twenty-five, Machiavelli describes Fortune as “…one of those violent torrents that flood the plains, destroying tress and buildings, hurling earth from one place to another” and “…everyone yields to the force without being able to stand up to it” (115). He then stresses that to be a successful ruler, one must stand up to Fortune and adapt to the good and bad in order to minimize the impact, it could have on one’s power. To emphasize this point further he concludes that “Fortune is a woman, and if [one] wish[es] to dominate her you must beat and batter her” (118). What was most interesting in the passage about Fortune was his reference to Italy and how Fortune strikes in places that show little resistance, which was the case in Italy after the flood. Furthermore, he recommends that rulers not leave things to both Fortune and God. As mentioned in this week’s lecture, Machiavelli was opposed to universal declarations and politics, especially Christendom during this era. His belief that Christendom failed medieval Europe as being a source of political power, coupled with his declaration that a prince should attempt to resist Fortune, seems to express the idea that Italian princes had become lazy and dependent on Christianity, leaving their kingdom vulnerable to internal or external forces.

After listening to this week’s lecture, in my opinion I believe that the third interpretation of Machiavelli’s work as the creator of ‘foreign policy’ is most accurate.  Through his multiple chapters on how to successfully differentiate oneself and one’s kingdoms from other states and rulers, Machiavelli is definitely stressing the idea of creating borders and particularity in a world of universals. What I found most interesting was the point that Machiavelli believed that the prince himself constituted as the border from the surrounding countries and the prince’s own kingdom. I find this statement to be very true as Machiavelli constantly emphasizes the qualities of a prince in chapters fourteen through nineteen, and how the characteristics of a prince ultimately defines the security of his rule, and how others will perceive the prince’s kingdom.  

Posting 1: Machiavelli's the prince

Two passages from Machiavelli’s the Prince standout in particular from  the readings that I would like to talk about in specifically. The first is when Machiavelli speaks to the readers and in a way ask us to truly define what it is we consider to be cruel or even for that matter merciful. An interesting example that Machiavelli gave was that of Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli states that “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored  it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed”. The concept that being a cruel ruler could actually be a form of mercy is intriguing to say the least. Cesare Borgia inflicted harsh punishments and rulings down on his people and because of that was feared and love, is it possible that through the citizens fear of Cesare that he showed  mercy. The idea that mercy can be obtained through cruelty is one contrary to what one would usually expect. Machiavelli then presents how the Florentine people actually were merciless when they did all that they could not to show their people cruelty. Machiavelli proposes that through cruelty a prince, shows mercy through uniting them and preventing their destruction.

The second passage is that stands out is when Machiavelli presents the natural question that comes from the argument that he presents earlier in the passage. If a prince does in fact show mercy through his acts of cruelty, then is it better to be a prince that is loved by his people or feared? Machiavelli states that “It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with”. Machiavelli went on to say that basically people are untrustworthy, when you are kind they will easily betray you when it is in their best interest, but when people fear you they will not betray because the fear you.

Machiavelli makes a compelling point and after reading and analyzing his point, I am inclined to agree with him, when it comes to princes. Though a prince may want to be kind hearted to his people and do what is best for them, he may find that what is best for the people is for him to reject his wanted to be kind hearted and treat them with cruelty.  The people will fear him and in some manners hate him, but the people will be less likely to suffer destruction, and that is the ruler duty to his people.