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.
I agree that The Prince is perceptive in unmasking human nature and how a leader must adapt to those driven by personal interest and gain. It is hard however to successfully differentiate the difference between a leader acting in so called “national interest” even with dissent from his people and a leader who acts motivated by his own self-interest. Therefore based on the idea that to be successful one must understand the cynical nature of human beings and adapt accordingly, every leader must act aggressively, to maintain power.
ReplyDelete