Politics is a word we
have heard a lot of in the last six months. It is defined as “political activities
characterized by artful and often dishonest practices” by Merriam-Webster. Isn’t
it crazy how the definition itself includes the term “dishonest” in it? We have
witnessed first-hand in this presidential election how prevalent dishonesty is
in our political system. It is like everywhere we looked, or anytime we turned
on the TV, there was some talk about the dishonesty of the two candidates.
However, what was even more shocking than the lies and deceit that plagued this
election was everyone’s surprised reactions. Are we as American really blind
enough to think that this is the first sign of lies and corruption in our
system or any system for that matter?
Niccolo di Bernardo dei
Machiavelli is probably most famous for his ideas about the corruption in
politics and why it is existed. He is often called the father of modern
political theory due to his renowned and infamous book The Prince. In this book he dissected the behavioral patterns of
politicians he had witnessed first-hand over his years of being a part of
political inner workings. It has been said that maybe Machiavelli wrote this
work out of resentment. He was so infuriated by being fired from his position
in political power that he decided to write a juicy tell all. And who could
blame him? All he ever wanted to be in life was a politician. However, I feel
the emotional forces that drove him to write this literary work were stronger
than just pettiness and bitter resentment. His pure passion for politics
motivated his ruthless dig for truth in the political world. This dig just
happened to expose those responsible for his political exile, talk about
killing two birds with one stone. (: His work in The Prince produced some of most profound and insightful political
thinking we have ever seen.
So
Why Did He Write The Prince?
Machiavelli has
obviously received a bad rap for his vile and malicious “guide” to politics.
Some people think maybe he was just that evil at heart and others see The Prince as a satire such as
eighteenth century historian of philosophy Williams Enfield. He suggests that
Machiavelli essentially fooled all of us as if we were on an episode of Punk’d
and Ashton Kutcher is bound to hop out at any moment. He believes that due to
Machiavelli’s personality and the way he lived his life it is not possible he
actually believed and conducted himself by the things he wrote about. He
believes The Prince was a satire
intended to “pull off the mask from the face of tyranny”. However, if The Prince was truly a satirical poke at
the ugly truth of politics, he did one hell of a job. The amount of discord on
whether Machiavelli is immoral and wicked or whether he really was just a
satirist is unbelievable. It is almost like the most legendary episode of
philosophical Punk’d we have ever seen.
Did Machiavelli really
want us to believe that men were always “fickle, liars and deceivers”? He discusses
a claim in The Prince that the bond
of love was a bond that all men broke. He believed that we as humans, due to
our wretchedness, could not have honest, intimate relationships with other
humans. If this was the case none of us
would have made it to where we are now because our parents would have abandoned
us at birth. It is strange that he thought this though because he fathered six
children and was married. For a human that lacks the ability of human to human
intimacy, he sure had of a lot of experience with it. It is recorded that he
was not the best husband and frequented prostitutes, but he did not abandon his
wife and kids immediately at child-birth so he could not have been that
incapable of human intimacy. Due to this fact, many people still believe that
The Prince was meant to be satirical as a comment on how political leaders
often treated the ruled cold heartedly and with contempt.
Another theory on
Machiavelli’s true meaning and motive behind writing The Prince was that he was
only writing what he believed that the rulers of that time wanted to hear so
that he could win back their favoring. A logical idea on his part, buttering
someone else’s bread to get what you want is done all the time in the political
world. An example of this is all the “Wall Street” money in our political
system. Big corporations and spenders pay candidates loads of money to
represent what they stand for. This money is used to pay the campaign staff,
make flyers, buttons, bumper stickers, hats, to hire terrible actors for campaign
commercials and overall just keep a candidate’s campaign running. Whether the
big spender is a cosmetic company that tests their products on precious bunny
rabbits or a company attempting to save the rain forest does not matter as long
as the money is coming in. So if Machiavelli used The Prince to get back in good graces with those in power, only for
his own political gain, and he did not actually believe what he was writing
about, our political system has appeared to take a few notes from the father of
modern politics.
In this theory
Machiavelli might not have believed all the things he wrote in The Prince, but he believed that if had
what appeared to be a cold and immoral view on politics that it might impress
his superiors and he might get his political position back in the government.
It is kind of like on mean girls when Kady pretended to be a plastic in order
to sabotage Regina George. She was not originally mean, cold and well plastic, but she pretended to be for gain and ultimately hurt quite a few people in the end. It is not really the best political example, but a
practical one nonetheless. Anywho, if this was the case, it would make
Machiavelli doubly cynical because not only does he advocate for the evil in
politics, he is lying about advocating for it.
The circumstances
surrounding the writing of The Prince
actually support this theory due to the fact that he dedicated it to Lorenzo de
Medici who he thought would help get him get back into a political office after
the influence of the book.
What
is The Prince About?
Let’s look at what The Prince is REALLY all about. Let’s break
down some of the themes and ideas presented in The Prince and give examples of those
themes throughout recent history and even in current events.
For starters, let us
examine how Machiavelli characterizes human nature in regards to leadership in The Prince. He states that “a prudent
ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a
disadvantage… Because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word
to you, you need not keep your word to them”. Essentially this means a good
leader should not back up what he says if it’s not in the best interest of
himself. Why be honest with people who would not do the same for you?
Machiavelli views human nature as reprehensible and deceitful and believes that
a good ruler’s deceitfulness must exceed the people in which he rules. His
thoughts were that the ruler who believed and had faith in what people “should”
do and their rights over what they will actually do is essentially doomed to
self-destruction. A good ruler recognizes the lack of virtues his people have,
and trains himself when and how to act without virtues and must be better at it
than those beneath him. His cunning will
bring success for his kingdom and his people, but will also preserve his political
office and the perks that come with it.
These ideas of political realism are what have caused Machiavelli’s infamous reputation. Machiavelli however only claimed to be illustrating how people TRULY act in normal everyday life. The link below gives a solid interpretation of what Machiavelli was saying when describing human nature. Ultimately we are beings of vice and of pleasure. Sure we may say we are above that type of thinking, but deep down we are not as righteous as we make ourselves seem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSV6mwPfTI&spfreload=5
The first couple minutes of the video is enough to
get the important parts of the video.
Word Count: 1,428
Very interesting, the idea that Machiavelli was writing descriptively but not prescriptively - telling us how politicians behave in the real world, not how we'd like them to in a better one. His enduring appeal to some (not to me) must have something to do with his admirers' belief that he alone has cut through the theoretical BS to lay bare the practical prevarications and deceits of "princes" everywhere.
ReplyDeleteBut, don't we want to be led by people we actually trust and respect? DOn't we want our political theorists to reinforce these values and not subvert them? Don't we reject the "ends justify the means" mentality, in the light of how many disreputable and disgraceful ends have always been pursued by politicians? Don't we aspire to be more than "beings of vice and pleasure"?
So, I vote against Machiavelli's prince and I don't trust him OR respect him. Definitely don't love him.
I agree that whether or not Machiavelli was saying politicians SHOULD act a certain way, that he accurately described how many do. I'm more troubled by his claim that, "a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage… Because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them” This accepts the way the world is, but does not encourage anyone to change it: but rather give up participate in its corruptness. I hope the everyday folks responsible for electing government officials will indeed acknowledge they way politics work, but have it only strengthen their resolve to alter the model.
ReplyDeleteNice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful information specially the last part I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck. amp research bedstep
ReplyDelete