The thing about Machiavelli is that although I don’t want to agree with what he is saying I do, wholeheartedly. The one key difference between Machiavelli and Plato is that Plato sees men as they ought to be, while Machiavelli sees men as they are, and works with that. I think if one wanted to learn how to understand the flawed mindset of mankind in order to dominate it this would be the book for them. Although the general theme of this book (power at all costs) made me feel uncomfortable, Machiavellis insights on politics, loyalty, and human priorities were depressingly accurate. He knows it is “easy to persuade people  of something, but difficult to change their minds” He knows that men fear punishment more than they honor obligation. Etc. Etc.

He knows all this is “just so” and therefore works it into his plan for an ultimate ruler. The truly uncomfortable part is when you realize the whole doctrine is only trying to continue this idea of self interest. What I mean is this: Machiavelli encourages his ruler to only look after themselves. Even when he encourages this leader to do something for his people, or to be noble and to make agreements, it is only ever to strengthen his position as a ruler. In doing this, Machiavelli seems to forget that the role of a ruler is to ‘look after” his people. Similarly,  killings and deceit are just another part of his system that maintains power. Slaughter and generousity are really no different from each other in Machiavellis eyes, they are each just a tool you can use to achieve the same goal. He recommends you have selfless advisors, but these advisors are here to serve you best. There seems to be more focus on simply staying in power and being “great”, rather than doing something significant for your people.

Because of this focus on the individual ruler and individual success, it is obvious that no two good rulers could coexist. If both were as good as Machiavelli hopes, they would expand across continents until they met each other, and according to Machiavellis ideas, one would always eventually find a way to get the upper hand over the other. That’s just the “way it works” So what Machiavellis plan or rule book would ultimately lead to is a massive dictatorship over a massive empire. World domination even.  If a populace was that big, would all the rules of a perfect leader still apply? Or would some of them erode on themselves and begin to act the other way? Power is a scary thing.

I enjoyed reading this text. It was not only happily bereft of the mostly irritating fluff that dominated The Republic, but also had far more valid arguments overall. I found myself agreeing or at least half-agreeing with many of the policies that Machiavelli presented, although some—such as his ban of mercenaries/auxiliaries and his distaste of neutrality—are biased views. However, the reason I have few problems with his guidelines is because they are just that—guidelines. He somewhat blatantly dodges the issue of what exactly a ruler should do in specific situations, instead only giving general principles that, although legitimate, are not particularly insightful. Of course, maybe it’s just me; or rather, maybe it’s just our current society that marks off his arguments as obvious. The concept of an opportunistic and ruthless ruler—one who moderates what should be moderated and excesses what should be excessed—is a concept that I’m quite familiar with and one that I’d be surprised if half the population wasn’t at least aware about. Unfortunately, that guideline is one of the only ones that have stood the test of time; in our modern age, many of Machiavelli’s points are invalid. The masses still exist and the elite are still elite, but the nature of both classes has changed dramatically over the years. It is no longer advisable to maintain large armies as opposed to investing in technological warfare (e.g. WMDs), and the world power balance has made it so that the invasion of other countries is no longer something you can do with half-baked reasoning (with the exception of a certain superpower). Politics is now dominated by economics, economics is now dominated by the people, the people are now dominated by the environment, and the environment is now dominated by information. What has without a doubt changed the most between Machiavelli’s time and ours, however, is the ruler itself. The ruler is no longer the great center of power in most governments, but instead a figurehead that directs (or is manipulated to direct) the power. It is extremely hard to be feared as a ruler without being hated, and even harder to be loved as one without the influence of external fear (being hated is still pretty easy though). The ruler is now, in essence, always at the mercy of its people, and a large chunk of its people probably have the means to get a scoped rifle and snipe the ruler on his/her morning walk. So, not that I blame Machiavelli for not being able to foresee the future, but the truth of the matter is that this text has lost much of its importance.

I heard of the term Machiavellian villain many times and thus, when I read The Prince, I expected to see some villains and monsters.  However, what Machiavelli seems to have described is not a villain, but a way of ruling people and principalities during that time period.  Even in today, I think a lot of his theories and assertions can be applied.  Still, some of his arguments seem disturbing to my moral code, making me question if what Machiavelli is suggesting is monstrous and if it isn’t… what is?

Machiavelli’s arguments follow very pragmatic and yet ruthless lines.  He suggests very well reasoned out directions on how a ruler should react in certain situations.  Killing all your opponents before you gain power, or attacking boldly and not staying neutral.  I found myself agreeing with many of Machiavelli’s suggestions.  Having played strategy games such as Civilization V, the best way to win and to become powerful is to be decisive, to not hesitate.  Sometimes, ruthlessness is required or else one’s city will rebel and being neutral can lead to everybody else turning upon you in diplomatic relations.  The examples of history that Machiavelli offered only served to convince me.

That being said, I found myself at a crossroads when trying to see the monsters in Machiavelli.  Is he a monster?  I am not sure.  Popular opinion who know Machiavelli from the definition of a Machiavellian villain would say he is, but I disagree.  The Italian scholar promotes moderation of ruthlessness.  While he did say it was better to be feared than love, he also devoted a section of his argument to saying that if it is possible, a ruler should be feared AND loved.  His warnings on generosity are mostly directed to if a ruler is too generous.  Most of the examples he brings up are men of great stature and are still admired today.  Yes, Machiavelli is ruthless, but this is in a very pragmatic sense.  He’s suggesting the best way to rule a state, to seize and to hold onto power and these suggestions are very well thought out and in my opinion, would be extraordinarily effective if put into practice.  If Machiavelli is a monster, his silver-tongue would mark him to be completely unlike the inarticulate and unknown Grendel.

In reading Machiavelli, I began to understand the problems of kings and rulers, and also was opened to the idea that sometimes the most pragmatic decision may sometimes be monstrous.

Sincerely,

Vincent

Before actually reading Machiavelli’s work “The Prince”, I had skimmed through it to see what kind of reading awaited me. Back then, my first impression was, Oh no, this is going to be like reading Plato’s “Republic” again. Fortunately, this wasn’t the case. Not only was I able to follow Machiavelli’s arguments and find his writing interesting, I was able to think through what he was saying and in some cases, apply it to real life. I still have the occasional nightmare involving Plato. I doubt this is going to happen with Machiavelli.

            Machiavelli reveals to the reader an instruction manual on how to be a good leader and how to keep power. Some of the things that he says are quite the opposite of what I initially believed, such as how Machiavelli believes that a ruler would be better off being feared than loved, so long as he wasn’t hated. I used to think that a ruler should be loved rather than feared. I mean, when I first formed this notion that rulers should be loved, I thought of my teachers in elementary schools. I certainly preferred a teacher who I liked than a teacher than I was afraid of! Then again, teachers aren’t exactly rulers (you figure this out after you graduate from elementary schools). Rulers are quite different, and of course, in Machiavelli’s time, rulers meant kings and queens. Not rulers as in a Prime Minister that you elect and vote for. Maybe a monarch in Machiavelli’s time was better off being feared than loved, with the requirement that they weren’t hated. As I read this, one of the things that came to mind was Queen Elizabeth I of England and her half sister, Mary Tudor. Mary I of England, even though I don’t hate her (I honestly found her one of the most pitiful figures in History), was hated during her reign for burning Protestants. She was feared and hated. The result? There was a rebellion during her reign. When her successor and half sister Elizabeth took over after her death, Elizabeth was feared and loved, and she certainly wasn’t hated in the general sense. The result was a very prosperous reign.

            I also asked myself a few times while reading “The Prince”, how exactly should I read this literary work? I don’t think of this book as being a philosophical text or a history book. Would this genre be under the classification of an “instruction manual”? Then again, instruction manual makes me think of those instruction manuals that come with an IKEA purchase, that tells you how to build a chair or a sofa, etc. This is a subjective work. In the end, I just read “The Prince” the way I did with every other book. I read it, thought over the parts that lingered in my memory, and then proceeded to write this blog post.         

Since it seems a tad inevitable that we’ll end up discussing it in class, I figure I might start with a blurb on genre. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a rather interesting piece of literature. It fits into a sort of strange genre, in that it’s a gift to the Florentine Ambassador to the Pope.  I see this political work as the form of a letter and theory combined.

It felt like Machiavelli lacked complete faith in humanity. He seemed to believe in the corruption of the people, stating ideas such as our inevitable greed and desires to seek our own well-being. While these are true to an extent, it seems a little radical to apply them to every member of society. However, now that I think about it, it is fairly true. In terms of government, we all desire the ruler that watches out for our best interests, and belittle those that have other motives in mind. This is also seen in the case of President Obama and the healthcare reform, seeing as many people are opposing him due to his effort to ameliorate life for all individuals. The wealthier, upper classes are in opposition to him as Obama is trying to better life for the lower classes who cannot afford healthcare, rather than acting in their wealthier interest. You really can’t make everybody happy. I also found it ironic that in the beginning, Machiavelli states that only a member of the lower class can evaluate the ruler, and only the ruler can evaluate the lower class. While Machiavelli admits himself to being a part of the lower class, and offers valuable observations of the rulers, he also observes his own kind. He directly contradicts himself in offering advice on the nature of his own class. In a way, it’s a little unavoidable in order to explain why the rulers need to act in such a way, but it was still strange.

I surprisingly found myself agreeing with a lot of what Machiavelli had to say, especially regarding the nature of rulers. His idea that rulers need to only appear to have the desirable traits of rulers, and being able to adapt into a more ruthless nature was very poignant and true. Rulers who only possess one side will either be loved and crushed, or hated and successful, but face the possibility of rebellion. As well, his cliched statement of “It is better to be feared than loved,” actually made sense. I remember all of the times I had heard this, and refuted the point blatantly, but upon actually reading the work, it made far more sense. This is because of human nature. We tend to love those who aid and please us, only until they cannot aid us anymore, or do something out of our best interest. If a ruler is feared, there is less of a likelihood of this drastic change from love to hate.