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.