The main theory behind The Prince is a dramatic departure from previously held beliefs concerning morality in politics. Before Machiavelli, princes and heads of state were expected to act out of morality and the understanding that good begets good and is therefore sanctioned by God. Machiavelli presented a new, much more cynical view of the purpose of political movements: they maintain power once it is won, and politicians should utilize whatever methods necessary to this end. He emphasized that the ends very much justify the means in politics, and strongly encouraged politicians to appear good instead of actually being good, because seeming good allows one to pursue one’s own agenda while maintaining the trust of the constituency. The main struggle in politics, then, is that between the prince and his people, as he battles to maintain power against a public that may not necessarily agree with his politics or methods.
Portrait of Niccolo Machiavelli, by Santi di Tito (Wikimedia)
The Prince, therefore, is a manual on how to manipulate and deceive the common people, and much of this rests on the maintenance of a happy civil society. Machiavelli warns that the prince who ignores or openly abuses the people by taking their land, taxing them unfairly, or misusing their military resources runs the distinct risk of being ousted. These revolutionary challenges justify deceiving the public, because if politics were run entirely to keep the citizens happy there would be no room for national improvement, much less the personal desires of the prince. Therefore, Machiavelli encourages the prince to engage civil society on a number of fronts, from arbitrating national issues and encouraging private enterprise to reinforcing the presence of the Church in community. He even goes so far as to recommend that, “He should at suitable times of the year keep the people occupied with festivals and spectacles” (91).
Unfortunately for modern politicians, this method of courting the public relies heavily on subterfuge and secrecy, which is no longer reliable. With the incredible reach of the media, politicians run the risk of being destroyed by their own methods of manipulation, as the public is now much less forgiving of the prince that forgoes the truth for his own gains. Transparency now plays a roll Machiavelli could never have foreseen, with private news outlets, international news coverage and the omnipresence of the internet keeping wayward politicians and dictators in check. The scandals of Wikileaks and Watergate both demonstrated how much modern civil society dislikes being lied to, and the presence of a leader who seems good without actually being good just adds insult to injury. In 2004, when the atrocities perpetrated at Abu Ghraib first went public, one of the main sources of the public’s ire was the constant insistence by the Bush administration that the War on Terror was morally praiseworthy. The White House fought to maintain a pristine example of American idealism while every day details were leaked of appalling crimes being perpetrated by members of the military. In the end, when the administration was forced to face the music and admit its part in the scandal, the American public viewed the entire regime as amoral, deceitful and out of touch, a reputation it never entirely recovered from.
Machiavelli would be flabbergasted if he could witness the thirst for information, and indeed intrigue, that now controls the media and civil society as a whole. If a Machiavellian prince wants to practice his subterfuges now, he’s going to have to be good at it.
“The Prince, therefore, is a manual on how to manipulate and deceive the common people, and much of this rests on the maintenance of a happy civil society.”
It must be said, however, that Machiavelli’s advice is specifically directed at Lorenzo de’ Medici, to whom Machiavelli issues his “Exhortation to Seize Italy and to Free Her from the Barbarians”. The Prince is therefore one of two things; it is either Machiavelli’s true feelings about how Princes should behave, over which he has draped a veil of historical context to obscure his own cynical amoralism, or it is his impassioned plea for the salvation of the republic he loves, and the specific means by which he believes its health can be restored. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, although that is not to say that the advice he gives Lorenzo de Medici could not be identical to what he would tell any other prince. My point, however, is that absent the historical context that Machiavelli gives to The Prince, we would be reading a very different book.
If history is a lesson for the future waging a Philippic upon the living will surely bring about assassination as Cicero is all too aware. Therefore my Philippic if for Machiavelli, may he rest in peace. The points you make are fair. Machiavelli’s great weakness was not the lack of realism but his belittling of others intelligence.
This reason was cause for Machiavelli to fail in leading men of action at every turn. He could not lead because he could not bring himself to be wrong nor was he willing to sacrifice for a higher ideal. This choice lays plain the fact that you will not practice what you preach and exposes any said person as a liar.
It takes strength to realize that your group is wrong. It takes the power of will to recognize and admit that you yourself are wrong. There is one thing and one thing alone that men of action respect. Strength! By being externally strong but internally weak you are seen a coward. By being internally strong but externally weak you are seen as soft. By being strong on every point you are feared. By being weak on every point you are loved.
The reason I despise Machiavelli is his brash irrationality and internal weakness. This is the result that occurs when internally you do not fix your anchor to a strong rock. Individuals such as him are incapable of leading men because they are incapable of doing what they ask others to do, “make sacrifices”. These men, because of weakness, become monsters.
The transition occurs thus: I am strong externally. Everyone has recognized my strength. My failure is thus caused by others and not myself. This causation leads further and further from the truth until a monster who cannot recognize his own weaknesses is born. These men are easy to handle when one knows the ways and means of their direction. They always self implode.
Furthermore, it is the stupidity of Machiavelli that causes men of action to believe that it is right to mentally torture Bradley Manning. It is the overwhelming irrationality of internal fear in these actors that keeps open Gitmo. And these are the fractures in the edifice that will spread to cause ruin.
So here it is. I’m aiming my quiver at these men. Putting myself above the trench and offering my throat. Let them cut it from ear to ear. Every man has incredible value to offer to the whole. A leaders job is to bring greatness out of others. We all want peace and suppressing other people and suppressing information is a relic of the past. Evolve or drop dead from your own fear.
“Be not the first by which the new is tried nor yet the last to lay the old aside.”