The Prince in Regards to Application and Modernity

At its most basic element, The Prince is simply a discourse on the most proper way to seize and maintain a state. Most of the guidelines presented by Machiavelli have retained their relevance to the modern day because, although the rules of politics have changed since his time, the basic dynamics remain the same. However, beyond the parameters of governing, when the various implications of the text are taken into account his words become applicable to most any position of leadership. In order to gain success it is absolutely necessary to be capable of behaving in a Machiavellian manner. Or, to further clarify, one must be willing to not only be cunning, but duplicitous as well when the necessity arises. Additionally, with any job that has potential for advancement, it is necessary to be able to assert oneself and, on occasion, behave with what Machiavelli describes as “meanness”.  Without this “meanness” it is impossible to gain power or position. That being the case, if one lacks the willingness to take necessary action, than it will also prove difficult to maintain effective governance. A person who is indecisive and mild will never gain power. And, even if he does manage to gain a foothold, he will not be able to sustain his position for long.

               
 Machiavelli’s realpolitik is simply practical. After recognizing the attributes that the populace desires from its leaders and the attributes that are necessary to rule, he comes to a consensus that satisfies both needs. The consensus being that one must appear in a certain way so as to garner the respect of the populace, but behave alternatively in order to maintain the prosperity of the state. It is interesting to note that no specific type of person is necessary for his instructions to work, only someone who can uphold these two needs.  Essentially, so long as one can follow his directions, any person can lead with relative security. In the case of modern politics, especially in republics and democracies, popularity and appearance are crucial to both challengers and incumbents alike. Every politician desires to appear as an ally of the people; however, it should be understood that, even if said politician secures office, it will be impossible to satisfy the populace’s every need. The objective of government is not to appease every whim of the masses, which would swiftly bring the body to ruin, but to govern in a way that is most beneficial for the country as a whole.

 The democratic system of government allows for corruption to easily slip through in part to the popular vote. Given that the general population seems to have little incentive to research candidates, instead being in favor of the mass media’s perspective, how should the government generate interest? Why would the government want a more educated populace? What would be the disadvantages to having a population that understood the inner workings of politics? Would it be more or less efficient?

Machiavellianism Today

Yesterday in class when we discussed the current political situation today, I was struck by the similarities between the prince described by Machiavelli and the behaivor of politicians today.  Machiavelli claims that the most important job the prince has is to maintain and expand the power of the principality.  In order to do this, the leader must be clever, thoughtful, and decisive.  Machiavelli places a lot of importance in the appearance that the prince has but not in how the prince actually is.  I agree with him completely in this regard.  Machiavellian thinkers focus on the person most prepared and appropriate for the position.  This is not the way that voters in America view political races today.  People today are more concerned with the personal lives of presidential candidates than I believe we should be.  For me, it seems only logical to focus on the person who will make our country as powerful as possible, completely disregarding their personal lives aside.  I realize that with the amount of media attention that focuses on the personal lives of the candidates it is near impossible to not count what the news stories are into your opinion.  However, I find that there are far more important reasons to vote for or not vote for a candidate.  For example, I am less interested in whether or not Mitt Romney appropriately payed his taxes every year of his life, but I am more interested in what his plans are for the next four years if he gets elected.  I feel that all voters should approach the situation of voting in a manner that selects the best man or woman for the job instead of focusing on smaller issues such as handfishing in the case of Paul Ryan.

I believe that over the years, people have become less and less respectful of those who sit in high places of power such as the presidency.  There is a lack of simple loyalty and decency towards those who leader our country nowadays and it really upsets me to see this.  50-60 years ago, if the President made a decision that you disagreed with, then you wouldn't make a huge deal out of it, you would simply talk to people near you who also felt that his choice was a foolsih one.  However, today, this phenomenon has gotten out of hand.  The First Amendment is a fantastic freedom given to us and it is very powerful.  But, and I'm sure you've all heard this quote before, "with great power, comes great responsibility".  With the internet, there are many people who no longer believe that the first amendment is a right given to us, not one that we automatically have.  Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to express ourselves, there are many people in this country who have abused this right.  There is no longer a line which you cannot go past in terms of expressing oneself.    Do you think that the media has allowed this change in society occur?  Could the accessibility of information also be partly to blame for this change in respect towards the President?  Does anyone completely disagree with me?

Machiavelli: The Strategy of Winning

At first glance, Machiavelli’s advice on ruling seems brutish and inhuman. It is easy to imagine how influential his words and ideas were to the leaders such as those of the warring Italian states, constantly struggling amongst themselves for land and power. The Prince, taking its name from the intended recipient of the work, advises any given prince to carefully maintain a virtuous, pious appearance for their people, but it also clearly tells them that public image must be different from who they actually are; virtuosity is only for appearance, as power is what a leader truly requires. Instead of being loved, a prince should be feared because loving supporters will always become scarce in troubled times. Furthermore, if there is a war, one must always pick a side and see it through. In stark contrast to contemporary, socially-acceptable politics, Machiavelli even recommends exterminating the populations of newly conquered states. Unless, of course, it is an Ecclesiastic state, in which case the citizens are all simpletons used to blindly accepting what they are told. Over the course of The Prince, Machiavelli outlines the way in which the prince will come out on top in almost any given situation, often requiring ruthlessness, tact, and the distancing of morals. While Machiavelli’s strategy is undeniably effective, many readers will simply be happy that the book is aimed at princes instead of presidents.

In reality, there is not a politician in the United States that does not take a page from The Prince. During every election cycle, candidates start campaigning as radicals, catering to the loudest and most extreme of the left or right, but as the actual election draws nearer and the Democratic and Republican parties decide which candidates to back, the politics that drew in the more extreme voters are suddenly replaced by more moderate stances. By the time they’ve pulled ahead of the other candidates in the primaries, the successful politician has done as Machiavelli suggested and adopted a public appearance. The shift is often dramatic, with candidates suddenly deciding war is not such a bad thing or being pro-life is silly. Once they have their party’s nomination, politicians’ stances on many issues are dropped or changed and the mantra of the party replaces any position that conflicts. With the advent of the media, the manufacturing of a separate image for the public has become more important than ever. Last August, Phillip Hinkle, a Republican representative from Indiana, became the most recent in the line of anti-gay Republicans to be caught soliciting sex from young men, allegedly giving money, nude pictures, and Apple products to an 18-year-old in exchange for sex. Much to his constituents’ horror, the Republican hard-liner, who recently voted to ban gay marriage, was just a face for the public. Hinkle may be an extreme example, but our president is no exception to the rule; after running on an anti-war platform, promising to pull the U.S. out the continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama actually increased our presence in the Middle East until recently starting to bring some of the troops home. Furthermore, when there is a war to be fought, and sometimes even when there is not, the U.S. picks a side and joins in. All politicians are Machiavellians to a certain degree because that what wins elections and garners power.

Has mass media really fortified Machiavelli’s strategies? Are all politicians Machiavellians or is The Prince a relic of yesteryear? Is the distinction between a leader’s public image and personal life actually necessary, to Machiavelli and to modern politics?

"Appearance" vs "Being"

The idea that a prince need not be the way that he should appear to be made perfect sense to me when we discussed it in class.  But upon further contemplation, I began to wonder more about how legitimate such a distinction is between a person's actuality and his or her "mere" appearance.  Wouldn't it be true that, if Machiavelli's prince were to rule for life (presumably, the prince's goal) and carry out the kind of constant checking of his own actions as Machiavelli prescribes, can he really claim to be one way and appear another?  I imagine that the prince would be working nearly all the time and under constant scrutiny, meaning that he would be appearing to be certain ways a lot more often than he is "himself."  And even if he does get some alone time or time off the job (...doubt it...), if he at least is monitoring his consequential decisions in the way he wants to appear, wouldn't we just say that is how he actually is?  How could he claim to believe in mercy or kindness privately while carrying out contrary actions publicly?  I think that staking a claim to be a certain way implies that one will typically strive to carry out such merciful or kind actions, and if a person does not use such values to motivate his/her actions, that person is simply lying about how he/she "really is."  If a prince says he is a kind person but does unkind things for the purpose of ruling, then he really should make the claim that he is a strong leader since that is actually where his priorities clearly lie.

This concept is a little weirder when applied to the two people who help the old woman across the street.  If one "is" selfish and the other "is" empathetic but they do the same action, I would argue that they are only really different inasmuch as they would act differently outside of that particular instance.  The selfish person (if he/she was really selfish) would overall live a different life and make different decisions than the empathetic person, because if these are their true natures, then those natures would actually influence their actions.  But here I come to a problem when I think of the possibility of these two people being differently motivated all their lives but acting in the same way simply by chance (just like it was by chance that they both helped the old lady across the street because doing so complimented both of their natures).  If this is the case, perhaps we cannot place any value at all on their motives or true natures as they compare to one another because their lives do not differ in how they are carried out?  Just brainstorming here.  Thoughts?

THE PRINCE

When discussing The Prince, by Machiavelli, our class discussed two important factors in the book, the 

idea of a powerful versus virtuous leader and also the idea of how the prince should appear. Another 

part of the book I found interesting was in Chapter 15, where Machiavelli states:

“Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good” (61).

I think this coincides with what we discussed on Thursday, when we discussed how the prince should appear in front of his subjects. Although the prince may appear one way in front of the state, it does not necessarily mean he “practices what he preaches” or even agrees with the decisions he makes for the benefit of the state. However, if he keeps these personal opinions to himself, I don’t think it matters what his personal beliefs are if he appears one way and everyone thinks the way he appears is the way he is all the time. Like the grandmother crossing the street example, if she doesn’t know the motives behind the two helpers, she will appreciate both the same. I think this is what defines a good Machiavellian prince; someone who makes the decision that profits the state although he make morally disagree with the decision he makes. By doing this, the prince can keep most of his citizens happy and allow them to continue leading the life they have, because it keeps the state in good order. In Chapter 17, Machiavelli discusses where it is better to be loved or be feared, and states, “disorders harm the entire citizenry, while the executions ordered by a prince harm only a few individuals” (65). According to Machiavelli’s definition of a good prince, a powerful leader is more successful than a virtuous leader, and a feared leader is more effective than loved one. As we discussed in class, Hitler was an immoral leader, but had thousands of followers, so can his strength and effectiveness as a leader be questioned? I think according to Machiavelli’s definition he makes a good prince. What do you think? Do you think the Machiavellian definition of a prince is still in effect today? 

Welcome to class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2012Philosophy-track Search for Values course course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 400 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of Tuesday's seminar. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, it's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the comementary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• Dr J's Rule #7. Be sure to read Rule #7 under "Dr. J's Rules" on your syllabus. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even on the blog.

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to member of the PHIL 150 class only. This means that only members of your class can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other Rhodes course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J