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?
I do believe that the media is a huge influence on the people's beliefs, as you suggested. Also, there is a huge distinction between a politician's personal life and public life, but as I noted in another comment, only a few true and naturally gifted/skilled politicians can effectively hide the distinction. If these politician's cannot hide this difference, they should be true to their beliefs and state/show them publicly rather than tell the people one thing and show them another. Otherwise, it will only call forth dissent from the people as well as larger gaps between the people (referring to extreme views in political parties). If the politician can effectively differentiate between his/her personal life and public life, it is possible to look at this particular politician simply as a liar, but, in Machiavellian terms, it describes the most influential, powerful, and effective leader/politician there can ever be.
ReplyDeleteThe Prince offers advice intended for a type of society that is very different from ours today, though the fundamental ideals laid out by Machiavelli still resonate in modern time. The mass media influences on today's elections are extreme, though one may consider that they are simply a product of natural developments in technology and communication. Voters today, therefore, must actively fish through a wide array of opinions expressed by news reporters on radio shows, television, and online to develop their own political stances devoid of any bias. This seemingly impossible task leads voters to wonder whether their opinions are based on hearsay or blatant fiction, and this may lead to a sense of helplessness, and certainly a sense of distance from their own leaders. Therefore, I believe that mass media has fortified Machiavellian strategies in the sense that the facts of government and policy have become even more indistinct and unclear, leading to a more uneducated and apathetic general population. Politicians reflect Machiavellian ideals especially during elections, since deceit and false promises characterize their efforts; their single goal is to win the election, and like the Prince, they will do anything to gain this power, including putting on a facade and winning votes with the most desireable appearance and diction.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely politicians must use several Machiavellian aspects. One of Machiavelli's main points is to do what you must to secure your position. And as you pointed out, politicians almost always do/say what they must to win the election. I'd say the advent of the media has made the "saying" portion even more important, since for some reason we put so much value on what people "say" they're going to do, without thinking about how logical it is. Politicians know, through statistics and surveys, exactly what they should say to get the voters' attention. How would we like it if our potential president told us the reality of the situation? Would we vote for someone who said they can't promise that the financial situation will get better under their watch, even if they're being truthful? As long as the population continues voting the way it does, politicians only have more of an incentive to be Machiavellian.
ReplyDelete