Look at how smug that face is...
Machiavelli is Pretty Much Right (And That Annoys Me)
I'm not sure if today's debate was supposed to make us pick a side- agree or disagree with Machiavelli. If that was the case, I failed. I came into class ready to tear Machiavelli to pieces but then I found myself supporting him. Looking back, I realize that I don't necessarily disagree with the man altogether, but I disagree with the way he presented his information. The Prince, as we brought up in class, is full of contradictions and generalizations. If The Prince is supposed to serve as a guide to politics, then it ought to be written like that.During the debate, I asked myself why I disagreed with Machiavelli in the first place. Our team jumped right into brainstorming and came up with several strong points in support. My reasons for disliking Machiavelli were: his strong support of violence and warfare and his overall ego. These reasons not only are a little naive but also demonstrate more of a dislike for Machiavelli as a person, rather than his actual ideas.
There was one point I didn't have the chance to talk about during our discussion today. I disagreed with Machiavelli mostly because of his personality traits even though there was some validity to his points. The same goes for how a ruler should act. You may disagree with how they act, but that is a different principle than if they are a good leader. When answering whether or not you agree with Machiavelli in his ideas of how to be a good leader, you must also ask what he means by 'good.' A good leader may be efficient, practical, successful, and powerful, among other things. This type is an example of Machiavelli's theory that it is better to be feared than loved. A good person who is a leader may be generous, thoughtful, and respectable. Machiavelli may argue that this person can not be as good of a leader, but I don't know if I could support a leader without morals. With regard to the word "virtύ," I feel that while it has many translations (skillful, powerful, range, purpose), I think it means all those things. So shouldn't a good leader be both successful and generous? A leader should be both good and good.
Overall, Machiavelli is essentially right but saying that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something about The Prince that feels wrong. I think for me it is the promotion of militaristic values (Chapter Nineteen, Machiavelli cites Philopoemen of Achaeans who was praised for constantly preparing for/thinking about war even during peacetime) and lying (Chapter Eighteen, Machiavelli argues that a ruler should appear to follow the rules to earn credibility, but must break the rules occasionally in order to maintain power and pursue agendas). Then again, there is usually something about politics that feels wrong (and it's probably those same things). Maybe Machiavelli was ahead of his time, or maybe he just understands human nature.
I still don't have the answer to this question (maybe someone else does): does a good leader have to be good? Or is the good/future of a country more important than an individual's morals?
I had the same moral dilemma as you but initially came from the other side of the discussion. At first I was prepared to discuss the ideas of Machiavelli that are essential to world politics today. I for the most part agreed with his policies despite the obvious moral dilemmas that came to mind during the chapters discussing cruelty and warfare. However, after our discussion in class, I realized how vague and confusing his points actually were. Machiavelli attempts to save his argument by stating that every situation is different and will not remain successful in following one universal policy. Despite this, his policies directly conflict with one another and undermine his entire argument. Even with the desire to review conflicts on a case by case basis, Machiavelli's ideas on what would establish a ruler ignore some of the most basic understandings of human nature. Machiavelli's distortion of the values of rulers was confusing to me as well. At first I couldn't differentiate between those of a good leader and those needed to create a powerful government. I feel a lot better now knowing that I wasn't the only one trying to grasp this concept and I liked how you questioned this constant need to address military power even in times of peace. Overall I ended up with the same conclusion as you and ultimately believe that while Machiavelli is essentially correct, the way in which he wrote his manual could have been more clear. Obviously I have problems with his policies on deceiving the populace and the pre-requisite of cruelty needed to be a strong leader, but I do believe his base theory was correct. I really liked your blog post about this class discussion and it helped clarify a few issues as well. Good job!
ReplyDelete