Machiavelli in the Contemporary Age: Standing the Test of Time
Machiavelli first and foremost was an opportunist who seems to feel that any leader should be willing to sacrifice good morals to further the progress of his landholdings and people. As he says in his work, “it is necessary for the prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.” Obviously, a leader could not possibly be good or evil to the extremes all of the time, so certainly in that respect Machiavelli seems to hit a correct chord. He speaks of a leader who knows that there are two ways of acting and two ways of appearing to act. The leader can act in a virtuous way or a way that encourages avarice and evil, but can also appear to act as someone virtuous and appear to be someone who is immoral. The latter, appearing to act evil, is something that Machiavelli feels should be avoided in order to get into the good graces of his people. Any acts that would be conceived as despicable by the people, according the Macchiavelli, should be diffused to lower minions who can accept the blame with lesser repercussions than the leader. So as far as reputation and how someone should act, Machiavelli seems to be preaching a form of opportunism.
Another form of opportunism that Machiavelli speaks to is that of constant preparedness for war. In his mind, an effective leader should not sit idly by during times of peace, but should always be studying and practicing for war. By practice, Machiavelli refers to hunting, an activity that keeps reflexes sharp, and knowledge of the terrain, an invaluable tool for combat, in the mind of the leader. By study, a leader is expected to know the history of combats, wars, and engagements in order to learn where past rulers have gone wrong. Preparedness for war seems also to be a metaphor for preparedness in life for Machiavelli, who also seems to feel that the ideal “prince” should always be aware of the changing constitutions of his people, allowing for adjustments in attitude.
Opportunism is just one of the elements of Machiavelli’s well renowned work. There is a small element of republicanism in his thought, mostly involving his feeling on arming the citizenry. This may not seem like a very progressive or republican thought, but his level of trust in the people as far as armaments goes is extraordinary compared to the other elements of his work. Machiavelli, in essence, says that if the people under his rule are more trustworthy than foreigners and those who have helped acquire lands, then these people should be armed. If land is acquired through the cunning of insurgents or a ruler takes new lands, the only people who should have weapons are those who have been under the rule of the leader before. However, he says briefly that those who are deemed untrustworthy at first are usually transformed into loyal subjects in the long run because of their reliance on the grace of the ruler. Machiavelli has tremendous trust in these people to not organize into insurgent groups or to spread chaos throughout the land. Perhaps his trust is underscored by the manner in which the ruler is supposed to rule, by showing one card and playing another. Nonetheless, instilling such a power among the people is very unusual for a thinker such as Machiavelli who seems to condone tyranny.
The other portion of this work that may be deemed republican is the overall modesty of Machiavelli’s claims. In discussing whether it is better to be miserly or liberal, he takes the middle road on the issue, saying that in being miserly the ruler will be deemed liberal because later along the path of the nation there will be a liberal spending on such items as defense and public works. Many other examples of this can be found in the work but what is seen by this particular example is the search for political stability and equilibrium. Taking a moderate approach to domestic affairs seems to be the path that Machiavelli takes, which has proven to be effective and normal in modern political thought. There is a middle ground found in the way a ruler acts and thinks, depending on the situation. Machiavelli seems to have a sort of political relativism, forming policy as the situation seems fit. Republicanism is a small but important component of Machiavelli’s work.
The most obvious theme throughout The Prince is that of a ruler that acts as a tyrant and is in search of more landholdings and material goods. This is probably the most widely accepted view of Machiavelli and probably has, at least on the surface, the most merit. Despite some waffling on the part of Machiavelli, there is a push toward a more aggressive and, depending on point of view, immoral rule of the land. The leader seems to be a man who does not practice what he preaches. This is justified by the fact that the ruler is someone who is more prepared and is more knowledgeable of the world than the common man. Great distrust is placed on any insurgent groups that help a ruler gain new lands, because there seems to be the idea that if this insurgent group was not happy with the lands they were living in, they will not be happy with the land they are becoming. Therefore, these groups are not ideally allowed access to weapons, as they still have a great burden proof as to their motives. The view that Machiavelli was a proponent of tyranny may have been a bit overblown, partially because his claims throughout most of the work are either contradictory or too wishy-washy to be truly authoritarian.
Machiavelli’s claims are still popular to this day because they are multi-dimensional. Being moderate in professing theory or ideas allows for the sustenance of integrity through the annals of time. Machiavelli’s work stands the test of time because it is such a moderate work and it also is, in my view, metaphorical in other aspects of life. His views on constant preparation for war are very compatible with the modern approaches to industry and business. If an executive of a major company does not know the techniques used in the past to achieve efficiency and progress, they are doomed to fall into complacency and failures that could have been rectified. Small business owners who do not prepare by knowing their terrain and looking at the failures of others are doomed to fail themselves. Beyond business, these techniques are probably conducive to some people’s behaviors in social life.
Machiavellian thought can expand beyond the realm of the business world. The choice to be miserly over being liberal can be adopted as a family value. Parents do not spoil their children with trinkets at their early ages in order to save for their future. With the fluctuations of economy, there is the need to save, not spend at a higher rate. Many other examples can be found in social interactions in daily life. Trust is a difficult thing to attain, especially with people who have different interests or have wronged you in the past, but is possible through long processes of contact. This compares to Machiavelli’s analysis that those who are deemed not favorable to the state can be trusted because of their reliance on the ruler.
I believe that some of Machiavelli’s ideas on politics are applicable to modern American politics. Ideally, our democratically elected dealers are virtuous and are working in the best interests of America and their constituents. Realistically, politicians need to be a bit cunning and two-faced in order to get ahead in politics. Machiavelli’s analysis of how a ruler should act is much like how many contemporary politicians have acted. Richard Nixon would seem to be an exemplary case study of Machiavellian politics. Nixon was extremely paranoid, not even trusting many of the people in his cabinet with what his plans are. He tape recorded all his Oval Office conversations, most of which would incriminate him in the end. He appeared to be a man with great patriotism and love for justice but while exercising this facade, he tried to circumvent electoral politics with cunning attempts at sabotage of Democratic candidates in the 1972 presidential election. His attempts to prevent scandal by destroying records, attempting to dismiss his attorney general, and constant denials by his office saw to it his own demise.
Modern politics is rife with examples of Machiavellian thought. Miserliness, what we would call fiscal conservatism, has very strong roots in American thought. No matter what a person may feel about foreign or domestic issues, there can really be no argument that money needs to be budgeted not only to keep our economy efficient for the next year, but for future generations. Issues like Social Security and Medicare have been in limbo because of poor spending habits by both parties in the United States in the last 50 years. Pet projects such as the Star Wars defense plan and the Great Society have received vocal support from a great deal of people but the money spent on achieving the goals of these programs has been excessive, especially for the poor results we have seen to date. Fiscally conservative politics are the most practical values that exist today in American politics and are at least born in a small way from Machiavellian political thought.
The phrase coined through the Reagan administration of “peace through strength” is part and parcel of Machiavellian thought. Maintaining a strong military, even in times of relative world peace, is a byproduct of the Cold War as well as from past experiences in military blunders. Machiavelli would have been distraught to see the early American military, or lack thereof. With the events of September 11th, 2001, still echoing in our minds, there has been a push to increase preparedness and efficiency for the military. This idea that America was too relaxed with its military forces prior to the terrorist attack is perhaps a bit of panicked thought. But it is an idea, according the Machiavelli, that would have been rectified by diligent military and security policies. I think an analysis of the United States, according to the ideals of The Prince, would be that the nation’s leaders did not prepare enough during times of peace and did not totally understand or fully accept the world landscape around them.
I present this analysis as a sample of what might be said by Machiavelli today. But I do not believe that a Machiavellian preparedness of armed forces would have saved America from the despair and anguish that resulted from the tragedy on September 11th. This actually would have created much more fear and perhaps too much alertness to even the slightest and unintentional acts that may be conceived as subversive. My image of a Machiavellian nation is one which there is swarms of soldiers walking up and down the streets in shifts, looking for trouble. Perhaps this is grim but this is one area that perhaps I would wholeheartedly disagree with Machiavelli on. What America needs is a more intelligent and highly aware army, not one with sure mass and brutal force.
What we can use Machiavelli for in the present has expanded from what his contemporaries used his ideas for. This book was a gift to the Medicis, a sort of justification for their rule over a fractionalized Italian peninsula. This was an attempt by Machiavelli to gain the good graces of the ruling class, but in doing that he created a work that transcended time and social classification. This book is now the bible for a great many business people and high power professionals and can be used as a guide, with a very loose interpretation, for many different types of people. My feeling is that if the words of Machiavelli were taken literally by those who choose to adopt his ethos (as unlikely as that is), there would be an alarming rise in egocentric power mongers in an alarmingly materialistic world. The more likely scenario is what I have proposed: a metaphorical reading of Machiavelli that allows for greater interpretation and application to an individual’s life. Under this guise, I would even be willing to subscribe to some of his more moderate policies, though I don’t profess to be a fan of Machiavelli in general. Machiavelli has transcended time and will for a long time as long as progress and material needs are the buzzwords in our culture.
