bubbles
12-05-2006, 04:49 AM
I was reading up a lot about Machiavelli in the past week, and was awestruck to see how much an Italian political thinker had in common in terms of administrative tenets with some of the famous and infamous leaders of our time, across the continents. I wanted to share what I learned with everyone on the forum.:eek:
In 1513, Machiavelli composed The Prince as a means of currying favor with the Medicis, the autocratic rulers of Florence.....The book was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, whom Machiavelli hated; its model is Cesare Borgia, an undisputed, if healthily respected, tyrant. Machiavelli praised the way Borgia had acted swiftly, decisively and indeed ruthlessly in playing off France, Italian city-states and the papacy against each other, suppressing conspiracies and laying a strong foundation for the future. ( Rust, 1999)
This then was the background of “Il Principe”, or “The Prince”, in which Machiavelli describes and analyzes the methods by which an ambitious person may attain power, and then retain it through calculated ruthlessness, boundless charm, and ambiguous morality. This classic of political science has retained its relevance down the five centuries it has survived to come down to us, and leaders of various reputes have been acquainted with it, and consciously or sub-consciously followed its principles. Modern leadership in the twentieth and twenty-first century are no exception, and examples of Machiavellian wisdom abound from Stalin and Hitler, to Ronald Reagan, Nixon and George Bush.:eek:
One of the most striking pronouncements that Machiavelli made was absolutely revolutionary in terms of accepting facts as they are, and not what they ought to be or portrayed to be in traditional political philosophies. He claims to talk about what really goes on behind the corridors of power and what a political aspirant should basically learn in order to get to the top:
Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity.( Machiavelli, 1513)
Joseph Stalin, a totalitarian leader was a self-confessed admirer of Machiavelli, and sought to maintain his supremacy through being “not good”. He validated torture and oppression by plainly declaring that anyone who did not agree with him was in fact and “enemy of the state” and deserved to be punished as such:
Stalin originated the concept "enemy of the people." This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven; this term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. ( Russian Institute-orgname, 1956)
But on the other hand, Stalin brilliantly followed the other machiavellian concept of appearing to be very good, where Machiavelli strictly instructs a political aspirant to always appear totally benevolent, “A prince, therefore, must be very careful never to let anything slip from his lips which is not full of the five qualities mentioned above: he should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion”. Stalin really took care to create a myth around himself about being a caring humanitarian gentleman, despite actually being a merciless and manipulative despot:
As brutal despots have learned throughout the centuries, and as Machiavelli counseled, Stalin could show himself to be a caring, even benevolent father figure. .....Even today, among some older Russians a strong nostalgia persists for "Uncle Joseph," a kindly, all-seeing, and all-caring man who never really existed but lives on that way in the myths that still surround him. (Dvoretsky, Fugate, 1997)
Another devotee of Machiavelli was the infamous Hitler, the scourge of our modern times who deceived the Germans into believing their superiority as the Aryan race, and their right to commit genocide in the name of purification using horrifying means.:mad:
One idea that Hitler carried over from his pre-political years was his understanding of Allied propaganda during World War I......and by far exceeding the Allied propaganda of World War I. Hitler became the father of the big lie. He was a Machiavellian politician par excellence, and it is likely but not certain that he read Machiavelli's The Prince or a popular version of the opus. (Redlich, 1999)
Whereas Hitler followed the Machiavellian precepts of deceit, he carried to excess Machiavelli's doctrine of how much of bloodshed and cruelty a leader should commit. Machiavelli's recommendation was to only perpetrate as much cruelty as necessary for the common good:
Well used are those cruelties (if it is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and are not continued but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for the subjects. Badly used are those cruelties which, although being few at the outset, grow with the passing of time instead of disappearing.( Machiavelli, 1513). :mad:
But Hitler's atrocities did not disappear with time, they stopped only with his downfall and demise, a case of Machiavellian policies carried out to an extreme.
In order to understand how Machiavellian policies come into play in the life and times of the American presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, or the Venezuelan president Chavez, one needs to understand how these individuals assert themselves in the corridors of power:
The president cannot merely declare his authority and make it so: as Machiavelli observed, executive power must be negotiated, justified, and achieved. As political actors operating within a political system inhabited by other institutions vying for power and authority, presidents must ensure their institutional rights, per se, in relation to other institutions of governance.... Like Machiavelli's prince, they yearn for autonomy; but unlike the prince, their authority must be derived from the democratic political system in which they operate. By actively confronting existing institutional arrangements, redefining political understandings, and seizing upon any number of available resources, presidents throughout history have actively crafted their personal, political, and institutional authority.(Galvin, Shogan, 2004)
A President like Nixon who was involved in one of the most nefarious scandals of American politics, tried to subvert authority to suit his own ends. Ruthless and unscrupulous, he was given to serving his own ends instead of that of the country:
What were Nixon's values, what were his morals? In a very real sense, Nixon was amoral. He was not immoral, because he did not have a deep sense of morals. He was amoral in the Machiavellian sense. He had no real internal gyroscope to guide him morally. Power was the guide, winning his god. Thus, Nixon did not see himself acting immorally, he saw himself maximizing his power in a hostile and aggressive world. (Genovese, 1990)
In 1513, Machiavelli composed The Prince as a means of currying favor with the Medicis, the autocratic rulers of Florence.....The book was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, whom Machiavelli hated; its model is Cesare Borgia, an undisputed, if healthily respected, tyrant. Machiavelli praised the way Borgia had acted swiftly, decisively and indeed ruthlessly in playing off France, Italian city-states and the papacy against each other, suppressing conspiracies and laying a strong foundation for the future. ( Rust, 1999)
This then was the background of “Il Principe”, or “The Prince”, in which Machiavelli describes and analyzes the methods by which an ambitious person may attain power, and then retain it through calculated ruthlessness, boundless charm, and ambiguous morality. This classic of political science has retained its relevance down the five centuries it has survived to come down to us, and leaders of various reputes have been acquainted with it, and consciously or sub-consciously followed its principles. Modern leadership in the twentieth and twenty-first century are no exception, and examples of Machiavellian wisdom abound from Stalin and Hitler, to Ronald Reagan, Nixon and George Bush.:eek:
One of the most striking pronouncements that Machiavelli made was absolutely revolutionary in terms of accepting facts as they are, and not what they ought to be or portrayed to be in traditional political philosophies. He claims to talk about what really goes on behind the corridors of power and what a political aspirant should basically learn in order to get to the top:
Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity.( Machiavelli, 1513)
Joseph Stalin, a totalitarian leader was a self-confessed admirer of Machiavelli, and sought to maintain his supremacy through being “not good”. He validated torture and oppression by plainly declaring that anyone who did not agree with him was in fact and “enemy of the state” and deserved to be punished as such:
Stalin originated the concept "enemy of the people." This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven; this term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. ( Russian Institute-orgname, 1956)
But on the other hand, Stalin brilliantly followed the other machiavellian concept of appearing to be very good, where Machiavelli strictly instructs a political aspirant to always appear totally benevolent, “A prince, therefore, must be very careful never to let anything slip from his lips which is not full of the five qualities mentioned above: he should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion”. Stalin really took care to create a myth around himself about being a caring humanitarian gentleman, despite actually being a merciless and manipulative despot:
As brutal despots have learned throughout the centuries, and as Machiavelli counseled, Stalin could show himself to be a caring, even benevolent father figure. .....Even today, among some older Russians a strong nostalgia persists for "Uncle Joseph," a kindly, all-seeing, and all-caring man who never really existed but lives on that way in the myths that still surround him. (Dvoretsky, Fugate, 1997)
Another devotee of Machiavelli was the infamous Hitler, the scourge of our modern times who deceived the Germans into believing their superiority as the Aryan race, and their right to commit genocide in the name of purification using horrifying means.:mad:
One idea that Hitler carried over from his pre-political years was his understanding of Allied propaganda during World War I......and by far exceeding the Allied propaganda of World War I. Hitler became the father of the big lie. He was a Machiavellian politician par excellence, and it is likely but not certain that he read Machiavelli's The Prince or a popular version of the opus. (Redlich, 1999)
Whereas Hitler followed the Machiavellian precepts of deceit, he carried to excess Machiavelli's doctrine of how much of bloodshed and cruelty a leader should commit. Machiavelli's recommendation was to only perpetrate as much cruelty as necessary for the common good:
Well used are those cruelties (if it is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and are not continued but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for the subjects. Badly used are those cruelties which, although being few at the outset, grow with the passing of time instead of disappearing.( Machiavelli, 1513). :mad:
But Hitler's atrocities did not disappear with time, they stopped only with his downfall and demise, a case of Machiavellian policies carried out to an extreme.
In order to understand how Machiavellian policies come into play in the life and times of the American presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, or the Venezuelan president Chavez, one needs to understand how these individuals assert themselves in the corridors of power:
The president cannot merely declare his authority and make it so: as Machiavelli observed, executive power must be negotiated, justified, and achieved. As political actors operating within a political system inhabited by other institutions vying for power and authority, presidents must ensure their institutional rights, per se, in relation to other institutions of governance.... Like Machiavelli's prince, they yearn for autonomy; but unlike the prince, their authority must be derived from the democratic political system in which they operate. By actively confronting existing institutional arrangements, redefining political understandings, and seizing upon any number of available resources, presidents throughout history have actively crafted their personal, political, and institutional authority.(Galvin, Shogan, 2004)
A President like Nixon who was involved in one of the most nefarious scandals of American politics, tried to subvert authority to suit his own ends. Ruthless and unscrupulous, he was given to serving his own ends instead of that of the country:
What were Nixon's values, what were his morals? In a very real sense, Nixon was amoral. He was not immoral, because he did not have a deep sense of morals. He was amoral in the Machiavellian sense. He had no real internal gyroscope to guide him morally. Power was the guide, winning his god. Thus, Nixon did not see himself acting immorally, he saw himself maximizing his power in a hostile and aggressive world. (Genovese, 1990)