Please comment and give me honest feedback- don’t hold back your criticism, no matter how harsh it is.

Chapter XXV: The Influence of Luck on Human Affairs and the Ways to Counter It

Page 69

“I conclude then, that so long as Fortune varies and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not. But I do feel this: that it is better to be rash than timid, for Fortune is a woman, and the man who wants to hold her down must beat and bully her. We see that she yields more often to men of this stripe than to those who come coldly towards her. Like a woman, too, she is always a friend of the young, because they are less timid, more brutal, and take charge of her more recklessly.”

            Fortune is the only barrier in The Prince that Machiavelli’s logic cannot overcome. His analysis of Fortune is unique because he uses a metaphor to explain himself instead of reason. It is also the last idea Machiavelli explains before his exhortation to Lorenzo de Medici. It is a turning point, when Machiavelli’s reasonable tone transforms into a spirited, patriotic one that demands action to unite the city-states of the Italian peninsula against foreign invasion. Machiavelli is getting Lorenzo de Medici excited, so he will more readily accept Machiavelli’s exhortation- his purpose for writing The Prince.

            Just in this four sentence passage the reader can observe Machiavelli’s transformation. He starts with cold, discerning logic, then changes in the second sentence to a metaphor. He sees Fortune as a constant and the acts of men as a variable. They must make up for any discrepancies caused by the change in fortune. Here is another example of Machiavelli’s realistic approach to politics. No matter how hard men try, anomalies will always occur, forcing them to change their plans accordingly. When change is viewed as the only constant, men must be bold enough to adapt to the times, always adapting. Hesitation therefore, will never result in success; and boldness, even if it is not the best course of action, will at least give one a chance to succeed.

            Machiavelli explains logic in an illogical way. His comparison to fortune as a woman, is not unique for the time period. Other writers, such as John Milton also place women as the opposite of logic. The only thing men can do to minimize damage is to boldly control her. Not to insinuate women need to be controlled, or that Machiavelli’s view is his or prevalent of the times- like all of his other writings in The Prince, they are meant to get his point across as accurately and precisely as possible in the shortest amount of time. As the case is with Fortune, a comparison to a woman seems to fit. One may call him a misogynist, and judging on the text there is a strong basis to do so, but as with all of Machiavelli’s writings, the viewpoint he expresses serves to get his point across- it is not necessarily his thought.

            The concept of Virtù is also strongly evident in this passage, indicating even when Machiavelli is not using a logical argument to validate his thoughts, his writing remains focused and unified. Although Robert Adams, the translator of the Norton Critical Edition of The Prince describes virtù as many things, after reading many scholarly articles concerning Machiavelli and his ideas, I think it is best to define virtù as politics used to further the cause of a poltical system, used as fortune and necessity require. The second part of the definition is the most important part. It implies choosing one side and not faltering from it. This relates to Machiavelli’s comparison of politics to economics- the idea of power as a scarce resource, and in the public domain morality and niceness are non-existent; the only thing that matters is results. The well-being of the public is the larger harmony, and that well-being overshadows cruelty, or any other morally questionable means used to achieve it.

            A prince must always be politically active in order to adapt to the ebbs and flows of Fortune. This single idea is the basis for Machiavelli’s ideal republican government described in The Discourses and the foundation for his ambiguous advice in The Prince. It is necessary to constantly and consistently adapt to this “fickle whore” that brings trouble upon men and stable government. Machiavelli explains this most effectively at the end of his treatise because it is the basis, the foundation of government. Without active citizens a republic or principality will fall victim to decadence and laziness and be taken over by a neighboring one, whose sense of virtù is stronger. Fortune is the narrow balance beam on which republics stand or fall. Their citizens must always be active for their government to be balanced; any decadence of laziness will inevitably result in failure. In a principality the prince is responsible for the well-being of the public and therefore must use any means necessary to remain virtùous.

            As in taking control of a woman, there are risks involved. Here, Machiavelli’s metaphor greatly under represents the scope of power- a mistake in asking a girl on a date results only in rejection, a mistake in government affects the lives of not just the prince, but of all of his citizens. And we see this pattern, especially in Machiavelli’s allusions to past leaders who were killed or exiled because of their inability to adapt to changing times.

(List Examples)

The risks for a prince are monumental- he bets his life and the lives of his people on his ability to be the most ruthless, cruel, callous politician; because by doing so he most effectively ensures the longevity of his people.

            Machiavelli’s last metaphor sums up his entire treatise. Men need virtù to overcome the anomalies that inevitably result from the activities, both known and most often unknown, of his surroundings. The question becomes not what you are that matters, but what you can become. The most ambiguous leader becomes the best, because he can take control of Fortune through any means necessary. He is not tied to a set of rules and therefore is best qualified to control that chaotic woman called Fortune.

Please comment and give me honest feedback

Chapter XV: On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised Or Blamed- Especially Princes

Page 42

“For if you look at matters carefully, you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well being.”

One reason Machiavelli has been criticized in the last 500 years is his lack of a moral compass. His ideas not only contradict traditional Judeo-Christian morality, they threaten the fundamental doctrine of Western political thought; the idea that everything has a purpose prescribed to it by a single source- a political or supernatural entity- and by obeying that entity humans can ascend to a higher consciousness. One entity Machiavelli indirectly criticizes is the Catholic Church. During his lifetime the Church told its followers by obeying the word of God relayed to them by it, they would gain entrance into Heaven. Morality plays a similar role. It tells people how to live, and by obeying the rules their life gains a greater meaning. Machiavelli rejects this idea. He believes it is not the way one lives that is important, it is what one accomplishes that defines him. This doctrine is more practical than that of religion or morality- it is based on scientific observations and measurements instead of abstract rhetoric. In Chapter XV of The Prince Machiavelli discusses this doctrine by comparing virtue to vice. He argues results are the only thing that matters- the means by which they are achieved is excusable, as long as they create political stability.

Herein lies the goal of Machiavelli’s treatise. His advice is geared towards the benefit of the group rather than that of the individual, and he uses scientific thought to best achieve this goal. That means anything that cannot be proven effective must be eliminated from one’s thoughts including morality, religion and generosity. Conversely anything that process effective, no matter how evil it is should be included in one’s thoughts including cruelty, extortion, bribery and murder. The last four terms are typically called vices, but they are very effective. Machiavelli argues a name is just a name- it means nothing more; actions should be judged by the benefits or detriments they impose upon the public, not by their good or bad connotations.

This scientific attitude is the basis for Machiavelli’s analyses and conclusions. He sees the world as it is, not as he wants it to be. He divorces idealism, morality and God for the sole purpose of creating stable government for the public. His goal is a lofty one, and requires extremes that, even today, are considered reprehensible; but also very effective. He advocates the use of idealism only as a means to not be hated, rather than to create a better world. Machiavelli rejects the idea that humans can change the world- he thinks they can only minimize the suffering in it through the use of scientific principles to analyze effective and ineffective behavior. What is ideal is oftentimes not what is effective, and if our goal is to make a less painful or better world, why should we cling to unproven and ineffective means? This logic is evident throughout The Prince, and although Machiavelli uses many examples to prove his points, I will focus on two that demonstrate how virtuous action, though seeming good, really creates more suffering than wicked action.

Two of Machiavelli’s examples shine as the best way to prove this seemingly irrational idea. The first is generosity versus parsimony. Parsimony is perceived as a vice, but upon further examination it allows a prince to keep more money in his treasury, which allows him to help his citizens and advance his empire; conversely a generous prince will be forced to burden his citizens with taxes to feed his generosity, his people will feel they are giving their earned money away and consequently hate the prince. Either the public or another prince will overthrow him resulting in chaos, disorder and suffering. Another example is the use of cruelty. Machiavelli argues cruelty exists, and therefore must be managed responsibly by a prince to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering upon his citizens. He writes:

“We may add this note that when a prince takes a new state, he should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once, so as not to have to do new ones every day; simply by not repeating them, he will be able to reassure people, and win them over to his side with benefits…benefits should be distributed very gradually, so the taste will last longer” (VIII).

A prince who refuses to use wickedness will be dominated by one that will. Therefore he must embrace the most malevolent forms of political maneuvers in order to prevent others from challenging his power and creating chaos. In both examples a prince is forced to act wickedly in order to achieve a larger harmony. Machiavelli argues the use of such measures is excusable, as long as they result in long-term political stability. The long-term well being of the public outweighs short-term suffering. A refusal to do what is necessary to create stability is the only true vice.

The reader may observe Machiavelli aims not to create a better world, but to minimize the suffering in it. He reasons one person (or entity) must have power in order for society to progress technologically and economically; someone must have the final word. That person must do whatever the situation requires to keep his seat of power and the public, stable. Economically this makes sense- many groups compete for a set amount of scarce resources, and this competition creates chaos. A prince who is willing to do whatever it takes to secure resources will secure the future for his citizens (one entity must win and one must lose, the battle is what creates suffering; and if the most malevolent techniques shorten this battle, they should be praised, not condemned). The means by which he does this can be morally questionable, as long as the long-term stability of the public is safe. In Machiavelli’s eyes the physical well being of hundred, or perhaps thousands or millions of individuals is more important than the spiritual well being of their leader.

To observe this, look no further than the American presidency. A comparison between Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter reveals that a politician must be willing to do anything for his country, no matter the personal costs. Nixon was a mass of contradictions: in his first inaugural address he said “the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker”, yet he ordered more bombs dropped than any other president in US history. He was a staunch anti-communist, yet opened relations with the two most powerful communist countries in the world. He escalated the Vietnam War to its height, and then pulled out US troops. He was a republican, but created economic and social reform, such as the EPA, OSHA and the Clean Air Act of 1970, comparable only to the New Deal Era. He was elected to his second term by a landslide, but resigned from office before his term expired. Jimmy Carter was the opposite- he was a man of faith and conviction and refused to compromise his beliefs. His stubbornness prevented him from creating any lasting legislation. In fact, his beliefs caused him to make decisions detrimental to the US, such as ceding the Panama Canal to Panama. Morally this is the right choice, but politically it couldn’t be more wrong. Nixon was the opposite of Carter- he found no wrongdoing in hypocrisy. He practiced Machiavellian politics and in accordance with them sacrificed the sanctity of his soul for the benefit of his country, whereas Carter preferred a life of idealism, and even though he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, his presidency is considered rather insignificant in terms of lasting change created. Although Carter is considered a moral person, Nixon’s ambiguities lead to beneficial change, both economically and socially, and many of his programs are still intact today, whereas Carter’s are not. The divorce of politics with morals is evident. The well being of the public cannot be hindered by beliefs, whether an act is called virtue or vice is not important; it is the affect on the well being of the public that matters.

So who is virtuous and who is malicious? Is it Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter? The answer to this question cannot be answered because two different things are being compared. Nixon acted in the interest of the public and Carter acted in the interest of his ideals. If Machiavelli proves one thing through this passage, it is that private virtue must be abandoned when one enters politics. He is not advocating a private citizen to follow his doctrines- his treatise is dedicated to a prince or politician. That group of people is the one Machiavelli is advising. Jimmy Carter is a model private citizen and a poor politician; Richard Nixon is a poor private citizen and a model politician. The two are different people and consequently excel in their own spheres.

Machiavelli advocates a different kind of morality in politics. He sets the common good as the highest honor attainable and his zeal for it is so strong; he is willing to sacrifice everything, including morality and religion for it. For this we may condemn him for his methods, but we cannot condemn him for the results he achieves. If it wasn’t for Machiavellism (for a lack of a better name) today’s society could never have progressed to where it is today. His ideas permeate into our government and economy, and whether we like it or not, the well being of our country, and all other countries for that matter, depend on them.

Please comment and give me honest feedback- don’t hold back your criticism, no matter how harsh it is.

Chapter VI: About New Princedoms Acquired with One’s Own Arms and Energy [Virtù]

Page 17

“And it is worth noting that nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the undertaking, or more doubtful of success, than to set up as the introducer of a new order. Such an innovator has as enemies all the people who were doing well under the old order, and only half-hearted defenders in those who hope to profit from the new. This half-heartedness derives partly from fear of opponents, who have the law on their side, and partly from human skepticism, since men don’t really believe in anything new until they have solid experience of it. The is why, whenever the enemies of a new state have occasion to attack it, they do so furiously, while its friends only languidly come to its defense, so that the venture and its supporters are likely to collapse together…it is the nature of people to be fickle; to persuade them of something is easy, but to make them stand fast in that conviction is hard. Hence things must be arranged so that when they no longer believe they can be compelled to believe by force.”

            In The Prince Machiavelli makes conjectures about general rules governing the behavior of people. He characterizes them as selfish and animalistic; motivated only by pleasure and pain. Upon these conclusions, like the above passage, Machiavelli has often been criticized- especially when The Prince was published. In the 16^th century the Catholic Church told humans to be selfless, charitable and obedient to God. This view was in stark opposition to Machiavelli’s treatise. Interestingly the power of the Church has waned through the centuries, but Machiavelli’s ideas have flourished. His assumptions, like the one above, are eerily accurate.

            This analysis of human behavior focuses on change- a topic very important to a prince or politician. As power is transferred from one faction to another the complications that follow need to be minimized to ensure the transfer is a smooth one. In other words the new leader must be able to maintain political stability. This accomplishment is very difficult for the reasons Machiavelli describes. Change itself is something that people resist. It is often difficult because new people must adapt to new roles, and those who stand to gain power will be skeptical, slowly easing into their new role, while those who stand to lose power will fiercely defend their status. From this conjecture the reader can conclude people take greater measures to avoid pain than to achieve pleasure. They can deal with almost any situation as long as they know what to expect so they can plan accordingly. What people don’t like, according to Machiavelli, is change. Its outcome can never be exactly predicted.

            This concept is one Machiavelli echoes throughout The Prince. All of his advice pertaining to how Princes should acquire new lands is all based on minimizing pain placed on the citizens. One example Machiavelli cites is in chapter II, where he notes taking over a hereditary principality is easy, as long as the new prince does not upset established customs or change the lives of the citizens. Another is in chapter VIII, where Machiavelli advises prince who obtained power through the use of crime. He alludes to Agotholes of Syracuse who became military governor by murdering the city’s senate and wealthiest citizens. This may seem like a monumental change, but consider what Agothocles did afterward: he successfully defended Syracuse from the Carthaginians, launched a successful invasion of North Africa and after that committed no atrocious acts; in fact after he committed the murders he governed Syracuse well until his death in 289 B.C. No one rebelled against him because he created change only once. After that he allowed his citizens to live how they wished. By limiting the political change created by his rise to power, Agothocles successfully kept his power and Syracuse stable.

            People are so mistrusting of change (they fear they will end up worse than what they already are) that they will subject themselves to the rule of a man like Agothocles. In fact they will allow almost anyone to rule over them as long as that person creates a stable environment in which they can be safe in knowing what to expect. In history, as well as modern times people have rallied behind leaders not because of their virtuous characters, but because of their ability to create a stable environment. Take Adolf Hitler- very few would seriously argue he possessed good character, but at the time he created steady jobs and therefore a stable environment for thousands of Germans. He rescued a faltering German economy faced with inflation and recession. Those are the things the German’s valued in Hitler- he created order and stability where chaos and poverty had once been.

            Machiavelli reasoning goes even further than this. He reasoned people’ fear of loss made them reluctant to support a regime change because they don’t know whether the new regime will place them in a better or worse position than they were before. Logically his conclusion makes sense: why would a person support a new regime if it were destined to fail? The safe choice is always supporting the already established one; even if it is oppressive, the citizen will at least know what to expect. Idealists would disagree with this conclusion because it discredits new regimes that successfully take over the old ones. Machiavelli however takes a very practical stance: because the majority of rebellions fail, it is a safer for a citizen to side with the established government than risk injuring it, and consequently being convicted of treason.

            If one wants to overthrow a government Machiavelli advises invoking idealism to take over the old regime, then when the idealists discover the new regime will be no better than the old, make laws that force those idealists to comply with the new regime. This again is a great example of Machiavelli’s practicality. His advice is far from idealistic, but a thousand times more practical; and because of its practicality, it can- if followed- achieve the desired results.

            This passage is just one of many that set up sound logic against idealism. In this battle Machiavelli will argue that practicality always wins. People naturally resist change, so why should they support it? It causes trouble more often than not. What they do like is repetition and stability. They are the two things a Prince should aim to create because they are the most practical when governing.  Machiavelli’s advice in this passage reflects the practicality he champions throughout The Prince.