The book I’m doing for my AP English Project is “The Prince” By: Nicolo Machiavelli. It was written throughout Machiavelli’s lifetime, and sent as a letter three years before Machiavelli’s death to Lorenzo de Medici- a prominent Italian noble- as a “how to” book telling how to unite the warring Italian city-states against foreign invasion. Although Lorenzo rejected the book, it stands as an influential text on politics. It is most famously known for its cold, calculating logic that ranks political power above everything. Basically: the ends justify the means; do whatever you have to- lie, cheat, steal, betray, murder- in order to keep political power.

I thought it was ironic that Lorenzo rejected the book because Machiavelli would have approved of the rejection. It is a politically smart thing to do because Lorenzo did not want his subjects to think he was as cold and heartless as Machiavelli’s text; even though he was. He has to lie to fortify his political power by rejecting Machiavelli’s book that would have been immensely helpful (part of me thinks he publicly rejected it, but personally read it many times).

I chose this book primarily because it deals with foreign policy, a subject I am avidly interested in. I believe the keys to a successful political system- especially in today’s world- are economics and foreign policy. Today’s world has become so globalized that the word “isolationism” is no longer applicable to any country. All political and economic decisions affect many different countries, groups of people and economies. In those complicated relationships lies the key to a successful nation. Every country is defined by those who it trades and interacts with- America’s economy could not work without importing inexpensive goods from foreign nations, and those foreign nations would not have an economy with out American investment. In these web-like relationships right and wrong seem to disappear, the only thing that matters is results.

Before you call me a monster, read this next paragraph:

Americans like buying their clothes for relatively cheap prices, but they don’t like to think about the children working in sweat shops in third-world Asian countries for a bowl of rice per day. That image disgusts us (I would hope so) but we are willing to ignore it as long as Abercrombie and Fitch and Hollister keep selling us the distressed jeans we love so much. The harsh reality of the situation is we value our designer jeans more than the lives of factory workers overseas. We may say we care, but when push comes to shove, we would rather buy another pair of jeans than donate to an anti-sweatshop activism group. Actions, and therefore results are the only to accurately measure who we are and what we feel. Anyone can say they care about children in sweat shops (”talk the talk”), but only a relative few acutally do something about it (”walk the walk”). I am just as guilty as the next person. The truth is the majority of our clothes are made by underpaid, overworked, Asians; many of them women and children. When vanities are stripped away, results matter more than the way they are achieved. Think about all of the things people say they care about, but then act hypocritically towards.

This assumption about human nature is the basis for Machiavelli’s book. He sees the world as a cold, heartless place, where you will be killed unless you kill first- morals are non-existent, and results are the only things that matter. I find his philosophy very intriguing because like in the above example , human action often follows this pattern. It’s quite disturbing, but the more I think about it, the more I agree with it.

Think about how many things you actually care about, and more importantly, what you are willing to sacrifice for them. Because in reality words mean nothing- anyone can say anything; only a select few actually act upon their desires. Those actions are what define our world. Think about how many things you say you care about compared to the number of things you actually work for. The answer as I have discovered, is more disturbing than the question.