George Bush as a Machiavellian Leader Essay

The government of the states will secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and provide the interest and safety of all individuals entering into society, must also give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. Difficulty was encreased by a difference among several states due to their condition, magnitude, and precise

In the year 1531 the famous political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli’s wrote a treatise entitled The Prince. It explains the proper guidelines for a prince to successfully lead a republic. Although this sixteenth century politician’s main purpose was to unite a separate Italy, his political theories have been taken into deep consideration and are commonly exercised in politics today. If Machiavelli were alive today he would agree that qualities of the current president Barack Obama coincide with his prince-like standards and make him the ideal candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election.

The Constitution holds similitude to many of Machiavelli’s sentiments, such as, “The chief foundations of all states...are good laws and good arms” (Machiavelli 55). The Constitution is the framework of the United States, outlining its law and the conduct of its army (US Const., art. 1, sec. 8). It provides the country with the strong laws and army that Machiavelli believed are essential to creating a powerful nation. In addition to being relevant in the foundation of America, The Prince manages to foresee the actions of its citizens. The treatise describes the mercurial disposition of mankind, “and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion” (Machiavelli 25). One recent example is the American public’s reaction to the Iraq War. In March of 2003, 72 percent of Americans believed the Iraq War was a positive thing, while only 22 percent disagreed, according to the Pew Research Center (Rosentiel). However, in February of 2008, just five years later, more than half of Americans disapprove of the decision to go to war (Rosentiel). The American government was able to persuade its citizens into supporting the war, despite it being based on misinformation and lies, long enough for the US to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and avoid major repercussions (“Seven Years in Iraq”). Machiavellian concepts are even prominent in American presidential elections. The Prince claims that princes must lie to their subjects in order to accumulate power and support and that, “...It is necessary...to be a great pretender and dissembler; and...he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” This is reminiscent of the deception riddling the 2016 elections, with politicians in all parties spouting wicked falsehoods. Donald Trump, for instance, uses fictitious rhetoric such

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

George W. Bush, our current President, must keep a copy of Machiavelli’s most celebrated work, “The Prince “(1513), on his desk in the Oval Office. In my opinion, Bush and his administration’s actions mimic Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince on the tactics that he should use to stay in power. I am going to discuss how President Bush uses Machiavellian principles.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

In both The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli presents very specific advice on how a ruler can maintain stability and control over his newly acquired state. Machiavelli lived in a time when a ruler could come to possess another kingdom through the simple act of war. Yet, in our modernity, a ruler cannot simply declare war and occupy a territory. He must also face repercussions from the other world powers that are in existence today. Our time has evolved and a ruler now has to take into consideration the opinions of other world powers along with the opinion of other global organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. In terms of the United States and their policies towards Afghanistan and Iraq, Machiavelli would disagree in the

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

Machiavelli’s The Prince outlines tactics for a leader to seize and maintain lands under his power. His tactics have been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, and though his approach is hardly ethical or idealistic, one cannot deny the fact that it has proved to be effective. Hitler is an example that exemplifies the accuracy of what Machiavelli said would bring success in the acquisition of new provinces.

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

There has been controversy between scholars about author Niccolo Machiavelli. His two famous works The Prince and The Discourses are two books which discuss monarchy and republic government and how both need to work to be efficient. The question asked is how can the author of The Prince also have written The Discourses? How can Machiavelli write about a republic with separation of power, then write about how a new established monarchy can work and survive? We will discuss the ideas set forth in both books and decide whether or not Machiavelli works are consistent or contradictory.

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of