How Did Machiavelli's Political Views Influence American Politics Today?

Unlike what we see in the articles of lao-tzu and Thomas Jefferson. Machiavelli, in comparison, has almost no faith in human nature. He believes a monarch is better be feared than loved. And he believes that people should be strictly controlled by the monarchies. It is like what Hannah Arendt described in total domination, where there is no trust between the elite and the people. Even in some violent way, suppression is acceptable. Different from both lao-tzu and Jefferson. Lao-tzu believes that any kind of war is destructive and unnecessary. Jefferson believes that war fought to defend oneself is destructive but necessary. On the other hand, Machiavelli celebrate the act of war and praise the ones who prepare for war. These ideas seems cruel

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.

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

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

What’s better than the sweet taste of power? According to Machiavelli, nothing seems to compare to the high power brings. Many leaders throughout history perfectly embodied some of his truths and remained in power. Though their tactics were questionable and brought plenty of tragedies one could argue that they produced great leaders.But are Machiavelli’s ideas still relevant? Yes, they’re arguably more relevant than they've ever been. Machiavelli’s tactic, though extreme, are relevant in the modern age because they appear in foreign nations, early age influences, and American politics.

Maintaining control over a position and government in the United States still functions the same as 16th century Italy on a broad basis. In both governments to maintain control the leader primary discipline must be warfare, expect today instead of fighting with other countries physically we fight monetarily and through technological advancement. Politicians fight amongst each other for campaign donations, policy, and funding for their districts. The outline Machiavelli still applies in many way because those who maintain their positions generally have higher donations and have consistently appeased their districts for reelection. On a global scale we have physically seen aspects of The Prince taken place throughout history after its publication such as with the former Soviet Union or the former British Empire being able to control its state with many different cultures and languages by colonizing and have a strong military. Politicians must always being aware of their political surroundings and ready to attack or defend at a moment’s notice which is no different than a prince in 16th century

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.

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.

While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

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

Although some leaders today would deny that fact that they act under Machiavelli’s way of thinking or behavior. Some would argue the fact that Machiavelli’s political ideas are in fact still relevant. In Scott Erb’s, “Reading Revolutions: Great Minds, Great Thoughts Machiavelli and Power Politics,” Erb states that if we could bring Machiavelli to the year 2005, “would Machiavelli have gone to war with Iraq?” Scott goes on to state that this would be a case where “Machiavelli would have relied on deception, delusion, and secret deals, perhaps even with Saddam Hussein.” Erb also pose another questioned in which he asks, “How would Machiavelli assess the war in Iraq?” He states that “it’s pretty obvious that Machiavelli would have assessed it as a dismal failure. He’d argue that if you are to fight a war, and you are a major power, you must come at it with everything you need to totally dominate.  He’d be appalled at the way the US has allowed itself to be weakened and humiliated by not having enough forces to control the country, but yet enough to create dissent at home and chaos in Iraq.  He’d also think the idea of spreading democracy or nation building was absurd; better to simply put an authoritarian leader in power that will be friendly to us.” If we take a look at the Patriot Act, would we say that would have been something that Machiavelli would have approve. What about protecting the country by any means necessary from terrorism? Would

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

The Prince is a novel written in 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli. This book contains 26 chapters, focusing on acquiring and maintaining political power. In other words, it could be seen as the “do’s and don’ts” of the political world. In Chapters One through Eleven, the author discusses the different