Jean Elshtain's Philosophy Of Leadership Analysis

In chapter XV Machiavelli discusses how it is important to appear as a virtuous ruler, but to not actually possess these qualities. He states, “ one is considered a giver, the other rapacious; one cruel, another merciful; one treacherous, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and courageous; one humane, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one trustworthy, another cunning; one harsh another lenient; one serious another frivolous; one religious another unbelieving; and the like. And I know that everyone will admit that it would be a very praiseworthy thing to find in a prince, of the qualities mentioned above, those that are held to be good; but since it is neither possible to have them nor observe them all completely, because human nature does not permit it, a prince must be prudent enough to know how to escape the bad reputation of those vices that would lose the state for him” (The Portable Machiavelli 127). In this chapter Machiavelli is suggesting that a good ruler can’t be virtuous at all times because it would not be in the best interest of the people.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

Machiavelli recommends the rulers to follow the good qualities, unless needs to protect himself from a vice who would not lose the state for him or be prudent enough to escape a vice who would lose the state for him.

Wheatley (2007) describes the old story of leadership as “a story of dominion and control, and all-encompassing materialism.” It can be explained by analogizing it to a machine; a lifeless object that does not have the capability to think, feel, or make decisions. It, the machine, functions quite like the old story of leadership by where there are

The essays that comprise Traditional Classics on Leadership present varying notions of authority and of challenging authority. This is largely due to the fact that this manuscript is comprised of essays from 31 contributors, ranging from well-known political theorists to some of the more salient voices for individuality that the world has known. Still, there are some points of commonalities in these essays that present a synthesized viewpoint of the concept of challenging authority.

In other words Machiavelli says that human nature praises certain qualities and blame others, but there is no way that humans can do all the good things while avoiding the bad things. What makes a "good prince" in the eyes of Machiavelli is one that figures out how to not take so much blame when he does wrong, and tries to do as many good things as he can. For example regarding generosity and miserliness, Machiavelli says to be considered truly generous, one must be miserly at times:"A prince, therefore, being unable to use his virtue of generosity in a manner which will not harm himself... should, if he is wise, not worry about being called a miser; for with time, he will come to be considered more generous..." (53) In one final contrast, according to Machiavelli in regards to courage and cowardice, mercy and treachery he says "That every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; never the less, he must take care not to misuse this mercy...Therefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty, when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal" (55). According to Machiavelli,

What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.

      Machiavelli goes on to stress that while it can be beneficial to appear a good and honorable man, a prince must always be prepared to resort to

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

Machiavelli’s The Prince majorly conveys his feelings that a prince should be feared rather than loved, but that he should never do anything to be hated (The Prince, 61). However, he should utilize cruelty if it is the best interest of the state (The Prince, 60), regardless of morality. He often mentions that the ends justify the means, so the prince must do whatever is needed to keep power and control because to be morally good often leads to bad ends (The Prince, 56-57).

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this

Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.

Machiavelli also confronts the reputational risks and concern of liberality and meanness. With liberality, the prince generally leaves the people alone mostly tax-free. Unfortunately, the more generously the prince gives, the poorer he will inevitably become. Thus, he creates the necessity of taxing the people, which fosters resentment among the people. However, Machiavelli states that it is better for the prince to be considered a miser

Machiavelli in his work informs the prince that even if he does possess certain qualities he shall always appear to his followers as retaining all of these qualities as shown in the following quotation “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them… He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind guileless, and devout… He should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli highlights that image is extremely crucial for rulers and they must alter the perceptions of their people in regard to him in order to appear in control at all times for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining control. This idea is overturning

Machiavelli, specifically, had an idea in mind of how a leader should conduct himself and what morals he should value. Straightforwardly, he explained that he considered it unnecessary for a prince to have moral qualities; a prince should instead only “seem” to have them. Thus, it is “useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, [and] honest”; however, if one possesses these attributes, it can be destructive (Machiavelli 95). This is since a prince “is often required to act against faith, against charity, against humaneness, and against religion” to maintain his position (Machiavelli 95). Regarding reputation, Machiavelli clarifies whether it is better to be feared or loved by the people. Both are important, but when they are in conflict, “it