Machiavelli In American Politics

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 Prince was written during a time of political turmoil and instability in Italy. In a land where city-states fought for power, empires desired domination, and neighboring countries favored control there was a void in political solidity. Machiavelli’s desire for this same conquest is prevalent in his work. He demonstrates his need for political advancement and his capabilities, as well as the necessity of the unification of Italy. By designating a set of rules or guidelines in government Machiavelli suggests that politics and ethics can be separated and focuses on how ethics, freewill, perception, and human nature all play a major role in governing an entity.

The United States of America is a global superpower, boasting the most dominant military and strongest economy of the international community. But yet, many of the ideas imbued in this nation are the same as those penned down in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513. Dedicated to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, the book advises leaders on how to conquer principalities and preserve power in said region and endorses several immoral methods. Despite differences caused by the transformation of the world after five centuries, The Prince manages to predict various aspects of America and its government. Although Machiavelli’s writings are in regards to 16th century politics, many of the concepts discussed in the political

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli’s, “The Prince”, exemplifies an early depiction of several “modern” ideological principles that would sustain and preserve nations (especially after the separation of the church and state) in the sixteenth century. In this critically acclaimed work, Machiavelli satirically bequeaths a map of qualities that princes should steadfastly uphold and advance. Expressly, the qualities mapped out are frequently criticized as, “crafty, cunning and unscrupulous methods by which a prince can acquire and maintain political power”. One of the most prominent principles that almost served as a catalyst and enchiridion for Machiavelli’s “ethical” behavior as an eminent political figure of Florence, Italy was, “the end

In my attempt to compare the past and the present, I must explain to you the inner thoughts and workings of an ancient icon known as Niccolo Machiavelli on his publication “The Prince”. To do this, I must first start with explaining the brighter side of an ill fate. William Enfield suggested that “The Prince” was a ridicule of Machiavelli’s own perception of political leaders in his time. All in all, declaring that the book was written to “pull off the face of tyranny” and that “men were always fickle, liars, and deceivers” (Enfield, William) as the reporter points out in his article summary as well. Machiavelli’s personality makes this idea a double standard because of the fact that he wrote of breaking the bond of love and even trust if

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.

This considering colors the model of the Prince as only befitting to the wicked and crooked strategy to keep power. Some of this are accurate to Machiavelli goal. Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher and historian, is regarded as one of the founders of classical political philosophy and political science. To this day, scholars continue to debate whether the Florencian writer is more sympathetic to the few or the many. With some of his texts containing views contradicting the others, it is difficult to contend whether or not the philosopher is a true democrat. Despite many of Machiavelli’s seemingly democratic views and ideas, his personal ideology appears to be more of a Republican nature. His republicanism is most informed by his remarks on the people, nobles, and ideal state structure. Through analysis of his writings in ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’, and his ‘Letter to Francesco Vettori,

Machiavelli was one of the first “modern” political thinkers in the late 1400s and early 1500s. He addresses to a government with principalities, in which the power is either inherited or the power is attained through wickedness.

In “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli writes about 16th century principalities and how its princes should act. However, while these ideals may seem dated, Machiavelli’s description holds many similarities and differences to American politics today.

Niccolò Machiavelli was brave enough to give the leaders of his day a how-to guide. In this work, The Qualities of a Prince, we are given a point-by-point description of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. Machiavelli explains that, because leadership is (obviously) a position of command, "[war] is the only profession which benefits one who commands. " (p. 33)

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

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.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).

When Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous publication The Prince in 1513, he never could have imagined his novel’s legacy, especially in a postmodern world consisting of a majority of democracies rather than oligarchies. More than merely a testament to Renaissance history, the book’s advice is surprisingly pertinent to modern politics, especially concerning partisan feuds within the US. Perhaps the most recently recognized example of this phenomenon is Donald Trump’s controversy over his acceptance of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer’s and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s debt deal. This debt deal passed on September 6th and provided aid for hurricane Harvey victims and raised the debt ceiling (the limit of money the US government can borrow) for three months. Trump accepted the Democrat’s deal just a few hours after it was proposed to him without negotiation or counter-offers - an action nearly unprecedented among Trump’s administration, causing much chagrin among the Republican party, many of whom were highly opposed to raising the debt ceiling. When analyzing Trump’s decision, however, one can conclude his unusual cooperation with the Democrat’s is not foolish, as many have criticized; it is nothing short of Machiavellian. Trump’s actions concerning the Schumer-Pelosi debt deal are arguably verbatim from Machiavelli’s The Prince, based not on the traditional Republican goals to benefit the party, but only to benefit Trump himself.