The Theory Of Political Personality Orientation

The public is thought to participate in the political process through the murkiest window while the ruler(s) enjoy(s) the cleanest ones. For Machiavelli, aspiring to a world without secrecy is not only fanciful but dangerous. Indeed, throughout his works, the Florentine author emphasized how indispensable ruse was not solely for the ruler’s sake but also the general interest. Machiavelli regarded popular support as essential to the conservation of power and, more broadly, for political stability. Indeed, even in instances where the public authorities are not personalized, constituents’ support is paramount to the maintenance of a given political system: “only that the people’s friendship is essential to a Prince. Otherwise in adverse times he has no resource” (Machiavelli and Gilbert 1965, v.1, p. 41). However, Machiavelli insists that effective rulers must frequently act against public morals to protect themselves and their city from shrewd enemies by using similarly unethical tactics. To preserve their reputation in the face of such reprehensible conduct, the rulers are compelled to manipulate public opinion: “in general, men judge more with their eyes than with their hands, since everybody can see but few can perceive” (Machiavelli and Gilbert 1965, v.1, pp.66-7).

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.

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

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

Niccolo Machiavelli, a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, wrote based on his belief as result of incidents he had actually experienced. "His works often contrast two forces: luck (one's fortune) and character (one's virtues)."p.35 Machiavelli's writings on "The Qualities of the Prince" focus on advise for monarchial leaders to follow in order to keep their power. Machiavelli's main theory is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means, and do what ever it takes to achieve this goal. The adjective "Machiavellian" has become despised and it is used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way.

He believed the choice had to be made between being loved or being feared where being feared was the better choice. Machiavellianism is a personality trait where the use of manipulation to achieve power. According to Machiavelli, the ideal prince is meant to be ruthless and willing to achieve this power because if an individual begins to show the need for help; others will turn against you. He also stresses how a Prince should be dishonest telling his people what they want to hear, but in a manner that his people still believe he is honest. The appearance of a leader is important because the people will admire you because of your strength in character and nobility.

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

For most citizen’s well known by the name, Machiavelli produces a resemblance of brutality and raw reckoning. The commonplace of the Prince, Machiavelli’s most established work, is seen as lectures to dictators and unrighteous people searching to increase and keep power. Merriam-Webster determines Machiavellian as “ using clever lies and tricks in order to get or achieve something: clever and dishonest.” Machiavellian foreign affairs were more distinctly described by Harvey Mansfield in the opening to his explanation of the Prince where he wrote: “ The essence of this politics is that you can get away with murder: that no divine sanction, or degradation of the soul, a twinge of conscience will come to punish you.”

Although contextual differences are apparent, the differing texts reflect similar ideas in relation to the requirements of a leader. Through the composer’s depiction of leadership, Machiavelli and Shakespeare reveal the impact of context on the composition of a text. Machiavelli portrays a successful leader as one who is cunning and deceitful, a man who is able to manipulate those who oppose him. It is Machiavelli’s belief that for a leader to succeed, he must be willing to manipulate and deceive those who oppose him. “It’s easy to convince people of something, but hard to keep them convinced.

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

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 was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.

     Machiavelli’s argument also focuses on the topic of integrity and generosity and on how a political leader should keep his word. On one hand, he states that it is commendable for a political leader to live by integrity and to be considered generous; however the leaders who have accomplished great deeds throughout history hardly cared about keeping their word and were men that were known to be able to manipulate every situation by clever and shrewd means. Since it is impossible to always maintain all the qualities that man consider good and also maintain a state in his view, a great leader would know when to break those qualities when it is needed for the preservation of the state. However, he warns of excess generosity and the burdens it brings because in order for a leader to maintain his reputation as generous, he has to continuously tax his people in order to raise his funds. This process in turn makes those who employ excessive generosity appear to be the most miserly of all since they tax everyone in order to appear generous to a few.