From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 12:26:58 MST
Anders writes
> > Machiavelli was possible in his times, and even then, the methods he
> > described caused a lot of suffering. BTW, he was totally undemocratic and
> > would have given nothing for human rights. He therefore cannot be a role
> > model for modern politics in an interdependent world. Instead, we have
> > to make sure that his followers have no chance to come to power.
>
> While his name has become synonymous with ruthless realpolitik,
> he was actually an idealist seeking to create a free, united and
> (for its time) democratic Italy.
>
> _The Prince_ was an attempt to write a HOWTO-manual for rulers, showing
> what methods had worked and not worked in the past and explanations of
> why. For its time it was an amazing document, since it attempted to
> distinguish political science as the study of what people do or can do
> from the study of what they *ought* to do - all previous books in the
> genre were essentially sermons about being a nice just ruler.
Yes, all the previous pious advice was without practical effect
at all. Today, at least you'd have a (tiny) chance of affecting
public sentiment due to much improved distribution of information.
> In his _Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus
> Livius_ (1513-21), often called _The Republic_,
> he looked at republics and what made *them* work.
Didn't know that.
> In "Discourses" he emphasized that for a republic to survive, it
> needed to foster a spirit of patriotism and civic virtue among its
> citizens.
Yes, and I believe that he suggested means by which rulers
could attempt to inculcate such values in the citizenry.
Of course, this is a monumental task, trying to affect
at all the basic predispositions of the citizens.
> Blaming him for ruthless politicians is a misattribution -
> they existed long before and independently of his thinking.
> Many of his political views don't resonate well these days
> ... but we shouldn't get trapped in historicism.
My favorite Machiavelli trick was how a ruler could solve
a frequent 15th century problem. You have just conquered
a new town, and many of the residents are chaffing under
your rule. You know that as soon as your army is engaged
elsewhere, a revolt is certain to break out, perhaps involve
your other enemies, and that will end up posing a real threat
to your city. What to do?
You can't just round up and execute all the town's probable
troublemakers, because of the undying hatred for your rule
that will ensue. For each prominent rebel you execute, two
who are not presently against you will rise up.
Machiavelli pointed out that you should appoint a governor
of the city, one of your men who you know is inclined to
drastic solutions. Privately, you even tell him that you
will totally back his "taking care" of the problem. After
he has rounded up and killed all the potential leaders of
a revolt, you "hear about" the atrocities and make a personal
and loudly publicized visit to the town, and conduct an
"investigation". You express your horror and outrage at
the conduct of your governor, and have him promptly and
publicly executed. You then ask the town its forbearance
and assure them that so long as you remain their ruler, no
further atrocities of this kind will ever be permitted.
It would be extremely difficult for most of the readers of
this list, certainly including me, to look a trusting
subordinate right in the eye and lie like that, planning
his death, and using him as a pawn. And though most modern
Western politicians, of course, cannot ultimately do anything
so drastic to a follower, they can lie with perfect self-
assurance, and use without remorse all but their closest
friends as pawns. Clinton was guilty in one notorious case
of making a solemn deal with the Republicans, who I guess
committed themselves somehow (perhaps publicly), and
ten minutes later going on national TV and totally betraying
the agreement. Do you have any doubt that most of our
politicians and statesmen are capable of anything less?
> He was an important step forward, and I actually prefer
> the politician who has read his books (*all of them*)
> to somebody who proudly declares himself to be anti-
> Machiavellian.
That's for sure. That latter politician is no doubt
just posturing. I recall Clinton announcing at the
outset of his presidency that it was to be the "most
ethical administration ever". The utterance of such
grandiose statements in itself is becoming a giveaway.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST