#population is shifting right. but go ahead and ignore the material conditions affecting the political and blame random people on your phone

[wickershells]

pissing me the fuck off honestly

[lefishe]

Modern machiavellian times

I haven't taken much time this week to finalize any concrete posts. Frivolously working here and there on certain ideas, I haven't finalized anything yet, but it is coming. In the meantime, I wanted to share the writing I was actually focused on, which was for my basic politics class.

Charged with the role of creating our own topics, I returned to the times of the renaissance, and a figure known as Machiavelli that I've studied before. This essay focuses primordially on the influence of the time period around Machiavelli and his contribution to modern political science as we know it. So, if you don't like any of what is in this short intro, feel free to wait for my next writings. And really, unless you've got the patience to read 4259 words, I don't recommend this post for you. I mean if you like politics though, go right on ahead and enjoy!

This version excludes most of the ugly referencing that I am required to add within the paper for your reading experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In the evolution of the human condition, there is one moment in which we seemed to have become more “human”. This time period, the Renaissance, was one filled with the defiance of the overarching power of the church in society and the advanced process of human introspection. This window of opportunity in the expression of ideologies and thoughts brought rise to thinkers, artists, and scientists ranging from Galileo, to Michelangelo, to Thomas Hobbes. Although all of these figures were of utter most importance in their own respects, there is one previously unnamed figure that stands out as the martyr for the foundations of modern political science as we know it. Although some exclaim that his work is but cynical jargon, the importance of Niccolò Machiavelli’s political philosophies has influenced modern day policy, their makers, and the people that they affect everyday globally.

Now, although the time of the Renaissance brought the human race forward, the transition towards this time period was brutal. The period preceding it, the Middle Ages, was a time of relative chaos and doubt for the security and continuation of the human race. Within a feudal structure, a systemic hierarchy was in effect, where kings interacted with nobles, controlling the peasants underneath them, essentially reverting democratic advances of previous eras. This structure was inherent after the fall of the great Roman Empire, as the last Western emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed by a new barbarian. This fall was the spark for an era of chaos, characterised first by the invasion of lands all across Europe by barbarians. In general, the Dark Ages, as their name entails, is a time period that holds very little recorded history, and thus understanding the religious and political struggles of the time is extremely difficult in the modern era. And, although the earlier times of the Dark Ages were filled with the dismantling of the Roman Empire by the rule of barbarians, the final stages of this era were characterized as an age of feudal rule, and the age of faith. In a moment of chaos, the church realised that the only bounding force that could still keep people sane and motivated to live was their faith.

It must then come as a surprise that in a moment of temporary control towards the end of the Middle Ages, that the Renaissance period essentially directly challenged this established rule by faith. Within the transition into the Renaissance, the “Black Death” became a major factor in restabilising the order of society. Killing approximately 60% of Europe’s entire population in the 14th century, the plague wiped out cities at a time, causing major economic depression everywhere. At the end of it’s reign, the end of the plague allowed populations to regrow very quickly, inherently causing a large demand for the production of goods that were unproducible during the depression. This led to the rise of a richer general population, and the development of a middle class, including traders, bankers and merchants. The rise of a middle class is significant in the pursuit of the development of philosophical thought of the time because with greater wealth, people generally had large sums of leisure time that could be dedicated to education, entertainment, art, and other activities. As a breeding ground for trade, Northern Italy is generally referred to as the birthing place of the renaissance because of its central location to many European countries, and due to Italy being a peninsula, the ideal geographical advantage for sea trade and travel. Approaching the rise of thought, the concept and realisation of costal cities as trading hubs was incredibly influential because the trade of materials was only one aspect of possible trade. Merchants and traders from far and wide all held their own cultures and their own thoughts; thus, these cities became incredibly fertile for the sharing of ideas and of cultural traits.

With developments in trade and the prosperity of the general middle class, there came another invaluable tool that propelled the human race further than almost any other invention. The creation of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1445 was the defining step in the renaissance for the sharing of ideas. Now, with trading hubs across Europe ripe for the interaction of people and sharing of ideas, the printing press enabled the quick recording, archiving and distribution of those thoughts anywhere. Books and documents became more accessible to the greater middle class and people other than the clergy, in multiple languages. With documentation, thinkers now had the chance to be independent in their philosophies because they could be shared so much more efficiently. The greatest of these philosophies, and that which defines the Renaissance’s role in the beginning of the defiance of the church, was the rise of humanism. Learning to read Latin and Greek, many thinkers began exploring the largely ignored work of the “classics” and the thinkers of previous eras of human discovery. This began a cycle of human introspection, where people began learning more about science, philosophy, the arts, philosophy, democracy, the pure human condition, and the importance of the human presence on earth.

The Renaissance, born out of the shift towards secular and more humanistic values, also brought the rise of new modern influencing thinkers that were able to defy skeptics through the validity of their points (Wolpovj, 2014). Born into a family within the middle-class aristocracy, Niccolò Machiavelli’s influence on the philosophical and political world began at the young age of 29 as he became the chief of the second chancellery in the Florentine republic. While holding this position for 14 years, he was in charge of the republic’s foreign affairs in subject territories and was instrumental in the establishing of a defensive militia. He was eventually forced out of this position due to beliefs that he was conspiring against the de Medici family, the ruling family in Florence at the time. After being imprisoned and tortured, he was sent in exile out of the republic. During this time, Machiavelli wrote two pieces, “Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy” and “The Prince”, the later of which when published after his death in 1532 remains one of the most important pieces in the development of modern political science as we know it.

Understanding now the time period in which Machiavelli lived and wrote, in addition to the eras of crisis before the Renaissance that preceded him, it can be seen that the influence on the development of his political philosophy was rooted in time and place. From the very middle class that had the leisure to be interested in more than just work and faith, and through his important position in a governmental setting where he developed his rhetoric, diplomacy, negotiation, strategy making, and writing, Machiavelli created his own palette of experience and understanding of history on which to voice his opinion on. His background, which seemingly may be mild in compared to other influential figures throughout history, was more than enough to push him into becoming a very dividing and controversial figure throughout all topics surrounding political philosophy to this day.

Arguably, Machiavelli is referenced and debated about to this day mainly due to his most important work, “The Prince”. This piece in its most broken down and basic form is about how to achieve and maintain power. Although his writings are virtually timeless, in the time that they were written, Machiavelli referred mainly to principalities, the leading of a state by a Prince. Due to the nature of his writing, it can be stated that his points really can apply to any leader searching for greater influence in any context. Throughout this reading, and even that of “Discourses on Livy” it is painfully clear that Machiavelli is a full-blown atheist and republican of sort, believing in the true power of an individual over the choice of many. For this reason, it can be assumed that from the writing of the conditions that he believed were needed to emerge as a leader, Machiavelli was inferring the need for change in his own country. As he wrote in a letter 2 months before his own death, “I love my fatherland more than my soul”, it could be clearly seen that he was a nationalistic man and just wanted his country to be united out of the mess of individual republics across Italy. Thus, now understanding the principal hypothesised reasons for Machiavelli’s writing of “The Prince”, it is easy to follow the true passion of his work and the divisive nature of his arguments. He just wanted his country to succeed, and offering any worthy ways, no matter how harsh, of achieving that was the principles of this “guide”.

Following the path of the philosophies of the Renaissance period, Machiavelli’s writing focuses primordially on political expediency, or political realism, whereas ethics and personal ideals should play a lesser or even non-existent role in the strive for power (MacLean, 2014, 59). This term, political realism, although not new in concept, was highlighted for the first time ever as a strategy for government and the maintaining of power by Machiavelli. Thus, through the influence of the Renaissance, Machiavelli combined with his experience in order to make “The Prince” “a manual for those who wish to win and keep power” (Zaretsky, 2013). Thus, as an ultimate guide for this one and important goal, Machiavelli states that a man must be able to let go of being “good” and must allow himself to be bad, and to discipline himself to believe in his own knowledge “according to necessity”. Debates on Machiavelli’s nature of writing continue to this day due to this point, thus some according him the title of the teacher of evil. Although Machiavelli was known to have written in his Encyclopaedia Universalis that “Man is an angel of light and a demon…” and that he believed that a man’s nature was to be evil, “The Prince” explains that evil is not for evil’s sake.

See rather than proposing being evil, Machiavelli was heavily focused in his writing on the objective principles that would bring a leader to hold power in any situation. And although some of these principles may make a leader ignore their personal bias on the morality of a situation and end up making a generally “negative” decision, this was the whole principal of Machiavelli’s philosophy. This philosophy entailed that the best prince would base his decisions and actions upon the “effectual truth”. In addition, “The Prince” mentions heavily that if possible, a leader should rise by his own merits, because holding power as a multitude of heads only weakens the position of the state. This is mainly due to Machiavelli’s belief that the virtue of a prince and his own knowledge will ultimately bring him the greatest glory in success, and a greater outcome in the reputation of the aforementioned prince and his state.

The principle of virtue or virtù is a defining feature of the push for power because it defines the true intent in the individualism of a prince in power. Machiavelli explains that a leader must be able to rule as an independent because only he can decide on the rules and laws that will benefit his leading. Although Machiavelli’s opinions on the required style of a leader may seem tyrannous, there are aspects that can be applied to any leader. The first of these lessons is the decision of weather moral ends justify immoral means. This point is important because it connects to Machiavelli’s statement that a leader must be able to be bad to lead as strongly as possible. Basically, a prince must be able to be bad and lie to his population, because if he believes in his own virtue, the realisation of a successful plan will be enough to illusion any means taken to achieve this plan in front of his population. Although this is very convoluted, the main message that is brought in this passage is that “the end justifies the means”. And thus, for a prince to be able to maintain his reputation and power, he must be able to act cruel, as long as the cruel is for a greater purpose. As Machiavelli believes himself that fate is an unmovable wall within the path of all people, and that humans are inherently evil, it is proper for a leader of a state in the search for success to be able to overcome the evil of human nature with his own evil, or as he mentions “the remedy of evil through evil”. A prince who can thus overcome evil, the help of others, and even fortune has truly used his virtue to an incredible level of power.

The second and probably most common lesson from Machiavelli’s “The Prince” is the question of whether a leader is better off being loved or feared. This once again connects to the idea of virtue because if a prince is to believe in his personal knowledge as the optimum way of achieving his own power, he must be able to do it in whatever means necessary, even if it means to be “bad” and to be feared.  Although Machiavelli argues fully that it is better for a leader to be feared rather than loved, he does make the important distinction that being merciful can still be advantageous rather that being cruel just to be cruel. As he says himself, “fear is maintained by a dread of punishment that never fails”, which indicates that by creating “merciful” boundaries, a leader can keep power because punishment constrains the mind of the overruled. To be feared is much more viable in power than love because the latter gives power to the people to expect more from their leader. As “men love at their own free will”, overruling the power over loves gives the power to the leader to control their will, and their loyalty to the state. Overall, through the balance of mercifulness and fear, Machiavelli proves that the virtue of a leader with the desire to rule by any means necessary will be the one that will succeed the most. After all, the better the liar, the better the prince.

Understanding now the intricacies of Machiavelli’s guide for the leading of a prince to power, it is quickly recognizable that his influence never was lost after the publication of “The Prince”. In a modern context, his name is attached to the adjective “Machiavellian” which encompasses his ideologies and lives in a variety of topics within the public domain. Machiavellian, which can attach itself to people, policies, actions and so much more in the modern sense, refers to cunningness, deceitfulness and dishonesty, unscrupulousness (showing little moral principles), and a general well-rounded connection to the viciousness in which Machiavelli presents his own views of power. To be Machiavellian today, the described thing must truly encompass the virtue that Machiavelli himself had in his expression of the objective ways in which power was to be controlled.

One of the most distinguishable ways in which Machiavelli has affected our modern sense of his name is through people, and in particular through politicians and leaders. As Machiavelli believed that the “real mystery of power is hidden in the capacity of the leader to impose” himself on his people, the attribution of a Machiavellian leader or politician truly defines their role in using the lessons of “The Prince” in a practical situation where the prince believes in his ability to gain maintain power. A great example of this kind of leadership is that of President Richard Nixon, which although unsuccessful in his effort, was in every sense a Machiavellian power figure. Throughout the shambles of the Vietnam war and the discoveries of the Pentagon papers where multiple presidents before him were exposed for lying blatantly to the American people, Nixon’s Machiavellianism kicked in to protect his reputation and maintenance of power. Although these papers were of past presidents, Nixon knew that he was next in line, and through the events of the Watergate scandal, he proved his Machiavellian characteristics. First trying to cover up documentation of reports on the Vietnam war, burglars were caught in the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate headquarters and were somehow covered up by the Nixon administration to have had no link back to the president. Nixon somehow managed to fool and lie to the entire American people so well that he dominantly won the next elections in 1972. Once investigations by the FBI into the possibility of this crime started, Nixon commenced the creation of the CIA in order to slow down the investigation. Although these acts of obstruction of justice were incredibly wrong in principle, they showed the Machiavellian blood of Nixon. As any good leader should have done in this situation, his goal was to uphold his reputation by any means necessary, even if it meant being “bad” and by lying to maintain his power. In the end, his Machiavellian ways did end up with his resignation, and the unrecoverable damage to his reputation as a president, Nixon seemed to check the many principles that were highlighted in “The Prince”.

As can be seen from the case of Nixon, it is very difficult to be the head of a democratic state with lessons from an arguably aristocratic and individual view of the holding of power. Although being in democratic power comes with the responsibility of implementing sustainable change just as in an aristocracy, the difference is that presidential success can be more heavily influenced by a population in a democracy over an aristocracy. So as a candidate for some of the most powerful positions of government in many countries, the goal of an aspiring president must be matched by the support and backing of a crowd. And thus, as a leader in a democratic setting, the use of fear and of the ignorance of morality for “effectual truth” starts to shape your image as an unwanted aristocrat. In a modern society, it seems so absurd for a population to want such values for a leader, for someone who would represent a country, and yet, the opposite came true over a year ago.

To any rational person, the election of Donald Trump to the position of the President of the United States was and still is one of the most controversial and unexpected events in the past few years. And yet, if people had just realised that Trump was actually a modern user of Machiavellian tactics, his sweeping election wouldn’t have seemed so unexpected after all. See thought-out the beginning of the electoral campaign, the shadow of trump already started some controversy across the news. His self-sufficient and driven style of gaining popularity immediately gave him an edge in advancing his power. Throughout the campaign, it was clear that Trump’s Machiavellian style and his trust of virtue allowed him to take advantage of the socio-economic issues that plagued America and to pounce on them. From taking advantage of a shambled democratic party filled with half reputable candidates to focusing on the specific unresolved issues of the biggest majorities of people in America, Trump truly was riding a wave of confidence. He was also Machiavellian in the way he lied to the American people. From countless scandals including sexual misconduct, racism, sexism, and down right ignorance, Trump used his ability to lie and be ad confidently, further impacting his race to the top. With seemingly no political experience or correctness, Trump bestowed on the American people the fear of terrorism and the fear of immigrants to further crowd control and rally his power. He brought the visioning of Machiavelli’s belief that an ally should never be a friend, and brought the almost buried ideals of American isolation and independence back to the mainstage through the fear of anyone that wasn’t supporting his cause. Trump truly took Machiavelli’s whole advice that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to retain power to learn how not to be good, employing this art or not according to need.” Overall, it is easy now in hindsight to remark that what Trump has achieved thus far is quite remarkable. Through the influence of Machiavelli, he has truly shown in a modern context that the belief in personal virtue and the outcome of the “effectual truth” can truly still be used to achieve power and maintain it quite well. Through his individual prowess and pitch perfect timing, he bestowed the voice of the people upon himself to lead his way to the top.

Within the political spectrum, Machiavellianism not only affects the politicians and leaders of our governments, but also affects the very policies and decisions that are made by these individuals and institutions. In the boundaries of most representative democracies today, there actually is a strong sense that Machiavellianism is a dominant force achieving desired goals or objectives, no matter of the principles abandoned. This is because within all elected members of a government or within a population of represented people, embodied into our souls is a bit of evil, a part that keeps us fighting as a selfish individual for the protection of our reputation and our power of say. This Machiavellian principle seems to be imbedded into the very nature of humans, allowing us to excuse our own morals to act upon any chance to further our independent causes. Within the constraints of elected individuals, no where is this thought more put into action than through the violation and counter maneuvering of established constitutions. Thus, when taking the constitutions into account, violations of these written down laws by presidents or by houses directly infer Machiavellianism because the immorality of countering laws meant to protect all citizens is one that brings the most power back to the violator. In a democracy, constitutions stand for the rights of the population and the expectations of the members of government they elect. These violations act as true Machiavellian processes because they seemingly ignore the power of the many in a democracy, creating a rule of possible aristocracy, as many seem to criticize Machiavelli’s philosophies to entail.

Violations to established constitutions are not the only relevant examples of the influence of Machiavellian politicians over the direction of governments. Through policy and decision making such as the American invasion of Iraq in 2002, countries can force upon the world a reputation of their country that most individuals would disagree with. In this example, the harsh attacking of a defenceless country gave the impression to the world that the United States did not imagine any possibility of moral or ethical problems in this decision, thus showing their greedy use of military virtue and “effectual truth” decision making. Weather this decision was to instill fear into other countries through America’s ruthless foreign policy, or somehow reinforce the belief in the American people that this country was strong, this example clearly shows the Machiavellian process taken to establish policy within modern representative democracies.

Other than just affecting the politicians and policies of today through the use of the adjective coined to his name and his philosophies, Machiavelli himself was the core figure in history to the development of political science as it is known today. Although it may seem outlandish to exclaim that one individual is responsible for the “invention” of this term, Machiavelli managed to create philosophies that turned what politics had been mentioning for centuries into a science. Coming full circle with the descriptions of the Renaissance period and the influence that Machiavelli drew from it, his application of the philosophy of political realism to the ruling of government and maintaining of power is what truly coined the term of a “science” based process. Defining politics as an examination of human behavior (MacLean, 2014, 59), and creating a realistic theory of the cause and effect of decisions impacting governance. Machiavelli is also said to have developed the discipline of political science because he bases his philosophies of power “on the actual state of the world as opposed to how the world might be” (Mansfield, 2018) if it were governed by the seeking of morality and ideals. Through Machiavelli’s complex grasp of the power of objective reasoning through the “effective truth” of things, his writing in “The Prince” layout the exact procedure in which a leader can and should obtain power. This guide, which can be inherently said to be the first of it’s kind, will stay in the political lexicon as the true moment in which the world of politics could be perceived as the rigid discipline of political science.

In conclusion, although some perceive Machiavelli to be the embodiment of the definition for rule by tyranny, he represents equally the martyr for the creation of the discipline of political science. Whether seen as a promoter of cynicism, or for his guide to the true nature of the juggling of power, Niccolò Machiavelli will remain in history as a true influencer of his time, and that of the modern era. Although it might be hard to grasp, Machiavellianism seems to be ever present in every individual. Whether a politician in search of a greater reach of influence, to the regular individual supporting their own claim to their rights and powers, Machiavelli remains in our public lexicon to not only call out those that act tyrannously but to also commemorate those that hold the same amount of strength and motivation as the man himself was trying to give to his country. If only he could have lived to see his work spread wonders around the world to this very moment.