Of the Need for Princes to Keep Their Word (Pt. 2, Thursday)

"Men in general judge more with the eye than with the hand, because everyone can see, but few can feel" (Machiavelli 83).

In our country, one can always find someone who is 'dogging' out the current president. One reason may be because the present president did not follow through with his word. Every time there is a new presidential race there is someone who 'is going to change things.' This is particularly directed towards Obama. We all know that the presidents are not going to keep their word fully, but we insist on acting bran-new to the idea that this next time will be different. We keep thinking that there is going to be change, when I personally don't think that this time is going to be any different than any other time. In the event that Obama does win, 8 months from now the majority of people will be saying, "Man, Obama sold out." Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. According to that, the majority of people in this country are insane. It's not that I want to pick on Obama, I personally have no preference for any of the candidates; it's just that people should not get excited at Christmas time when they know they are getting the same 'gift' every four to eight years. Especially if the people are obviously tired of the 'gift' they keep receiving.

"He must have a spirit that can change depending on the winds and variations of Fortune, .... he must not, if he is able, distance himself from what is good, but must also, when necessary, know how to prefer what is bad" (Machiavelli 83).

Machiavelli here makes a good point. Princes/government officials must learn to keep some of their word, but at the same time must earn the respect of the people by using what is considered bad. It alludes back to "Whether it is Better to be Feared Than Loved"(Machiavelli 77). One cannot expect to be successful as a leader if he is not respected. The people do not know what is best for them, because most of them are not the most intelligent, but a leader needs to be known to do what is considered good and bad for the reason that Machiavelli vaguely, but clearly states, to be a successful leader.

1). Do all leaders start out sincere, and eventually realize they cannot keep all their word, or do they come in with knowledge that they cannot?

2). Is the deception of men necessary to all leaders to become successful?

Of the Need for Princes to Keep Their Word

"This has been taught to princes allegorically by ancient writers, who tell us that Achilles and many other ancient princes were sent to Chrion the Centaur to be raised and tutored. What this means is that the ancient princes, whose tutor was half man and half beast, learned to use both natures, neither of which can prevail without the other" (Machiavelli 81).

I chose this passage because it is an example that when reason does not work one has to use 'animal instincts' to get the job done/point across. The use of Chiron is as stated above; so that the students would get both natures of man and of beast. The leaders of the world's nations use only one or the other. While reading and watching the news in Africa and in the middle east I see only the beastly nature present, while in more political nations (those that make up the majority of the U.N.) only use the nature of 'man' in contrast to a beast. I see it a lot with the U.S., the government will try to reason its way through problems and using politics to confuse others, the others being those referred to as guerrillas, or those who only use the philosophy of the beast. The U.S. government does not use the beast philosophy when situations get sticky. They just keep pushing the reasoning factor, because they're scared to get their hands dirty; but it's like I quoted Machiavelli in the previous post, it is better to be feared than loved (Machiavelli 78).

"Since a prince must know how to use the nature of the beast to his advantage, he must emulate both the fox and the lion, because a lion cannot defy a snare, while a fox cannot defy a pack of wolves. A prince must therefore be a fox to spot the snares, and a lion to overwhelm the wolves. The prince who models himself only on the lion does not grasp this, but a wise ruler cannot and should not keep his word when it would be to his disadvantage to do so...." (Machiavelli 81-82).

This passage brings me to my next point, the presidential race. Every time the people here the same thing that McCain is going to do this, or Obama is going to do that, but the intelligent citizens know that all that is a bunch of crap. The president never keeps all of his promises, and the wide public will get angry and wonder why promises were made and some weren't backed up. This now makes sense to me because I see that it is at the presidents disadvantage to keep his word on certain issues. They know, and probably try to make their bills pass, but sometimes it is not in the best interest of the president to do so. Sometimes they will try to sneak around the issues, thus using the model of the fox, and sometimes they have to overwhelm their adversaries, using the model of the lion.

1). As Machiavelli later makes an example of Pope Alexander VI and how his power let him get away with not keeping his word, how would someone who is not in such a powerful position be able to get away with not keeping his word? (Keeping in mind that men are simple, and wicked.)

Whether it is Better to be Loved Than Feared,or the Contrary

"My reply is that one would like to be both, but as it is difficult to combine love and fear, if one has to choose between them it is far safer to be feared than loved"(Machiavelli 78).

I chose this passage because I find it very plausible and intersesting that Machiavelli has said this. What would citizens respect more, someone that tries to do the citizens good to win them over, or someone that has taken a strong hand to keep order so internal problems can be avoided.

"Men have less compunction about harming someone who has made himself feard, because love is held in place by chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at stake" (Machiavelli 78-79).

I find it very interesting that I happen to be reading this book during the presidential race. The candidates are showing a perfect example of trying to win over the population by being loved. Of course I understand why; we vote for them! I do; however, find it difficult to understand why when they get elected they don't try to hold themselves in a manner in which they are 'feared.' Not that they have to scare the pants off of people, but they need to be strong in the sense that we, as citizens feel that we are safe.

On another note I do understand that the president has limited power because he is sharing with Congress, who has the real power. Even then there are 535 congressmen and women who have to vote, so our government is not the best example.

"... I conclude that since men love at their own will and fear at the will of the prince, a wise prince must build a foudation on what is his own, and not what belongs to others" (Machiavelli 80).

1). How would Machiavelli go about explaining how our democratic rebublic should go about using its power?

2). Are those leaders who rise to become a prince through being love doomed to fail in all situations?

Of the Different Types of Armies, and of Mercenaries

"A prince who holds a state that is founded on the strength of mercenary armies will never be firm or secure, since such armies are divided, ambitious, without discipline, and fickle-- brave in the face of friends, cowardly in the face of enemies"(Machiavelli 57).

I chose this passage because it is very specific to the fact that outside help in military operations should not be used. How one should not use outside/foreign men to get a job completed whether it is and internal problem (inside the state) or even large scale operations. Those mercenaries are only driven off of the fact that they are being paid a wage to get the job done. "The reason for this is that all that keeps mercenaries on the battlefield are the negligible wages you pay them, which are not sufficient to make them want to die for you"(Machiavelli 57). Mercenaries cannot be trusted, "... brave in the face of friends, cowardly in the face of enemies"(Machiavelli 57). It is pretty clear cut. He even uses an example of the states of Italy who used mercenaries, and how they have fell apart as a whole society. "As a result, King Charles of France was able to conquer Italy with a piece of chalk..." (Machiavelli 57).

1. Should a state never use mercenaries even when their own military is not suited for the fight?