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.)