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?