Machiavelli, Love and Democracy
In my history class this new school year, we’ve just discussed the theories of Machiavelli. During the Renaissance, he wrote a book of advice about public policy, entitled The Prince. In The Prince, Machiavelli states, “one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.” In other words, it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved.
This may seem to be true. After all, because humans are imperfect, they will sometimes be looking out for their self-interests instead of the interests of the ruler. Therefore, a good system (for the ruler) would make sure that the ruler and the constituents have common interests. Machiavelli understands this to mean that the ruler should threaten his subjects to make sure they have his interests in mind.
But what if Machiavelli is forgetting something? What would stop a constituent who obeys based on fear from changing his allegiance when a more frightening ruler appears?
However, a subject of the ruler would be reluctant to change his allegiance if it were based on love, because love is not transferred so easily. A person’s pride in their homeland and leader is more powerful than fear.
This is why a democracy works so well. Support for the government is not based on fear, but on love, especially since the government is made up of the constituents themselves. Thus, the citizens and “rulers” have common interests, without requiring fear.
1skepticalcatholic
wrote on 13 September 2007 at 10:06
Democracy is based on love? Where do you get that idea?
Democracy is based on one vote per person. There is no requirement that votes be elicited by inspiring love.
It is pretty clear that Bush has used both fear and hatred to get people to vote for Republicans. To use the 2004 campaign as an example, the “Swift Boat Veteran” campaign was directed at generating hatred against Kerry and the constant manipulation of the terrorist threat level was used to inspire fear in the population. There may be some people who love Bush, but there is no where near enough to get him elected.
Btw, how does your catch phrase “You can lead a liberal to logic… but you can’t make him think” reflect a basis of love in our democracy? You use it to rally your partisans. It shows pure contempt. So, it seems there is quite a bit of hatred mixed in with your “democratic love”.
2katelyn
wrote on 13 September 2007 at 19:36
Democracy is based on love for country. It’s pretty simple. If you fear your own country, it would be pretty hard to be democratically involved, wouldn’t it? When the government is chosen by yourself, your interests and the government’s interests are the same.
You seem to have misunderstood the whole point here, (which is not unusual to say the least). We are talking about love or fear of the ruling entity, not love or fear in general. President Bush never used fear of himself to make people support him, as Machiavelli would have suggested. In other words, people voted for Bush because they thought he was the best person for the job, not because they were fearful of repercussions from Bush’s evil henchmen if they did not support him.
You state that the Swift Boat Veterans caused hatred towards Kerry. However, how does thinking that someone is a poor candidate (i.e. a liar) mean that you hate that candidate? That’s simply an poor exaggeration.
You also state that Bush manipulated the terrorist threat level. Oh, yeah, that’s right. “Only stupid people think that 9/11 showed how vulnerable the US could be. 9/11 was nothing, and so Bush had to artificially elevate the threat level.”
Have you ever thought that maybe there is an actual high threat level? Perhaps this “fear” that you speak of is a valid assessment of the world situation. Let’s do a mental experiment. Before 9/11, if you as an American had been dropped into, say, an Al-Quida training facility, how long do you think you’d last? “It’s just a fake threat.” What bull.
Actually, my phrase “You can lead a liberal to logic… but you can’t make him think.” is quite applicable to this situation.
3skepticalcatholic
wrote on 15 October 2007 at 7:33
Katelyn,
Unjustified manipulations of the threat level have been documented by former homeland security chief Tom Ridge. Others have documented the uncanny coincidences of threat levels rising within days of embarrassments for the Bush administration.
Hate mongering has been a primary tool used by conservatives for quite some time. The sweeping generalization in your catch phrase is an excellent example. If you can’t see that, then you’ve hardened your heart at an early age.
You’ve a lot to learn about love, also.
4katelyn
wrote on 17 October 2007 at 20:06
Can you provide evidence of that “unjustified manipulation”?
And, yes, I know, we can’t all be as kind and loving as you.
5skepticalcatholic
wrote on 18 October 2007 at 2:21
I gave you a reference, Tom Ridge. Do the research. Your gratuitous sarcasm doesn’t make your case.
You are smart girl. You can do better. Don’t just echo others. Dig deep and find the real justification for your positions. You have nothing to fear in such a process and you may actually find something of value. Picking a partisan side and trying to win arguments through rhetoric and evasion is not the intellectual life to which you’ve previously said you aspire.
6MED
wrote on 23 October 2007 at 15:09
Machiavelli was saying that leaders should not be feared to the point of hatred (as you seem to imply), but rather to the point where they are respected.
You must also understand the historical context; at the period that Machiavelli was alive, kingdoms and states were just beginning to reform. And the last period that people were under a unified government was the Roman Age. The Renaissance was a rebirth of Roman and Greek ideas so they tended to model their society after them. Roman leaders tended to be feared not loved. So Machiavelli was taking an example from how the Romans ruled in order to build a stable society.
7katelyn
wrote on 23 October 2007 at 18:12
Thanks for the compliment, skepticalcatholic, but you seem to forget that those who present an argument are the ones who are expected to support it. To suggest otherwise seems to be an evasive action on your part, due to lack of evidence.
8katelyn
wrote on 23 October 2007 at 18:23
MED, you are right about Machiavelli saying that leaders should not be hated. If that was what I seemed to imply, it was unintentional. Also, I think the “respect” was respect for the power and cunning of the leader, but not necessarily other qualities, because those other qualities would insure “love” for the leader.
I would also agree with your statement about the origins of Machiavelli’s ideas. Although the Romans had a generally stable society, my point was that democracy works (even better than the Roman governments) because it includes everyone’s interests through voting.
9MED
wrote on 24 October 2007 at 3:45
The United States does not have a true Democracy. And our Democracy is modeled after the Roman and Greek Democracy. They are basically the same except we vote for our leader and their leader was chosen.
10Katelyn Sills
wrote on 24 October 2007 at 17:33
Forgive me if I’m wrong, MED, but it seems like you are trying to create an argument when there really isn’t one. Yes, of course the US does not have a pure democracy. We don’t have a pure market economy either. So I’m not sure what significance this has.
Furthermore, yes, our democracy was from Roman and Greek models. However, our democracy is more democratic in the sense that, with few exceptions, everyone (regardless of social status, wealth, gender, etc.) is able to vote.
11MED
wrote on 24 October 2007 at 18:23
Yes I did create an argument when there wasn’t one and that is my mistake. I merely forgot to read before I wrote (well I did, but you contradict a lot so I just read about half of it and assumed you were contradicting me, if that makes sense).