English Literature

Machiavelli in his famous book The Prince presented and defended what was at that time a unique philosophical approach to political power.  Although his theories were comparatively new, they impacted the development of Renaissance thinking and also remain highly relevant to contemporary philosophers and political scientists.  He based these new theories and conclusions about politics and power on a series of comparative illustrations of historical rulers, in this way trying to substantiate his claims and conclusions in an almost empirical manner, and by characterizing political power in a way that viewed morality as a tangential and  fundamentally irrelevant issue  Machiavelli remains so relevant today, as can be seen in the terrorism context, because of the way that he basically divorced morality from political power and the specific attributes he ascribed to successful leaders.  Machiavelli remains relevant to modern political decision-making processes in the form of an absence of moral virtue in the pursuit of contemporary terrorists in addition, the internal fear of terrorism has been used by certain political leaders to secure and maintain political power domestically while brute force has been applied globally.

The fundamental significance of Machiavellis political treatise, at outset of the Renaissance period and in contemporary political contexts, has been his model regarding the wise use of politically-based power in order to acquire or maintain control of a states  governing power.  The political wisdom prior to Machiavelli, with regard to how power ought to be exercised, was that the use of different types of power was only a legitimate use if it was made  by a leader motivated by some recognizable feature of moral virtue or having some ethical standing in the state.  What emerged in his new approach, instead of  political theories related closely to  medieval notions of politics and morals, was a much more concentrated conceptualization of political power and wise leadership that more closely merged politics, power, and the use of reason without being burdened by moral concerns.

This type of philosophical approach to politics and power can be fairly argued to have substantially impacted decisions that have been made by Americas executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism.  Moral virtue has not been invoked in order to justify The Patriot Act , which in some ways abolishes or limits long-established constitutional protections.  Moral virtue has not been invoked in order to justify internal legal memos allowing torture of suspected terrorists or the creation of secret prisons.  These modern political decisions, by contrast, more neatly coincide with Machiavellis power politics paradigm than any paradigm vested with notions related to ethical behavior or moral virtue.   Terrorism has become too important for moral or ethical concerns.  That is, at least, what seems to be the dominant political opinion today.

In addition, in another way that reflects Machiavellis views, power is being increasingly exercised in order  to stress and to reinforce the patriotic duties of the American leaders and American citizens.  Terrorists are a threat, the people in power will protect the defenseless citizens, and extreme sacrifices and uncritical obedience are absolutely necessary to survive the onslaught of the barbaric terrorists.  Americans are told to fight rather than to think or to reflect.  They are told to fear blindly rather than to consider non-violent solutions.  President Bush, functioning as an executive akin to Machiavellis Prince, devised anti-terrorism policies fundamentally on the need to use coercive force domestically and globally.  He created, whether intentionally or not, a pervasive aura fear without any careful public discussions or balanced political debates regarding the relevant moral issues raised by his anti-terror policies.  Sensing this trend toward blind patriotism, again in Machiavellian fashion, politicians engaged in power rhetoric in order to secure and to maintain political power.  Being against terror and protecting defenseless citizens became a valuable means by which to acquire and maintain power or political office.   Being against even the smallest aspects of the anti-terrorism campaigns was tantamount to being a traitor and political suicide.  Americas approach to terrorism thus mirrors in significant respects how Machiavelli divorced moral virtue from political leadership and how wise individuals could manipulate the citizens in order to secure and maintain political power.

Finally, The Prince also stands for the proposition that one of the most significant ways to effectively use and project power is through overtly coercive means and through more subtle forms of coercion.  This idea that the clever use of coercive force  in the exercise of political power is a manifestation of political wisdom  and necessary is defended by Machiavelli on the conviction that a states citizens perceive and react much more obediently to actual force and threats of force than they do to gestures of paternal affection or emphatic mercy.  He unequivocally argues, for example than a wise political leader is much better off being feared by his subjects than adored or admired.  Specifically, Machiavelli argues that I conclude, therefore, returning to the problem of being feared and loved, that since men love at their own pleasure  and fear at the pleasure of the prince, a wise prince should build his foundation upon that which belongs to him, not upon that which belongs to others he must strive only to avoid hatred, as has been said. Political power, as a result, is therefore increased and secured to some degree based on the levels of fear that citizens feel with respect to leaders.   President Bush utilized  this concept of force both globally and domestically.  At the international level, for example, he challenged the whole world by threatening that other leaders and countries  were either with him or against him within the anti-terrorism context.  To be against him would mean retaliation in terms of diplomatic relations, trade relations, and access to oil in places such as Iraq and its reconstruction contracts.  It is fairly well-established that President Bush is not loved internationally this is perhaps one reason why President Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing more than succeeding the Machiavellian Bush.  Domestically, President Bush institutionalized coercion through the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the passage of extreme legislation such as The Patriot Act.  Machiavelli would have, most likely, approved and adjudicated Bush wise in certain respects.  Indeed, it is Machiavellis genuine belief that a wise leader must exercise and utilize power in such a manner so as to keep the states citizens in a condition of potential fear or actual fear.  The terrorism threat levels, color-coded for even the simplest of citizens, was an excellent example of this manipulation of fear and administered through the Department of Homeland Security.  As a caveat, Machiavelli does distinguish between the wise use of fear and a foolish use that generates a substantial hatred, the latter of which he deems politically unviable.

To sum up, it is entirely plausible to characterize Machiavelli as one of the creators of contemporary political science.  This conclusion can be illustrated by successfully tracing many of the political power decisions contemporary politicians have made and continue to make, such as those made by President George W. Bush and his closest supporters, to many of the political premises set forth in The Prince.  Machiavelli significantly contributed to, and thereby aided in outlining, some of the philosophical bases for modern debates about wise leadership, how to define political power, and whether diverse ethical principles are relevant to the acquisition and maintenance of political power.  Although it might seem fashionable to dismiss Machiavelli for the harshness of his honest views, contemporary political events suggest that his influence is alive and quite pervasive.