As I was reading Machiavelli, I was thinking about whether it would be possible for leaders in our country to follow his advice. While Machiavelli’s argument made sense for a prince, it would be hard to implement his ideas into our society. Our government is fundamentally different from the city states of 16th century Italy. Our leaders do not gain control through war. This makes some parts of Machiavelli’s argument much less relevant. For instance, Machiavelli says that a prince must not “have any profession aside from war, its institution, and its discipline.” Today, the president must be concerned with many other things. A president needs to understand war, but he does not need to fight wars to gain or keep power. Machiavelli also says that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved. That may be true when power is a result of war and rebellion, but not in a democracy. If a politician does nothing but frighten or threaten people, it is unlikely that he or she will get elected.
Aside from this, I think that a leader in our country could strive to be what Machiavelli recommends in the section “How a Prince Should Keep His Word.” I know I’ve read the seen “Machiavellian” used to describe certain policies or actions. “Machiavellian” is defined as, “cunning and unscrupulous, using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal, especially in politics.” It’s not unreasonable to think that politician today could do that. After all, as Machiavelli says, it is only necessary to appear merciful, faithful, humane, and religious. He believes that people are easily deceived and will forget when leaders lie and manipulate.
The only problem with this is that today our leaders receive so much media attention. If a leader has lied to the public, the media will probably not let you forget. Our president is constantly under public scrutiny. If he even mispronounces a word in a speech, it could be all over the internet. If he lied or manipulated people and it was found out, it would be everywhere in the news and newspapers. Every little bit of information we find out about people affects our perception of them. In Machiavelli’s time, people would know about their prince mostly by word of mouth. Because of this, they would probably only hear about negative things that would potentially result in serious problems for the people. It seems that the media would make it more difficult for leaders to lie and manipulate and not be “found out.” A president could be a less little than merciful, faithful, etc, but not much worse. It seems like somehow people would know if the president was a great hypocrite and liar. Aren’t there are too many people involved in the government and media for a leader to continually deceive everyone? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible—but it certainly seems difficult. Or maybe I’d just prefer not to be as cynical as Machiavelli.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Early on there is a discussion of fear and in a democracy leaders want to be loved rather than feared. To an extent I would agree. Perhaps there are different kinds of fear that they opperate under now? They cultivate a fear to challenge or critique for example -- thoughts? Others?
Lying to the public is also a main point here. And, again, to an extent I would agree. I think there may be a difference between the people powered media (blogs on internet, youtube, myspace, etc.) and the mainstream news. Media analysis is an interest of mine and Frontline just came out with a wonderful 4 series exploration of many of the issues you raise here. Take a look if interested:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/
Thanks for the link. This is really interesting, but it’s such a complicated topic. It’s hard to understand. At least, it is for me, because I don’t really know a lot about it. It’s crazy how much is involved in getting information from the government to the public. What is the difference between what the general population thinks and what actually goes on? Even if leaders may not be able to get away with lying all the time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we will ever hear about it.
I agree that there is a difference between people powered media and mainstream news. I think the biggest difference is when coverage is something we could have experienced firsthand. For example, the mainstream news may not focus on peace marches, but the people powered media might. The mainstream news said that there were “hundreds” participating in the Austin (I think) peace march last month. I saw videos on youtube that people put up to show how many were actually there. In a case like that, there are people who can say, “I really don’t think that’s accurate,” and give their side of it. It's different when the news coverage is about the politics or activities in foreign countries. We can't experience that firsthand. It seems like we would have no choice but to rely on what mainstream media says.
Post a Comment