Standing on the shoulders of...Ancient Rome?

Initial Response - Machiavelli

I think that Machiavelli’s work is most like ProfPTJ’s political science:  he looked at how to create “ideal republic” by seeing how other republics failed or succeeded and offers this advice as a guide to rulers and would-be rulers.  He looked at regimes that had taken over nations successfully and gives his interpretation of why they succeeded as a crib sheet for creating the perfect, developing, generally happy, expanding nation.  These he gave with the hope that some ruler/regime would not have to learn from mistakes and most efficiently gain power and most expediently create a constitution that lead to full armies and politically liberated populace.

Yes, he gives very brutal ways to acquire such power (kill everyone in power, learn to do bad well, don’t be overly generous, always keep someone on hand to blame for things and publicly behead), but I think the ideal (that he says he doesn’t have) is a cycle of rulers who:

have a selection of good advisors (who he takes care of and picks himself, not adopting the previous ruler’s) (70, 131),
are feared (but not hated) (51),
are not overly generous (but ensure that all of the populace has food) (49),
re-evaluate and adapt the principles of the government (to prevent corruption)(189),
train a strong army(45),
and provide a venue for the populace to voice complaints without fear (105).  

Basically, Ancient Rome, which strikes me as funny when he discoursed about how men look at the past and admire it, yet they weren’t there nor do they have jealousy or fear of anything from 2000 years ago, so they don’t know the bad things about it.  I think his idealization of Rome is probably errant; nonetheless, his suggestions seem to remain pertinent.

In an age when we can watch the president talk whenever we want and when gossip spreads like wildfire, perhaps the theatricality of a beheading is over the top when placing blame on someone else.  Just removing them from a task force may move the blame far enough away from you to completely rid yourself of it (as with the FEMA director, although according to BBC, Bush is taking full blame now).  I think, and not to be sacrilegious, an updated version of Machiavelli’s tips might map to present day like modernized versions of the Bible do (by toning down the somewhat exaggerated-for-effect ideas he presents). With The Prince and Discourses, Machiavelli does go quite over the top with regards to his statements about human nature being wicked (entirely self-absorbed, but nicely contrasted with the idea that masses are very concerned with the common good (158)), and religion as a mind-control device (but we have media prevalence now, which may very well replace the institution which Machiavelli suggested religion filled), but he still seems, to naïve me, make valid observations about things like starting new countries.  

I wondered once or twice while I was reading if this text was on the required reading list for presidents: the situation in Iraq seems to most directly apply to Machiavelli’s discourses.  If one person were to have written their constitution, maybe it would be easier (108).  What about the argument that people who have been under a tyranny are not fully equipped to have liberty (121-126)?  Is the US making itself into a modern day Machiavellian Rome – a crib sheet for newly independent nations in the 21st century?  Is it in our interests to create more “Romes” and not more “Spartas” and “Venices”?

Are we all Machiavellian now?  I could go either way, but, considering the purely capitalist nature of the powers that be (both politically and economically), I’d say that most people are just looking out for their own interests.  One has to look only as far as a campaign ad to find slander, overwhelming shows of generosity...