Machiavelli: The Founder Of The Modern State

The Prince is a deceptively layered book that begs to be read several times. In fact, I expect that you will want to read it again even after you have finished this class. (Image Credit)

I say this because much of what we consider modern politics is rooted in the thinking that Machiavelli develops.

We ended the last post talking about Reakpolitic and its assertion for an amoral, if even immoral, politics aimed at power and survival.

The Prince is said, commonly, to be a book intended to ingratiate Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici who had regained power when the book was being written.

This may be so but we should be warned that Machiavelli is seemingly deceptive in that he aims the book at Lorenzo who inherits power but he also prefers a prince who grabs power via authority that is imposed.

In fact, Chapter 6 is entitled "Of New Principalities that are Acquired Through One's Own Arms and Virtue."

Was he deceiving Lorenzo de Medici? I think he was.

A big part of the character of a prince is about making something out of nothing. A man who is prudent and who can seize power and hold on to power.

Inside of this emphasis Machiavelli tells us that a prince must be ready at all times to go to war.

The powerful and prepared conquer and the weak and unprepared are conquered.

The latter part of this statement is a critique of Christianity that calls on people to be meek and mild. The prince cannot be meek or he will lose power and be dethroned.

A lot of what Machiavelli does in The Prince is to contradict and oppose the classical writers and the Christian church.

He uses the term Virtu as opposed to virtues. Virtu for him is about worldly glory, ambition, risk, aggressiveness, and above all, success.

Remember we talked about the term "dirty hands" as developed by Jean-Paul Satre in his 1948 play Les Mains Sales (which means dirty hands).

No-one should get involved in politics unless they are willing to have "dirty hands". The prince cannot worry about the moral thing to do or spend sleepless nights contemplating what Christianity may expect of him.

Morality, ethics, and religion cannot get into the way of interests. It is for this reason that we say Machiavelli is the founder of the modern state. As you know and expect, the modern state acts in is own narrow interests all the time.

No exceptions.

So politics is dirty and the prince must rise to the occasion and challenge pretenders to his throne by being even dirtier so to speak.

This does not mean that the prince should not appear to be religious, moral, or ethical. The issue of appearance must be aligned with interests.

In other words, if the prince can get his interests by being moral then that is alright. But if he has to be immoral to so then the choice is clear.

This explains the Machiavellian cliché that goes "the ends justifies the means".

But does this mean that the prince is a ruthless dictator who uses cruelty all the time?

Not really. Machiavelli tells us about "cruelty well used" and with judgment that is balanced between what is needed and what must be achieved.

A prudent prince will know what that judgment should look like. So the prince will be warlike and aggressive but even say that he trusts in God if it meets his interests.

Remember how Machiavelli retells the story of David and Goliath. He arms David with a knife! It seems he is saying that the prince should trust in God but bring a knife just in case.

In these terms Machiavelli is very different than our classical political philosophers.

He sees nothing wrong in being deceptive, in lying, assassinating enemies even, if power can be preserved and expanded.

In these terms he goes beyond the worry about a moral politics or the concern with justice as an organic principle of bringing the soul and politics into alignment.

His world is the world as it exists. A world where people are evil rather than good. A world where we front about good but are mostly bad.

Machiavelli may even be said to be an opponent of our common humanity. But is he in total?

We have talked at length about the characteristics of his prince and the virtu he seeks or proposes.

It must, however, be said that Machiavelli also sought to place the prince as protector of the common people. It is here that he saw the legitimacy of the prince located.

He, however, does not ignore the rich and powerful elite. He wants the prince to know them and even engage them if even with an eye on watching them closely.

In the end, he is somewhat of a populist who needs careful consideration before we just toss him aside into the looney bin.

His influence is very strong and there are countless examples that draw on his assessment of what interests should look like in politics.

Machiavelli may come across as distasteful and despicable but he is hardly absent in modern politics even if the current characters are hardly aware of his influence.