Machiavelli, anyone?
Karl Rove: America's Mullah, an article last year in the LA Times, reposted by Truthout. Okay, an enflamed liberal lashing out, but an interesting list of examples to support his comparison between Rove and Machiavelli. Note the thesis, support, clarification, and predicted implications. This form is where we are heading as a class; learn historical paradigm, offer current examples, offer predictions. Wouldn't it be interesting to write a essay response using this format with a recognizable person of your choice?
Machiavelli: Prince of Politicians? Very nice overview from about.com
This site has a letter from Nick Machiavelli to Karl Rove, suggesting campaign strategy for W. to defeat Kerry.
This site (Democratic Underground) has an historical perspective of The Prince, along with application (applied liberally) to W.
A private blog, on another site, which identifies and encourages W.'s Machiavellian tendencies. Mild obscene language warning, senior AP students.
Machiavelli, Bush, and Blair. -- from the "Waging Peace Foundation"
George Will wrote this article, which has a Hobbes reference in the ninth paragraph and nothing about Machiavelli. Do you get the analogy?
Enjoy! Comment freely.
posted by erdecker @ 1:21 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I would like to start by complimenting Adam on the Harry Potter Connection...eerily similar I must say. I just had a general wonderment. In chapter 18, Machiavelli basically says it is ok to lie because all men lie. You should be a great liar and a deciever. He also says that a prince should always have the appearance of good and truth. Now many of us congratulate ourselves on being "informed" citizens. And yet my feeling is that the media only shows us the very tip of the iceberg about the dealings of our governments. I just wonder exactly how much the government hides from us. I am not talking about the really nitty-gritty things but the stuff you always hear rumors about but can never confirm. Does our own government just hide behind this honest and good veil or is it as good as it seems? I am inclined to think the first. That might be a "duh" statement but it is just the fact that no one can ever prove the things we never hear of. And if you can...let me know.
Hope everyone is having a great night!
-Arpita
Just a couple thoughts: In the prince in chpater 21 it says that it's better to have the appearance of being a good man than actually being one, and earlier in the book (or one of the readings.... we have so many it's hard to keep track....) it also stated that men are equal...it just depends on who pretends at being something better. This relates to everyday life whether you're a student, adult ect. Everyone has a certain appearance of being something. No one really knows if you're that good at something, or if you really know that much about a topic, you only know yourself and you make that appearance for yourself. The media enhances the importance of appearance, but we shouldn't think about it just in the physical sense but in how we are being decieved. I think everone including political leaders put on type of appearance one way or the other....it just depends on how it is an advantage to them. Another thought......I noticed the theme of respect comes from both Pericles and the Prince. Both say no matter what....the best thing to have is the love and respect of the people and fellow men. Because this theme comes from both philosophers and their ideas being different, it goes to show respect for others is needed not only in individual cases, but a ruler governing a whole state needs it to be successful. I guess you could say respect makes you successful in life. Now a thought on not being successful in life. The topic of Louis's five mistakes in ruling never came up in the discussion...I believe these ideas not only relate to governing, but also in everyday life. so for example, destroying a weaker power is the parallel of not being kind or paying attention to lets say kids at school who are "uncool" or "shy" and one increases other's poweres by giving in to peer pressure, or "sucking up" to the "cool" kids. Also......... fantastic thoughts by Adam and Arpita.
yo yo!
It was interesting how machiavelli said a prince should be half man half beast to be a succsseful leader. half man, because men follow laws and half beast because beasts use force. Is he implying that in order to be a successful leader that one must be superhuman?
what arpita said about why the government might be holding back information is a very interesting point. I think machiavelli hints that in order to get things done, a leader should just deal with it, get it done and not get the people invloved. Call it lieing or withholding information, whatever. Even though we think we'd like to know everything thats going on, the nitty-gritty stuff or even confirmation of rumors, i think its best for the leaders sake to withhold information and just deal with whatever it is they need to themselves.
Then there is less room for criticism with any move the leader or prince would make.
kudos, kep!
later yo,
katie b!
Adam,
Rowling has my undending praise for the depth of her novels, touching on universal themes and motifs as well as any "classic." Even moreso than Lucas in Star Wars! Book 6 becomes quite blunt about the choice between love, as explicity articluated by Dumbledore, and ambition, represented through Voldemort's Slytherin heritage. While I don't think we've unlocked an earth-shattering secret about the HP series, the comparison once again guides us poor mortals toward the larger questions of our humanity which have plagued us since the beginning. . .
Arpita,
Conservative David Brooks (NYTimes writer we read today) recently admitted that according to his close relationship with the White House, the W. strategy from "Day One" has been to admit no mistakes and "is not going to be honest." Here's the source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120003
(sorry, I couldn't hotlink from the comment section)
No wonder Brooks thinks we're at the cusp of another paradigm change, where faith in government is shattered and we're in the "Hobbesian decade" with major changes around the corner.
btw, that mediamatters.org is an interesting media watch site, only 18 months old.
Brilliant, Mallory. I especially like your helping me see the specific connection between two works 2000 years apart, followed by applying that idea to our hallways.
Keep it up, all, and merry fake an injury day tommorrow!
An entrepreneur would do well to read chapter 21 of Machiavelli's highly entertaining book The Prince. In this chapter Machiavelli gives four ways a prince may become esteemed. These ways can be applied to entrepreneurial success. The first way for a prince to become esteemed is to impress the population, idealy with a strong military. An aspiring businessman needs to be aggressive and take risks no one else is willing to take if he wants to be the 1 out of 9 entrepreneurs (B.S. stat.)who succeed; he needs to look good to the world (dress nice, smoke cubans). The second way for a prince to become esteemed is to have a good, organized government. A new businessman cannot succeed without a solid, organized business. Without structure a business will fail. The third way a prince may become esteemed is to define his friends and his enemies. No matter what some latte-sipping college professor has to say about life, it's all about WHO you know not WHAT you know, and in the business world it's called networking. Even before you start your business you should be making plenty of valuable friends who you can exchange favors with in the working world. Making your competition know not to screw with you is also a wise thing to do; define your allies, define your enemies. The fourth and final way Machiavelli gives for a prince to succeed is to recognize talent. A businessman is doomed to fail and go on welfare if he can't recognize talent. Talent to think "on the edge" or against current paradigms to keep one's business ahead of the game. This requires no explanation (if you don't get it ask your fish or something, i'm sure it'd know). This concludes my comprehensive analysis of Machiavillian entrepreneurial business principles. Have a wonderful night.
One of the questions, that you asked earlier in class was that do we think that this is how a government should be run. I think the answer to that question is based on what type of state you want your territory to be. Using the guidelines from Machiavellii, your state will become a force to be reckon with because the prince would take care of everything. The prince would have all the responsiblities and do all the work while the citizens have no say in their society. However, in today's society, every citizen should have a voice in how the government is run. This way there will be a consensus among the people and peace among the lands. Therefore the best type of goverment would be a democracy, but in a democracy the citizens have an obligation to participate in politics. If they don't, then the democratic goverment would be ineffecient. There would be no point to it. Why give people the choice to do something when no one choses to do it. So I think if you want a type of goverment that is powerful and sucessful, Machiavelli is the way to go. If you want people to contribute and give an opinion about what they want, then democracy would be the better choice.
Post a Comment
<< Home