Friday, August 19, 2016

The Prince

Nope, not the Diamond Head song, and I’ve already covered the popular musician.  This is about the famous book by Niccolo Machiavelli and published in the early sixteenth century.   It’s phrased as political advice to a would-be prince on how to behave and remain among the living. 

It’s actually not all that long.  Consider it the equivalent of a long short story.  Moreover, the language is fairly easy to understand.  Remarkably, much more so than Shakespeare, which is actually in English – what passes for English, anyhow.  This means the original Italian must have been fairly casual and informal. 

Some feel that it was actually meant as satire, not to be taken seriously; others disagree.  To me the advice is sensible enough, and not that outrageous, that it could well be useful.

What does he advise?

Use the tools that are available.  Honesty?  Moral?  Sure – the extent these work.  His premise is to default to a fairly moral standard and only abandon such methods if necessary.  Look at Carter vs. Reagan.  Reagan wasn’t a dictator, he wasn’t a king, and he wasn’t a tyrant.  But no one thinks of him as naïve or foolish.  Carter, his immediate predecessor, sometimes comes off as too good for his own good.  Recall “The Enemy Within”, the ST/OS episode where Kirk is split into two, and the “good” Kirk proves practically useless as a starship captain, leading the (recombined) Kirk and Spock to conclude that even a basically good person needs a dark side to be effective.  No one thinks of Roddenberry as being evil, yet Machiavelli’s advice is close to the Star Trek thesis. 

Better to be feared than loved.   Love is fickle.   Fear that screwing with the wrong guy will get you killed?  Far more substantial.  Note that being feared is NOT necessarily the same as being hated.  Getting rid of your enemies ruthlessly gets them out of the way permanently.  Would-be avengers are as likely to be intimidated into inaction, or persuaded to go along, as to actually attempt to take revenge.  Dead rivals are in no position to do anything.

Don’t use mercenaries.  They truly suck.  Likewise with auxiliaries.

Examples.  He was well acquainted with the infamous Borgia family, in particular the patriarch Pope Alexander VI, and his son Cesare.  The Romans provide multiple examples to illustrate his lessons.  Of course, contemporary Italian politics was also a useful source of examples.  At this time Italy was fractured and disjointed, and the French were perpetually meddling in Italian politics.  It wasn’t until 1861, thanks to Garibaldi, that Italy was finally unified.  So no one in Machiavelli’s time was up to the task of getting the country together after the Romans. 

Modern Day Applicability.  Well, there’s nothing in here about winning elections.   Presumably princes in the 1500s weren’t being popularly elected.  However, there is some discussion of being thrown out or killed by mobs of unhappy subjects, so some degree of public accountability is at issue even with a non-elected sovereign.

He talks about killing off political rivals to gain or secure power, yet none of our 44 Presidents has had to rely upon such methods to gain office or remain there.  Neither have any UK Prime Ministers since Oliver Cromwell, or practically any other democratically elected sovereign for the past few centuries.  Not even the diabolical and ruthless Vladimir Putin had to kill anyone to get where he is (or did he?). Recent dictators such as Hitler and Stalin did resort to such methods, but we’re aware of their nature.  As such, this treatise is a reminder that – cynical protestations to the contrary notwithstanding – politics has changed substantially since the early 1500s. 

Frank Underwood.  More so than any real politician, the “House of Cards” protagonist appears to best match the type of leader we imagine Machiavelli as promoting.  Truly?  In We Can Build You (Philip K. Dick), the main characters create robot versions of Edwin Stanton and Abraham Lincoln, programming them with their historical counterparts’ memories, information, and also personalities.  It would be intriguing to recreate Machiavelli, give him access to contemporary data, including “House of Cards”, and ask him who he feels was the leader who most faithfully adhered to the advice of his book.  Mussolini or Stalin? (Both were fans).  Hitler?  Mao?  Reagan?  Or Frank Underwood?  And what would he think of Donald Trump?

No comments:

Post a Comment