In the text, The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, he gives his own opinions on how a leader should rule. He believes princes can’t act perfect all the time and an impeccable prince only exists in the imaginary world. It’s unrealistic for a prince to have all good qualities but a prince should know when to act cruel and when to act superior. President Richard M. Nixon would be a good fit compared to Machiavelli's prince. In the film, Nixon, by Oliver Stone, I have seen President Richard M. Nixon do many cruel things throughout his presidency. When he wasn’t president yet, his only focus was on campaigning and hoping to become president, no matter what it took. He didn’t care or contemplate about other people’s feelings. Nixon relates to Machiavelli’s …show more content…
prince because he explicates how every prince shouldn’t mind being called cruel or mean. Therefore, I believe President Richard M. Nixon’s actions do represent the qualities of a Machiavellian “Prince.” Machiavelli believes you can’t always be veracious so if you optate to be a ruler then you’re going to have to be a good liar. In, The Prince, he states, “Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied their word” (648). He explains how even though everyone surmises princes should keep their word, the princes who have gone back on their word have been more successful than the ones who remained truthful. When watching “Nixon,” by Oliver Stone I’ve learned that Nixon has a habit of lying and going back on his word. For example, he lied to his own wife Pat. Pat wanted to divorce Nixon because he’s changed. In a scene, she says, “You’ve grown more bitter like you’re at war with the world.” She has had enough of his presidency and wants a divorce unless he never runs for president again so they can be able to be happy and can finally spend time with their daughters. He tells her, “I’ll never run again. I promise.” Later on, he decides to run for president again but his wife forgives him and is supportive because they believe he has a good chance of winning. In the end, Nixon didn’t put his wife’s feelings into consideration and broke the promise. Moving forward, Machiavelli wants us to know when you rule you’re going to have to be bad and it’s no big deal being bad.
He expresses how princes can’t be good all the time but they should know when it’s the time to act bad and when it’s the time to act good. In, The Prince, Machiavelli states, “Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity” (644). He believes being bad will get you further as a prince and a prince should learn how to be bad. Nixon can connect to Machiavelli’s prince because Nixon was being bad most of the time. All Nixon cared about was his presidency. His presidency meant everything to him even if it meant being bad to others. An example of Nixon being bad had to do with the Watergate Scandal, he did everything he could to keep the tapes and documents about the scandal a secret. He even paid this guy named Howard Hunt to keep quiet because Hunt knew about the scandal. He lied to everyone about not knowing about the Watergate Scandal when he knew all along. Later on, some of his cabinet members turned against him and he wanted to fire them. Nixon didn’t care what his actions were, as long as it didn’t affect his presidency; and as long as the tapes and documents were …show more content…
private. In addition, another way Nixon was being bad was when he got upset about how the New York Times published a newspaper making him look bad and he wanted revenge. In the film, it said, “The New York Times began publishing today the first in a series of 47 volumes of top secret Pentagon tapes relating to the war in Vietnam. The papers, leaked by defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg, reveal a systematic pattern of government lies and American involvement in the war.” Nixon was not satisfied with this at all and wanted to stop the leaks and leakers. Then he states, “I don’t think I can be Mr. Nice guy anymore.” Nixon and the members of his administration wanted to create their own intelligence unit inside the White House to plug the leaks but it’s illegal. He wanted to destroy and humiliate Ellsberg; he wanted to get all the dirt Ellsberg had to embarrass him. This was an astronomically immense thing on how Nixon was being bad. Furthermore, Machiavelli claims a ruler should be cruel than to be merciful. He states “if he is wise shouldn’t fear the reputation of being mean” (645). Machiavelli believes those who are labeled as mean have accomplished things. Nixon relates to this because he has had a reputation for being cruel and mean but that didn’t obviate him from doing what he was doing. He was mean and cruel because he would boss people around and yells at them and, he fed people lies. It’s a real challenge to work with Nixon because he takes his frustration out on other people, he abuses his staff, and he doesn't have your back. He was even cruel to his own wife. The only thing he worried about was to be president. Machiavelli’s states, “Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only” (646). Nixon was also a cruel person because he bombed Cambodia. In the film, Nixon announces “We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam.” This cruel act made many people hate him and protest because Cambodia was a Buddhist neutral country. Nixon wanted to prolong history and he didn’t want to be the first president to lose a war. He tells his office that if bombing Cambodia doesn’t work then they’ll bomb Hanoi. After that, he lies to the protesters about ending the war. Many people were furious with him because they wanted the war to stop. A girl protester in the film expresses “You don’t want the war, we don’t want the war, the Vietnamese don’t want the war so why does it go on?” Moving forward, Nixon goes through with bombing Hanoi and it was very brutal. This cruel act led to ending the war with the Vietnamese. To differ with Machiavelli, I believe the fictional “Prince” he writes about isn’t the right example of how a leader should rule.
The Machiavellian “Prince” is the opposite of how I think a leader should take charge. A prince should be truthful to his people in order to gain their trust; he should be able to keep his word and never lie because if he always lies then no one would ever believe a word he has to say. If a prince isn’t honest then he would have a really bad reputation. He should want to have a good reputation and look superior. A prince should be good instead of bad because if a prince is good then I believe he would go further in life and get things done properly. He would know how to take charge and make good decisions. If a prince is bad then he would have bumps in the road. A prince should be kind and loyal to his people. He should also be humble and generous. A leader should want his people to look up to him and be influenced by him. He should want his people to love him not hate him. They should feel like their leader actually cares about them and shouldn’t be fearful of their leader. A prince should want his people to respect him. You would think the examples I gave on how a leader should really rule would be an ideal leader, but Machiavelli fictional “Prince” and Nixon goes against my examples of how a leader should rule. I believe leaders shouldn’t follow Machiavellian “Prince” or Nixon’s actions on how to
rule. President Nixon’s cruelty and actions followed the standards of the prince Machiavelli indicts about. Nixon wasn’t the best leader, he was someone who went back on their word, who was a bad person, and who was a cruel person. I believe Nixon related a lot on how Machiavelli described how a prince should rule. In my opinion, an ideal leader should be honest, good, and caring. Nixon’s actions and the fictional “Prince” Machiavelli writes about isn’t the proper way to rule. Although, I don’t believe this is how a prince or president should rule, Nixon and the fictional “Prince” had many comparable qualities.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
The main point that he is trying to get across is the question, “Is it better to be feared rather than loved?” and he explains very thoroughly in The prince his thoughts and views on this question and he says that “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (The Prince: Machiavelli). He also covers the topics of religion, morality, power, and of course politics.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
. Unlike, Plato, who argues that a person should always remain good, no matter what the circumstances, Machiavelli argues differently in chapter 15: “… a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin…hence it is necessary that a man who is interested in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need. (The Prince, p.62)” Although, Machiavelli admits that, yes, indeed, the people will praise a prince with good qualities, (merciful, trust-worthy, open-handed, courteous, etc.), it is impossible for humans to actually perceive all those qualities. Even if those good qualities were to be achieved by a prince, his success in ruling a state is not achieved, and the opposite qualities “…though seeming evil, will result in his safety and well-being. (The Prince, p.62)”
Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI. He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own. There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or mercy, of approval or humiliation, which should interfere with the decision of defending the state and preserving its freedom. Therefore, the ruler/prince's single responsibilit...
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
In the television series, House of Cards, a position in Congress is the basis of the show and the main character, Frank Underwood, thrives for his goals of personal achievement and working his devious plans into a profit for himself and ultimately achieving anything he wants no matter what it takes. Frank Underwood is an extremely intelligent congressman, who lives in Washington D.C. representing his home state of South Carolina, but has always put his self first. At the introduction of the show he states, “I see two different types of pain, useful pain, that helps you grow, and useless pain that does nothing but cause suffering”. These sorts of pain, but more importantly the meanings, explain a specific part of his distinctive morals that carry his actions along and show how he works with certain people or conflicts. His eminent colleagues of the U.S. legislative branch, specifically congress, perception of Frank is that he does whatever he can to make the government stronger while his intellectual perception is the contrary. While his colleagues trust him, it is hard for Frank Underwood to show a virtuous personality, enough to have full faith and trust especially regarding a huge decision he makes to murder a member of the Legislative branch. This internal situation, mirrors the philosophy (shown in the book, “The Prince”) of the political Philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has provided many with the conflicting opinion of modern times political contemplation. The scene in the last few minutes of “House of Cards: Chapter 11” exemplifies Frank’s means for consequentialism by, the fact of achieving his ultimate maxim or intended end. There is no skepticism that Frank’s actions do not follow solitarily consequentialism but ther...
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
In virtually every Western nation, people elect other people to play crucial roles for our countries. These crucial roles can include creating new laws and even starting a war with another country if it was necessary. In the past, though, leaders such as, Niccolo Machiavelli ran many areas. In “The Qualities of the Prince,” Machiavelli defines and defends those qualities, chief among them an awareness of the state he rules and the potential enemies that surround him. When ruling, Machiavelli warns his Prince not to misuse his power, and to have high confidence in himself. While Machiavelli’s sixteenth-century Italian Prince might have profited from such qualities, would they help a modern day politician win a presidential election in the U.S.?
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
Machiavelli's views have been misinterpreted since his book was first written, people take him in the wrong way, and are offended by what he says. Careless readers take him in a completely wrong way, such as they think that he believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing, he says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a rulers actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared. The Prince is considered to be one of the most important of nonfiction literature written in the history of mankind. It gave an accurate and truthful description of the method of governing.
Although, Machiavelli argues that an ideal ruler must be cruel, feared and unjust in order to maintain power in his paper, "The Prince", this is not necessary true. An ideal ruler must be assertive, just and filled with integrity to maintain power, prestige, and the loyalty of those he governs.
A Machiavellian prince is a man who looks out, first and foremost, for his own rule and authority. If he can accomplished that through honorable means, he should, but it is not wrong to resort to cruelty and deception when necessary. A very accurate example of a Machiavellian prince is Denethor, Steward of Gondor. He sits in a position of authority that he maintains for a long time, his primary concerns are preserving his own authority and the realm of Gondor, and he has the cunning to accomplish his goal. In all, Denethor is an excellent example of a true Machiavellian prince.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent