The Prince & the People

The Prince of Politics

When discussing politics, people, especially those who believe they really understand it, think it boils down to policies.

What is Trump’s stance on immigration? How does Kamala feel about China and tariffs? Will Trump institute an abortion ban? Do Biden and Kamala have the same position on healthcare?

While these are relevant questions to be asking oneself, particularly during election season, policy stances are merely surface level considerations.

Underneath the iceberg, candidates and political parties’ strategies and policies simply comes down to one core question: what can I do or say that will enable me (or us) to seize, and more importantly, maintain power?

When analyzing this question, there is no man more famous for his answers than Niccoló Machiavelli.

The Italian political philosopher’s cunning, immoral, and deceptive tactics on how to never relinquish power once obtained has been carefully studied by a variety of nations, civilizations, and empires since his death in 1527.

Machiavelli’s most famous work, The Prince, was written in 1513 but published posthumously in 1532, five years after his death. Its original purpose was to convince the Medici family—who had recently returned to power—to allow Machiavelli back into Florence after his exile for supporting the previous republican government.

However, the content of The Prince was not a simple, apologetic plea. Instead, it was a straightforward and pragmatic guide on how a ruler should maintain power.

While many speculate that Lorenzo de’ Medici never actually read the work, it nonetheless saw its popularity skyrocket quickly and become one of the most important works in modern political history.

Without further ado, let’s dive into what exactly Machiavelli was attempting to teach his audience.

One of the main ideas that Machiavelli emphasizes is morality, in and of itself, is not particularly important. The idea that one should strive to be virtuous and be humble, not prideful, charitable, not greedy, chaste, not lustful, diligent, not slothful, kind, not envious, temperate, not gluttonous, and patient, not wrathful, was laughable to Machiavelli.

Moreover, Machiavelli believed that these virtues were merely tools that could be used to achieve one’s ends rather than actually being the ends as they are in Christian morality.

He claims that a prince needs “to learn to be able to not be good, and to use this and and not use it according to necessity.” Additionally, he pragmatically asserts “for it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation.”

These ideals directly contradicted and undermined the Catholic Church’s teachings, which at the time had the immense power in shaping the culture of Western Europe, as the Protestant Revolution (though it would happen very soon) had not yet occurred.

The beef between Machiavelli and the Church was one-sided during his lifetime, as he detested its role in government and advocated for the complete separation between church and state. After his death and proceeding popularity, the Church returned the favor and banned The Prince for a while before undoing it. Additionally, prominent cardinals called Machiavelli “the finger of Satan” for pushing his morally relativistic ideas onto the public.

A perfect example of these immoral ideas is Machiavelli’s concepts of good and bad cruelty.

To Machiavelli, “good” cruelty involves acts that are decisive, swift, and necessary to secure power, inspiring enough fear to achieve one’s goals. In contrast, “bad” cruelty involves prolonged and excessive acts that inspire hatred, which could undermine a ruler’s position.

He explains that “good” cruel acts are “done at a stroke, out of necessity to secure oneself, and then are not persisted in, but turned to as much utility for the subjects as one can.” Furthermore, “injuries must be done all at once so that, being tasted less, they offend less; and benefits should be distributed little by little so that they may be enjoyed more.”

These quotes lead perfectly into another, but similar, idea that Machiavelli emphasized: the ends justify the means.

The Italian diplomat was definitely not the first person to come up with this phrase but he undeniably popularized it.

Whether it’s the idea that “in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, the end is all that counts” or “if a ruler wins wars and maintains his state, the means he has employed will always be considered honorable, and everyone will praise them” it was evident that it didn’t matter what lengths a prince went to secure his state as long as he was able to get the job done.

This Machiavellian principle had a profound impact on the communist revolutions in the 20th centuries, as leaders like Mao, Stalin, and Lenin displayed levels of cruelty that are difficult to adequately describe through words and knowingly did so due to their belief that it was for the greater good.

Lenin famously said that “one cannot make an omelet without cracking a few eggs” which perfectly describes their frame of mind when brutally murdering millions of people to build their perfect utopia.

Another essential Machiavellian idea, and arguably his most famous, is that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved.

He argues that “men have less hesitation to offend one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility, but fear is held by a dread of punishment that never forsakes you.” Furthermore, “since men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince, a wise prince should found himself on what is his, not on what is someone else’s.”

Tying this passage back to the concept of cruelty, Machiavelli advises princes to strategically and carefully partake in cruel actions so as to inspire enough fear into the people that they willfully obey any orders commanded to them, even those directly conflicting with their interests.

However, Machiavelli understands that it is a balancing act; too much cruelty can inspire hatred which could potentially cause a revolt, conspiracy, or other extraordinary circumstances that could threaten the prince’s reign.

Speaking of conspiracies, Niccolo was well versed in this area and understood the threat that it posed to a leader’s throne, going as far as to say that “it is evident that many more princes have lost their lives and their states through conspiracies than through open warfare, because being able to wage open war against a prince is within the reach of very few, while the possibility of conspiring against him is open to everyone.”

History backs up Machiavelli’s claim, as whether one is discussing Ancient Rome and the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar or the recent attempts on Donald Trump’s life, it is obvious that there is credibility to these claims.

Focusing on Trump, he has actually been the focus of a conspiracy since the day he has stepped foot in the Oval Office. It started with the perpetual insinuations that Trump was somehow Vladimir Putin’s puppet and a Benedict Arnold-esque traitor to the American people.

Next, it was the accusations that he incited an insurrection to overthrow the government when in fact it was clear he was leading a protest that got out of hand (there definitely not undercover federal agents dressed as Trump supporters leading the charge into the Capitol).

Then, when sparking his re-election bid, a flurry of legal cases that magically appeared that sometimes were from decades ago were foisted upon him as an effort to demoralize and defeat him.

Lastly, we have recently seen attempts on his life that have ultimately failed and led to an increase in his popularity and subsequent election victory.

Trump’s political career is exhibit A that princes should always be concerned about a potential conspiracy to usurp his power.

Whether Trump is a sincere populist that cares about the liberty of the American people or a deep state tool being used to deceive the right wing is the real question that will be discussed at a different time.

The last Machiavellian principle that will be discussed is the dichotomy of perception and reality.

He emphasizes that perception is everything, as most people experience what you seem to be but very few experience who you really are. Given this, one should never trust his eyes but rather his hands, as again, most will be able to see you but few can ever come close enough to touch you.

To Machiavelli, a prince simply cannot consistently behave in a just manner; in his eyes, those who behave justly in an unjust world will simply lose every time. To him, the key is to be cunning enough to act in an unjust manner but give off the perception of being just.

This is obviously a difficult task.

But in Machiavelli’s eyes, those who have the ability to pull it off are those who see the highest levels of political success.

The real question is this: why does any of this matter?

Simply put, all of these principles are relevant because people in power utilize these tactics frequently and depend on the citizenry’s ignorance to increase their power.

What most people don’t understand is that these people operate in a completely different manner, as most people have some semblance of what’s “right and wrong” and, for the most part, try to do “the right thing” and would feel some sort of guilt for wrongdoings.

For most political leaders, what is right and wrong simply does not matter and plays no factor in the decisions they make. Deception, theft, murder, and other grave vices are not only not “bad,” but “good” if it aids in their ability to achieve their ends.

Take Operation Northwoods for example; this 1960s plot to kill American citizens in the midst of the Cold War as a way to justify war with Cuba was a plan that was nearly executed and is now declassified and therefore cannot be labeled as a conspiracy theory.

Most people would think “but how could they do such a thing?” The answer is that, in their minds, the ends justifies the means. In this case, a handful of American lives is simply the cost of going to war to “solidify our freedoms” (or some other generic slogan to justify unnecessary wars) because that is what is “good” for the country.

Operation Northwoods is simply one out of many declassified cases of the government deviously placing the lives of its citizens in danger to obtain some ends that is often in the interest of a extremely small group of people and to the detriment of the many.

Once analyzing Northwoods, it doesn’t make the “9/11 truthers” seem as crazy as people make them out to be. If the plan was to be in a perpetual state of war in the Middle East “because they hate our freedom” and the means is to devise a plot to blow the twin towers to pieces, then it was executed in a successful manner.

“But they would never do such a thing!”

Yes. Yes, they would.

My overarching message is that many events that we perceive as random aren’t always as they seem but are rather methods used to consolidate and expand the state’s power, which has been ever expanding for the past century.

At the end of the day, perception and reality are very rarely the same thing.

Thanks for reading and until next time.

Headlines