Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Foxes Rule the World

If Machiavelli wrote his text, The Prince, for today's leader it could have simply been titled, How to Maintain Control of your Territory: for Dummies. In his day the dummy was the new ruler and today it is the President of the U.S. as well as those in charge of other countries. I personally believe that many nations today have leaders who have taken notes and pages from this book. As PTJ pointed out when assigning the question, "Machiavelli paints a portrait of a ruler who must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain HIS power." I feel that contemporary ruling elites use more stealth and qualities of Machiavelli's figurative fox in order to disguise their own motives of keeping power, themselves. However, that desire to dominate and maintain dominance is one that has been instilled in us so much it is an integral part of the society of politics. Although it is never blatantly said, " We want to control this territory and all its inhabitants and stay in power," actions of the elite show us that this is what motivates many of their actions. Now a days the political system has moved away from single person rule to a political body like that referenced in Hobbes book Leviathan (thanks Erin for bringing this to my attention). In this age the "HIS" that PTJ refers to does not only represent the individual, but it also represents the party or state the individual is a member of. There is that constant refrain when dealing with international relations "Protecting____interests". The President tries to satisfy the demands of the party in power, the party out of power, and the people. Unless he does all these things he will not be liked. Like we discussed in class, rulers should find that balance between love and hate so that their people, above all respect them.

2 comments:

  1. "I feel that contemporary ruling elites use more stealth and qualities of Machiavelli's figurative fox in order to disguise their own motives of keeping power." That contemporary rulers would seek to obscure their pursuit of power suggests that this is somehow ignoble or undesirable as a motivation, at least for an individual. Indeed, we often speak disparagingly of the "power-hungry" rulers. However, as you note, today we are far more likely to speak of "state" having acted rather than the ruler of that state. In class we talked about how power was necessary for a state to protect its own citizens. With this in mind, do you think the pursuit of power is as bad or undesirable a motivation for states as it is for individual rulers? If so, how do you reconcile this with the need for the state to protect all the bodies within its boundaries? If not, why do you think states are not more upfront about the motivation for their actions being grounded in concerns about power?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There seems to be a bigger difference between protecting the interests of a state and protecting the interests of a single ruler than people usually acknowledge. When a ruler/ruling class is looking out for the state, he has actual people (the state's citizens) who he is looking out for, instead of just his own personal power. So when a ruler is looking out for his state's interests, being power-hungry, fox-like, etc, is a means to an end that is much less selfish than that of Machiavelli's absolute ruler. When a ruler is being ruthlessly protective of his country/subjects, it's harder to see him in a bad light compared to rulers who are power-hungry solely for their personal benefit.

    ReplyDelete