Political Philosophy: Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli was an interesting dude, and he naturally leads the Italian team in Philosopher’s Football (which happens every March!).

This dude did a lot of stuff.  Seriously.  He was mostly a political philosopher, but he dabbled in a lesser-known field called Historical Philosophy.  I, for one, am very fond of historical philosophy, so I am actually going to address that, since it can easily be incorporated into politics.

Machiavelli is typically unloved by most liberal people, and also, most not-rich dudes.  Why?  Well, this fellow was, according to Plato, a person concerned with money.  Now, don't think he was as bad as people say, Machiavelli was very smart.  He knew the way a lot of people view society, and told them what they didn't want to hear.  This made him unpopular.

One of these unpopular truths is from his book, The Prince.  In it, he says that people say what they ought to do, but very rarely do.  Machiavelli draws a line between reality and a theoretical world, and this is not something philosophers like hearing.  If he was around today,  Machiavelli would be in advertising, because he knows how to use this idea to make money.  You do not want to advertise what people don't do, because they'll never buy.  If you sell something people actually do, you will be more successful.

This idea doesn't just apply to marketing, though.  What made Machiavelli so unpopular was how he applied it to politics.  He says that a politician makes claims that the people support in order to boost their popularity, even if that isn't actually what they stand for.  Why can't we have politicians?  Because the people don't actually want an honest politician, they want someone to stand for what they believe in.  Sound familiar?  *cough*Trump*cough*

The next thing Machiavelli says is that a politician can never be honest nor good.  Golly gee, no wonder this guy was unpopular.  He was right, though.  The claim here is that a successful politician lies.  They can never be honest, because people don't want to hear the grim and gruesome truth, they want a savior.  Pretend our country is in the bucket, and two politicians present their ideas.  Politician 1 says that "If we work together, we can bring ourselves out of poverty!" while Politician 2 says "I will single-handedly make this country great again if you vote for me, and I will lift everyone out of poverty and give out free ponies."
Politician 2 will obviously get the vote because of two reasons: 1.) People are LAZY, and 2.) People want someone who voices what they want.  Even if a free pony for everyone is unrealistic, it is what people want.  They don't want to work to get themselves out of poverty- if they did, they wouldn't be in poverty!!

Machiavelli continues this by claiming that while politicians can never be honest or good, they have to appear as though they are.  This is because a person who openly expresses how sucky they are is obviously sucky.  A voter will never support a politician who beats puppies in their free time.  They will, however, support a hypocrite that preaches saving homeless dogs, even if they don't actually practise what they preach.
Additionally, a philanthropist who donates enormous sums of their money to Animal Rescue will glean more votes than if someone exposes how they got their money: through running countless other people out of business.  But it doesn't matter, because they're saving innocent puppies!

Adding to this idea of appearances, Machiavelli claims that opposition must be crushed in order for the politician to be successful.  This is because an opposer can shake off a few scuffs and bruises to their reputations and return to the running, but they can never recover if they are publicly humiliated and shamed.  It cannot be done.

This next one is a little tricky to explain.  He says that a successful politician must delegate the unpopular tasks to others and keep the popular ones for himself.  This means that if, say, the politician wanted every brown-haired child killed, he would send an army to do it, not himself.  But that isn't enough!  The populous would not like the army, would they?  No.  So the politician would then destroy the army, and offer support to the populous.  The people would be rid of the unpopular army, and it was all thanks to the politician.  This strategy gets the dirty job done, and also boosts popularity to the politician.

This book receives so much hate, for good reason.  It explains horrible truths that people are terrified to admit are true, it describes a cruel and unforgiving world where the populous is played like a game of risk.  Luckily, Machiavelli did not believe what he wrote was the best form of politics.  It was simply an observation made by him of how a politician can be successful.

I did promise to talk about historical recurrence, so here is the quick little spiel on that .
Machiavelli described history as something that happens over in over in patterns.  This can be applied to politics, of course.  Do you remember Plato?  If not, I highly suggest reading about the decline of the regimes section in Plato's tab, because this next bit won't make sense without first reading that.

So, lets use Hobbes' State of Nature.  (see hobbes for more info)  You have your animalistic group of savage humans, and they deign to make a society.  Only the smartest savage human will see the benefits of government, so the wise-seeking aristocrat will create something where a single smart dude rules over the others.  The world thrives and stuff until a democracy, ruled by a justice-seeking individual or set of individuals- will eventually collapse into a bit of chaos.  Then a firm hand will rise and take it, turning into a tyranny.

Plato would have it all end there.  But not Machiavelli!  His historical recurrence idea would say that the people get so sick of having a dumb guy ruling, they'd want a smart guy in power, so they would elect/force/nominate an aristocratic person to rule.  Thus the cycle continues.

That's my quick thing on Historical Recurrence, and I will be using it for my IB Exam, actually.  Relating the Republic to Machiavelli's The Prince, comparing/contrasting.  If you want to, though, you'll need more info.  Yes.  Bye!