Machiavellianism & Politics Options

[batman]

We just finished up reading The Prince and The Discourses by Machiavelli and I thought some of the ideas he brings up are very interesting and controversial. I almost wish we could spend more than just a week discussing Machiavelli, because there's just so much to talk about.

The basic Machiavellian idea is that in order to be a successful ruler, you must be able and willing to do evil/wrong/bad/malicious things to promote the stability of the state. Up until Machiavelli, we've heard time after time about the just ruler, the philosopher king, importance of values, etc.

In The Discourses, everything and anything is justifiable as long as it is in the interest of the state, including murder, manipulation, breaking promises/vows, anything that goes against the values instilled in regular humans.

There's really no moral or immoral, just... what is best for the state?

What are your thoughts about this? Do you see Obama as a Machiavellian ruler?

[Just_Dream]

I haven't read the Discourses by Nicollo Machiavelli, but I have read The Prince, thus my argument would probably be a bit biased as I am ill-informed in terms of what might be best for the state. However, The Prince does have have have explicit and some implicit mentions of the importance of the state. Oh yea and I am NOT up to date with everything in regards to this election, since I'm still living in the past with all these poli sci classes lol.

The thing is that with our nation, what is deemed "best for the state" should be for a majority, right? Well what happens when a majority -- 51% for example -- agree with something, while 49% does not? Should it be in a nation's best interest for all the people to agree? I think Machievelli sees a majority as in at least 2/3 or 3/4.

Yes, Machiavelli does state that a ruler should rule with prudence and virtu, that he must appear as if he is ruling just to the public so that they do not "hate" him. But like I said, there are plenty who don't agree with Obama. So it's not so easy to rule with "virtu" if a lot of people disagree with him, although IDK about whether the people hate or just "dislike" him.

Yes, all politicians are manipulative. Don't you see -- that's what Machiavelli wants a ruler to be. He has to manipulative the people to his advantage. But a ruler is supposed to only manipulate using the interest of the people, but like I said when interests are far too wide and there is a significant amount that are not willing to convert to a ruler, what does he do?

Back then rulers could punish a few people (like beheading or imprisonment) if it meant instilling fear in others so that they will not commit the same crime. This was used to convert people as well, since they had to agree with the ruler.

However, nowadays like I said there is a significant amount of people who disagree with his ideals. Obama can't just make a decision that will get most people to agree with him -- oftentimes there is no back door. You can't just kill a group of radicals just to shut everyone else up. It's not so easy, is what I mean. Maybe Obama is cutting corners (and I use this term LOOSELY as I am not exactly up to date about everything), which a ruler "should do" in terms of Machiavelli. HOWEVER, a lot of people do not think it is in the best interest. It is most definitely difficult to determine what is in the best interest of the state, or rather, nation, especially with such huge partisan(s).

Therefore in this time of age, although a ruler should appear virtuous and have strength, it's much more difficult since it's so easy for people to find Obama's faults, and it's so easy for people to find out what he does "back stage". He can't be virtuous/prudent if he's doing things that people can easily see and make even supporters dislike him. Is Obama the ideal ruler that Machiavelli described? Far from it. I say this because there is such a significant partisan that the line between what is justly and what is not has been blurred. And with this day of age, it's hard to even compare the expectations of past rulers with the expectations of a current ruler.

Just my 2 cents. A lot of what I'm saying may be flawed since I read Machiavelli a year ago, lol. (Wow this might be my first debate post? I can't remember D: )