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?
Full Version: Machiavellianism & Politics
Ooo, maybe.
There isn't a doubt in my mind that Barack Obama, or anyone, is capable of committing the most vile deeds a human being can commit. When put in that situation, you can kill when necessary. If another conflict was brought to our door, as in; a direct attack on a US base or political epicenter, I would expect nothing less than our commander in chief to mercilessly order the slaughter of those guilty of the act. I would also expect nothing less than widespread support from the American people, if that were the case. In a nutshell, as long as he's looking out for his own people; he should keep it 'gangsta' whenever the situation calls for it.
There isn't a doubt in my mind that Barack Obama, or anyone, is capable of committing the most vile deeds a human being can commit. When put in that situation, you can kill when necessary. If another conflict was brought to our door, as in; a direct attack on a US base or political epicenter, I would expect nothing less than our commander in chief to mercilessly order the slaughter of those guilty of the act. I would also expect nothing less than widespread support from the American people, if that were the case. In a nutshell, as long as he's looking out for his own people; he should keep it 'gangsta' whenever the situation calls for it.
QUOTE(fameONE @ Nov 7 2008, 12:35 AM) 
I would also expect nothing less than widespread support from the American people
Hey, I say go for it.
widespread support just like last time 
There was widespread support for invading Afghanistan, not Iraq. However, that situation was quite different because Al Qaeda operatives don't all share the same ethnic background or nation affiliation.
i don't think that i think a ruler/leader/whatever should be "willing to do evil/wrong/bad/malicious things to promote the stability of the state."
i duno, i guess i'm more for the "just ruler" idea. but then...that goes hand in hand for me. i don't think it's malicious and evil if it's just? so maybe i'm for both? or maybe being just cancels the other part out...uhh yeah.
i duno, this is confusing to me. i don't know how to say what i mean.
i duno, i guess i'm more for the "just ruler" idea. but then...that goes hand in hand for me. i don't think it's malicious and evil if it's just? so maybe i'm for both? or maybe being just cancels the other part out...uhh yeah.
i duno, this is confusing to me. i don't know how to say what i mean.
"To protect the good, you must deal with evil," even if that means doing something just as bad.
Let's say you have your girlfriend/wife/sister/mother/aunt/etc (a female) with you and, out of nowhere, some guy yanks her into a back alley in an effort to rape her. Would you not instinctively protect her, even if it meant taking his life?
Let's say you have your girlfriend/wife/sister/mother/aunt/etc (a female) with you and, out of nowhere, some guy yanks her into a back alley in an effort to rape her. Would you not instinctively protect her, even if it meant taking his life?
^yes i would.
but then...i don't know that i really see how that relates to running a country. becuase, we're talking about one guy who i know for a fact is the criminal. that doesn't seem the same to me as war or something like that. where tons of people who i don't know and who didn't really do anything to me are being killed. i don't know if you know what i mean or where i'm losing that example. it's just such a different scale between an isolated in the moment situation involving one man vs. the kind of situations/decisions that a ruler would make.
but then...i don't know that i really see how that relates to running a country. becuase, we're talking about one guy who i know for a fact is the criminal. that doesn't seem the same to me as war or something like that. where tons of people who i don't know and who didn't really do anything to me are being killed. i don't know if you know what i mean or where i'm losing that example. it's just such a different scale between an isolated in the moment situation involving one man vs. the kind of situations/decisions that a ruler would make.
I see your point.
Barack Obama just seems like he cars, as if America is that woman that he will do anything for and will always protect. If we were to get attacked by, let's say, North Korea, and all hell broke loose, then NoKo would, in turn, become the rapist of my previous example. A declaration of all out war, (air-strikes and amphibious landings, oh my!) would be the bigger picture of him beating the criminal to death.
By diong that, would that be considered "evil," or, "mailicious?" Or did I take the whole Machiavellianism thing into left field? Someone help a
and his homeboy out. 
Barack Obama just seems like he cars, as if America is that woman that he will do anything for and will always protect. If we were to get attacked by, let's say, North Korea, and all hell broke loose, then NoKo would, in turn, become the rapist of my previous example. A declaration of all out war, (air-strikes and amphibious landings, oh my!) would be the bigger picture of him beating the criminal to death.
By diong that, would that be considered "evil," or, "mailicious?" Or did I take the whole Machiavellianism thing into left field? Someone help a
and his homeboy out.
Well, from what I understand, Machiavelli says that the successful ruler is one who can appear to have all the virtues, but is willing and capable of breaking virtues and doing "malicious" things for the well-being of the country.
He references Brutus, who murdered his sons, but says that he was right in doing so because it was for the stability of the state.
I sort of see the whole "war on terrorism" as a very Machiavellian move. While the noble, virtuous reason that got everybody pumped up in the first place was "let's kill those motherfuckin' terrorists," we all know that the underlying reason is for oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
He references Brutus, who murdered his sons, but says that he was right in doing so because it was for the stability of the state.
I sort of see the whole "war on terrorism" as a very Machiavellian move. While the noble, virtuous reason that got everybody pumped up in the first place was "let's kill those motherfuckin' terrorists," we all know that the underlying reason is for oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
^Oil is a factor, but it's, more or less, about having a stronghold on the Middle Eastern economy to strengthen the American economy.
Come to think of it, that's a really good example.
Come to think of it, that's a really good example.
And just another point, this time in relevance to Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText
According to Machiavelli, a ruler can break promises if it is to his (and his state's) advantage which is essentially what Obama did.
Personally, I think all politicians are wily and manipulative little bitches. They have to be.
I can't really bring myself to accept and justify the idea that someone is willing to do "malicious" things to others in order to promote himself (and his country). Maybe that's why I can never be a politician.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText
QUOTE
(CNN) -- You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.
He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.
Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.
The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.
On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."
For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.
He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.
Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.
The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.
On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."
For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.
According to Machiavelli, a ruler can break promises if it is to his (and his state's) advantage which is essentially what Obama did.
Personally, I think all politicians are wily and manipulative little bitches. They have to be.
I can't really bring myself to accept and justify the idea that someone is willing to do "malicious" things to others in order to promote himself (and his country). Maybe that's why I can never be a politician.
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: )
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: )
lol, I was watching Angel and Fred just mentioned Machiavelli. :D
Rofl Machiavellianism.
GG
TOPIC CLOSED
jk ;x
GG
TOPIC CLOSED
jk ;x
QUOTE(Just_Dream @ Nov 19 2008, 12:39 AM)
Rofl Machiavellianism.
GG
TOPIC CLOSED
jk ;x
GG
TOPIC CLOSED
jk ;x
You should debate more.
QUOTE(fameONE @ Nov 18 2008, 10:44 PM)
You should debate more.
ROFL I never know what to say, and I don't want to be one of those "I concur" kind of people, even when I do agree - then I'd have nothing extra to contribute :P
QUOTE(Just_Dream @ Nov 19 2008, 05:44 AM)
ROFL I never know what to say, and I don't want to be one of those "I concur" kind of people, even when I do agree - then I'd have nothing extra to contribute :P
i love it when a
agrees with a
CHRISTINA! I would just like to say that I <3 you forever. I'm in the middle of writing an essay comparing Machiavelli's ideas in The Prince to Giuliani and had completely blanked, so I went back to this thread, read your long-ass essay and was reminded of a pretty big point that Machiavelli makes and thus can finish my essay!
QUOTE(heartquasm @ Dec 5 2008, 08:38 AM)
CHRISTINA! I would just like to say that I <3 you forever. I'm in the middle of writing an essay comparing Machiavelli's ideas in The Prince to Giuliani and had completely blanked, so I went back to this thread, read your long-ass essay and was reminded of a pretty big point that Machiavelli makes and thus can finish my essay!
is always here to help. Which big point? Haha he has quite a few, but I guess the virtu' thing is important (but kind of a given).
HAHA U ENDED UP READING MY LONG-ASS POST AGAIN. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.