Machiavelli's Prince in the White House?

We're discussing Machiavelli's "The Prince" in my World History class. It is not the first time I have endured this work of philosophy, which is probably the reason that my brain is off in left-field wondering: did Bush ever read it? has Obama? I am pretty sure the later would have sometime on his way to or passing through Harvard, not quite sure about the former though.

This actually seems fitting, Bush just never got that he had to appear to the world as a (virtuous) man and yet actually be the beast. But it is a thin line as Machiavelli explains, the prince cannot be cruel to the point of fear or hatred (the point Bush eventually reached with US action in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you were wondering), instead one must use cruelty to derive absolute respect instead through complimenting it with humanity and prudence. At his post-September 11th height, Bush was seen with absolute respect because he was able to not only look cruelly upon those who served to do the country harm, but still act with humanity towards the people of the state and our allies in the world.

Machiavelli also speaks about generosity on the part of the prince, which for some reason made me think of taxes. The thing Bush forgot, and most republicans too, is that if one is too overly generous, then the subject loses all appreciation and will turn to greed. "Lower Taxes! Lower Taxes! the populous will keep demanding. In being overly generous the prince exhausts resources which in the long run not only makes taxes be raised in the long term (national debt ringing a bell?), but causes grief which leads to hatred and hatred is the one thing that Machiavelli says the prince should stay clear from. That would seem to explain why Bush has an approximately 20% approval rating, even though he lowered taxes. Wise princes should be more willing to be labeled as ungenerous, then to be hated for trying to be too generous argued Machiavelli. I know that Obama had to propose tax cuts to beat McCain, but it makes me wonder what more people will demand in 2012.

Unlike Aristotle who saw virtue as derivative of the highest good, Machiavelli attacks the argument that virtuous action be in all behaviors. For this metaphysical approach to politics is inconsistent with reality. Virtue, Machiavelli argues, is abstract and does not concern itself with consequences. An Machiavellian virtue is one that is only a virtue in so far that it is praised by man as being virtuous. Understanding this, Machiavelli's view becomes a little more realistic.

But this is where I break with Machiavelli's argument. His view of human nature is that man is "ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous." Further, by nature men are deceitful and untrustworthy, they break promises, and are impressed only by appearances and results. So while man may respect and even praise virtue most men, however, do not possess it themselves. This view of human nature is important because it underlies all of Machiavelli's suggestions for princely actions. For if the populace were intelligent (I like to think I am, after all here I am blogging about Machiavelli and modern day politics) well-educated, and aware of history, the prince would be unable to affect public opinion, which is integral to the prince's successful leadership. For Machiavelli's suggestions about princely behavior to be beneficial the prince must be smarter than all the people.

Which in a round about way gets me back to modern day politics. Bush just wasn't smart enough to be president. Really the Bush-Palin SNL skit said it when it satired Bush saying "the office of vice-president is the most important office in the land...the president can do nothing without checking with the vice-president first." The skit was funny because it was true. In Machiavelli's terms Cheney was Bush's beast, ironically the prince was afraid of him because he had no control over said beast (UN Security council & Iraq anyone?). Obama on the other hand is smart, I think he is probably a lot smarter than most people give him credit for and that says a lot, because he is probably one of the most brilliant minds of his generation. We have seen him as the man, the consummate politician but the question comes does he have the beast inside him? And surely he will need that beast to accomplish anything in this town. Yet with 24 hour cable news as the mind of the populous, I don't know whether Obama would surpass. For what the media lacks in intelligence they make up for with tenacity, catchy phases, spiffy graphics. talking heads, and hologram technology.