In Niccolò Machiavelli’s famous 16th-century work, The Prince, the author presents a guide of written solutions to successfully ruling a regime with an absolute monarchy. His argument is concise: big, radical ideas lead to political divisiveness. Machiavelli says, “there is nothing more difficult to carry out, more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order” (105). In this response, I want to focus on this idea that Machiavelli presents saying that brand new ideas can result in a weak government and scare away followers’ loyalty. In his first few chapters, the author presents all different leadership scenarios and different ways that princes may have seized power. This framework for the rest of the book allows Machiavelli to present various situations a prince might put his values before those of the people, leading to a detrimental effect on the people. Conversely, Machiavelli argues that princes “must not mind incurring to the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful,” (119) meaning that leaders sometimes have to make immoral decisions in the best interest of the people. However, what is important is that the prince appears to be one of the people, even if that is not necessarily true.
The Prince reminded me of many of the same principles of Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave and the discussion we had in class today that leaders may not always be 100% truthful to their followers. This idea ties into Machiavelli’s argument that if a prince presents lofty ideas to his people, the government will be weak, and the opposite effect if he makes a seemingly “cruel” decision. Plato’s work argues that a leader cannot give followers reality all of the time and that we cannot know everything and anything, while Machiavelli argues that the appearance of being reliable may be just as important as actually executing that promise. The idea of the “real”, the “model”, and the “shadow” apply to lead in situations such as those presented by Machiavelli in the earlier chapters of his book.
I really like the way that you tied the Prince reading back our previous reading of Plato’s Cave Allegory. My mind goes to our actions after the September 11th attacks, when we needed to look “strong” so we started a war in the Middle East, regardless of it being the wrong decision and despite it costing us more American lives in the end.
I agree that there are many similarities to be seen between the cave allegory and this reading. It also reminded me of the ways our current government don’t tell the whole truth at all times in order to prevent mass panic. That same principle is as much relevant then as it is now.
I liked how you mentioned the similarities between the cave of allegory and the reading. I also got that impression of not getting all of the truth just like we discussed in class.
I thought it was interesting how you brought up Machiavelli’s claim that new ideas can result in a weak government and scare away followers’ loyalty. I don’t necessarily agree with this point of Machiavelli’s because as followers, people expect leaders to come up with brand new ideas to fix their problems. Even though they might not be brand new ideas, people expect leaders to hold the solutions to society which usually means a plan that no one has tried before. I agree that the more radical the idea, the harder it is to maintain follower loyalty, but in the past leaders have been elected as a result of their big, radical ideas. Loyalty may fall slightly but in highly contended political and social climates it seems as if, especially recently, the leaders with bigger, more radical ideas are being chosen and paid attention to over those who have simpler, less risky plans.