The point that Machiavelli made definitely makes sense. As much power as leaders have, they are not truly omniscient ever. If they are truly omniscient this is dependent on how tolerable they are to their followers and also have empowered their followers are to retaliate against them. I appreciate how Machiavelli adds that a King must not infuriate in the clergy. It is true that there are caste and class differences in most societies all over the world. It is not imperative in every society that the leaders please everyone. The real importance is that leaders either please enough people or simply enough of the right people.
A good example that this made me think about was Charles I. The fact that Charles I believed that he obtained Divine Right and was definitely a Tyrant is not actually relevant. This problem for Charles I appeared when he did not truly satisfy his clergy. It was exacerbated when he expressed his lack of acknowledgement of the issues that his clergy had. When he got enemies he became a target. He could have been like his father and believed what he wanted while still serving those at minimum would might challenge him. In this case, he probably would not have been assassinated. Machiavelli’s ideology definitely makes sense. No one really cares how much other people have unless they are truly without. Leaders can have as much power as they please if they continue to support those that are below them. When this expectation is broken people truly begin to get labeled and tyrants.
I don’t really believe that any leader has the capability at any time to be truly omniscient, regardless of how tolerable they are to their followers. If this was the case, then some leaders would be so successful as a result of understanding the needs and wants of their people beyond a measure that we could imagine. Pleasing followers is important, but I would say that being an authentic leader is better than being a likable one, as far as ethics is concerned.
I agree with your point that a leader doesn’t need to please everyone– just the right ones. I appreciate how you distinguished that across the world each system is going to be different and not every leader will need to please the same people in the same way. They are all going to look different in the way in which they succeed, or fail, to please.
This is a really interesting way to use the reading. Machiavelli mentions that if you have to pick one way to lead, it’s by fear (if you cannot be loved that is). And Charles I had neither. It was actually Cromwell that had the fear factor since he had the military. I wonder, however, how things would have played out if Charles I had been a better leader (assuming he somehow got into the same position). Would Cromwell have still taken over so easily? If Charles I had been more well-liked, would that have made a difference?? According to the reading, no, but I’d like to think otherwise.