How does "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli still relate to modern politics...?

Question

How does the book "The Prince" by NIccolo Machiavelli relate to modern politics and current events, inside and outside the US?

Any ideas? Thanks!

Answer 1

Political theories that are derived from Machiavelli's Prince are now known as realism (realpolitik in German). As the name implies, realists generally state that they would like to live in a better world, but that because the world is as it is (i.e. full of dishonest, ambitious, greedy and potentially murderous people and regimes), it is naive to assume all other actors are always honest. In fact, it is better to show one's self to be strong and willing to use strength in order to instill fear in those who would do you harm.
The Cold War is a perfect example of realism in action on both the U.S. and Soviet sides. Although everyone kept stating nuclear proliferation was a bad thing, both countries were actively engaged in it, because it was considered foolish to actually let one country take an advantage over the other. The balance of power, or equilibrium of terror, as it was known back then, was viewed as necessary to maintain peace because one could not simply trust the goodwill of the enemy.
More recently, George Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq can certainly be deemed an example of realism, whether or not you believe the weapons of mass destruction were the real issue. If they were the real issue, then the idea of preemptive strike was an example of applied Machiavelism (do unto others before they do unto you) - note how accepted these ideas are today in the fact that the American public was so quick to accept this option as reasonable. If you believe that reason was more of a pretext, then the idea is to control resources and keep an eye on potential enemies in the region - classical Machiavelism.

Answer 2

Still assuming no "WWE" advantage: Terry Funk. As I said before, if he couldn't out-wrestle you he'd out-fight you. If he couldn't out-fight you, he'd out-"crazy" you. Bret Hart. Hate to see Dynamite leave so soon, but the Hitman would just out-wrestle him and make him tap to the Sharpshooter. Sting. A little better wrestler than Savage, I think. Sting would win by submission to the Scorpion Deathlock. Chris Benoit. Damn...what a match-up! Chris' strength advantage would be the difference here. Dean would eventually tap to the Crippler Crossface. Kurt Angle. As great as Owen was, so is Kurt. Kurt's meaner and more ferocious. No submission here, Kurt would just have to wear Owen out and pin him. Hulk Hogan. Hogan CAN wrestle. He's bigger and stronger than Austin, too. The Undertaker. Shawn's good, real good. I just think the Undertaker can beat him. Ric Flair. Flair had no trouble out-wrestling the big guys. The Rock would be no different.

Answer 3

"The primary contribution of "The Prince" to the history of political thought is its fundamental break between realism and idealism. While Machiavelli emphasized the need for morality, the sole motivation of the prince ought to be the use of good and evil solely as instrumental means rather than ends in themselves. A wise prince is one who properly exercises this proper balance." -Wikipedia. For more see the link below.

Answer 4

The Prince (from what i remember) outlines the various means of effective leadership. Is itbetter to be feared, loved, feared and loved. There are more examples of things in the book, but looking at that wwe can see leaders that coose these different styles. Some try to be likable some try to instill fear in us (i think thats what they are doing wiht all the terror alerts) some try differnet combinations.

Each leader be it President Senator or a politician from other countries, has to decide which approach will inspire the people they represent to contiue to vote for them The Prince outlines differnet ways of inspiring the people.

Answer 5

Look at dictators.

They use fear and manipulation to bend their people to their will.