Do the "mainstream" wings of the 2 parties get their ideology from Machiavelli's "The Prince?"

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

Wikipedia's summary of that abhorrent screed from the Dark Ages sounds like the ideas of our politicians. Machiavelli writes about how to maintain power, warmongering, eliminating dissenters, and about why one should be pragmatic rather than idealistic. This sounds just like the ideas of the politicians that uninformed voters have empowered and which have caused great harm to our country.

Wikipedia's article acknowledges that Machiavelli's supposed observations "resonate" with politicians, students, and scholars. If this is the case, it is unfortunate.

Of course, the bigger question is why have the American people allowed Machiavellians to gain power? Why do the American people continue to believe their lies? Why has Machiavelli been allowed to influence a nation founded on the direct opposite of what he advocated (namely, the ideals of freedom and equality)?

Answer 1

I think it's hilarious that you actually haven't read "The Prince" and are trying to provide a literary/political commentary based on a Wikipedia article.

It's good to be lazy.

EDIT: The people who gave me a thumbs down are in favor of being lazy.

Answer 2

While the question regards the Machiavellian tactics of both Democrats and Republicans, the third paragraph appears to deal directly with the Bush Administration.

Does the Bush Administration use The Prince as their guidebook to maintain power? No.

It is important, however, to understand that the real goal of any (and that means any) political party is to maintain their current position while attempting to gain a more favorable one. This is the base upon which politics has existed for thousands of years.

This does not mean that Democrats or Republicans are reading The Prince for new ideas. They're simply using the tactics they believe will work. Some of those tactics may seem Machiavellian, and others will not.

In a much broader answer to your follow up questions, it is imperative to understand that all politicians have a flexible ethical makeup, which is necessary for them to attain an office high enough to affect change. It is also important to understand that America moves from left to right (and back again) over time.

The current swing from left to right may have began around 1994, when Republicans took control of The House of Representatives, and most likely ended when the Democrats took control of just about everything in 2006. America should now swing to the left for quite a few years before their momentum is stopped and the country begins to move to the right again.

Politics in the United States is a cyclical affair, wrapped in lies and false truths (and truth as well, though one person's truth is another's lie). The idealistic Democratic Republic has never existed in the United States, and never will. Freedom and equality have been in our oldest documents, but some would say that we still don't have freedom, and equality has proven to always leave some individuals out of its equation.

Having said all of that, the United States is also a country in which power transfers smoothly, and it does always transfer, so despite the levels of corruption and arrogance (that nearly borders on a God Complex), everyone in politics is eventually replaced by someone else. Whether or not they are better than the previous set is a matter of one's own opinion, but the transfer of power is certainly something Machiavelli wouldn't have condoned.

Answer 3

Certainly some of today's Republican leaders are following the cynical rules of Machiavelli. You list "warmongering" and "eliminating dissenters" as Machiavellian and people like Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney have been fixated on those two goals. However, when it comes to being pragmatic vs. being idealistic these Republicans have failed. They have tried and failed to forcibly democratize the middle east. The cost has been hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Despite this, they continue to promote more war, as anyone who has followed their rhetoric on Iran will know.

I don't see how the previously marginalized Democrats are Machiavellian except in the sense that they have much more realistic foreign and domestic policy goals...but how can that be bad?

American politics has been so messed up for the past 7 years that I don't blame you for being cynical, for saying, in effect, that one political party is just as bad as the other. However, that is not the case, and things are beginning to change. Although the Democrats have not brought the troops back from Iraq yet, consider whether Bush would have changed the strategy there if he was not under pressure from the slight majority Democratic Congress. Also consider whether we would have bombed Iran already if the Democrats did not have a new voice in our government.

Answer 4

Socialism is the place the rustic's government controls all production and products distribution. this is an financial device. There could be freedom of action in Socialism, yet economically you're a slave to the government considering the fact that they administration the distribution of wealth interior the rustic. Communism is the place the rustic's government owns each and every thing and for this reason has entire administration over each and every thing. commonly the financial device in a Communist usa will stick to Socialist suggestions. In Communism the government can effectively directly administration each and every component of your existence. What agencies could be opened, what they could sell, how plenty you may make, what media can contemporary, what colleges can coach, what cyber web get entry to human beings could have, etc. Fascism is the place the government in actuality manufactures excuses for imposing regulations to regulate and limit the inhabitants. Fascism components the phantasm of freedom. you have freedom on paper yet in fact each and all the oblique regulations and regulations preclude you from workout that freedom. occasion: limiting motor vehicle decision by way of way of severe selective taxing or regulations on automakers interior the call of retaining our surroundings could be a fascist coverage.

Answer 5

Machiavelli and Sun Tzu I would suppose. Does anyone believe that our government is controlled by the people rather than special interests?

Answer 6

To tolerate freedom
and equality of opportunity

actually requres courage. You cannot expect America to have this kind of courage, especially intellectual courage.

Machiavelli was right. And I would say America can be much better off if we just try to apply more "idiotproofing" rather entice people to noble freedoms.

Dignity is certainly possible

But people just don't want it.

Darwin would probably be too dissapointed to point out our ancestry if he only knew what would become of power, would raw popularity seize it

,with such masterful sport of human emotves and behavioral patterns.

Answer 7

Political science majors and pre-law students are
required to read Machiavilli.

Answer 8

Machiavelli took it up the a s s.

Answer 9

Nothing of what you write is correct. I would be surprised if anyone in US politics even read "The Prince." it is ancient rubbish.