Niccolo's Smile, What Would Machiavelli Do? and Machiavelli on Modern Leadership

Hello again, Jim,

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

I very much like your idea of Machiavelli as a sort of Richard Holbrooke figure, or perhaps as a celebrated Republican adviser who has been waiting out the Clinton years in the conservative hallways of the American Enterprise Institute, like our author Michael Ledeen.

So I've been thinking, if Machiavelli were a political consultant, what would he be doing in this election?

I suspect he'd be working for the Republicans because, according to Ledeen, he would approve of Bush's death penalty record and Cheney's hawkishness and would consider Al Gore part and parcel of Bill Clinton, whom he would regard as a pantywaist who shirked military service, fatally thought it was better to be loved than to be feared, didn't have the backbone to carry through his health care plan, and presided over a government mired in scandal. (Although, as Viroli enthusiastically points out, NM was a terrific womanizer who was constantly canoodling with women other than his wife and who understood perfectly why the King of France missed a crucial appointment when he, the King, was sequestered with the Queen--so he probably would have responded to the Monica-instigated impeachment proceedings with a big Italian "huh?")

As you say, he'd advise Bush to be resolute, to move in quickly and do what was necessary, and to have the courage to follow through. I suspect he'd also say (although this tactic wouldn't work quite so well just now) that it would be fine for the Republicans--led by Jeb, I guess--to burn down polling places, arrest Democratic election officials, and dissolve the Florida Supreme Court. And then maybe put a few people to death for good measure. They could use some of the Democrats on death row in Texas if Florida didn't have any good ones. It was sometimes necessary for a leader to use such tactics, he argued, in order to consolidate power so as to begin the process of ruling in a fair and just manner.

But despite what Ledeen says about how his principles would readily apply to the world today, Machiavelli was very much a man of his time. When he was advising the Florentine Republic, serving as its sort of ambassador-at-large, Italy was in constant turmoil. It was a patchwork of territories, some independent, some ruled by others, always under threat from France, the Pope, and Spain and with constantly shifting alliances and cross-pollinations of interests. People were always attacking, counterattacking, laying siege, overthrowing, and razing, and laws and institutional codes were often set aside when they conflicted with grabs for power. NM's brilliance as a negotiator stemmed from his subtle and perceptive understanding of human nature, from his ability to work the corners and organize complicated sets of alliances between various rulers, and from his skill in mapping out in his head the long-term consequences of the courses of action he settled on, like a chess player. He was also like a bridge player, Ledeen says, in that he knew when to mislead and when to be honest, what and how to bid, and how important it was to hold your cards close to your chest.

But in Machiavelli's time, rulers seized and consolidated power through military might. Long periods of domestic peace were not high on people's lists of first-hand experiences. I'm sure NM would have been flabbergasted at the spectacle of a big and stable democracy such as the United States having a power struggle as emasculated as this one, one that was being fought in the courts. He also wouldn't have been able to square his admonition that a ruler shouldn't strive for popularity with today's television- and public opinion poll-led political culture. Our politicians have to be liked and have to do what people want, or what people think they want, or they'll be voted right out of office. Finally, in Machiavelli's time, leaders who fell out of favor got torn in half, thrown in jail, or sent into highly unpleasant exiles. Today they can go to the American Enterprise Institute or go back to Plains and become international election monitors.

We haven't talked much about the Viroli book, with its periodic efforts to return to an analysis of the emotions behind NM's smile. As you point out, Viroli believed that NM smiled as a Stoical response to the slings and arrows of fortune. The apparent cheeriness also, Viroli argues, reflected another aspect of NM that most people don't know about: his gusto for life, his love of women, his enthusiasm for a good joke and for close friendships, and his fine ability to write not only lucid prose but readable poetry. All good points, and all points I was glad to learn. But after a while I began to think, enough already with the smile. Was he in fact always smiling? And I'm not convinced that the thin-lipped mouth configuration we see in the cover portrait constitutes a smile per se, though the picture does make NM look like he knows something we don't and is pretty chuffed about it.

I'd still like to know what you'd make of Machiavelli in Florida. (It might make a nice opera, like "Nixon in China.") Maybe we could get him job as a Stephanopoulos-type commentary guy. He certainly was confident in his opinions, and he always had a lot to say.

All best,
Sarah

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Who was Machiavelli, and what advice would he give Bush and Gore? This week, our critics examine Maurizio Viroli's , a biography of Machiavelli, as well as Stanley Bing's What Would Machiavelli Do? and Michael Ledeen's Machiavelli on Modern Leadership.

SPONSORED CONTENT