Contents of this Post
A recent comment questioned a post I made about the morality of Machiavelli‘s principles, as against what Jesus taught and practised. These are very basic issues of political morality, and seem very relevant to patterns we’re seeing today in America, so here’s the comment in full along with my response.
Missing Jesus – Replaced by Machiavelli
Here’s the comment:
“…Machiavelli was not some evil enemy to democracy…”
You obviously do not understand the principles of Machiavelli. Being Machiavellian does not mean wanton cruelty. He actually discourages “excessive cruelty,” as the people will come to despise the prince.
You cite “the common good” as an anti-Machiavellian concept; however, Machiavelli cites the common good as the only reason to employ cruelty. As Machiavelli sees it, the common good is the establishment of order, for without that people are basically evil.
Machiavelli was also a staunch supporter of republican form of government, but he felt that at times of crisis, a stong central leader was needed. Our founding fathers agreed with him in this respect by consolidating executive power in the hands of one man. The Federalist Papers agrue this is needed for swift and efficent responce to immediate threats to our nation.
Machiavelli was not some evil enemy to democracy that some ill-informed elitists make him out to be. He was simply a man who felt the common good was the greatest good, and if a ruler must utilize some methods which would be considered immoral by some, so be it. He was are great political thinker, who was correct about many aspects of human nature. Unfortunately, like most great thinkers, including Jesus, Plato, Hobbes, Marx, etc…, his words have been grossly misunderstood by ignorant people.
www.emachiavelli.com – a great site with a true interuptation of Machiavellian thought. respond to email@example.com
Here’s my response: “…the ‘Machiavellians’ … worked together to get Jesus executed…”
1. The list from Ledeen well represents the behaviors and attitudes of Machiavellianism, both as coached by M. himself, and as practiced by the Bush administration (with coaching from Ledeen). I have to assume it is no accident that I hear more defenses of Machiavelli lately, given the dishonesty, manipulations, and bloodiness of the Bush regime.
2. Tyrants often talk about the welfare of the people and present themselves as the ones best qualified to oversee that welfare. To put those words into practice as one’s driving value is a very costly thing, and arises out of a very different world-view and moral system.
3. The list I quoted describing the Jesus of the Gospels means Jesus is disqualified from or incapacitated for Machiavellian strategies. (“Nowhere in the New Testament is there an image of the human Jesus that is compatible with attitudes of hubris, hedonism, envy, arrogance, acquisitiveness, self-aggrandizement, hostility, or violence. Jesus is everywhere associated with faithful obedience toward God and meek, compassionate, self-emptying service toward other people.”)
4. So this is a Christian and Gospel issue. The “Machiavellians” of 1st century Jerusalem are the powers-that-be who worked together to get Jesus executed. And his own take on that was that it would result in the kind of devastation that the Romans inflicted on Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (Luke 19)
There is a real choice here. These are not easy issues, but we need to be aware of the choices we are making.