To many, “fortune” is a result of of God's will, and there is no outside force that could change the predestined outcome.In this belief, precautionary measures or prudence is ineffective with fortune and God, and people are helpless while waiting for their own fortune to come their way. Machiavelli in his novel The Prince does not adhere to this belief of fortune created by God’s will completely, but he attributes fortune partly to human actions (as it occurs in their response to conflict areas such as war), to something human beings have control over where prudence can minimize the damages which fortune dictates. Another important aspect of dealing with fortune is people have to take the initiative to be forceful and aggressive, as chance usually favors the bold.
I agree with the notion Machiavelli makes in his arguments regarding the importance for princes(or rulers today) to consider that circumstances will change over time, and government leaders must be prepared to overcome adversity when it arrives. "Prince who bases himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes, he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the time, and similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times." In chapter 25, Machiavelli is making the statement that to be successful princes must change themselves to be in sync with the current time. In today’s society this corresponds to representatives in our legislature representing the interests of the people. Leaders should be hesitant towards developing their own agenda independently before referring to the current problems of society the economy, healthcare, or unemployment to better address the changing times. In the 2008 election, the economic crisis grew in intensity and thus as a result the focus on the Iraq war took a step back. In response both presidential candidates had to alter their campaigns to better fit the changing issues of society.
Further in the chapter, Machiavelli advises the princes, simply go straight to whatever problem that arises and seize it. This is a very bold statement when compared to the other qualities Machiavelli had mentioned in previous chapters. At the beginning of the novel of the princes were advised to focus on the peoples’ interest and to better society through free will.
Exercising precautionary tactics and resistance of action in times of war is usually deemed necessary and leaders should be quick and decisive; however, they also should have the consent from other leaders and understand society’s interest before they act impetuously.
Machiavelli’s argument continues when he compares fortune to women as he says “I do think, however, that it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than to those who proceed in a calculating fashion”. (Machiavelli, pp. 76) Machiavelli is implying that women admire men who are ready to take control and who know exactly what they want. Despite Machiavelli’s poor representation of women, from the standpoint of a ruler the decisions one makes acted out aggressively and rashly, while perhaps somewhat efficient, could place the state on the edge of destruction and fail if not done properly.
In closing, the whole concept Machiavelli presented to the readers is the question of competency of human beings and our leaders to deal with the struggles of this world. I agree with Machiavelli that it is important to take the initiative in political life and political struggling to remedy a conflict. The need for leaders to adapt to the changing times is vital to properly address society’s needs. However, I disagree in his opinion of immediate and quick action without a clear consent of others as the remedy to deal with political struggles. Fortune both good and bad does a play a part in the majority of issues faced in the world, but our elected officials, with the joint consensus of others, can work within our Democracy and struggle today for the betterment of our Nation and its citizens.
I appreciate your analysis of Machiavelli, but I want to point something out that I don't agree with totally. In your conclusion, you summarized that "immediate and quick action without a clear consent of others..." However, it is my thought that this shouldn't always be the case. In a political struggle, as I mentioned in my post, you cannot keep the opportunity waiting; if you don't seize it when it arises, then it will be gone. It is generally a good idea to gain the consent of the people, but there are times when a quick reaction is demanded. For example, when a politician gains an advantage against another politician, he won't wait to get the approval of the people or their colleagues. They will use it as their weapon to achieve their political means.
ReplyDeleteYour examples in response to your disagreement of Machiavelli discouraging rulers against “immediate and quick action” are very interesting. I personally interpreted Machiavelli's meaning differently of his advice to rulers acting without the consent of others. What I felt Machiavelli was trying to discourage were rulers acting out and making decisions without the consent of not just the people but his advisors. In the Watergate example you provided the democrats would not tend to consult to the people of the United States to make a decision on the release of the information, but the democrats did turn to their leaders in their field to determine how to handle the information received.
ReplyDeleteWhat Machiavelli was afraid of was a ruler of supreme power acting out without the consent of any other authority and thus potentially damaging society or the organization itself. Lincoln did something like this with his suspension of Hapeas Corpus without the consent of congress. I feel society today still needs to take Machiavelli's guidance and provide those in powers with limitations on their ability to make decisions independently without the consent or advice of others. The decision Lincoln made was eventually overturned by Congress. However, depending on the nature of the issue the extent to which a leader is able to make such a quick decision should be approved in order for the fairness of those who he represents.