Machiavelli in The Prince argues that part of being a leader in today’s society, as well as in the past was knowing when to do “good” to spread goodwill, or when to do “evil” to spread the creation of goodwill. The words good and evil can be interpreted in a variety of different contexts, meanings, and emotions depending on the person interpreting the actions of a leader. An example would be during 1861, when the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in order to prevent the border slave state of Maryland from seceding from the Union. Many regarded such a drastic action by Lincoln (without the approval of Congress) as irresponsible and risky. Nonetheless, Lincoln proved the American people wrong as he acted in “evil” which lead him to achieve the greater good of preserving our country.
In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that leaders today must sometimes take the necessary actions to make sure the people they represent are safe -- no matter what the consequences are. He implies that as subjects of these leaders, we must put trust in our leaders to do what is best for us. However, it is our job as “ordinary people” to criticize and voice our disapproval if our elected political leaders are making decisions based on their “own good” instead of the goodwill of society. In Chapter 18, Machiavelli implies that “leading wherever is necessary in order to obtain the best outcome is sometimes a good idea; but they need to learn that people are not always willing to take what the leaders want to do to them. The reason for leaders is for them to create the best protection for their subjects and employ whatever means they have to use in order to achieve it”. One of Machiavelli’s strongest arguments from The Prince comes from the belief that as subjects of political leaders we have to keep in mind the greater good of the populace and try to comply with what the leaders think is best for us in order to obtain a stable society. But as Americans with our love for freedom and equality, we also have the right and are under the obligation to submit our critiques of governmental actions when we deem it necessary.
It is very much like going to the doctor. We acknowledge that our doctor is the “functional expert” in his field. He most likely has studied the human body in much more depth than the average person (similar to our politicians) and has a much more detailed knowledge of the functions of the human body. Therefore, we elect whom we believe is the best doctor for us and tend to trust that he has our best interests in mind (our representatives in Congress for example). However, because it is our own health, and ultimately we are responsible for our own health decisions, we do have the obligation and right to question his recommendations. This is also the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens of the United States.
The statement Machiavelli makes of putting trust in our political figures in today’s modern society could be interpreted to be outdated and worrisome. It is important to note that as “subjects to their rule,” we have the privilege in our democratic society today to vote through free and fair elections our representatives out of their positions of power if we do not approve of their representation for the needs of society. When answering the question “What Would Machiavelli do?” in society today that is faced with conflicts and divided interests the answer would be that he would let the subjects of leaders know that they might be subject to “evil” because it may be what is best for them even if they do not know it at that moment. But just as a good doctor might recommend an operation or a procedure that may be painful to us, we also can be rational and upon looking at the situation from a larger perspective we could understand that for the greater good this “evil” of pain will yield the fruit of prolonged life and health.
I disagree with Machiavelli’s view of how we (the subjects) should be condoning evil for the greater good; because what if this is not the greater good? If a low number of Americans protest a decision, such as the PATRIOT Act or President Obama’s Healthcare Plan, the government would not look at those protests as a serious threat. However, if a large number of Americans began protesting and refusing to pay taxes for example, the government would be called upon to reexamine their decision. The crux of the matter seems to be that most people are not so altruistic as to consider the entire good of the Nation first and foremost above their own special interests. Especially in our society today it seems as if special interests are “king”. “What about me?” is the persistent cry of our modern day society.
This being said, I agree with Machiavelli on several points, but with the changing times in modern society the power of government relies on the people who are being ruled; if they no longer feel safe with their leader, they will not longer conform to obey the actions given to them.
As we have seen in history, rebellion sparks war and revolutions. The problem of human nature being naturally self-centered is at the root of governmental problems. What is called for is the elevation of the mindset of the individual to encompass concern for the well being of every human person. It is natural that our focus is on our immediate family, but this vision needs to also include our neighbor, our country and our world. As in the health of the human body, what recommendations do we agree to in order to experience the greater good of a healthy nation? This concern will ultimately benefit all of us in the long run, but it is quite a task to change human nature. Unfortunately, altruism is much more common as a result of catastrophes such as 911 and Hurricane Katrina. Many people found their humanity and put an end to their inward focus due to the serious conditions. Our Nation experienced a cohesiveness and sense of community required by the need to help each other in these difficult circumstances. The opposite was also true ( as evidenced by looting and vandalism etc) but it seems that trying times tend to create a dichotomy encouraging people to take a stand one way or the other.
In summary, the health of our Nation depends on wise leaders who are knowledgeable and have the best interests of the country at heart and wise people who are diligent to listen and be responsible for the health of our nation just as we are called to choose a good doctor and either adhere or disagree with their recommendations. In the end, it is each person’s individual responsibility to participate in their own health care and health of our Country.
No comments:
Post a Comment