The 16th century novella The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli discoursed on politics and set standardized methods of obtaining and maintaining power in varying situations. Despite Machiavelli using historical and dated examples to fortify his claims, the ideology behind his novella has held true for the past 500 years. The Prince on several occasions discusses the power struggle between the nobility and the common people; the situation in the United States differs from Machiavelli’s model in that wealthy groups and individuals compete for political influence at the expense of the voice of the nation’s citizens. Special interest groups, particularly large corporations, relentlessly lobby Congress to support legislation that benefits a small handful of individuals. Politicians operate on receiving large campaign donations in order to maintain political power and their exorbitant salary. The Prince supports that a leader who sides with the most powerful faction will enjoy greater …show more content…
Congress ratified several pieces of legislation in the years following to limit the contribution of individual donors, whether they are PACs or individuals. Unfortunately, groups found ways to circumvent these statutes, ushering in the era of Super PACs. Prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United, the FEC permitted PACs to donate up to $2,500 for a given election. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that PACs can spend an unlimited amount of money on a candidate’s campaign so long as no collusion between the PAC and the candidate occurs. The implications of this decision include the following: corporations and labor unions can endorse any candidate without a spending limit and apply for tax-exempt status, individual contributions to campaigns will most likely constitute a much smaller portion of the total campaign funds, and that money will drive campaign
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
Our current political system seems to be built around Machiavelli’s principles on how to obtain and gain political power. We must take into account that Machiavelli’s “Qualities of a Prince” associates more to government officials and those in political power instead of pertaining to the common people; he divides the concepts of political prosperity and morality. American politicians are encompassed with Machiavellianism, a “cynical disregard for morality and focus on self-interest and personal gain.” We allow this to occur for some particular psychological reason because we’ve become convinced that there is a differentiation between politicians lying to us and lying for us. According to Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, “I think most presidential
At the time Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Spain was under the rule of Ferdinand II of Aragon. Machiavelli praised Ferdinand as an example to Prince De’ Medici, due to his successful implementation of the guidelines in the book. He was a king both loved and feared, he kept a good military even in times of peace, and his prowess was exceptional. In Machiavelli’s eyes, Ferdinand’s “achievements and designs [had] always been great” (The Prince, p. 78) and he had accomplished “great and…extraordinary” deeds throughout his rule (p. 77). But for every virtue a prince has, he must have a vice. In terms of moral compass, was Ferdinand truly as great a ruler as Machiavelli depicted him to be?
Machiavelli writes in The Qualities of the Prince, that it is better to be a miser and slightly disliked for a while than to be generous and be liked for a while than hated. If you’re a generous prince you can only be so for a short time before having to raise taxes and having people realize that you’re not that generous in all reality. Once a prince gets a reputation for being hated he will feel any slight unrest of his people. On the other hand if a prince is miserly from the get go he will be received gratefully when he decides to be generous. Using this quality of miserliness he has the ability to expand and defend his kingdom and be ready for any unforeseen events without having to burden his people, which, in turn leads to economic growth.
The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1513, addresses Lorenzo de Medici who was the ruler of Florence. Throughout the book, Machiavelli offers Lorenzo political wisdom on how to become a great prince and how he should go about achieving this greatness. As he does this, Machiavelli proceeds to list the different types of principalities and the modes in which they are acquired. He states that a great prince is one that "establishes new modes and orders" and gives Lorenzo examples of rulers that he should imitate and ones that he should avoid (Machiavelli, 23). The example of Cesare Borgia is one that Machiavelli refers to often. Cesare was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, who acquired his state through the fortunes of his father. At first, Machiavelli praises Cesare for possessing great virtue and presents him as an exemplary ruler that should be imitated by others. However, at the end, Machiavelli considers Cesare a failure and blames him for his lack of foresight, which caused him to lose his fortune. Machiavelli praises Cesare, but ultimately blames him
Team C believes that Machiavelli’s principal idea is demonstrated in politics, “the ends justify the means”. If a leader is vicious and effective it is better than being virtuous and ineffective. Machiavelli, however did not endorse vicious behavior in general, just whatever would not “allow disorders to arise”. To remain in power, a leader must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for a leader to be loved; in fact, it is often better for him to be feared. The author states, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be lacking” (p. 103). Machiavelli warns leaders against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property. Being hated, however, can result the downfall of a prince.
The term “super PAC” (for groups officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees”) gained popularity in 2010 after the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was decided in a 5-4 vote, and the decision argued that, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon afterward, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates or agendas they advocate.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
Individuals contributions were capped at $1,000 donations to a candidate and $5,000 to PACs, as well as an aggregate limit of $115,500 over two years to candidates and PACS altogether. (FECA, Public Law 92-225). These rates have been changed a number of times over the years due to different amendments and Supreme Court rulings. However, the most current contribution limits came into effect by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold law or BCRA) of 2002. Although the individual contribution limit to PACs remains at $5,000, the individual limit has risen to $2,700 a candidate. In addition to the higher individual contribution limit, after the 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, an individual no longer has an aggregate limit donating to candidates and PACs. Throughout the years many cases have gone to the Supreme Court against the FEC, such as the McCutcheon v. FEC stated above, however. None have been more impactful than the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case which changed political spending dramatically. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it is done independently of a party or candidate (Levy, U.S. News). Since the Citizens United decision, political spending has dramatically increased. In the 2012 presidential election, a total of $1294.1 million dollars was spent by outside groups, such as Super PACs and other types of committees (opensecrets.org). This is more than twice the amount raised from the 2008 election (prior to the Citizens United case) where $574.5 million dollars were raised by outside groups. Ultimately this has led us to the growing
The Prince, published in 1532, was written by a former Italian senior official Niccolo Machiavelli to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the governor of Florence, in the hopes that Lorenzo would take his advice to heart, and invite him back to public service. Seeing as Lorenzo died in 1519, and The Prince was published 5 years after Machiavelli’s death during the 1530’s, it is doubtful that the titular Prince ever saw this piece of work. It is a great question of history, though, how the politics of Italy would have changed if Lorenzo had seen and followed Machiavelli’s advice. Assuming Machiavelli was trying to provide purely good advice for the Prince, does he succeed? Or does he fail? That is what will be discussed today.
He was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer, who is recognized as the founder of modern political science and political ethics. He was for many years an official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian language. He was secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power. He wrote his most renowned work The Prince (Il Principe) in 1513 after the Medici had recovered power and he no longer held a position of responsibility in Florence, the Art of War was first published in 1521 and was one of only two works by Machiavelli to appear in print before his death in 1527 and the Discourses on livy.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, that is brilliantly translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, focuses on advising a prince to base his power mainly through the people since there seems too many of them rather than very few nobles or the great. Machiavelli elaborates on civil principality where a prince is elected with the support of the citizens of the state or the nobles of the state. Whether the prince is elected by the nobles or the people, he will have to maintain himself with great responsibility. When a prince is elected by the nobles, he will have to, “maintain himself with more difficulty than one who becomes prince with the aid of the people”(Machiavelli 39), according to Machiavelli, this is because the number of nobles is very few compared to the number of people. The difference between the people and the nobles states that at times of difficulty the prince will have more support from the many, also known as the people, rather than the few, who are known as the nobles.