Why can't American Presidents be openly Machiavellian?

Didn't you hear? Before the invasion Saddam smuggled all WMDs to Syria - why, every neocon blogger said so, and that is why the USA should have invaded Syria next! Argh...

Anyway, ignoring technicalities that maybe Saddam had some leftover gas, de facto Iraq had no WMDs anymore, and yet that was the officially stated war reason. Well, at least in the beginning. During the campaign and afterwards the war reason seemed to change every week or so...

Major Tom gave a figure of approximately 300 pounds of chemical weapons, and such it's such a comically low number and he said it with such a straight implication that that was in fact worth going to war over, I'm inclined to believe it's at least somewhat accurate.

Digest that for a moment. We went to war for a decade, killed, directly or indirectly, between 250,000-1 million people, spent upwards of two-thirds of a trillion dollars, and utterly destroyed every diplomatic tie we had...

...FOR THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF WORTHLESS CHEMICAL WEAPONRY HE COULDN'T EVEN USE IF HE WANTED TO.

edited 13th Jan '12 10:35:57 AM by Flyboy

Yeah. One really has to consider how much damn damage the US invasion did to Iraq. And yet one of the Rep candidates said something about how Iraq should pay for the US occupation? Argh...The USA would have to compensate Iraq, and to come even any close to undoing the damage would have to pay through the nose. Of course, that's not gonna happen.

Bachmann is literally brain-dead, and there is no mainstream Republican I can think of worth listening to about Iraq that isn't Ron Paul.

Ignore them and their drivel.

In any case, American Presidents can't be openly Machiavellian because Machiavelli was quite possibly a satirist, and following his advice makes you a worthless fuckwit without principles.

And even if you take the Prince seriously (which, no matter Machiavelli's intent, you can, because unfortunately it does work if you don't mind being without any semblance of humanity or ethics), even then "openly Machiavellian" is a contradiction in terms.

x3 If you'll recall, Bush Sr. took the same stance toward Vietnam. It's mostly just rhetoric. However, in the case of Asia, we were expressing our scorn for their crypto-socialist government. Bachmann doesn't have a thought in her head, so maybe her handlers want to keep her in the news. She might have a second career as a Fox panelist.

I don't comprehend why people do anymore. The idea that he was satirizing the people he was writing about, indirectly, is old as hell. I remember hearing of it at least four or five years ago, and nobody I know, liberal or conservative, takes the ideas seriously.

Besides, there are more modern forms of this shit. See: realpolitik.

No, see, the problem is that The Prince can be read seriously. The advise it gives is sound, if you really push away any ethics at all. And unfortunately it's advise that has aged very well, too, except for when he's discussing mercenaries and fortifications. So, it's not a satire in the classical sense.

Going by Machiavelli's other works, it's clearly not what he actually thought a ruler should do, yes. But it's not quite a satire, either. Maybe it's pointing out how ruthless and unethical a successful absolutist ruler has to be - a plausible explanation, but in the end nobody quite knows what Machiavelli's intention really was. The point is, it can be read straight - that simply shows that the person doing so is just as ruthless and unethical as Machiavelli envisions a dictatorical ruler to be.

So I guess, in a way it's funny: Everybody calling for machiavellianism might in a way walk into Machiavelli's "trap"...

That document was about the preservation of the state — Building things. Too often it is used in circumstances of resource-grabbing, foreign wars, demagoguery, and general destructiveness.

edited 13th Jan '12 11:25:58 AM by johnnyfog

I thought his intention for writing it was "I REALLY want the Medicis to hire me!"

@Flyboy about chemical weapons: No, you invaded Iraq for its petrol, TF1 said so.

*TF1 being of course, our equivalent of Fox News. Its owner is BFFsies with Sarkozy and probably didn't mind Chirac (who was president at the time) too much either.

edited 13th Jan '12 12:57:21 PM by Medinoc

@Octo+Flyboy

In the words of Cracked, Machiavelli was trolling.

As I've said: A possible interpretation. Everybody saying he likes The Prince immediately outs himself as having no morals, and it could well be that that was Machaivelli's intent. But we don't know, and even if pointing out such people was his intent, the fact remains that The Prince can be read entirely straight and his advise can be considered productive.

Not if you're like me and think that every oppressive regime will eventually fall (which they do). In that case Machiavellen principles are quite counterproductive.

edited 13th Jan '12 3:00:57 PM by stripesthezebra

Of course we invaded for the oil.

Fucking neoconservatives.

Eh. I actually think it's even worse: Iraq got invaded for Bush's ego.

Every beneficial regime is bound to fall too.

When a politician flat-out says "I want to be like Machiavelli", that's when I'll start taking their rhetoric seriously.

I highly doubt Iraq was invaded over oil. There's much easier oil sources, and we were getting the oil anyway. Despite all the blame being laid on the UN for the mass corruption in the oil-for-food program, the truth is that every single powerful western nation was in on it. They wanted to sell their oil to Iraq and wanted to get money out of it, and if it meant letting corporations break the law a bit, so be it.

Iraq is more of a confluence of how not-Machiavellian the US government is. Despite how much it might seem to be some sort of conspiracy (and while there are plenty, due to the CIA, NSA, DHS and so on), I feel that the combined actions of the US government just turn into some kind of mass-ball of stupidity.

There's only a few things Machiavellian you might want. Long term thinking, ability to understand consequences and a plan of action. Iraq, as an example, was nothing but a bunch of idiot politicians all trying to grab at some immediate short-term gain and plunged America into a long war and caused countless deaths, cost America directly a trillion and the Iraqi economy even more trillions.

Wasn't his own career horribly unsuccessful?

I liked some of Machiavelli's philosophy. I do believe it is safer to be feared than loved. The problem is that you can't openly be scary as President. Remember, the people elect you. They're more likely to elect a guy they like than one they fear.

Only after they're elected can a President be Machiavellian. Which is why a President can't be openly Machiavellian.

Nobody can be openly Machiavellian. Have you read The Prince?

I never said openly.

Being feared as opposed to love is not a good leadership quality. Fear is designed for a state that wishes to oppress people to avoid uprisings. Secret police is a tool of fear via keeping thoughts hostile to the government low in the idea of its function. How effective is it? A Civil War in Lybia had a figure that was feared demonstrated to be a figure that was hated... and removed. All it took was a charge across the Middle East.

Love can be a more effective tool then fear in maintaining leadership. Heck you could cynically look at a gruesome dictator like Stalin; he did give fear but placed that fear in a fashion that was not connected directly to him and based a cult of personality around him. Having loyalty to thyself is the ultimate form of power as it sets figure to serve you at you every word if the loyalty is set on a strong foundation.

As for American Presidency... being what Machiavelli was secretly mocking openly will not be a good idea. While I would consider the American system (as long with many other democratic governments) as in need of many changes to make it more in line of liberty, it has proved to keep stability by lessening the human hold of power via a legislation process... even if it does not work many times, at least it works and people do not(usualy as the tragic exception of G8 protesters and the Occuply Movement may suggest) get locked up for pointing out the errors, as oppose to a system which relies on fear.

edited 15th Jan '12 2:47:34 AM by Ailedhoo

"Which is why a President can't be openly Machiavellian."

Yes you did. And like Octo said, it's not just presidents, no body can be openly Machiavellian.

edited 15th Jan '12 8:47:01 AM by stripesthezebra