misinterpretation

In various discussion forums people seem to be misusing Machiavelli’s precepts. It is common enough that people use historical documents to prove their own theories without consideration of the intended audience or intended message. The search for a decent understanding of Machiavelli or really an attempt at a true understanding of him is a difficult undertaking. The most important thing to start with when examining Machiavelli’s principles is the subject matter itself. Everyone seems to be too busy condemning the ruthlessness of Machiavelli’s prince without realizing that the Prince wasn’t supposed to be nice; he was supposed to be effective. It is downright denial to say that politics in our nation are free from Machiavellian principles. On that note, Machiavelli states clearly that he’s addressing the needs of Principalities, not Republics. Although his principles can and should be applied to politicians in a Republic setting, they were meant for a Prince (hence the title). Furthermore, the rules that Machiavelli set forth from a political standpoint are virtually flawless. It’s all founded on the concept that the political arena has no place for moral constraints. Regardless of what the general public would prefer (a morally astute ruler), the most effective rulers aren’t necessarily saints. Machiavelli was addressing a need that his world had. He stripped away the veil behind which politicians operate. Machiavelli to me seems like the original “tell it like it is” man in the world of political discourse. People need to take him for what he was, not for what he could be given the right spin.