For those of you who have any
interest in political matters or world literature, I'm sure you are
aware of the fifteenth century political writer, Niccolo Machiavelli.
He is probably best known for a small book which was written to gain
favor and perhaps gain employment from the head of an Italian
principality. The book, The Prince, is generally described
and, for good reason, as a “how to book” for anyone who would
want to run a principality, especially a newly formed one. The book
is filled with advice that we generally consider immoral or, in more
generous language, amoral. So devious is the advice that today we
use this Renaissance writer's name to describe an autocratic leader
or a politician who is willing to do anything to advance his or her
aims. We describe such a politico as Machiavellian. But, like most
general assessment of this type, there is more to the story.
Despite the general perceptions of
Machiavelli being the champion of autocratic and tyrannical rule, due
to this quickly written work, scholars who study him know him as the
promoter of republics but only where this type of government can be
successful. Read what the translators, Harvey C. Mansfield and
Nathan Tarcov, have to say about Machiavelli's thoughts as expressed
in his more well thought-out book, Discourses on Livy:
In contrast [to The Prince],
the Discourses not only includes reasoning about republics but
recommends them over principalities. Machiavelli writes a chapter
entitled “The Multitude Is Wiser and More Constant Than a Prince”
in which he proclaims that people are more stable and have better
judgment than princes, that their governments are better, and that
the people are superior in goodness and glory. He adds that
republics keep their word better than princes and therefore can be
trusted more than princes. He also argues that the common good is
observed only in republics, whereas usually what suits a prince hurts
the city and what suits the city hurts him. So he concludes that “a
republic has greater life and has good fortune longer than a
principality.” The Discourses praises republican founders
and their peoples for their goodness and virtue and their love of
liberty, the fatherland, and the common good.1
Such a description is far from the
devious image most have of Machiavelli. But before we go overboard
the other way, one of the Italian's concerns for republics is this
notion of “goodness and virtue.” What he meant by virtue is not
what we generally mean by virtue,2
but beyond that, he had as a prerequisite for establishing a republic
a populace that was not corrupt. This is the concern I want to
address in this posting.
According to Machiavelli, if a
populace is corrupt, it cannot sustain a republic. Let me stop here
and define the term, republic. A republic is a form of government
that mixes the three types of government that are possible: the rule
of the one, the rule of the few, and the rule of the many. This
three-fold categorization of possible polities comes from the ancient
Greeks – Aristotle wrote about them. Each one can be a form
supporting good governance. The problem with each is that it can
descend into abusive government; it can evolve into tyrannies,
oligarchies, or mob rule respectively. The idea of republics is to
incorporate aspects of each type. We are a republic; we have in our
government an aspect of the rule of the one, the presidency, the rule
of the few, the Senate, and of the many, the House of
Representatives. Each one aspect is there to check any abuses by any
of the other aspects.
Machiavelli was a republican. But
he was also a realist. His main concern was to have a polity that
could live and sustain stability and peace, because only in those
conditions can a polity advance and have the mutual trust that
advancement demands; hence, the need for goodness and virtue among
the citizenry.
So where are we, Americans, in
these central Machiavelli concerns? Joseph E. Stiglitz comments on
these qualities of character. I have the bias or belief that
corruption begins at the top. I think Stiglitz agrees. He points
out that, as demonstrated by the factors that led to our most recent
financial crisis, that those at the top income brackets who garner
their riches from manipulating money – as opposed to producing
goods – used unscrupulous strategies to take advantage of
unsophisticated borrowers into taking out imprudent loans. Through
this and other methods, an unsavory result has come about:
But now that tacit agreement [of
providing jobs for the middle class in exchange for bonuses] between
the rich and the rest, which was always fragile, has come apart.
Those in the 1 percent are walking off with the riches, but in doing
so they have provided nothing but anxiety and insecurity to the 99
percent. The majority of Americans have simply not been benefiting
from the country's growth.3
He goes on to point out that
against this background of inequality and how we have gotten there,
that due to this betrayal of the promise – of realistic chances at
success and, short of that, an earned livelihood that pays the rent,
puts food on the table, allows a modest vacation, and provides the
means to send the kids to college – the values of the society, at
all levels, have become compromised. “Much of what has gone on can
only be described by the words 'moral deprivation.' Something wrong
happened to the moral compass of so many of the people working in the
financial sector and elsewhere.”4
To finish, let me bring
Machiavelli back into this concern: is our republic in danger? Is
there a connection between what Stiglitz is pointing out and the
inability of our political system meeting the demands we collectively
have? I will address this connection in a future posting.
1Machiavelli,
N. (1996/1531 – published posthumously). Discourses on Livy.
(Translators: Harvey
C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov). Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press. Citation on pp. xx-xxi.
2My
understanding of Machiavelli's use of the word virtue refers to a
person's willingness to strive toward social goals. In his day, the
word was highly associated with manliness or taking on
responsibilities – to have the courage to “go for it.”
3Stiglitz,
J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided
society endangers our future.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company. Citation on p. xvii.
4Ibid.,
p. xvii.
No comments:
Post a Comment