Skip to main content

What would Machiavelli do?

Image result for Machiavelli

Someone on Yahoo!Answers recently asked with which US political party would Niccolo Machiavelli associate himself if he were alive today.

It actually isn't a bad question. I offered this answer.

Machiavelli was an Italian nationalist. He was enthusiastic about an unscrupulous Prince because he believed only such a Prince could free Italy from the clutches of foreign powers. I suspect he would be a Trump supporter if he were a US nationalist with a similar orientation today. So, at least for the purposes of supporting Trump (not more widely) he would affiliate with the Republican Party.

Comments

  1. But the United States today is not in the clutches of a foreign power. I wouldn't equate freeing one's nation from the clutches of a foreign power with preventing the immigration of, or deporting, people on the basis of their ethnic or religious backgrounds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I agree. the analogy limps. I was thinking more of China, and Trump's conception of China as a trade rival, and of how he as a great trade negotiator or an employer of "the very best people," etc., would free the US from the clutches of their currency manipulation.

    Machiavelli might fall for that. In his day, after all, mercantilism was the wave of the future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But Machiavelli would have been smart enough to see through Trump.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…