For me, one of the pleasures of a beach vacation is spending the day under an umbrella catching up on my reading. On a recent (and all too short) trip to Hawaii, I caught up on a disparate set of historical figures:
- Henry V (1386 – 1422), King of England
- James Cook (1728 – 1779), British explorer, cartographer, and naval officer
- Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), Florentine diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian
Yes, I know. Not
exactly what most people would consider beach reading. To each his own!
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, published in
1532 (five years after Machiavelli’s death) and written in the form of a how-to
manual for would be rulers, shocked readers by arguing that immoral acts were completely
justifiable. The book’s dedication to
the despotic Lorenzo il Magnifico
de' Medici (in the form of a letter to Lorenzo’s grandson) has reinforced
the idea that the work’s intended audience was would-be despots. Boucheron, however, opines that Machiavelli
was not really all that Machiavellian, that the dedication is actually an
example of Machiavelli’s well-known sarcasm.
Machiavelli was certainly no fan of the Medicis. In 1512 the Medicis overthrew the Florentine
republic (much beloved by Machiavelli), established themselves as dictators,
imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli, and then exiled him. Machiavelli began writing The Prince in
1513.
Boucheron
contends that reading The Prince as a tutorial for would-be
dictators does not square with Machiavelli’s experience or his other political
writings. Instead, Machiavelli’s intended
reader was not the governing but the governed—with the purpose of teaching the governed
what they had to fear from despotic rulers.
We shouldn’t be surprised that at the heart of what Machiavelli thought the
governed had most to fear from Machiavellian leaders was their drive to attain
and maintain power.
Machiavelli warns
that Machiavellian leaders define justice in terms of attaining and maintaining
power: decisions, judgements,
appointments, rulings, legislation are all considered good and just as long as
they are directed at preserving and defending the leader’s power. Machiavellian leaders, therefore, ca use immoral
and unscrupulous means—act “against charity, against humanity, and against
religion”, even against their own promises—in order to prop up their power and still
be considered just. In the words of contemporary
philosopher Christopher Philips, justice becomes a “virtueless virtue” (Six
Questions of Socrates: A Modern-Day Journey of Discovery through World
Philosophy, 2011)
Back in early January
of 2017 as the United States prepared for the inauguration of its 45th president
and when I still left a news channel play on the TV as background while I went
about my business—I no longer do that; it’s bad for my blood pressure—I heard
Senator Lindsey Graham say to a reporter, “Don’t you agree that the foundation
of American democracy is the political party?” I don’t
suppose it was the reporter’s place to say, “No, I don’t agree” but neither did
any of the commentators or analysts say so.
Graham should
know better.
The foundations
of American democracy are: (1) Jeffersonian principles of social and
economic equality, freedom, and human rights; and (2) Madisonian principles of the
separation of powers, checks and balances, and limited government aimed at
preventing tyranny by any single faction or branch of government. A commitment to these principles keeps
American democracy on a journey to more perfectly embody those principles, shapes
the most basic understanding of the common good, and clarifies what is at the heart of becoming a more just society.
The essence of every political party, on the other hand, is attaining and maintaining power. With his rhetorical question, Graham redefined the essence of American democracy as a ongoing power struggle—as perpetual conflict and competition between power-seeking individuals and among power-seeking factions as they vie for control, influence, and dominance at the expense of the common good—and justice degenerates into a “virtueless virtue" that serves only the interest of those in power.