Introduction
In this report I will be applying the information from Machiavelli’s “The Prince” to various topics in an effort to stay creative since the concepts in this book are old and have been frequently analyzed since the 1500s.
On Tejas
From the realistic perspectives provided by the author, Polk did a great job at following Machiavelli’s recommendations. He who does not destroy a State of freedom is bound to be overthrown by it- this falls in line with the US’s motivations of conquering all the territory. Previously I didn’t understand this plan well, but after reading the Prince I can see that the US was searching for power in the sense of national security- according to the text, if the US hadn’t have conquered part of México and the Natives, those communities would have eventually risen up against the US.
On par with Machiavelli, the US strengthened itself, weakened surrounding powers, cut itself off from the foreign government of Britain, and cleared out suspects and delinquents- the settlers ruined the other communities and then resided in them. The US by definition was ruthless and deceitful, and they weren’t afraid of being seen as evil or cruel (they chose to control through fear). México’s fatal error from this point of view was being too neutral, cooperative, and indecisive in actions. They could have declared themselves and initiated the war for the better chance at winning.
The US used deception and bold action by sending a false troop into disputed land to create a distraction. They were purposeful in their actions and encouraged agriculture as recommended… even if it was in a twisted slavery kind of way.
This book also provides a much better reasoning behind why the US didn’t take all of México. We know that the reason was racism, but the actions coincide with the idea that new states are more difficult to integrate when they use different languages and have distinct cultures. This definitely could have deterred the Americans from moving further South since they would be at a disadvantage to the stronger culture, also making it harder for the invaders to reside in the newly conquered land- they wouldn’t be able to communicate.
As a ruler Polk regulated, repressed, and controlled all aspects necessary to realize his territorial plan. He made his presence known and dealt with issues immediately instead of waiting for them to worsen.
Based on this theory, the ends justify the means.
‘To Religion, or Not To Religion’
Machiavelli was technically Roman Catholic though not very religious in practice. That’s the same religion that was most common in México in the 1800s. In contrast, the text is actually more in line with the Anglican Church’s beliefs which makes sense for how America acted (in that time, Americans were mostly in Anglican Churches).
I’m surprised by the brutality in The Prince considering this. A general rule in most religions is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which very clearly contradicts the book’s strategic advice, a Prince does all the things he wouldn’t want done to himself in order to prevent his kingdom from experiencing the same (conquer in order to not be conquered).
Also one of the failures outlined in the book is Louis XII, who coincidentally collaborated with Pope Alexander VI. This could point to a conclusion that a leader need not follow a religion, but instead The Prince for leadership advice.
The Machiavellian Cult Process
Interestingly I’ve discovered there are connections between the principles in The Prince and the steps of cult persuasion regarding “the psychology of the pawn” (Ross, 2014) I mentioned in the Beasts of No Nation essay. To avoid redundancy in citations, each of the following points will include two quotes; the former will be from Ross and the latter from Machiavelli.
- “Keep the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person,” and “Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.”
- “Control time and physical environment (contacts, information),” and “Make use of circumstances with all the skill he possesses.”
- “Create a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependence,” and “It is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two must be lacking.”
- “Suppress old behavior and attitude,” and “set up as a leader in the introduction of changes.”
- “Instill new behavior and attitude,” and “Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs…”
- “Put forth a closed system of logic,” and “…that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”
- Machiavelli lists in his recommended steps of acquiring a province: In this case
the ‘person’ is the population of provinces conquered. The community is generally unaware of the Prince’s desires and plans for action (point 1). ‘Send in faithful colonies to invade’ which corresponds to the above points of controlling the physical environment, creating fear and dependency (point 3), and sets the scene for points four through six. ‘Clear out delinquents’, this controls the internal contacts of the society (point 2) and information by removing those who are not in line with what the Prince sees suitable for the community, suppressing old behaviors (point 4). ‘Weaken the already powerful’ to remove old attitudes, followed by ‘increase the Prince’s power’ which goes with instilling new ideology in the society (point 5). Lastly, to install a new closed system of logic (point 6), it’s recommended to allow the province to maintain their own laws- but not allow in foreign powers or rebellion. This allows for the illusion of freedom within the province while the Prince is still following his personal search for power.
Random Thoughts
The idea that a province should attack before it can be attacked is a very offensive-realist stance.
Human nature is generally bad throughout the text, but there’s a specific part that explicitly says “the nature of people is variable”. This statement negates being tied to realism or liberalism in theory due to its neutrality (which is ironic because of the non-neutral Prince rule).
Conclusions
- Machiavelli presents his guidelines from a very Realist point of view regarding national interest, security, and power.
2. To be a successful leader, one must be amoral and willing to be aggressive.
3. The Prince could be interpreted as an anti-religious or immoral philosophical
guide but is instead highly regarded as a leader’s handbook.
4. Cult tactics are very common in the world even in seemingly unrelated topics. I’m
not sure what to do with this knowledge but it’s mildly terrifying.
5. Machiavelli has greatly influenced politics and culture through the centuries with The Prince which is now considered a classic piece of literature. His ideas have been debated through the ages and even nowadays there’s an ever-present debate on whether or not the ends justify the means.
Resources
- Machiavelli,N.(1992).ThePrince.TranslatedbyGeorgeBull.PenguinClassics.
- Ross, R. (2014). Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
- Brading, D. A. (1993). Mexican Phoenix: Our Lady of Guadalupe: Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries. Cambridge University Press.
- Skinner,Q.(1981).Machiavelli.OxfordUniversityPress.
- Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Machiavellian. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
- Eudaimonia. (2020, June 16). The Prince | Machiavelli (All Parts) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCL0bI0i-00