Comments on: Renaissance Lit, Discussion Question #3 - The Prince

By: Dan D

Dan D — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:19:53 +0000

As Damian pointed out, “The most effective way to keep power is to eliminate all possible threats,” Machiavelli would certainly seek to use political pork to rid the bourgeoisie of any conflict as best he could. In Chapter 3 of The Prince, Machiavelli concludes that wise princes “consider not only present but also future discords and diligently guard against them” (39). Although Machiavelli, in this instance, backs up the idea of remedying possible future conflicts as soon as they can be foreseen, in a militaristic point of view, this concept can also be linked to the political altercations as well. In any case, Machiavelli would agree that a threat left unamended will undoubtedly proceed to get worse as it is left uncured. Therefore, by supplying “pork” to the national budget, politicians stand to get rid of these political threats stemming from powerful men being unsatisfied, and allows security in the notion that now that these conflicts are dealt with, there is much less of a chance for the problem to continue to increase to the point of a true quarrel.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:56:02 +0000

After considering the points made by my peers, I find myself in agreeance with the arguments made by Damien. In the 15th chapter of the Prince, Machiavelli states that princes can be praised for a number of qualities, including that they are “free givers,” who give money and political favors to their allies. However, two chapters later, he explains the political success of the tyrant Cesare Borgia by asserting that “A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring subjets united and faithful;” (89). History has proven Machiavelli’s ideas to be valid, mainly through the revolutions that have occured in countries such as France and Russia. If a ruler tries to appeal to a special interest group by using political pork, he will neglect another group in doing so. It is impossible to please everyone, and the “odd man out” when the pork is distributed will often be the most willing to advocate a revolution, and evntually overthrow the prince. Cruelty and military harshness, however, can be more widely distributed. By showing the citizens of his province that the Prince would gladly use coercion in place of bribery, the prince is setting the foundation for a more stable reign.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:20:34 +0000

I have to agree with Kali, Davio and Damian on this one and agree that Machiavelli would agree with this tactic as a temporary plan. By adding this so called “pork” into the national budget, the politician would be acquiring the preferable backing from the higher, wealthier classes which would be a great advantage to the politician. Having the backing from the upper class would be beneficial to a politician such as Machavelli because it would ensure that the politician would remain in power and have power over the upper class. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli’s main point or idea is that the Prince should gain power any means possible and also maintain that power by any means possible. By having the backing by the upper class, a politician such as Machiavelli would be able to maintain his power. Therefore, I believe that Machiavelli would view this generosity as very beneficial to a politician. Politicians have been using this method for years, why wouldn’t it have worked back in Machiavelli’s time? Davio’s “ill scratch your back if you scratch mine” explains this political “pork perfectly”. If you give me the backing to maintain power, I will give you political favors in return.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:29:58 +0000

I can see both interpretations of Machiavelli’s argument on this issue. On the one hand, as Damian said, this could be detrimental as it takes away from the government and creates unreal expectations in the populace. Machiavelli wrote in the Prince that it was generally better to rule through fear rather than love, as fear was easier to control, because you could give a man all the money in the world and he still might not love you, whereas, on the other hand, it is very easy to create fear. However, ruling through fear is not really an option for politicians in the United States, because of the system of elections, that consistently put a check on the ruler’s will and force it to conform to that of the people (at least to some extent). Therefore, I agree with the general sentiment that Machiavelli would agree with this type of spending. These “goodies” are aimed at obtaining and keeping the supporter of major groups with great influence in politics. Granted, Machiavelli was not writing about a representative government, but if he was, he would have certainly agreed with this as a solid move to maintain your power. This “pork barrel” spending, as Zach said, is benefiting one group at the cost of the rest and this could be costly. But this is just the kind of strategy I think Machiavelli would advocate would he to adapt his political ideas to work in a modern day, elected government. No longer is it really possible to rule through fear (assuming there are fair elections) and instead the road to success becomes pandering. Now, instead of slaying, exiling, imprisoning or oppressing other power groups, the best option is to buy them off, especially in a nation so large as the United States because here the government has access to such vast funds that these “goodies” would barely make a dent monetarily (I would imagine), but have a huge impact politically.

By: Liana

Liana — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:00:33 +0000

With respect to “political favors” I believe that Machiavelli would agree with the practice for the reason that Davio, Kali, Damian, and Zach mentioned above: it can help you maintain power. Money is a powerful tool of persuasion, a tool that compels people to obey but without the animosity and resentment they would harbor against the use of force. It is a question of “sticky” economic power versus the “sharp” power of force, both of which are effective but the former exerting its control in a more subtle, but just as effective manner. On the back of “The Prince” Machiavelli’s philosophy is condensed into six small excerpts. As Davio mentioned above, Political “pork” would ensure that the people were better satisfied, hopefully creating a more peaceful state in which conspiracy and overthrow are less imminent. If a prince must show himself a “lover of merit” he must “give preferment to the able and honor those who excel in every art.” This category would include many of the “special interests” to whom Machiavelli would agree it appropriate to indulge.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:10:58 +0000

Even though I agree with Davio and Kali, Damien brings up a good point. Even though giving “goodies” to maintain power would inititially be effective, the wealthy would still eventually rebel. Machiavelli states that how private citizens become princes “merely by fortune.” Machiavelli is also against the idea of flattery. He feels that a prince should only allow the wise to talk to him. If he is so against the idea of flattery, why would he support adding “pork” to the national budget? By giving citizens too much of what they ask for, they will have high expectations. If for whatever reason the government cannot follow through with these goodies, citizens will get annoyed and this will cause many revolts.

By: Mary H

Mary H — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:54:05 +0000

I strongly disagree with everyone who has spoken so far. Machiavelli would not agree with the handing out of the previously mentioned “goodies.” I would like to open with the words of Machiavelli himself: “I conclude, therefore, with regard to being feared and loved, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others, and he must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred…(91)” Maintaining power is Machiavelli’s primary concern. Giving out these “goodies” to special interests is not, by any means, maintaining power, even though it helps politicians keep their job titles. A job title is just that: a title. Power means being a leader; it means being able to make people follow, by fear or fellowship, wherever one walks. Giving out goodies is the leader acting on the subject’s wishes, not the subject following the leader’s wishes. This is quite the reverse of an ideal situation. Though the goodies make the people love the politician, the net effect is a loss of power. A truly powerful politician would not feel the need to give out goodies, which is the politician is depending the weak, unreliable bonds of love for power rather than the infinitely stronger, more reliable fist of fear. The nation’s order, in this situation, depends entirely on whether or not it’s leader keeps on appeasing its subjects. Disorder may erupt if the leader stops appeasing the people at any time. Love does nothing if the leader does not keep striving for it. As Machiavelli said, as long as one is not hated, fear is a better method of maintaining power than love, which is what politicians hope to gain for their goodies.

By: Mary Patrick

Mary Patrick — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:16:52 +0000

My anti-spam word was bounceout57. it was too good not to share.

The way Macchiavelli presents his views on generosity disagrees with most of the assertions made above. He, for the most part, discourages generosity. He believes truly virtuous generosity would not be seen, and what’s the point of doing something good if no one’s going to see it? It would therefore have to be of a certain level of grandiosity in order to be publicly displayed. If the prince is too generous, it won’t be appreciated and his people will become greedy for more gifts. The continuance of such generosity is economically unwise, as he will run out of resources and will have to raise taxes, thereby angering his people and reversing the effect of the generosity.

By: Dan S

Dan S — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:28:13 +0000

I concur with all of the above. Machiavelli would most certainly be in favor of adding pork/goodies to the national budget. This pork quenches the desires and lines the wallets of the highly influential bourgeoisie, as well as the socially elite. By fudging the budget/ giving money to special interest groups, a leader ensures that those who could potentially form a coup d’état stay satiated and content. This, as Kali pointed out, would have been in Machiavelli’s best interest. There is a saying that goes something like “Happy cows make great cheese” and this quote is equally applicable to the power struggle found within any newly established government. “Happy people make great subjects” could have been Machiavelli’s motto. It is also important to note what Davio had to say about giving in to the will of the people too often. Governmental officials can’t always please everyone, if they tried to, it would ultimately destroy the existing leadership. Once money is granted to one special interests group, all of the others will want a chunk too, and it’s hard to shut the floodgates once they are opened. Thus, I too agree that this would not be a long-term solution as far a Machiavelli was concerned.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:54:22 +0000

From my understand of this pork, in the United States, senators and house representatives will often use the technique of “pork-barelling” to serve the interests of the people of their state, so that they can be reelected. Pork-barelling usually involves getting unecessary federal funding for state projects, which of course is of interest to people living in that state. However, the rest of the nation suffers from the extra money being spent. I believe that Machiavelli would have advised the leader of a country to do this, because it would ensure that the people living under their rule would be happy with their leader and would keep quiet as long as he or she continued to serve their interests. If they were happy, they would obey their ruler without uprising, which is the nightmare of every dictator and monarch. Although other nations, empires, and territories might become upset with a pork-baralling ruler from another nation, this is of little concern to Machiavelli, because his primary concern is the control over the people and to ensure that they are faithful to their ruler, not so the people are at peace with other nations. Davio and Kali are right to state that the consequence of getting “goodies” for the people would include them being in a state of constant demand. A dictatorship and/or monarchy calls for full control over the people and not letting them control themselves. However, by not giving the people what they want, the consequences would be far worse.