The document provides an overview and analysis of Machiavelli's work The Prince. It discusses how Machiavelli viewed politics differently than ancient philosophers, focusing on studying it as an end in itself rather than just a means. It also summarizes Machiavelli's view that man controls his own destiny, not gods or nature. The document then analyzes passages from The Prince and applies Machiavelli's ideas to modern situations like the war in Iraq, discussing whether democracy can be imposed from outside and the use of force. It questions if ends always justify means for a democracy and if insurgencies can be avoided.

1. The Art of Politics:
Machiavelli
Part I
Studying Politics as an end in itself, not
just as a means

2. Politics as an Art
 Our purpose here is to study politics as an end in
itself, not just as a means by which policies are
created, implemented, etc.
 How to become a politician and navigate politics
is akin to becoming a professional athlete, doctor,
or other professional.
 Successful politicians help shape the future by
leading the political process – successful policies
are rooted in successful politicians – it is talent,
skill!

3. Background on Machiavelli
and the Prince
 Machiavelli’s political and theoretical writings
start off as a magnificent point to begin our
class.
 Machiavelli’s work is insightful especially in those
situations where there is instability or substantial
change at hand. The Prince is a playbook, a
manual of sorts, for leadership where
government needs to be created or stabilized.

4. Machiavelli
 Lived 1469-1527 Medici, Italy.
 Lived an unstable period of the fractured, war-
prone city-states of the Italian peninsula (before
unification as a single country).
 Hence, the key problem to his period is the lack
of a unified, stable government for Italy, due to
intervention by outside monarchies and the
political strength of the Pope.

5. Machiavelli as first Modern Political
Theorist
 Machiavelli is considered the first political
theorist due to rejection of Ancient philosophy,
which is characterized by:
 Happiness is goal- a well formed society like a
beehive- everyone in their place and peaceful.
(Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.)
 Holistic philosophy - including all facets of
existence- ontology
 Nature or Gods control fate of humanity.

6. Machiavelli vs. Ancients
 For the Ancients, politics was simply a means to
an end (the ideal polis for the Greeks or for the
early Christian Church, the best community man
can produce reflecting God’s wishes.
 Machiavelli, in contrast, seeks to study politics
for its own sake. Hence, he would support the
idea of a Department of Political science,
although the term “Science” was not as
developed in his time.

7. Machiavelli, in contrast
 Believes that man must control his own destiny,
not God(s) or society. In so doing, man is in effect
not allowing “nature” to dictate his fate.
 Less focus on good of collectivity over the
individual – preface to Liberal theorists, Locke, etc.
 Machiavelli employs a methodology based on
crude inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive
philosophy) and historical analysis. However, it is
not value-free theory, it is still normative and
prescriptive.

8. The Prince
 Written as a gift for Prince Lorenzo de’
Medici, in order to help win a political job.
Hmmm, sounds like today!!
 The Prince is not as coherent as most
theoretical works due to its purpose as a gift
and as a playbook of sorts for politicians, but
contains many useful insights.
 Machiavelli’s more important work is the
Discourses on Livy, which explains how and
why to set up a Republic.

9. How might we apply The Prince to
our world today?
Let’s extend the Prince to current
debates, such as the situation in Iraq.
Please feel free to offer comparisons!!

10. Book I on Gov. Typology
People live under two types of governments,
principalities and republics.
 “Dominions so acquired are either in the habit of
living under a prince or used to being free…”
What does this sound like? How does it compare to
our world today?

11. Book I on Gov. Typology
This passage suggests that people are socialized to
adapt to a certain political culture. Implications?
 Hence, can Iraqis be expected to support
democracy?
 To what extent can democracy be spread to other
countries, especially by force?
 Should we be surprised that Iraqis are resisting the
US military?
 Even if the United States were to leave Iraq with an
elected government, would it stand on its own feet
for long?

12. Book I on Gov. Typology
 This passage also foreshadows issues in
subsequent books of the Prince.
 …they are acquired either with the arms of others
or with one’s own,…”
 “…either by fortune or by virtue.”

13. Book II
 This book at first would seem to be of less
relevance today. But think; what does it really say.
 Are there hereditary principalities today? Yes, all the
Arabian peninsula states except Yemen: Saudi Arabia,
Oman, Kuwait, etc.
 Others do not call themselves so but have set up blood
dynasties: N. Korea, Syria, Argentina (Perons), USA [?]
(I couldn’t resist the joke, or is it?), et al.
 Some hereditary monarchies are now republics: UK,
France, Norway, Belgium, Japan, Thailand, etc.

14. Book III Mixed Principalities
Machiavelli says that hereditary principalities are stable since
ruling families are recognized, but were they always that
way?
 Now it is becoming clear that what Machiavelli is
doing is describing what we today see as a difference
between regimes where there is some popular
control and those where few people are in control.
 Of those where few control, principalities are either
hereditary (stable) or mixed (new and likely
unstable). That is of much relevance today.

15. Book III Mixed Principalities
 The international system is just full of such
unstable “Principalities”:
 Almost all of Africa since decolonization.
 All of Central Asia.
 Majority of Latin America since independence.
 Large parts of the rest of Asia.
 Eastern Europe for most of the past 100 years.
Hence, much of the Prince is dedicated to how to
turn a Mixed Principality into a Hereditary one,
whereas in the Discourses, his other big work, he
explains how to form a Republic.

16. Book III Mixed Principalities
 Coups, insurrection, civil war, are a risk where
there is a competition for power between
individuals, groups, ethnicities, tribes, clans,
ideologies, etc.
 A new leader needs to please people and fend off
enemies.
Consider the problem of replacing a regime
when one is a citizen of that country; now
consider what it takes from the outside. Let’s
discuss Iraq.

17. Example of Iraq
 “For even though one may have the strongest
armies, he always needs the support of the
inhabitants of a province in order to enter it.”
(Book III)
In comparison to Iraq, Afghanistan appears to be
more welcoming with fewer people resisting, but
some regions are more hospitable than others.
We go on…

18. Example of Iraq
 “Now I say, that such states which, when
acquired, are added to an ancient [existing] state
of him who acquires them, are either of the same
province and same language [similar culture, etc.],
or not. When they are, they may be held with
great ease, especially if they are not used to living
free…But when one acquires states in a province
disparate in language, customs, and orders, here
are the difficulties, and here one needs to have
great fortune and great industry to hold them…”

19. Example of Iraq
 Again, it may have been very naïve to expect
that Iraq would not rebel, at least according to
Machiavelli, and that the United States could
control the situation without extensive Iraqi
help. The Bush administration understood
this last point, but not necessarily the first.
 The key to success in Iraq is that Iraqis need
to govern themselves, but if they do will it be a
democracy, or even stable?

20. Example of Iraq
 Machiavelli even suggests that the
conquering prince go live there.
 Should President Bush or other Cabinet members
move to Iraq?
 Another option is to have your citizens
colonize the conquered land and go and
rebuild.
 While the US has attempted to rebuild Iraq, I am
not sure we could find many volunteers.

21. Example of Iraq
 What is the other option?
 Crush those that resist with brutal power. It
takes more than shock and awe, it takes kill and
kill to instill fear and awe.
 Even then, weak countries dedicated to their
cause have thrown out imperial powers:
 France in Algeria, Indochina
 Soviet Union in Afghanistan
 USA in Vietnam

22. Use of Brutal (necessary) Force by a
Democracy
Q. Can the United States, as a democracy, use
the brutality necessary to win in Iraq, or will
Americans inevitably become repulsed at
the violence and abandon Iraq?
What is moral?
If we impose regime change, topple Saddam, in
the name of morality, can we dispose of
morality to win?
Do the ends justify the means?

23. Use of Brutal (‘necessary’) Force by a
Democracy
“...men should either be caressed or eliminated,
because they avenge themselves for slight offenses
but cannot do so for grave ones; so the offense
one does to a man should be such that one does
not fear revenge for it.”
 The French lost Algeria, and the USA lost South
Vietnam because these wars became very costly
and perceived as immoral by many.

24.  Can we win with this?

25. To what extent do you believe non-Americans are convinced this
is isolated. Even if isolated, the ability to manipulate this is a
generous present to the enemies of the USA.

26. Other points of Book III on disorder
 The last few pages of Book III are interesting
because they advise the Prince to crush rebellions
that in the end will not be avoided.
 In Iraq, did the lack of proper plans for
occupation and slow response to the growing
resistance allow these terrorists, jihadists, etc., to
grow in strength?

27. Book IV: The New State
 This book mostly focuses on whether a state
conquered will have an autocracy, rule by one
and his servants or by a monarchy that
includes an aristocracy.
 What is notable is that a Republic does not
seem to be an option.
 Why is that the case?

28. Book IV: The New State
 For Machiavelli, a recently conquered state, or
new ones in general, may be too prone to civil
violence and instability, necessitating that people
be bought off or crushed.
 What would Machiavelli suggest today?
 Are there alternative policies today that might
work, or does Machiavelli capture for us a
classical problem?