Machiavelli: extreme, yet understandable

So, after reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Quality of the Prince”, and Lao-tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching”, I can honestly say that I’m torn between both ideas. On one hand, Lao-tzu raises some extremely good points about how a leader should govern, as he emphasized the importance of maintaining a happy citizenry, and the belief that the less a leader intervened, the better off things would be. Then again, on the other hand, Machiavelli made sense in a lot of ways as well.

Although he was radical in his beliefs, I understood why Machiavelli felt the way he did, and why he believed his approach to leadership was as it should be. While he was somewhat irrational in his belief that a leader should focus on war more than anything else, I did agree with the emphasis he put on a leader remaining disciplined at all times, staying informed, and always being prepared. Needless to say, I think it’s obvious that our leader today hasn’t always been fully informed when he did some of the things he did, but I digress.

Secondly, although I hate saying it, I agree with Machiavelli when he says, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 40). In my opinion, he’s not saying that a leader has to be immoral to govern well, but to act as though the people in this world are 100% honorable and just would be incredibly naïve. So, it would only help for any leader to acknowledge that fact when making important decisions.

Overall, although they’re beliefs are completely different, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli both made strong cases as to why their methods are correct, and why any others are fallible in every way possible.

Niccolo Machiavelli. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Translator. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 35-51.