Machiavelli's Motivations

At the beginning of class today, I believed that Machiavelli was correct in his theories about states and how they should be governed. However, many issues with Machiavelli were raised in class today that now prevent me from further subscribing to the belief that he was correct without acknowledging his missteps.  Overall I believe that Machiavelli was correct, but his generalizations and hypocrisy ultimately undermine his points about a ruler's power. 

To begin with, Machiavelli's authority on the subject is taken over by his inherent bias towards the Medicis. In seeking a job within their administration, Machiavelli offers up his half-baked ideas on state relations in an attempt to increase his status. By endlessly praising their past endeavors, Machiavelli opens himself up to criticism just to gain a higher position in civil government. Machiavelli attempts to justify this appeal by restating his years of research that reassert his authority on the matter at hand. Despite his years of experience in the political atmosphere of the 1500s, Machiavelli's manual is often vague and doesn't offer up any helpful advice. Machiavelli bases his policies on events of the past but never addresses the social, political, and economic circumstances that played into their eventual fruition. While Machiavelli argues that he remains vague to ensure that each situation is dealt with correctly, many of his proposed ideas directly conflict with his previous positions. One main example of this conflict is found in chapter sixteen when Machiavelli discusses how generosity can be used to improve the reputation of those in power. Machiavelli states, "Consequently, a ruler who pursues a reputation for generosity will always end up wasting his resources; and he will be obliged in the end, if he wants to preserve his reputation, to impose crushing taxes upon the people" (Machiavelli 49). Directly addressing the opposition to a controversial policy, Machiavelli acknowledges the complications of one's increased generosity. Dispursing a ruler's wealth can initially bring great approval by the populace, but overreach will ultimately damage the public's perspective of the state hierarchy. However, within the next page, Machiavelli directly contradicts his argument by stating that no expense should be spared at the hands of other's wealth. Machiavelli negates his previous argument by stating, "Squandering other people's money does not do your reputation any harm, quite the reverse" (Machiavelli 50). In this one contradiction, Machiavelli reveals numerous flaws within his knowledge of politics. Squandering the money of other states may benefit the populace for a short period, but that state wouldn't just willingly give up their resources without something in exchange. Machiavelli's idealistic tendencies are quite apparent as he discusses this "sneaky" trick of government. Idealistically, Machiavelli believes in wasting the money of those who states are presumably allied with, without acknowledging the consequences of these actions. Spending without care often leads to a great amount of debt, whether that be in the use of armed forces, currency, or in a worst-case scenario forfeiting territory through armed conflict. Machiavelli's confidence in his policies ultimately blinds him to the reality of world affairs and the constant state of transition within state relations. Sanctions are often placed on those who don't follow through with the stated policies of the international community, and Machiavelli's policies ignore basic principles that we learn at a very young age. Political exchanges operate on a basis of mutual benefit and without a return of generosity, this use of foreign wealth could ultimately lead to damaged relations and the possibility of war. 

While I believe that Machiavelli had a knowledgeable background in politics, he generally dealt with them on a local level and is not entirely credible when discussing matters of state. Machiavelli's central arguments are somewhat correct, but his advice on populace opinion and foreign states completely undermines his advice on how rulers should govern. Having listened to the criticisms of the other team and looked deeper into his points, I will admit that my original belief was flawed. While Machiavelli was and still is heralded as one of the first great political theorists, it should still be said that his policies become questionable when applied to modern today issues such as immigration reform, sovereignty, and human rights. That being said, I still believe that he is somewhat correct in his assumptions about world affairs, but it truly pains me to admit this with how morally wrong it all is.