"About 500 years ago modern political thinking began, It's enticing surface was the idea of, 'realism.' Its ruthless center was the idea that with a worthwhile end, one could justify any mean. Its spokesman was Nicolo Machiavelli," (Zinn). Yes, Machiavelli wanted to serve the people. However his main goal was national power, conquest, and control. He was not afraid to carry out his actions with force if needed. He demonstrated his ideas in, "The Prince," to appeal to the monarchy that was all about dominance and wealth. Today that most men are power hungry and want control, but main object of a democratic America is subjectively the welfare of the people. The president, overall, is meant to protect the rights of life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. Even though America does fall under monarchy rule, our democracy uses Machiavelli's idea of force when certain strategies fail and self-defense is at risk. This is true in the case of bombing Japan. Are these means justified? Do these tactics work in a democracy? This essay explains that not necessarily.
To really understand the emersion of Machiavelli in modern society, one should look at his ideas from the beginning. Machiavelli could be understood as a realist, and a situational relativist, believing that changing policies should be done if needed. As mentioned before, he was a fan of combat, conquest, and control. Not only was he a fan of using force, but a fan of manipulation. In Machiavelli's, "lion and fox," segment, he suggests that people are easily persuaded, and once they are deceived, there must be an underlying force to keep them under control. One cannot rule with the absence of either side. The same ugly practices are still used today, but are screened by naivety and lies, thus leading to democracy still borrowing ideas from Machiavelli.
Author Anthony D'Amato writes, "Machiavelli's relevance to contemporary world politics lies in a different dimension: that of the psychology of human behavior," (D'Amato).
