Last class we discussed both Machiavelli and Plato and how liberalism appears in their respective texts. My interest in this discussion was more focused on Machiavelli's The Prince and how this text represents any sort of liberal values. Personally, I've studied this text in the past and have analyzed his methods for retaining power in a society. Machiavelli, to me, is ruthless and persistent about the maintenance of power. He believes that if a price can preserve their power throughout his reign, this ultimately reveals how effective he is as a prince, no matter what measures or strategies used along the way. This means that a prince can appear to be virtuous, but internally find no value for virtue; essentially, he uses the appearance of virtuosity to garner the trust of his constituents so that they don't rebel against him.
As Machiavelli emphasizes this point--to appear to be virtuous, but to no fixate on genuinely acting virtuously--I find myself unconvinced that he could possibly behold any liberal values. To me, liberalism exists where a government or organization empowers and encourages their constituents through the means of liberal values--tolerance, equality, sovereignty, etc. However, I find it to be superficial when organizations or government emphasize these values for the sole reason of solidifying their entity; by this I mean that they only represent these values because people generally find these values to be important as well as people do not want to become affiliated with an organization that represents inequality, intolerance, etc.
The flaw I find in this method is that these organizations do not sincerely believe in liberalism; they, in actuality, have just found the benefit of employing liberal values. It is difficult for me to look around in today's society and point out an organization or business that genuinely exists on liberal principles, rather than existing through these principles. Machiavelli's The Prince reveals a somewhat troubling understanding about liberalism. This text and our respective discussion on it showed me that liberalism is more of a means to an end; true liberalism cannot exist because of ulterior motives and desires. These ulterior motives and desires are, moreover, the only reason for acting upon liberal values; an organization would not find use in these values by themselves--they are incentives. In Machiavelli's text it is revealed that virtue is only employed in order to preserve power, it is not employed for its own good and inherit value. As a result, I find myself in consternation of whether or not true and pure liberalism can exist without any illiberal motives; in addition, I find myself questioning whether or not it would even be beneficial to society if a pure form of liberalism existed.
I believe in liberalism and all that it embodies. I find myself most attracted to those organizations who take a stand when inequalities are reveal, even if their organization encounters strife or hardship as a result. It is this sacrificial liberalism that people are most drawn to and admirable of. When a CEO decides to cover up inequalities in the work place this portrays that this CEO does not actually believe in the liberal value of equality. In this, I also find myself in disagreement with Machiavelli. Machiavelli is so convinced that the appearance of virtuosity is good enough in order to maintain power and one's principality. However, what if the CEO--as a result of attempting to cover of the inequality--is now facing a lawsuit from the victim involved. In this situation, it is clear that the integrity and stability of the organization is now in question and could most definitely face some backlash as a result of this. Therefore, this reveals that "appearing to be virtuous" is not enough and is not truly effective in the maintenance of power.
It's interesting, in class I was thinking that Machiavellianism can make its way into liberalism on the side of viewing liberalism as an end in itself--if it is an inherent good, then doing whatever it takes to preserve it would be justified. We can also run it the other way though and say that promoting liberalism can be in many instances the pathway to personal power. Machiavelli seems to me more concerned with keeping order and stability to preserve peace and freedom, but he also recognizes how promoting a more hands-off style of government can paradoxically be a means to achieving personal glory for a prince.
ReplyDelete