Transcription
Hey, this is Sean, host of The Gray Area. For the show this week, I talked to Erica Benner. She's a political philosopher and the author of a great book called Be Like the Fox. We talk about the infamous philosopher Machiavelli and why he's both incredibly influential and incredibly misunderstood. Hope you enjoy it.
Erica Benner, welcome to the show.
Hi Sean, thanks for having me.
There is the popular caricature of Machiavelli with which I think most people are familiar—know the conniving, manipulative, sneaky, uh, figure—and then there's the real Machiavelli. Tell me about the gap between those two.
It's massive because if you go and you read like Machiavelli's correspondence, they're hilarious. Like he's the funniest guy. The first kind of literary piece that's—we've got notes about, but we don't actually have anymore because it was kind of concealed—and then the popes banned everything he wrote. But the first one of the first things he wrote was a satirical play about like the powers that be in republican Florence, so he's a satirist. I mean, that one of the things I just always want to kind of bring out about the gap between this cold calculating advisor to princes saying, you know, "better to be feared than loved," is this guy is hilarious all the time, and he's a dramatist; like he's a brilliant writer of plays and dramas. And uh, so that's one gap that when you read the—when you come to The Prince, I I I kind of urge people always to kind of bear in mind that before he wrote The Prince and then after he wrote The Prince, he was writing political satires; and and and I think we're in a kind of atmosphere now in the world where that might be easier to see for a lot of people because if you imagine somebody who doesn't want to be too direct and preach to people in in criticizing the great leaders but still wants to kind of take the piss out of them. He he just does that in a very, very subtle Florentine way. I don't know if that kind of answers your question.
No, no, it does.
Um, so you know, when I was in graduate school for political theory, um, Machiavelli is introduced as kind of like the first truly modern political scientist, sort of like the Galileo of politics. Um, is that how you think of them? Is that how we should think of them?
No, I absolutely don't think—
Say more.
Unequivocally, no. Um, I uh, Machiavelli was somebody whose main examples and main interests when it comes to uh, like, you know, thinking about how politics should work. His main interest is in ancient history. That's clear. He's he's somebody who's really, really grounded in ancient history, like most of the people who are educated in his times. His, you know, second big, big book is called The Discourses on Livy. Um, that is a commentary on ancient Rome, which is trying to draw from history examples that can, you know, serve as cautionary, you know, warnings to people of his own times and for the future. Um, but also help us to think about what is actually, you know, what is a good leader in politics, what is prudent, and what kind of sometimes seems like a prudent policy—like something could actually achieve some good, but then if you really, really think ahead and look at history as well and and realize what people have done before along those lines, you you kind of see the problems. I don't think he's a scientist in a political science way at all.
Thank goodness.
Maybe you could replace political scientist with just political thinker. Um, maybe that's a little broader, but you're right, he is very interested in the past. Um, and he seems to have a bit of a beef with a lot of these ancient philosophers, you know, the Plato and the Aristotles. He seemed to think that they were naive, if that's the right word, that they they weren't looking at the political world the way it actually is, but instead they were projecting their own ideals and fantasies onto the political world and then dreaming up a kind of politics in light of that. Um, what was his beef with the ancients? What did he think they misunderstood or got wrong or ignored about actual life?
The the kind of view that you've just outlined. Um, I don't want to get nerdy and and too academic about this, but that is out of—
You're about to tell me why I'm wrong, aren't you?
Out of a couple of lines where he says things like, "Oh, the, you know, philosophers have imagined ideal republics, but in reality," that's just one quote. And then there's some other little quotes you can tuck out and you can turn into a big modernist system which uh, quite a few of my very esteemed scholar colleagues um have done. Uh, but actually, you know, in in context it's a lot more complicated than that because he also has many quotes elsewhere where he said the greatest thing you can do if you can't actually create a republic is to imagine one. He has that in one of his pieces that's called The Discourses on the Government of Florence where he's trying to advise them on how to save their flailing fragile new non-republic and saying maybe you should turn this non-republic back into a republic and if, you know, I'm—and he says, "I'm not in position anymore to help do that in practice like I used to be. So I'm trying to go in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle and imagine one where you can't have one." He is not—there is no sharp contrast in Machiavelli, properly understood, between his ideals and his realism—and realism, you know, realism and idealism don't have to be opposite—that that that idea in itself is something I think people are really waking up to more and more—that if we try to go, you know, if you imagine that you can follow a realistic path towards a better world without having an ideal or who to guide it, you know—He he sort of has the same problem Nietzsche has in that there there's so much irony in so many different voices in his work that it practically begs you to misinterpret it, or at the very least it makes it very easy for the reader to project whatever they want onto the work, and so it's his fault, I guess, is what I'm saying.
Yeah.
But this is what they did. I mean, this is another thing that I hope we will—I mean, I was just reading something today about um, about AI and and why, you know, somebody like a professor saying, "Don't we still want students to learn how to read difficult ambiguous works?" And that reading—one of the reasons we want students to keep reading and not to filter everything to interpret it through a machine is that reading is like a practice in listening and a practice in hearing things that are subtly off or that you could work with. And that's what you need in politics, right? Especially in a democracy or a republic, you need people not just to go by hard rules, but to hear the subtleties and and be able to judge for themselves. That's what he's trying to get us to do. Like, as you know, part of recovering the republic is readers have to see, you know, he's he's telling you all these shocking things that you ought to do and that princes ought to do. And readers are supposed to be kind of saying, "Hang on, hang on. Let me judge that for myself."
All right. Well, look, let's let's let's set about the work of of cutting through some of these. You don't believe me, Sean, do you?
No, I I do. I do. I mean, I I think I think once you get into the business of trying to distinguish, you know, what is the wink wink and what is meant to be taken literally, it's very difficult. But but you are you are a much closer reader of Machiavelli than I am. So, um, I'm not going to challenge you on that. And I think your reading is actually very interesting and very persuasive. Um, part of what I'm doing here is, uh, because the popular image of him is so cemented as this, you know, deceptive figure, um, I'm really trying to set that up so that you can you can challenge it kind of, you know, piece by piece. I was just—let's start, right? I mean, I think one of the certainly the the conventional popular view of Machiavelli is that he is someone who wanted to draw this neat clear line between morality and politics. That he wanted to sever these things. But you write in the book that that's not true, right? That he simply wanted to put, and now I'm quoting, he simply wanted to put morality on firmer, purely human foundation. So what does that mean? How is it different from what people think?
He's doing well. What is true is that he often criticizes the morality that—of the of of the—let's say the hyper kind of hyperchristianity or spirituality that, you know, takes morals into the—puts morals and and what, you know, judgments of right and wrong into the hands of priests and popes and and and some abstract kind of god—that that, you know, he he may or may not believe in but doesn't think it's something we can totally access as as humans. We can't, you know, so we if we want to think about morality both on a personal level but certainly in politics uh, we've got to kind of go back to basics, think about what is the behavior of human beings, what is human nature, what are the drives that kind of propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad, and that's one of the fundamentals I think he's he wants to say we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn't think that human beings can ever be angels, and we shouldn't see them as devils when they behave badly—until they really behave badly, then he can call them evil, and sometimes he does. He calls people cruel, inhuman, and evil sometimes, but very seldom. But the basic is if you want to develop a human morality, you you study yourself, you study other humans, you don't put yourself above other humans because you're just one, too. And and then you kind of start from there and say, right, what kind of politics is going to make such people coexist in ways that are not going to aim at some like divine order, you know, something that's going to bring higher and higher kind of godly ethics into human life. We've got to be more modest and just talk about—we're all going to be arguing. We're all going to be difficult. Let's have rules and laws that help us coexist.
Well, let's talk about The Prince. I I take it you do not think this book is very well understood uh in the popular imagination. Um, is that is that about right? Do you think we do—do you think most people have this book wrong? Uh, and if and if they do, tell me what you think is the the most glaring obvious misinterpretation of what he's actually up to there because I think what people think he's up to is giving this handbook to tyrants. I think that is what most people think. Uh, tell me how that's wrong.
I mean, I used to think that too. I I used to have to teach Machiavelli as part of discourses on lots of different thinkers, and I would just say, "Well, it's a handbook for tyrants," but then he wrote The Discourses, which is a very, very republican book, very openly. So so there's first—that's the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, "Well, how could he have switched so quickly from being a super republican as a political actor to writing The Prince to suddenly writing The Discourses?" So that's a kind of warning sign, and then that got me thinking, and then I kept coming across earlier authors who I trust deeply, like Rousseau—I mean, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century, a great—I think a very great philosopher and a deep republican—has a footnote in his Social Contract saying The Prince has been totally misunderstood.
Uh, this was Machiavelli. Is that right?
Yeah. I didn't—I didn't—I mean, I've read that book, but—
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is what set me off. So this isn't just me making it up. I mean, I have to say I'm not like a—I mean, I'm a very—I I I was very uncertain about this too, but then when I started seeing the some of the earliest read uh readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from Republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally, and they say it—they say he's a moral writer. Rousseau says he has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now. If you pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don't read them that carefully because they're kind of boring, modern readers, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality. But like the first one, you go, "Huh," and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom. And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cool cold analysis of this is what you should do. Chapter five, wow. It's like how republics fight back, and the whole tone—and remember, he's a literary guy and he's a dramatist—the whole tone changes. Suddenly, fire. Republics are fighting back, and the prince has to be on his toes because he's probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up. So, who is he talking to? Who is he really talking to in The Prince? Is he talking to the people or is he talking to future princes?
I mean, I see it as uh, you know, imagine somebody who's been kicked out of his job and has big family to support. He had a lot of kids and who loved his job and was passionate about the republic, trying—He's he's he's been tortured. He doesn't know what's going to happen next. And he's absolutely gutted that Florence's Republican experiment, new renewing the Republic experiment has failed. um, and and he can't speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? So number one motivation is it makes you feel better, you know? I mean, you you just like taking the piss out of the people who who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable um in a low-key, you know, way because you can't be too brutally satirical about it. It it makes you feel a little bit better. But I think he's really writing it in a way to kind of expose the ways of uh tyrants.
Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools. Tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the US—from household names like Mattel and Gym Shark to brands just getting started like Dr. Sha Illings Drillings and Fillings and The Gray Area Soul Patch—die for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big, beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at shopify.com/fox. Go to shopify.com/fox. Shopify.com/vox.
I think one of the more famous sentiments in The Prince is this idea that fear is more powerful than love. That from the perspective of a ruler, fear is more dependable than love. What do you make of that? Do you think it's true? Did he actually believe that?
Yeah. He says it's good to be feared and loved, but if you have to choose, be feared and loved. So that's the context. Um, and then he distingu—then he gives you examples of what kind of fear should be used, and what he really means when you look at his examples of the best kind of fear is just, you know, like fear of the laws, you know, he gives examples that actually relate to transparency and legality. I'm sorry, but this is true. If you go to the chapter where he says that it's, you know, he's talking, he says it's better to be transparent and regular and not to do things in an irregular, arbitrary way. Do not arbitrarily take people's property. Do not take their wives. Do not do this. He gives you these lists. That's the kind of fear you want people to have. And it could be fear of you, the ruler, or it could be fear of a legal constitutional ruler as well. So he—what he's not saying is you should just use random terror, you know, arbitrarily scaring people. That is a disaster. He's really clear about that in The Prince.
Yeah. He he says, you know, if you if you do have to be feared, do not be feared in such a way as to produce hatred. That's a very important qualification.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Yeah. So, and look, I I know part of what you you do in the book is you're you're you're driving this—you're resisting this idea that Machiavelli is very simplistically driving a wedge between politics and morality. Um, but God, there are these incredible lines, you know, like you you've been pointing out, right? Here's one. He says, "Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good and to use knowledge and not use it according to the necessity of the case." So, what is the meaning of a line like that for you? Is he just saying politics is a dirty business and you can't survive it without getting your hands dirty or is it more complicated than that?
Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, this is what the thing about Machiavelli that makes him so susceptible to the the kind of reading that's become popular is he's got these amazing lines.
Oh, wow.
And they're so good, Erica. They're so good.
And they're so cool. I know.
They're so cool. And and and if you're a teacher or professor who teaches political theory, it is kind of sad to kind of think about my Machiavelli being the right one instead of the one that we've all grown to kind of hate—love—hate because, you know, he's such a different—it's such a different view of of of politics than than what we're used to of ethics. But I'm sorry to tell you that um, he's fantastic because he really is spelling out how human beings really behave and how leaders often behave. But what he does in that sentence is he's setting the stage for a series of chapters about what do people think is good and are they right? That's what the next few chapters are about. And he has discussion of um cruelty. What do people think is cruel or harsh and are they right to—and what—and using money. When is—when is kind of using money to get ahead okay and when is it not okay for you? Because it's actually going to get you in deep trouble. Um, so what he's doing with that is trying to get you to sort of think—there's good, and there's—good is what I—what is—what is conventionally thought of as good—the way to go. And sometimes he says that we have this angelic idea of how leaders should behave which isn't suitable. But that's not saying that you should compromise like your basic standards of transparency and and decent, you know, decent rule. It's just—it's very hard sometimes to know when he's merely describing something and when he's endorsing it. He's deliberately ambiguous. He's ambiguous on purpose. A lot of ancient writers were deliberately ambiguous. We are the ones who are kind of aberrations. Modern people who think that everything has to be straightforward, blunt and clear. Uh, in in ancient writers, you find loads of—loads of writers—including Cato and all the historians who were deliberately ambiguous because they're trying to get us to think, "Well."
And part of what is very persuasive about about your book um is that you really get to understand what he's up to um when you see some of his correspondence, some of his private correspondence with, you know, letters to friends and that sort of thing where he's being much more honest, and with that context, it it gives you um a much better insight into what he's actually doing in his in his work. Um, you know, and that's the work that you do.
One of the things he says in The Prince is that, you know, the ruler must imitate the the lion and the fox. And the book of yours we're talking about is called Be Like the Fox. I have it right here. Um, why that title? What do you mean? What does it mean to be like the fox?
Yeah. I mean, fox is—again, he's playing with us because we think of the classical image of—you know, the trope of the the fox is associated with cunning, sly, sneaky, Machiavellian—hard—
To pin down hard to pin down. Yeah. But if you look at the context again, you look at what he says. He says the fox recognizes snares. He said people, the ruler, should imitate the fox and the lion; the lion because the lion can scare wolves, and the fox because the fox recognizes traps. So, the skill of the fox he's highlighting isn't being shrewd and cunning. It's recognizing when someone's being shrewd and cunning towards you and building up defenses, cognitive and physical, whatever you need, so that that person doesn't pull you in. Tell me if I'm wrong.
I remember, and I don't know where I read this. It was a long time ago, but I recall reading about this story that Machiavelli loved and apparently referenced quite a bit. And the story was of some ruler, I don't know who, who sends a man to some principality to put down an insurgency with just brutal force, right? And the guy does the job, but the people left behind in that principality are really pissed off and they resent him. So the prince has the guy who did it, the guy that he ordered to do the job, killed and then strung up in the public square, and then he makes a big show of how outraged he is by this man's criminal criminal act of defiance. And Machiavelli apparently is said to have loved that story because it demonstrates how flexible and cunning a prince can and should be, and how effective it can be if he's doing that well.
I think what you're talking about is um, chapter seven of The Prince where he talks about Cesare Borgia, who was the son of Pope Alexander VI, who was a brilliant deceiver, and Cesare, he's the prince of fortune. Chapter 7 is about how to become a prince not by virtue but by fortune, and Cesare Borgia is a really ambivalent figure in The Prince, but he does something along the lines you suggested. Um, he's got a guy called Ramiro d'Orco, and he sets him up in this small town to kind of be the Sky, the big sheriff on the block. Um, and then he scapegoats him. Basically, he gets Ramiro to be brutal and kind of suppress all discontent. Um, and then and then and then when he when all the people start getting upset about this, he goes, "Hey, I'm just going to like—" and so he doesn't even—Machiavelli just describes this. He did love telling this story. He told it in several different places, actually, but he says um, one day the people go into the plaza at dawn, and there's Ramiro d'Orco in pieces, um, with a with a cultello, or a knife, by his by his side. Um, and you know, this is the image, and and and then it says the people were so stupified that they didn't dare rebel anymore, and that then he—Okay, if you end it there and you say that's the end of the story, you say, okay, lucky, isn't that—but that's pretty cynical. It's pretty cynical, Erica. It's a pretty cynical read on it. It's a very cynical read on it. Don't get stuck—my one advice—don't get stuck on one thing; keep reading on. What were the consequences for Cesare Borgia? What happened to him after that?
Well, everyone starts leaving Cesare, like all the people who are giving him troops and who supported him, all his allies, they all like say, "Okay, this guy's crazy. He's out of control." They start dropping out. The French pull back their troops that they were giving him. All his closest mates, they conspire against him. He finds this out. He brutally slaughters them. And then everyone else hates him. So, within a few months, he's like really in trouble. He doesn't actually die immediately, but he's out. And that's it. So if you go to the end of the you go to the end of the story, you don't just stop and say, "Wow, what a cool thing," because I mean, we can see examples of this all over the world today. Wow, that was a cool thing. Somebody somebody did that was tough. Wait till the story continues, because doing that is going to make you feared and hated, and that's what happened. You're mad at me for not finishing the reading, aren't you? Yeah. Go back and read that chapter. Oh, you didn't even read that chapter in my book. That was such a good—That is such a good chapter. I have—I—I—I read your book all the way through when I read it the first time. Um, and I didn't reread it cover to cover this time. I did revisit it, but I didn't reread the whole thing. But I did at one point read the whole thing.
There's clearly a a a a pragmatism to Machiavelli. Would you say that he has something like an ideology or or or is he just a a clear-eyed realist? He's a republican, and and again this is something that if you just read The Prince, you're not going to get that. But if you read Machiavelli, even just read the Discourses, which as I say was written around the same time as The Prince, it's it's very very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly, whereas The Prince never once uses the tyrant or the word tyranny. So I—if there's an like a guiding set of uh political views, whether you call ideology or not—it's republican republican ideology. If you like, is is shared power. It's all the people in a in a city—all the male people in this case—in Machiavelli's case, he was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. Um, he says very clearly the key to kind of stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to have—give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share.
I know you just said he's a he's a republican. He's defending republicanism, but do you think of him as a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today? If you see the b main principle of democracy is also sharing power among all the people equally, which is how I understand democracy. Um, yeah, he'd totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say a democracy has to have? He's really clear in the Discourses; he tells you you need to have—you don't want a long-term executive. You need you need to always check power. So anyone who's in a position of of like a magistracy, uh, you know, a political office of any kind needs to have very strict limits, needs to be under very strict laws—even stricter laws when they're in the office than they would be as private citizens. Can I pause you for a second? Why is he a critic of of um, you know, long uh people being in power for a long time? Why does he want term limits? Oh, it's corrupt. Simple. He looks at—and he and he's doing this all through Roman history. So he makes his arguments not by just kind of abstractly setting out. These are the kind of constitutional principles you need. He's saying this is what the Romans did when they got rid of the kings and they started building a republic. They did some really good things, and then they did some things not so well, and they had to then kind of go back to the drawing board and rewrite some of the institutions and add some laws that were especially strict for against people trying to come back and create a dictatorship. So he goes through lots of different, you know, kind of things that the Romans did that are now kind of reflected also in the US Constitution or in, you know, other democracies around the world because the founding fathers drew on Machiavelli um and and and his and others—more, you know, authors who'd built on him.
The rule of law is really super important. If you don't have laws that are kind of constraining everybody and institutions that make sure that the more powerful are not held in check, you're going to have trouble soon because people are always always in conflict. This is another thing I think is really more interesting about Machiavelli's view of democracy than a lot of democratic theories you get today. He stresses how much democracy is turbulent. Even in a stable democracy, people are going to be fighting all the time about what kind of, you know, where do they want to go? What kind of values do you want in there? Rich and poor, you know, how much should people get taxed? That's an eternal problem of democracy. Eternal. And and he says you need to have institutions where everyone can debate that. And you know, checks on people getting too powerful also economically. Why did he think rule of law was so perilously fragile? Because people don't want to be equal all the time. And that's just a thing. That's where he's—This is where I would say Machiavelli is a realist. It's this kind of human nature realism that isn't—it's not, you know, good and evil. It's—that's—that's the wrong lens to read Machiavelli. He's going back to this old ancient pre-Christian, you know, traditions that say, look, human beings are bloody messy. We we're always doing these things that upset the orders we create with all our great ideas, and people don't all want to be equal. You know, you're not going to turn people into angels who are happy just saying, "Let's all just share power." You've got to have institutions and laws that do that uh for them. And if you're going to talk about what kind of democracy would help us uh, you know, get more stability, he thinks it would make sense just to have it upfront that we're not idealizing human nature. We're not idealizing what a democracy is. Democracy is like hard work, you. It's hard work, and it means that some people are not going to be happy all the time, but fight for it because it's a lot better than the alternatives.
Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools. Tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the US—from household names like Mattel and Gym Shark to brands just getting started like Dr. Shaun Illings Drillings and Fillings and the Gray Area Soul Patch—die for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at shopify.com/vox. Go to shopify.com/vox. Shopify.com/vox. [Music]
If we were looking in Machiavelli for for insights into—well now—uh, where do we start? What do you think makes him a useful, relevant guide to understanding contemporary politics—particularly American politics? This is a really Machiavellian moment because you know, I—I told—I talked about the situation he was in in in Florence. If you read The Prince kind of looking not just for those outstanding great cool, you know, quotes, but look for the criticisms—and sometimes they're subtle—you start to see that he's he's often like exposing a lot of the stuff that we're seeing today. And he's got a chapter nine in The Prince where he talks about how you can rise to be the kind of ruler of a of a republic and how much resistance you might face. And he says that the resistance that you're going to get—people might be kind of quite passive at first and not do very much—but at some point when they see you start to attack the the law, the courts especially, and the magistrates, that's when you're going to clash. And he says that's when you, as leader—he's playing like I'm on your side, leader—that's when you got to decide, are you going to get really really tough or are you going to have to kind of find other ways to kind of soften soften things up a bit?
What would he make of Trump? He would put Trump in two categories. He's got different classifications of prince. He's got the prince of fortune, who's somebody who relies on wealth, money, and big impressions to get ahead and on other people's arms. He would say Trump has a lot of qualities of that because of the wealth um question—relying on on a massive wealth to help him campaign. Um, but he would also call him—what Machiavelli has this word astutia—astuteness—which doesn't really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means like calculating shrewdness. Somebody who's his great talent is being able to kind of shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can kind of—and people's weaknesses and dissatisfactions—and and exploit them. And that's what he also thought the Medici were good at. And and and his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will kind of, you know, see this the the good appearances and and hope that you would be able to achieve the things that you can, but in the long time, people who do that don't know how to build a solid state. Um, that's what—that's what he would say on a domestic front. Let's also say like if people are interested, chapter 21 is the most Machiavellian chapter in a way for our times because it's about foreign alliances and and people's behavior on the foreign on the international stage, and he's got this example of Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain who was like super hyperactive—like he comes to power and he's immediately going out and like doing things that shock and you know horrify everyone—beating up Jews, beating up Arabs, beating up—doing this and that—and taking neighboring countries around. And Machiavelli kind of is very very funny in the way he describes this behavior. But then he ends up in the chapter saying, "Look, if you don't have stable alliances, you're dead." You know, stable alliances, thick and thin, transparency. That is the key to kind of study long-term government.
Well, I look—just going back to the Trump. Mhm. Okay. I didn't mention him directly. No, I'm not. We're not running away from this, Erica. I'm sorry. I'm so used to—No, look, I—I—I think there's an unsophisticated way to look at the Trump administration as Machiavellian. I mean, again, the there are these lines in The Prince about knowing how to deploy cruelty, knowing when to be ruthless, that thing, that whole thing. But to your point, I don't think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty's sake. And this is my personal opinion, but I think Trump's cruelty is often the point. Exactly. And that's not really Machiavellian. It's just cruel. Exactly. So I think calling it Machiavellian is too generous. Exactly. No, no, I—that I wouldn't say Trump is Machiavellian. I mean, quite honestly, since since the beginning of the Trump administration, I've often felt like he's he's getting advice from a lot of young people who haven't really read Machiavelli or fed—fed, you know, put Machiavelli into ChatGPT and got some pointers and and got all the wrong ones because the ones that they're—they're picking out that he and his his guys are acting on, especially at the beginning, um, were were just so crude, you know, they're just—yeah, they're crude, but they sound Machiavellian, but cruelty—You're absolutely right. Cruelty is uh—I think—for me too. It's been the thing that made me most—wow. I—this is something that's very hard to process. And Machiavelli is very very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere. You're going to get pure hate. So if you think it's ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, uh, think again.
Again, I'm being a little American-centric here, but um, obviously one of the problems of our time is is polarization and and and and negative partisanship. Did did he have a lot to say about the dangers of partisanship in democracies? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. And that was again something that the Romans talked about a lot. So he he's drawing on a whole history of of talking about partisanship. He talks about divisions developing to such a point that it doesn't even really matter that much if the other side is telling the truth or introducing a specific policy that—that that is, you know, justifiably going to annoy the other side. It's just that there's so little trust that conflict is bound to escalate. And he calls this kind of thing a sickness that you've got to catch as early as possible because if you let it grow too big, it's going to be really really hard to to pull back. Something I hear a lot in my life, you use—from people around me—use some version of the argument that, you know, the system is so broken, things are so messed up, we need someone to come in here and smash the system in order to save it. We need political dynamite, Trump. And I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility and maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to get done what has to get done in order to preserve the republic. Do you think he would say that there's real danger in clinging to procedural purity?
Yeah, this is a great question, and again, this is what—one—he does address in the Discourses quite a lot. Um, and he talks about how the Romans when their republic started kind of slippery—slippery—not, you know, going in a wrong way, and great men were coming up and saying, "I'll save you. I'll save you," and there were a lot before Julius Caesar finally saved—and then it all went to pot. Um, he he he really um says that you know there are procedures that have to sometimes be wiped out. You have to reform institutions and add new ones. The Romans added new ones. They subtracted some. They changed the terms. He was very very keen on shortening the terms of various long—excessively long—offices, but also creating some emergency institutions where if you really face an emergency, that institution gives somebody more power to take executive action to solve the problem. But that institution—the dictatorship—it was called in Rome—it was a—it wasn't like a random dictator can come and then do whatever he wants—is like this dictator has executive special powers, but he is under strict oversight—very strict oversight—by the Senate and the plebs so that if he steps, you know, takes one step wrong, out—and maybe serious punishment. So he was really into like being very severe and punishing leaders who took these responsibilities and then abused them.
Anytime we do these sorts of of, you know, philosopher episodes or looking back on some important thinker, I try to close with some sense of of their legacy and and what they left us and why they're important and still matter. And you know, Machiavelli is such a unique case because his influence is everywhere. I mean, he's really one of the few philosophers that have sort of seeped into the mainstream culture, and you know, whatever whatever you think of him and whatever he may have believed privately, he did lay out a vision of politics that is easily recognizable today. It's it's our politics in lots of ways. Did he help make the world that way or did he just see it clearly before most others? I don't know. Maybe a bit of both. How do you think about his ultimate legacy? I'm—I mean, you know, obviously because I—I—I think that what he was really trying to do was to criticize exactly the kinds of actions and leaders that we often see as his his children, you know, his his his brainchildren. And a lot of politicians have have cited him as their kind of intellectual grandfather and given intellectual respectability to a lot of positions which—I—and I think he would consider uh really really cheap and amateurish and bad. So I—I—I'm about this legacy, and and I think it would be great if more people would—maybe in the times we're living in—start to kind of think, "Hang on now. I'm kind of getting this idea that maybe Machiavelli was being um kind of cynically funny but also trying to kind of steer people to criticize what's going on and and maybe pick up The Prince and and find some of these passages and realize that maybe this is a kind of satirical warning signal, a serious satire that's saying, you know, 'Wake up, people. This is what they're doing. These are the tricks.' But these are also—in a way—he's empowering citizens, I think, also when, you know, who read The Prince because he's saying these guys are actually vulnerable. You know, this is—I'm spelling out what they do, and I'm also—if you read properly to the end of their story—I'm showing you where they ended up by using these so-called hardcore, re you know, realist methods. So that means that you know it's not lost—all is—
Not lost, they are vulnerable. Recognize that. Find ways to build up your own power and do it well. We're doing the important work here of setting the record straight. And uh, look, Machiavelli is endlessly interesting, and your book, "Be Like the Fox," is fantastic.
Thanks very much for coming in.
Thank you so much for having me.