History’s Greatest Republican Strategist on Obama’s 100 Days

“It’s the Out Years, Stupid”:

Hence, to have credit for liberality with the world at large, you must neglect no circumstance of sumptuous display; the result being, that a Prince of a liberal disposition will consume his whole substance in things of this sort, and, after all, be obliged, if he would maintain his reputation for liberality, to burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes, and to resort to confiscations and all the other shifts whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects, and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So that in the end, having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began, and is exposed to all his original dangers. Recognizing this, and endeavouring to retrace his steps, he at once incurs the infamy of miserliness.

***

And there is no quality so self-destructive as liberality; for while you practise it you lose the means whereby it can be practised, and become poor and despised, or else, to avoid poverty, you become rapacious and hated. For liberality leads to one or other of these two results, against which, beyond all others, a Prince should guard.

–Niccolo Machiavelli, THE PRINCE, Chapter 16, Of Liberality & Miserliness

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.

–Niccolo Machiavelli, THE PRINCE, Chapter 17, On Cruelty and Clemency

***

Republicans Must Never Give Up Hope

…Those who experience the extremes whether of good or of evil fortune, are, commonly, little deserving either of praise or blame; since it is apparent that it is from Heaven having afforded them, or denied them opportunities for acting worthily, that they have been brought to their greatness or to their undoing. Fortune, doubtless, when she seeks to effect great ends, will often choose as her instrument a man of such sense and worth that he can recognize the opportunities which she holds out to him; and, in like manner, when she desires to bring about great calamities, will put forward such men as will of themselves contribute to that result. And all who stand in her way, she either removes by death, or deprives of the means of effecting good. And it is well seen in the passage we are
considering, how Fortune, to aggrandize Rome, and raise her to the height she reached, judged it necessary, as shall be more fully shown in the following Book, to humble her; yet would not have her utterly undone. For which reason we find her causing Camillus to be banished, but not put to death; suffering Rome to be taken, but not the Capitol; and bringing it to pass that, while the Romans took no wise precaution for the defence of their city, they neglected none in defending their citadel. That Rome might be taken, Fortune caused the mass of the army, after the rout at the Allia, to direct its flight to Veii, thus withdrawing the means wherewith the city might have been defended; but while thus disposing matters, she at the same time prepared all the needful steps for its recovery, in bringing an almost entire Roman array to Veii, and Camillus to Ardea, so that a great force might be assembled for the rescue of their country, under a captain in no way compromised by previous reverses, but, on the contrary, in the enjoyment of an untarnished renown. I might cite many modern instances to confirm these opinions, but since enough has been said to convince any fair mind, I pass them over. But once more I repeat what, from all history, may be seen to be most true, that men may aid Fortune, but not withstand her; may interweave their threads with her web, but cannot break it. But, for all that, they must never lose heart, since not knowing what their end is to be, and moving towards it by cross-roads and untravelled paths, they have always room for hope, and ought never to abandon it, whatsoever befalls, and into whatsoever straits they come.

–Niccolo Machiavelli,
DISCOURSES ON THE FIRST DECADE OF TITUS LIVIUS,
Book 2, Chapter 29,
That Fortune obscures the minds of men
when she would not have them hinder her designs

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Haven’t read Niccolo in years. Best I set “The Prince” aside for my usual evening reading. Then round up a few others.

Excellent post, CK.

Little has changed over the centuries, really. Power, getting it, using it, projecting it successfully, is an art. It can be learned, but to do so, one has to start early, not try to catch up later…for no other reason that the other guy may be chapters ahead of you already.

The basics…the names may change…the times may change, as well…but the basics are still that necessary foundation.

That is the fatal flaw with Marxism and Marxist derivatives…and from the earliest days of Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky and other Marxists arguing how many collective theories on could fit on the head of a pin…only the former seminarian from Gori understood theory from the actual application of power.

He was the only truly powerful leader in the history of that failed experiment in governance. Of all the books he secretly hid in his seminary room, I have to believe Niccolo Machiavelli was the author of more than one of them.

coldwarrior on April 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Why a full implementation of socialism will be difficult:

And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

- The Prince, Chapter 6

On judging Obama by his cabinet:

THE choice of servants is of no little importance to a prince, and they are good or not according to the discrimination of the prince. And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

- The Prince, Chapter 22

thirteen28 on April 29, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Those were good ones, 1328, and so was the famouse statement that came up the other day on a torture-related thread, correctly identifed (though never accepted, it must be said) by our friend strangelet as a rebuke to the utopians: “How one lives and how one ought to live are so far apart that he who spurns what is actually done for what ought to be done will achieve ruin rather than his own preservation.” I fear that it may sum up the entire Obamaist foreign and security policy, at least wherever it diverges from “continuity” with #1 world enemy the evil Boosh.

Another one I really wanted to find a way to work in was the anecdote regarding Caterina Sforza – whose story is recounted in several places by Machiavelli, and who, when her children were take hostage, rebuked their captors by lifting her skirts and exposing itself, saying she could make more of them if she needed to…

Now that’s fighting spirit! A woman like that would be a good back-up, or replacement, for Steele.

CK MacLeod on April 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM

I think Niccolo is ghos- writing Obama’s plays actually.
“Put not your trust in the faith of princes.”
hahahaha!

I may be a Dostoyevskian idealist…..but my president is not.
He is a Machiavellian pragmatist, just like you, Highlander.
You should love him.
Now, your much vaunted Sarah Palin….continually comes off as Bottom the Comick Rustick, I’m afraid.

I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of me;
to fright me, if they could. But I will not stir
from this place, do what they can: I will walk up
and down here, and I will sing, that they shall hear
I am not afraid.

strangelet on April 30, 2009 at 7:50 AM

ghost-writing, lol

strangelet on April 30, 2009 at 7:50 AM

This is fascinating…..what would Niccolo do?

strangelet on April 30, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are “locked in for life”, supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

Strategically, the torture issue is going to hurt you badly with my cohort, I think.

strangelet on April 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

You’ve demonstrated a fundamental incapacity or unwillingness to come to grips with the “torture issue,” strangelet. I’m therefore distrustful of, and provisionally uninterested in, any opinion of yours that uses the word “torture” in any political or moral connection.

CK MacLeod on April 30, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Gee, I thought we were talking about Niccolo, O Mathematikos.
You see….I have gripped the issue, and chewed it up and masticated it and spat it out. I listened to your arguments and I am unpersuaded. You have helped me think for myself, though, and deserve my gratitude for that.

Also…I think there will be a truth commission, and that Bush and Cheney should fall on their swords while they still can.

Torture apologia does not play well with my cohort.
A tribe without reps cannot survive.

strangelet on April 30, 2009 at 6:58 PM