Is American pluralism more reflective of Plato’

Political Science 5

Machiavelli

Lesson objectives: Explain Machiavelli’s background and political perspectives and to also critically exam Machiavelli’s political philosophy.

1. A very short summary of Italy during Machiavelli’s time

During Niccolo Machiavelli’s lifetime (1469-1527), most of Europe was formed of unified states. In contrast, Italy was dominated by cities and mercantile princes. The Italian principalities were small and extremely unstable. The five Italian “city-states” – Florence, Milan, Venice, Naples, and the papal state- were active in the emergent international trade and business, but were also constantly involved in various conflicts, and could not unite to form a single Italian nation. Divisiveness was the Italian fate at the time. Hardly any principality possessed a well-established moral authority or supporting traditions. These small city-states were rich in art and commerce, but militarily weak and open to exploitation by Spain, France, England, and Germany. In 1494, when Machiavelli was 25 years old, a French army crossed the Alps for a major invasion of Italy. The peninsula soon became a bone of contention in warfare between France and Spain. Machiavelli witnessed his home town of Florence being transformed from a first-rate Italian power into second-rate status under Spanish domination. By 1527, the year of Machiavelli’s death, the situation in Italy had become still worse: a horde of Spanish and German mercenaries fell on Rome and sacked the city. This defeat ended with the imprisonment of the Pope and the public disgrace of his cardinals. For 300 years thereafter, Italy remained a political disaster area.

The following short video is a great summary of Machiavelli’s significance on political thought and practice.

Click here to watch a 23 minute video summarizing Machiavelli’s life and the impact of his political ideas.

2. Similarities to Plato

Plato and Machiavelli, although separated by almost 2000 years, lived during times of political crisis and witnessed their political orders savaged by invading forces.

Both men looked for power-based solutions to the problems facing their cities. They observed the fundamental flaws in their political systems. The institutional forms of public representation and leadership proved bankrupt when tested by encounters with Sparta (for Plato) and other stronger political states (for Machiavelli). Due to these experiences, both philosophers prescribed the consolidation of political power and the replacement of political amateurism with political professionalism.

Plato and Machiavelli believed strongly in political leadership and recommended that political power should be concentrated in the hands of a leader. For Plato, the leader needed to be a philosopher-king. Machiavelli advocated that the leader should be a prince.

Both expressed confidence in politics as a salvation for their respective cities. Plato and Machiavelli thought that the key to the solution of bad government was to induce right thinking among political leaders, so political command would be knowing and effective.

3. Differences with Plato

A. View of the state.

For both Plato and Aristotle the state was viewed as an agent of virtue.

Machiavelli’s perspective was harsher than Plato’s more idealistic definition of virtue. For Machiavelli, the state was perceived as an instrument of virtu, or masculine force. Machiavelli did not believe politics should be concerned with the virtue of “living according to reason” and dominated by a sense of duty and responsibility to the polis (as per Plato). Machiavelli advocated that politics should instead be directed at ensuring security and survival.

It has been said that one could imagine Machiavelli viewing Raphael’s “School of Athens” painting… as you will recall from our last lesson, Raphael’s work depicted Plato pointing to the heavens, while Aristotle responds with a horizontal gesture toward earth… and saying no to Plato “not the Forms” and no to Aristotle “not the golden mean” but instead insisting on the fist, as per Machiavelli’s focus on exercising virtu to ensure security.

B. Realism v. Idealism

Machiavelli warns that the prince will bring himself to ruin if he pursues the ideal state at the expense of the real.

Read The Prince, Ch. 15 (pages 116 & 117 in your textbook). This chapter illustrates Machiavelli’s emphasis on seeing the world how it really is, rather than dreaming how it might be. His advice in The Prince revolves around separating what he sees as “truth v. imagination.”

To summarize his prescription for effective princely rule, Machiavelli believed:

● Politics concerns how we really live, not how we ought to live. ● A prince who wants to keep power must learn not to be good, and to either use or

refrain from using that knowledge as necessity requires. ● The practice of vice can improve the prince’s and the state’s security and well-being.

Machiavelli makes the clear-cut, political science distinction between “is” and “ought”:

useful v. not useful, useless truth v. imagination realism v. idealism really live v. ought to live fact v. value realpolitik v. fantasy

For Machiavelli, politics is about obtaining power, why, when, and how, not who should get power. He was certain that the way to secure power was by manipulating human nature and interests.

Machiavelli would see Plato as part of the problem for if one rules according to the ideal world, ruin will be assured.

Machiavelli is not necessarily advocating immorality. Instead, he is advising that one needs to do what is pragmatic. Decide what works and then go with that. Sometimes vice will be needed because the world is vicious and people need security and safety. A prince’s first job is to safeguard the state, and harboring “bad” characteristics is sometimes necessary for this end. Such vices are truly evil if they endanger the state, but when vices are employed in the proper interests of the state, a prince must not be influenced by the condemnation from other men.

Machiavelli’s philosophy is certainly alive and well in current domestic politics (e.g., negative campaigning, as just one example!). And, looking beyond our borders, many observers commenting on international relations share a Machiavellian view that the world is dangerous and stress the need for a strong defense as a means to protect ourselves.

4. Feared or loved?

Machiavelli asks in Ch. 17 of The Prince whether it is better to be loved or feared. Be sure to read the answer as expressed in his own words in your textbook, pages 119 – 121.

Machiavelli’s conclusions regarding this dilemma:

A. A prince must use violence and strength decisively, or he risks losing his power.

B. A prince must not hesitate to act cruelly if cruelty is required to preserve order in his state because the alternative – anarchy – is even worse.

C. It is safer for the prince to be feared than loved because people are less reluctant to offend those they love that those they fear. In this regard, Machiavelli stated that:

1. The bonds of love are easily broken, while bonds of fear endure because they involve the threat of punishment. The only motivating factor that can guarantee citizens’ obedience to a prince’s orders is the threat of punishment.

2. The prince can be feared but it is critical not to be hated, which can be prevented by not molesting his subjects’ wives or property.

As mentioned above, one contemporary application of Machiavelli’s maxim that it is “better to be feared than loved” is the perspective many take vis-à-vis international relations: assertively use your nation’s diplomatic and military power or a situation can become worse. (Of course, many others would point to disasters when such policies have been implemented!)

5. Political leadership

Machiavelli addresses how to be an effective leader in Ch. 18 of The Prince. Please review these leadership tips on pages 121-123 in your textbook.

Machiavelli offers the following guidance:

A. Although it is praiseworthy for the prince to keep his word, he is more likely to gain and keep power by using illusion and deception.

1. Because of the wickedness of human nature, a prudent prince should not hesitate to break faith when his interests require such action. Machiavelli does not go so far as to advise ruthlessness for its own sake, but rather indicates that sometimes it is a necessity of leadership. When having to choose between benevolence and cruelty, the latter is more reliable.

2. The prince should take as his models the traits associated with the lion and the fox (i.e., that is strength and cunning.) In politics, however, foxlike trickery is preferable to lion-like brute force.

B. There is value in appearance and illusion. A prince may not have admirable qualities, but he should seem to have them. Machiavelli is pointing out that image is as important as actions.

C. The ends always justify the means. Virtually any action that contributes to the overall goal of maintaining security and safety of the state is acceptable. A prince’s methods will always be considered worthy when successfully ensuring the safety and stability of society. The few critical of harsh tactics employed by the prince have no influence when the many feel secure.

6. The revolutionary aspect of The Prince

It has been said that the most revolutionary aspect of Machiavelli’s The Prince is not so much what it says, but what it ignores. Before Machiavelli, all political writing had one central question: the ends of the state. Political power was assumed to be a means only… a means in the service of higher ends, such as justice, the good life, freedom, or God. Classic political theory linked political law with a higher, moral law.

In contrast, Machiavelli ignores this issue regarding the extra political (e.g., ethical, religious, cultural) ends of the state. He assumes power is an end in itself, and confines his advice to the means best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power. He argues that political action must always be considered in light of its practical consequences rather than some lofty idea. Machiavelli separates power from morality, ethics, and religion. From Machiavelli’s perspective, the ruler may violate (and, sometimes, must violate) other value systems, such as religion, ethics, or morality. Power and morality are independent of each other. A good ruler must make decisions based on politics in the real world, not on ethics in an ideal world. Lying, manipulation, and even violence will sometimes be necessary to protect the interests of the state.

In fact, he recommends that the rules of power have priority over those of ethics and morality. Good and evil are thus reduced from absolute to relative categories, and it depends on the situation whether a particular action is good or bad. The decision about whether a particular action is good or bad depends, for Machiavelli, whether it furthers the gain or retention of power. An efficient means of acquiring, consolidating, and expanding power is good; an inefficient means is bad.

7. Critiques

A. Machiavelli presents an overly pessimistic view of human nature.

Machiavelli believes that rulers should not weaken their power by being faithful: “Therefore, a prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when doing so would be against his interest.” Machiavelli is convinced men are by nature “bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them.” People quickly turn selfish and deceitful when confronted with adversity. Mankind is essentially viewed by Machiavelli as unchangeable, incapable of improvement and reason.

However, history has often recorded the will of men to be free, to put freedom above all other goods, even life itself. Human psychology is more complex than a strict pessimist such as Machiavelli can admit. Idealist goals and yearnings, civic responsibility, benevolent behavior and sacrifice, and community commitment are also evident in human nature. A more optimistic view is that while humans are prone to error and bad behavior, they are also improvable and capable of progress and reason.

B. His lack of concern for the ends of power is shortsighted.

By focusing on the means to power, Machiavelli ignored the relationship between means and ends. He was interested only in the means of acquiring, retaining and holding power and not in the ends or goals of the state. However, the nature of the end determines the means most suited for it, but Machiavelli did not focus on this relationship. He devalued the raison d’etre (i.e., reason for existence) of power, as well as the importance of societal and political goals, in his subordination of the ends to the means.

C. He ignores the institutional framework of politics.

Machiavelli is most interested in rulers, in unique leader personalities, and in the power held by individual men. He does not delve into the institutional framework of power, focusing narrowly on the attributes of the outstanding prince. In contrast, many observers have noted that societies flourish when stable and just institutions make it difficult for lawless tyrants to thrive. Peaceful democracies can succeed in creating such societies. By focusing his advice in The Prince toward a sole powerful leader to the exclusion of other institutions, Machiavelli is shown to be myopic in his approach.

D. Machiavelli’s perspective is too shallow.

Machiavelli is occupied with great rulers, who are supposed to create a community all in one piece. His primary concern was with founders of new governments. The conception of a community as an organic society with an influential past was not acknowledged by Machiavelli. Nor did he recognize that statesmen can only affect a community to a limited extent. A philosophy which attributes the successes or failures of politics chiefly to the astuteness or ineptitude of a ruler is bound to be superficial.

Now, in the “saving-the-best-for-last-category”, be certain to watch the very entertaining video linked below. This BBC production entitled “Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli” considers Machiavelli’s impact on society today, with linkages to leaders, celebrities, authors, and businesses. George Martin (Game of Thrones author), Tupac, 50 Cent, Google, Facebook, and others are all featured, along with presidents, prime ministers, and military commanders. Enjoy!

Click here to access the YouTube link to “Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli.”

……………………………………………………..

Political Science 5

American Pluralism and the Role of Groups

Lesson objectives: Discuss the reality of pluralism in the U.S. and its relevance to the political philosophers studied in class.

1. Introduction

In our online class we will explore the recommendations of various philosophers regarding how to best organize governing for the betterment of the individual and society in general. We have already learned about Plato’s thoughts on these issues. We have also critiqued Plato’s theories and discovered that many of his ideas would simply not work in modern society. As other political thinkers are examined during the course of the semester, we will frequently compare and contrast their concepts to the U.S. political system and culture. In order to conduct this critical analysis, it is valuable to refresh our knowledge about how politics is practiced in our country. This lesson will provide this review. The summary will not rehash what was covered in Political Science 1 (The Government of the United States) regarding the different branches of government and the organization of our federalist system. Instead, this lesson summarizes the relationship between the government and the governed… how real political power is exercised influencing the institutions of our government.

2. American pluralism

The most widely accepted explanation of how politics works in the United States is known as pluralism. Pluralism asserts that various groups and coalitions constantly vie for government favor and the ability to exercise political power, but none enjoys long-term dominance.

The father of American pluralism is James Madison who cited politics as “ambition countering ambition.” Madison’s language may be a bit antiquated and more modern phraseology might restate his words as “interest group clashing with interest group.” The description listed above also echoes Madison’s observation in more contemporary words.

Pluralists believe it is natural that different interests, goals, values, ideas, etc. will be present in individuals and groups. It is natural for different factions to exist, for interests to conflict, for varying viewpoints to be expressed. Since this is natural and inevitable, clashing ideas should not be suppressed by the state. Instead, interests should be allowed to fight it out, with the state supervising the struggle and registering in its laws the temporary outcome of the conflict. Society, in other words, consists of competition and the rightful role of the state is to serve as a neutral mediator in such conflicts.

Pluralists promote the idea that no one group is intrinsically superior to another. Therefore, there is no absolute moral standard against which competing claims can be measured. Correspondingly, no group should be predetermined to always win. The competition over political ideas should be fair and overseen in an unbiased manner by the state. One analogy might be found in legitimate sports: competitors clash but are bound by rules designed to ensure impartiality and a “level playing field,” all enforced by referees devoted to fairness.

Organizations that seek to achieve their goals by influencing government decision making are called interest groups. Interest groups are also called special interests, pressure groups, organized interests, political groups, lobbies, and public interest groups. Interest groups differ from political parties in that interest groups do not seek direct control of the government, as parties aim to achieve through elections. Interest groups promote their goals by attempting to influence government rather than nominating candidates and seeking responsibility for the management of government. Interest groups want to influence policy making on issues. Interest groups are more numerous and more important in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

The nineteenth century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville traveled extensively in America and authored the influential book Democracy in America. He labeled our country as a “nation of joiners.” Many believe his observation is true today. Estimates indicate that about 80% of all Americans belong to at least one voluntary group or association. Although many groups are not interest groups, de Tocqueville’s perception remains relevant. However, some critics disagree. Political scientist Robert Putnam, for example, has argued that fewer Americans are joining groups, a phenomenon he labeled “bowling alone.” Others have faulted Putnam concluding that America is witnessing an explosion of voluntary groups, activities, and charities that are transforming the United States. These observers note that bowling leagues and older organizations, such as the Elks Club and the League of Women Voters, whose membership was tracked by Putnam, are attracting few new members, but contemporary volunteer groups, soccer associations, health clubs, environmental groups, and so on are flourishing. People are not avoiding associating with groups; they are simply joining different associations, online social networks, and internet-based organizations which share their personal and public interests.

3. Types of interest groups

When we think of interest groups, the typical images that come to mind are of wealthy lobbyists “schmoozing” with easily corrupted politicians. This is probably partially due to 19th century muckraking political cartoonists who liked to depict pot bellied men in top hats and striped pants to represent big business invariably in league against the public welfare. Today, some people still tend to view interest groups from this perspective: evil, business-dominated organizations plotting against the public. This stereotyped image is rarely the case, as contemporary groups include many “public interest” associations championing the consumer, environment, working class, and common citizen. In fact, interest groups do not require the leadership of the rich and well-connected to be effective. Even the least powerful members of society, through collective action, can influence policy making. Although moneyed interests

may sometimes dominate political parties, interest groups play a crucial role in leveling the playing field by providing the opportunity for access for organized, average people.

The types of interest groups are vast but can be divided into three categories based on the type of concerns that drive their efforts to influence government policy making: economic groups, citizen groups, and single-issue groups.

Economic groups. This type of interest group seeks public policies that provide monetary benefits to its members. Corporations, trade associations, labor unions, and professional organizations are economic interest groups. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the seven major U.S. manufacturers and distributors of movie and television programs. The MPAA lobbies policymakers to enact anti piracy laws, which aim to prevent the illegal copying of movies. This advocacy benefits the group’s members and their employees because anti-piracy laws help ensure that any copies of movies sold are legal and thus profitable for MPAA members. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), for another example, is a federation of fifty-five labor unions with more than 10 million members. The AFL-CIO lobbies for laws that make it easier to form labor unions and supports government regulations that benefit workers. The National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) is a trade association composed of a nationwide group of local businesses that buy beer from brewers and resell it to stores and restaurants. The NBWA’s principle lobbying goal is to ensure that laws remain in place requiring middlemen between beer producers and the stores, bars, and restaurants that sell beer to consumers. Another example of an economic interest group is the American Medical Association, one of the top spenders on lobbying for government policies that financially benefit doctors and other medical professionals.

Citizen groups. Also known as public interest groups, this category captures a wide range of organizations, from those with mass membership (such as the Sierra Club) to those that have few members but claim to speak for large segments of the population. One such group is Public Citizen which was formed by activist Ralph Nader, who initially started out lobbying (successfully!) for changes in automotive design that would make cars safer. Public Citizen now conducts research and pressures Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for openness in government and on a wide range of environmental, health, consumer, and energy issues. Another example is the Family Research Council, which describes itself as “promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview.” This group lobbies for a wide range of policies, including legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Single-issue groups. These interest groups target their efforts on a narrowly focused goal, seeking change on a single topic, government program, or piece of legislation. One example is the National Right to Life Committee, which lobbies for restrictions on abortion rights. Closer to home, a former student surprised one of my on-campus classrooms by bringing a ferret to a session. She was a member of Ferrets Anonymous, a single-issue group promoting the legalization of the domestic ferret in California.

4. How interest groups operate

Interest groups operate in a variety of ways to influence public policy making. These strategies and tactics include:

Mass propaganda. Virtually all interest groups now try to influence public opinion about issues. The goal is not to necessarily motivate citizens to do anything, but to influence public opinion in the hope that elected officials will respond by enacting or opposing new laws or regulations in order to keep constituents happy. Most groups maintain a web page that presents their message. Some associations may also design a media effort to sway public opinion on an issue or to just produce positive community feelings about the group. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a very active, but controversial, group that focuses on protecting gun ownership. They often run “I am the NRA” ads on television and in print media to improve their image. These ads do not call for any action on the part of the viewer, but merely feature common, next-door-type citizens (or sometimes celebrities with positive reputations) projecting an image of responsibility. This tactic is labeled as “climate control,” the practice of using public outreach to build favorable public opinion of the organization or company. The logic of climate control is simple: if a corporation or organization has the goodwill of the public on its side, enacting its legislative agenda will be easier.

Lobbying. Most interest groups place lobbying at the top of their agendas. Lobbying activities seek to persuade political leaders to support the group’s position. There are multiple ways for an organization to lobby policymakers, including testifying at hearings and contacting legislators. A critical asset for any interest group is to establish access to elected officials. This is simple as making an appointment to visit with a legislator and the aides that assist the official. Providing information that decision makers might not have the time, resources, or interest to gather on their own is another avenue for lobbying. Interest groups also regularly try to inspire their members to engage in grassroots lobbying, hoping that legislators will respond to ordinary voters serving as advocates.

Lobbying elected officials can be costly and well-heeled groups have a financial advantage in hiring lobbyists to represent their interests. Follow the Center for Responsive Politics’ link below to see which organizations spent the most on lobbying during the last 15 years.

Lobbying: Top Spenders

Campaign support. Many interest groups become involved in the electoral process by recruiting or endorsing candidates. Some provide financial aid or other forms of support for favored office seekers. EMILY’S List was founded to support pro-choice Democratic women candidates and in 2012 contributed over $8 million in direct contributions and also mobilized volunteers, provided campaign consultants and paid for some direct media. Interest groups are engaged in other election activities, such as launching massive get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts, and rating candidates based on their voting records or policy positions.

Political action committees (PACs) are the financial arms of interest groups used to collect and distribute money to candidates for elective office. Follow the

OpenSecrets.org link below to view the top 20 PAC contributors to candidates during various years and election cycles. Who were the top PAC contributors during the 2015-16 election cycle? Change the date range listed at the top of the page to reveal the top PACs in 2019-2020

Top PACs

Rating candidates (sometimes by issuing “grading cards”) based on their support for interest group policy positions is standard-operating-procedure! Click on the link below to scroll through a compilation of interest group ratings for Congressman Brad Sherman, who represents much of the west San Fernando Valley, including Pierce College. The listing is provided by public interest group Project Vote Smart. You can use their site to input names of other elected officials and view their ratings by interest groups.

Project Vote Smart list of interest group ratings

Court litigation. The courts have proved a useful target for interest groups. By bringing their causes before the courts, groups can shape policy. Generally, interest groups lobbying courts can take two forms: direct sponsorship or the filing of amicus curiae briefs. Sponsorship involves providing resources (financial, human, and informational) to shepherd a case through the judicial system. When a case a group is interested in but not actually sponsoring comes before a court, the organization often will file an amicus brief to inform the justices of the group’s policy preference, generally offered in the guise of legal arguments. One famous example of interest group litigation was the legal battle waged by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) during the 1950’s to desegregate public facilities in southern states. The NAACP focused their efforts on legal actions challenging the constitutionality of laws that allowed separate schools for whites and blacks. The Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring segregated schools unconstitutional was the successful result of the NAACP’s litigation. Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) utilizes court litigation as their main operational strategy in pursuing their goal of protecting individual freedoms and rights.

Peaceful protest. An occasional and highly visible tactic used by some groups is protest ac

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.