One of the major differences between Taoist and Machiavellian views toward a great leader is the way to lead. An example of the Taoist way of leading people would be Herbert Hoover. He never took charge of anything. He also believed that people are to govern themselves and prosper. However, it is known historically that his plan didn’t work the way he intended and resulted in the Great Depression.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power replacing Hoover and implementing the Machiavellian way of government into U.S. Politics. He took charge of the events and “launched a campaign that brought new spirit to a weary and discouraged nation. [He created] the New Deal program, with greater benefits for labor, the farmers, and the unemployed, and the progressive estrangement of most of the business community”(Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Although, he was loved and honored by many people, he wasn’t weak and didn’t let the country run itself.

A historical example of the difference between Machiavellian and Taoist ways of government showed up in Japan during 1900’s. In 1926, the Emperor Hirohito became the leader of the country. Although, he “ordered his senior advisers, against their wishes, to put [down] the rebellion [against political leaders]”(Emperor Hirohito), he did so because he was influenced by the Tojo. It is obvious that Hirohito is not a Machiavellian leader because the Machiavellian way of ruling the country prevents anyone from taking advice from any person. If it is not right, you make it right. He would be considered the head of a Taoist way of governing because he let Tojo to take over all of his decisions, although he was the actual emperor of the country.

Tojo, however can definitely be considered a Machiavellian leader. He was bold in his decision making. He did not care what people of the country felt about him being in charge or him doing something they did not want. Although, some of the people were in fear because of him, he got his chance, and actually got a lot accomplished. Most people might not agree that the sacrifice of so many lives was so necessary, but it definitely helped Japan establish its place in the world.

Another difference is the way that the leader views his or her position. It is possible to see this difference in a well known series called Bones. There are two main characters in the series: Agent Booth, who works for FBI; and Doctor Brennan who helps Booth solve crimes. Agent Booth from the FBI shows mainly the Taoist way of leadership. Although he tries to find the criminal and sometimes takes charge of the people, he doesn’t really believe in doing work and tracing the criminal’s steps. Instead he forms many different guesses that are not supported by any facts. In one of the episodes he infers that the forester was the murderer, also he had absolutely no proof(Bones). He feels that if he just lets the investigation be as it is, the murder will solve itself.

Doctor Temperance Brennan is different from agent Booth in a way that she thinks that any theory has to be proved in order for it to be true. She never depends on her natural instincts. In fact, in one of the cases she refuses to look at the identity of the person while looking for the cause of death(Bones). She is the representative of the Machiavellian way of governing because she always looks at the facts, not opinions. She also believes that there has to be some work done in order to accomplish something.

The main difference between Taoist and Machiavellian ways is the way the leader acts. The Machiavellian way of governing includes taking charge of everything. It also keeps some kind of a secret behind the scenes. People never know the actual nature of the Machiavellian leader. They know that they have a good leader because they do not feel the pressure all the time, however, the leader is never the same person as the people see him. A Taoist leaders allow people do whatever they want. That’s why it’s not a safe way of governing. Every time there is a Taoist leader in charge, someone will take over the government sooner or later.

Works Cited

“Emperor Hirohito : Biography.” Spartacus Educational. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWhirohito.htm>.

“Famous Quotes About Leadership.” Motivational and Inspirational Quotes. Infinity Web Development, LLC, 2002. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.inspirational- quotes.info/leadership.html>.

“Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” Infoplease. Pearson Education, 2000. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760616.html>.

Hanson, Hart, Kathy Reichs, and Noah Hawley. “Bones.” Bones. Dir. Ian Toynton, Dwight H. Little, and Allan Kroeker. FOX. Television.

The Medici family was the traditional rulers of Machiavelli’s home state, Milan. During his lifetime, the Medici’s claim to power over the Milanese state had been challenged and their grip on the reins of power had somehow been loosened. They had just been re-instated to power in 1512.

Before writing The Prince, Machiavelli had held key positions in the Republican government that had replaced the Medici family. When the scale of Milanese power tipped in favor of the Medici family, Machiavelli’s place in politics and in the society was compromised.  Thus, when he wrote The Prince, his political standing was in grave trouble. Machiavelli, probably to avoid any more inconveniences (he had already been detained and tortured) brought about by his connections to the former Republic, produced The Prince to appease the Medicis who were powerful once again.

Since its publication in 1532, The Prince had been much maligned and condemned. It was banned by the Vatican and Machiavelli has since been demonized. But throughout the ages that followed, political leaders read and learned from it.

Written in clear and direct manner, the work is easily understood. Its pragmatic approach to politics and governance was perceived as a testament of Machiavelli’s advocating for ruthlessness, brutality, and cunning in political dealings. This is assuming that the principles laid down in The Prince truly reflect Machiavelli’s personal views.    

That Machiavelli advocated for a prince or any head of state to hold on to power and that they should employ whatever measures, no matter how brutal, to secure this power is simply erroneous. The text in The Prince itself suggests moderation; that is that leaders should neither be too tight nor loose in their grip of power. That Machiavelli in fact prefers a republican government over a principality or monarchial rule can be supported by his other work, the Discourses on Livy, which discusses the structure and the advantages of a republic. In addition, Machiavelli had played an active part in the Milanese Republic but withdrew from public life when Milan was re-established as a principality.

Now, let us recall the circumstances surrounding Machiavelli at the time he wrote The Prince. Though he had been pardoned for his part in the short-lived Republican government, he was still in disfavor and in an awkward situation. The underlying thesis in his The Prince – which is that of holding on to political power – was obviously to show his support to the newly re-established Medici family. This show of support does not necessarily mean Machiavelli was really in favor of the Medici. He may just be flowing with the political tide to survive or to gain security for himself.

The Prince is only a summary of Machiavelli’s observations of how princes, monarchs, heads of states governed their territories. The work contains descriptions of their actions and decisions, as well as commentaries on their victories and blunders.  It is a record of the dynamic 16th century European politics. Machiavelli looked into history and the contemporary politics of his time as he formulated his advices. He did not necessarily urge them to be ruthless and brutal; he only cautioned them to be prudent.

How it is to be prudent or to govern a state wisely, Machiavelli chose to present a realistic approach over an idealistic one. Idealistic principles would have been approved and readily accepted, it would also be eagerly neglected. It only takes common sense to realize that constant benevolence in politics does not guarantee success.

The Prince, to its original target readers is an easy to follow manual in political survival. The advices Machiavelli has for princes here can still be applied today. More importantly, however, what it offers to modern day readers is a glimpse of an aspect of humanity that has changed little over the centuries – the mechanics of politics, state governance, and leadership.

What made The Prince famous is its portrayal of reality in politics. What made it infamous was the denial of this reality. Hence, The Prince was preserved and the name Niccolo Machiavelli was not lost to posterity.

Macabre- gruesome or horrifying. (The pronunciation of this word, along with the one above, is macabre). Such a pleasant word, right? Notice how close it is to the Macarana. O.O

Favorite Books

Favorite Movies

Favorite TV Shows

This is a brilliant, though typical, instance of how an intellectual can so intellectualize something toward its then obviously becoming a rather gross absurdity of the highest order; he was and remains, in at least the opinion of some, an overrated thinker. But, going directly back to the important matter, what about constitutional rights?

Constitutionally speaking, those rights explicitly listed in the US Constitution, meaning inclusive of the first Ten Amendments, called the Bill of Rights, are the enumerated and catalogued civil liberties of the citizens of this country. Thus, for instance, the First Amendment includes “the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” But, rationally speaking, all stated civil liberties become and remain impossible to actually exercise (remain merely theoretical in nature) unless they do exist with allied civil rights.

For each civil liberty, therefore, there must then exist a cognate and reciprocal civil right that empirically and functionally enables the free exercise of that civil liberty. One interestingly sees that such politically complementary functionality must logically occur if freedom and liberty are to be genuinely maintained, not just abstractly assumed or merely posited through a legal positivism of some kind.

If the civil right of freedom of association did not exist, then any supposed freedom of assembly would be purely theoretical and not factual as to being politically a concrete reality. Why? It is empirically, existentially, and politically impossible to assemble, for instance, without necessarily associating in the very act of doing or attempting the assembling. Picture a simple and appropriate classroom exercise for students in a civics or government class.

Tell one student to go to the back of the room, tell another to go to the doorway, and tell yet another to, perhaps, stand up at the front of the same room. Then, give the announcement that these three people, at the count of three, are to then assemble – but must not ever associate with one another in this same process of freely assembling together. Of course, it cannot be done.

None of the students would be able to so physically meet with, associate with, the others. And, about this cited matter, Nisbet was, thus, simply being intellectually idiotic, which was his neoconservative privilege. What is the greater meaning, however, of this plain yet fairly evocative illustration?

Freedom of assembly must, of logical and political necessity, be completely united with the freedom of association; this is so that both can then requisitely create, therefore, the needed composite situation of assembling and associating, as the civil liberty cited can be exercised through the civil right that supports its proper and legal, constitutional, existence.
In notable historical support of this assertion, e.g., the Constitution of the formerly (or, is it presently?) existing Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (AKA Russia) had among the greatest listing of constitutional civil liberties in it of any modern state; but, a Soviet citizen, especially under Stalin, could have been easily killed, in fact, for trying to effectuate any civil right for the proposed sake of attaining the actual exercise of a Soviet, constitutional, civil liberty. Q. E. D.

If the Obama Administration, for instance, should obnoxiously help push through the Democratic Party-controlled US Congress some version of the Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine” for talk radio, the above discussion may not, however, prove to be just so airily theoretical. Freedom of speech is truly wonderful- if one is permitted to hear it.
Under the suitably unctuous guise of, thus, promoting some supposed fairness, there comes into being, sooner or later, public censorship of the most effective and insidious kind, the censorship of silence; it will be then effectively sustained, by the government, in the ironic name of aiding an interpretation of assumed “fairness” done on behalf of the American (or, is it Soviet?) people. Political opposition, once loud and large on the radio, will be increasingly deflected and dulled, modified and milked, through the creative absence of speech, as maintained by quotas, “balance,” or other such interesting Machiavellian devices.

Paper guarantees of rights, it can be noted, are meaningless; this is whenever the free exercise of those rights are or become so constrained, restricted, or qualified as to be then practically unobtainable, in the real world of men and events. And, this can be still said, in all fairness, to the highly important subject now at hand. In any event, freedom (whether interpreted through civil liberties or civil rights) isn’t free.