As I’ve stated in our blog before, I think it is far better for a politician or any similar public figure to avoid neutrality, and instead articulate opinions that the average member of the public can neatly file as liberal, conservative, or moderate. Voters prefer to see the concrete lines of peoples’ beliefs, for it allows them to recognize how closely their own views match those of candidates. For this reason, I believe Machiavelli offers reasonable and beneficial advice by advising a ruler to be bold in action and “resist fortune” to an extent. He states, “…I think it may be true that fortune determines one half of our actions, but that, even so, she leaves us to control the other half…” (74) Our own free will is not to be tampered with, according to Machiavelli. However, how we utilize our free will is up to debate. Machiavelli encourages future rulers to adopt firm stances, which demands boldness. Yet he also emphasizes the necessity to adapt, which requires an even greater measure of confidence. Machiavelli comments, “…if one knew how to change one’s character as times and circumstances change, one’s luck would never change.” (76) It is this constant, chameleon-like change of character that concerns me; I certainly could not place faith in such a leader. In modern society, this kind of behavior would represent a red flag to voters. Of course, Machiavelli’s ruler lived in a different time, when subjects were expected to blindly follow rather than scrutinize a ruler’s every move and motive. I respect Machiavelli’s tribute to boldness, yet I believe that courage is better placed in solid, lasting conviction than in a litany of contradictory natures.
Julie, I completely agree! How can we trust a ruler who is always changing?! I also believe that courage is better used in keeping your position in the face of criticism than flip-floping to please voters. That doesn't seem courageous to me at all.
ReplyDelete