Jefferson And Machiavelli example essay topic

Politicians have a corrupt reputation, and everyone knows it. They seem to have gotten their reputation because the majority of them act dishonest and deceitful. Nearly everyone assumes that politicians will say anything to get elected, and very few will keep their word. Niccolo Machiavelli, in his work, "The Qualities of a Prince", established a set of values that has basically turned into the modern day politicians' bible. Although our nation is supposed to be founded upon Thomas Jefferson's "The Declaration of Independence", the standards set by it have slowly deteriorated over the years.

Having completely opposite points of view on our world leaders, Jefferson would probably have quite an argument against the principles set forth by the beloved Machiavelli. Jefferson's and Machiavelli's ideals are very contradicting of each other. Machiavelli's whole system of rules is based on insincerity. In his writing he emphasizes the "say one thing do another" mentality. He lists the qualities that any leader should observe when ruling, but also states "since it is neither possible to have them nor to observe them all completely, a prince must be prudent enough to know how to escape the bad reputation of those vices that would lost the state for him".

Basically he's saying be immoral but appear to be ethical overall. Jefferson would most likely strongly disagree with Machiavelli's principles. He believes that our government should "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", implying that the leaders should be a direct result of what the people want. Jefferson directly states "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People". It couldn't be put more simply.

If our nations leaders went by Machiavelli's standards, there would be no voice of the people involved, because they would have only been elected on what they appeared to be, not how they actually govern. His objectives are just to get the job done regardless of what it takes, who is sacrificed, and what people are fooled. On the contrary, Jefferson reinforces a government that the people are satisfied with, and if it so happens that the people are no longer content, then they have the power to overthrow such a government. Jefferson and Machiavelli overall have completely opposing views of the way to govern and lead a nation.

The only thing the two men agree on is the fact that you should appear to be the type of person that people want to elect to govern them. Both imply that people are gullible and will believe whatever they are told. Machiavelli then turns around and basically advises them to abandon that set of values and do whatever is necessary, no matter how conniving it may be, while Jefferson recommends sticking with the morals and running a nation the way that was presented to the public. He's not one for deceiving the people because his whole idea system is based upon a utopian type of government. Jefferson is classified as more of an idealist while Machiavelli would fall under the realist category.

Machiavelli understands that sometimes what it takes to command a nation isn't always a picture perfect way to solve things, but what must be done should be done. Overall, the two men have very contrasting opinions on what makes a successful leader. Sadly, in the real world, most of our politicians could be considered Machiavellian type people. They promise and pledge when it comes to election time, but when it comes down to actually governing and running our nation, most of them don't care who they have to walk on to succeed, all the while trying to keep a good status with the people who elected them.

In an ideal world, everyone would stand by their promises and be completely honest, however, we live in a society where that is a rare quality to come across.