Check out this picture that Weslie from the 8am class sent me.
With this image now imprinted on your retina, consider these questions:
1. Politicians -- especially heads of state -- are the contemporary counterparts of the prince. To what extent should successful heads of modern states show skill in war? Is modern war similar to wars in Machiavelli's era? If so in what ways?
2. Are modern politicians likely to succeed by following all or most of Machiavelli's recommendations? Why or why not?
Posters, answer ONE of these, using examples from the text. Feel free to reference the picture, post your own picture (relevant and tasteful, of course), or a relevant you-tube video (that might be tricky, but you can always include a link if you can't embed the video in the post). The last part is optional, of course.
9 comments:
I believe that in todays society, a politician would be more loved and favored if he/she was able to prevent a war from occuring. The skills of war would be very helpful, but pushing the idea of no war would satisfy a larger mass of people. Having a war in todays society is very different then having a war many centuries ago. If you walk through the streets today, you would probably not have any idea that our country is currently fighting over seas. If the idea of politicians being powerful in war was a way to have then elected and loved, then war would be more of a statement, and would be displayed more.
2. I do not think that in our society today any leader should use all of Machiavellis ideas but with some they could be suceessful. A leader in our society should know the lay of the land and understand where all of their citzens come from. Like Machiavelli said this way if we do go to war they will understand the lay of the land in other countries. In the U.S. case they could use the influence of its citizens to better understand other countries customs rather than land. If we understood other countries we could work out problems without violence. By talking things out and understanding and respecting other cultures the U.S. leaders would gain much resepct from their citizens. The U.S. would be the ultimate leader if they got to know their citizens and there homelands in the U.S. and outside.
~Maura
Posters -- please post to the front page. sign in and create a post.
Response to # 2
Most of Machiavelli’s recommendations are reasonable, but others would only turn people against a leader. “For instance he suggests that a morally good person would not remain long in any high office because that person would have to compete with the mass of people, who, he says, are basically bad (Machiavelli 36). A leader can not be too kind or too generous because he will be taken advantage of. If the enemy doesn’t fear the leader, then he will not be able to hold his power because he will appear as weak. I agree with Machiavelli that a leader must be strong as well as understand the history of his land to be able to compete with the enemy. I disagree that a leader must use the way of cunning, deceit, and outright lying as means of staying in power because the public will only begin to dislike the leader this way and loose respect for him. He must use intelligent tactics, and can not be too generous or too cruel.
i like the US version much better - but I dont think that guys is that cute
levitra 10 mg
[url=http://www.freewebs.com/atorvastatin]atorvastatin new zealand
[/url]atorvastatin zentiva
lipitor sales
atorvastatin bad dreams
atorvastatin and zetia
atorvastatin looks like
[url=http://sustiva-efavirenz.webs.com/]Generic Sustiva 200 mg
[/url] purchase Sustiva 500 mg online
buy Generic Sustiva
Generic Sustiva 500 mg online
[url=http://rebetol-online.webs.com/]rebetol 100 mg online
[/url] rebetol
rebetol buy
rebetol 100 mg online
[url=http://www.microgiving.com/profile/ribavirin]buy rebetol online
[/url] virazole buy
order copegus
purchase rebetol
Post a Comment