Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The American philosopher George Santayana uttered these famous words nearly a century ago, yet they are as applicable today as they were when he first spoke them. The same concept is true of the works of Niccolo Machiavelli, the man who examined the nature of sovereignty in a manner comparable to the Greek Sophists: with complete objectivity and clear focus.

Due to his complete disregard for ethics, Machiavelli is able to candidly discuss cold and calculated political tactics that most people would deem “immoral.” In essence, Machiavelli’s debauchery is clearly expressed by the aphorism, “The ends always justify the means.” For Machiavelli, as well as for the modern politicians, those means usually include lies, deceit, heresy, and theft: just as in the 1500s, the surest route to sovereignty is through the transfer of the decision-making power from the people to the politicians. To accomplish this, the modern statesman employs one of Niccolo’s most famous tactics: demagoguery. In short, the politician proclaims that he has the people’s best interests at heart and that, if elected, he will strive to alleviate the burdens (whether they be social, economic, religious, etc.) and protect the resources (from the wealthy tycoons and the other, corrupt politicians) of the people. The people, being ignorant and selfish, fail to see through these lies, and a demagogue is born: a saving politician who will protect the “little people” of the world.

Sound familiar? It happens every year during elections. Politicians today take power by promising improvements in infrastructure or tax relief for the middle class, universal health-care, and new economic opportunities for businesses. Yet, rarely does a contemporary politician propose a feasible plan for the implementation of the aforementioned improvements. Still, the vast majority of people do not question politicians or their goals; they assume that their leaders are far more competent that they are. Machiavelli observed this phenomenon five hundred years ago when he stated, “Great [men] desire to command, and [little] people […] desire to be commanded, but not oppressed,” and, “He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.” Is it our optimistic belief in human nature that allows us to be duped? Or is it that we have been indoctrinated in every facet of our lives to unquestioningly heed the wise counsel of various leaders, both in home and in government? Or are both answers correct to some degree?

Furthermore, how is it that even after a politician has ascended to power, that he, a blatantly dishonest individual, is able to retain power in a society where the people supposedly have the power over the politicians? Could it be that each politician has a personal agenda aimed at promoting his financial and political stability and well-being? Machiavelli’s answer agrees with the latter: “People are fickle by nature; and it is simple to convince them of something but difficult to hold them in that conviction; and, therefore, affairs should be managed in such a way that when they [the people] no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.” In this statement, Machiavelli affirms his age-old axiom that “it is much more secure to be feared than loved,” as adoration is fickle in the minds of men, but the dread of punishment is always present.

In this case, however, the “punishment” does not refer to a corporeal injury, as it usually did in Machiavelli’s time, but rather to a political, social, or economic consequence. The majority of individuals today do not fret the social or political consequences but live in fear of economic repercussions, such as tax hikes, decreased Social Security funding, and the like. Machiavelli notes this in The Prince when he states, “A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair.”
The modern politician is able to maintain power by virtue of his appearance as “the best choice;” the people’s line of thinking is, “As long as that kind-of-corrupt politician is in power, nothing bad will happen to me.” Granted, some politicians are more honest and forthright about their intentions than others, but all of them aspire to power; it’s in their very nature. Likewise, all politicians, to some degree, have hidden agendas and skeletons in their proverbial closets. It is not the existence but the magnitude of these secrets with which we most concern ourselves. For instance, is the politician who promises more jobs but fails to deliver them due to an economic recession worse than the politician who needlessly leads a nation to war over money (see Bush, George W.)? While neither is a perfect scenario, surely one is preferable to the other.

Just like their decisions, some politicians are better than others; some are better suited to appropriately manage the power granted to them by their people. Take, for instance, former United States Presidents Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon. Both made campaign promises that they did not fully keep. Despite this, Nixon was able to accomplish a great deal during his tenure, including opening dialogue with China. However, he is forever tied to the Watergate scandal that left him in ruin. Regan, though definitely not honest, avoided scandal and is remembered for his actions against communism and his role in the reduction of nuclear proliferation. In the final analysis, it is these politicians–the ones most likely to be assets to the state as a whole- whom we must endorse.

There are also those politicians, however, who desire personal gain at the expense of their people. For example, Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate from Massachusetts who advocates universal personal healthcare, stands to make significant sum of money through his involvement in the industry. Obviously, the underlying motive in Romney’s case is money, not the people. Machiavelli argues that every politician will lie and manipulate the truth, so as to seem genuine–of this, we can and must be certain. Ideally, if we are to ever truly heed the lessons of history, we must give to more deserving parties the power that we have ignorantly conferred to self-centered politicians.

The truly ironic aspect of this harsh reality is that none of us are victims; we are all, to some degree accessories to our situation. Politicians and their benefactors are merely enablers, to whom we have given power and our misplaced trust. In doing so, we have condoned the continued deterioration of the American political system, and by extension, the American way of life. There is hope, nonetheless, as even Machiavelli admits that rampant, underhanded politics can be eradicated, should the people support it: “A return to first principles in a republic is […] caused by the simple virtues of one […] elected […] man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example.”

There is no doubt that Machiavelli is a modern man; he is everywhere, from the White House to the town hall. Politicians constantly use his blueprints for political success, since they never cease to be effective. The questions that remain unanswered are: Will we, the people, finally read Machiavelli’s blueprints, too? And come Election Day, will we use our power as voting citizens in an informed manner, after we have made the effort to know whom we are really voting for? Or will we be like Machiavelli’s “little people”–controlled and ignorant?