Machiavelli and the Midterms

Say what you want about Niccolò Machiavelli. He’s the champion of chicanery, the sultan of schemes. But the 16th-century author of The Prince, a how-to guide for the power-hungry, also identified the political truths that dominated the midterm elections earlier this month. And more often than not he didn’t just say it first — he said it best.

Take this warning he gives about coming to power with the help of a particularly passionate subset of society: “Princes who have recently acquired a state with the help of a faction within it … should weigh the reasons that might have moved this faction to support them. If it is not natural affection toward the prince that made it favor him, but rather discontent with the former government, it will be only with much toil and difficulty that the prince will maintain these malcontents as his allies, because it will be impossible to satisfy them.”

The same thing has been said a hundred different ways about the Tea Party propelling the Republicans to victory this year (and, to a lesser extent, about the Democrats who succeeded by turning their backs on the Beltway). Meanwhile, 29 million Obama voters didn’t show up for the midterm elections, exit polls showed — despite much campaigning on the President’s part.

Another Machiavellian insight speaks to the GOP’s ability to reclaim in 2010 traditionally red seats they lost to Democrats in 2006 and 2008. “States that are hereditary and tied to the bloodline of their prince are easier to maintain than new ones,” Machiavelli wrote. “If such a prince is of at least average ability he can retain his position of power, so long as no extraordinary or excessive force deprive him of it. If this prince is deprived of his state, he will find he can reacquire it if any misfortune befalls the usurper.”

Obama was certainly an extraordinary force. And the Democratic “usurpers” are the ones like Bobby Bright in Alabama or Betsey Markey in Colorado. Their misfortune was having to defend tough Democratic stances – or at least stand up for an unpopular party in a district where they were unpopular from the start.

Machiavelli also could have predicted the post-election scorn for Meg Whitman and the other candidates who spent big before losing big. “The wish to acquire is a most natural thing, and men who manage to acquire are always applauded (or at least not blamed) when they succeed. What is an error and worthy of blame is when a man cannot acquire something, but desires to obtain it in any way he can.”

Take this Washington Post blogger’s comments: “Meg Whitman spent an astounding $175 million of her own dough just to get trounced by former governor.” Had she won, the world would have missed an awful lot of similar post-election smugness. (And is a loss of 53% to 41% really a trouncing?) Out of the hundreds of losing candidates this election season, Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon got an inordinate amount of ink because, as Machiavelli points out, people are hungriest to blame those losers who did things others wouldn’t in order to win and still failed.

The list of trends Machiavelli could have foretold this election season goes on. Like the enthusiasm gap between disgruntled Tea Party-ers and Democrats: “When enemies of the new order find any chance to attack the prince, they will attack him in full force, while men who benefit from the new order will defend him halfheartedly.” Or that the Delaware GOP’s nomination of Christine O’Donnell, an attractive lady with unattractive skeletons in her closet, was bound to end in tears: “Man’s scant prudence will make him relish a dish that appears delicious while it conceals poison within.”

That spending cuts would be a resurgent political winner: “A wise prince … must not mind acquiring a reputation for miserliness. With time he will come to be considered generous once people see that his parsimony has produced sufficient funds.” Or that a business-friendly message still sells: “He must also make certain that his citizens can go about their work unhampered — in trade, agriculture, and all the other professions — so that no one will be afraid of accumulating possessions out of fear that they might be taken away, or afraid of starting a business for fear of taxes.”

And the GOP would do well to remember that Machiavelli’s insights will apply to 2012 as well as 2010. As he said, “You cannot keep the friendship of those who helped you to power, since you cannot satisfy them in the way they had envisioned.”

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    “Is a loss of 53% to 41% really a trouncing?”

    Yes.

  • michaelfury
  • conversets

    Something perversely thilling about a pretty woman who can quote Machiavelli so well.

  • square1

    Wow. A thoughtful and intelligent Swampland post. Who could have guessed?

    More of this, please.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, Katy. Excellent post. We need more history stuff, or more precisely, our current / upcoming politicians need more. Also, you should post the next “1000 words.” It would be fun to see what photo you’d pick. It’s interesting that many who directly try to buy their way into office fail, like Whitman or Jeff Greene – Bloomberg is a notable exception. (It’s also depressng that many who instead go thru huge corporate campaign funds, Koch bros., etc. succeed, but I digress.) Maybe some working class folks resent those who buy their way into power?
    .
    Going back to Rome, Didius Julianus literally bought the Emperor’s throne from the Praetorian Guard in an auction after Pertinax’s assassination (DJ has a wiki profile). The masses and the armies were not amused. He was assassinated months later. Of course, death is NOT the lesson to be drawn here but to reinforce your paragraph about Whitman with a light touch of public resentment / figuratively be careful what you wish for should you obtain it (just leave out the assassination thingy). But do post more of your thoughts here regularly please, Katy. (and “1000 words” too)

  • liberalmeltdown

    Let’s set this straight. Whitman lost because she is just the same as Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger; a RHINO. She even used the very same handlers. Schwarzenegger was elected in a RECALL election to fix the economy and control the out of control state legislature (that has an approval rating in the teens). Benedict Arnold caved completely. He made things worse, borrowed money to patch HUGE holes in the budget, and support a global warming bill that will cost California 1 MILLION JOBS. Arnold’s approval rating is about 20%.
    .
    Whitman looked just like another Benedict Arnold. THAT’S WHY SHE LOST.

  • deconstructiva

    Of course, would we better off with direct alpha leaders like Caesar, scheming tacticians like Machiavelli, or are we just stuck with those like Pontius Pilate? Thoughts, Katy?
    .

    .
    “He wanks as high as any in Wome.”

  • hippooath

    She lost because she’s batsh!t. Same with Sharon Angle and O’Donnell and most of the most batsh!t crazy candidates.
    .
    People want something done with the bad economy – they don’t want batsh!t because they happen to be on the right hand side of the isle. No one like batsh!t except for maybe a bunch of other batsh!t crazy epople.

  • stuartzechman

    Meg Whitman is not bash!t insane.
    .
    That’s like saying Linda McMahon is batsh!t insane.
    .
    Republicans aren’t simply by definition batsh!t insane, it’s just that their ascendant political factions mostly are, or are at least willing to be accomplices to falsehood and myth.

  • stuartzechman

    Katy Steinmetz:
    .
    Despite some obvious disagreements I could have with some of what you’ve asserted here, this is a fine, well-written and entertaining piece.
    .
    Thanks so much for this contribution, Katy Steinmetz, Swampland is a better blog to visit because of this sort of work.

  • apr2563

    Double that yes.

  • liberalmeltdown

    You two clowns don’t know anything about Meg Whitman. Her positions on the issues were the same and the liberal Jerry Brown. So, I guess he’s batsh!t crazy same as you.

  • mhissong

    You know, everything Ms. Steinmetz says is accurate, I just have to add this because a surprising amount of people don’t know: Machiavelli’s The Prince is satire. Very dry satire. Not quite as dry as Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” but pretty dry. A lot of what Machiavelli wrote was criticism of the ruthlessness of politics in his era… and then lo and behold, he comes out with a work supporting it- after the goons in charge had his arms broken…

  • herby002

    Hmmm…
    So Arnold is a RINO, and deservedly has low poll numbers because he’s too liberal or whatever.
    And he won his FIRST election in a RECALL. (See, I can use CAPS TOO.)

    Gee, I remember that, after his RECALL election, some of your “conservative” lawmakers wanted to amend the US Constitution so a certain popular foreign-born staunch Republican governor could be elected to the highest office in the land:

    “A foreign-born U.S. president? Bills would allow just that
    Associated Press
    WASHINGTON � Schwarzenegger for president in 2008?
    No, he’s not eligible. Born in Austria, he’s barred by the Constitution. But that would change under an amendment introduced Wednesday by a fellow California Republican.
    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s proposal would allow anyone who’s been a U.S. citizen for 20 years to run for the nation’s highest office. That would include Arnold Schwarzenegger � bodybuilder, movie star and now governor of California.
    Schwarzenegger, who became a citizen in 1983, has said he supports amending the Constitution so foreign-born citizens can run for president. But he’s sidestepped questions about whether he might want to run, saying he’s focused on governing California.
    Rohrabacher said in an interview that Schwarzenegger was doing a great job as governor, but his real aim was to open up the presidential process. “We’ve got some talented people who might be able to help our country and provide some much-needed leadership, and there’s no reason if they’ve been a citizen for over 20 years to exclude them,” he said.
    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.
    In remarks prepared for the House floor, he suggested he really wanted to help a California congressman, and a Democrat at that.*
    “This is no ploy. I honestly believe that Tom Lantos should be able to seek the highest office in the land, just like any other elected official,” he said.
    Lantos, 76 and born in Hungary, said he saw no need to amend the Constitution.
    “However, if the Austro-Hungarian Empire is re-established in the United States, I will invite Arnold Schwarzenegger to be my lieutenant,” he said.
    Constitutional amendments require passage by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and then approval by three-fourths of the states.”
    http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/arnold_08.htm

    * Yeah, righiiit.

    Now you call him a Benedict Arnold?
    How fickle.

  • herby002

    It’s obvious that liberal didn’t watch the clip, or he would have posted about how all liberals (and socialist british pansies) are hypocrites for taking pleasure in making fun of people with disabilities while advocating for “special education” and other programs of the “welfare state”.
    He might not recognize it as satire; I intend to get that movie on tape or dvd.

  • http://abstractcommentator.wordpress.com abstractcommentator

    Obama shouldn’t turn to Machiavelli for advice. Karl Rove does that and Obama is not Karl Rove. He is a better man than that. Cynicism may seem to rule for a time, but idealism speaks to people. Sometimes the ideals are good and sometimes they are debased, but people are moved by ideas. Obama has lost his way because he has seemed to too many people to compromise too many core principles. He needs to reclaim his rhetoric and to back it up with an unwillingness to compromise on at least some core issues.

    As far as the Progressives abandoning him. – they are spurned lovers who will gladly return to the fold if he will speak for them. The Center too – they want to know that he has core principles that will not be compromised.

    And David Axelrod should never, ever be on record as saying that “we have to accept the world as it is.” No we don’t. That used to be Obama’s message. We can bring a new world into existence. But he’s going to have to reclaim his voice.

    Machiavelli speaks of the way things can sometimes be, so it is hard to dismiss him, but it’s not the way things always are or have to be.

  • rwbbinla

    Excellent commentary. Thanks!

blog comments powered by Disqus