Everyone wants an effective leader. In order for a leader to effective they must have certain unwavering qualities. An effective leader is someone who must be listened too. If they are loved, it will be easier for people to choose not to listen to them. If they are feared, people will listen to them because they are effective.
I think there's an important distinction to made regarding personal morality and political morality, which Machiavelli doesn't really make. In Machiavelli's eyes, as long as a leader gets the job done, any residual damage is irrelevant. In my opinion though, a leader's personal life is their business (to an extent though - if there are literal skeletons in their closet that's a problem), and their morality and empathy as a leader is something else. I want a leader who embodies many of the qualities described by Machiavelli - decisiveness, intelligence, rational thinking - but I also want a leader who wont make decisions based on greed, like going to war just for their own benefit. In that sense, I disagree with Machiavelli in that I require some ethical conduct from my leaders in a political conduct, but in terms of their personal lives, I think to an extent, they should be granted some privacy.
I believe that an ideal state leader should, above all, be open-minded. Open-mindedness is the key to efficiency and decisiveness, all qualities of an ideal leader. One must be open-minded so that he may consider and accept new ideas and perspectives. In contrast, a Machiavellian leader must, above all, be manipulative. He must display a keenness for, for lack of a better word, exploitation. It is after all, better to be feared than love. However, in our society where we elect our leaders, the leader must present a positive image to his voting demographic. Therefore, in some cases, the ideal leader should aspire to attaining the love of his subjects.
The biggest difference between the kind of leader we would prefer for a state and that of Machiavelli is in his connection's with the people. Machiavelli thought a ruler should be feared over loved, and ruthless. This will enable him to be a good ruler, no doubt, but not a good representative of the people. In a democracy, or democratic republic, each citizen wants his or her voice to be heard. A monarchy is concerned with the success of the state, but this does not mean the happiness of the people.
Although Machiavelli's stance on uncoupling morality from politics is drastically too extreme for my liking, I agree to an extent that politics should be separated from politicians' personal lives. Machiavelli does not discredit morality, but rather explains that in the case of states, power has priority over ethics. In contrast, I think that a politician shouldn't recognize the supremacy of one over the other, but rather, attempt to achieve a balance. Because, if the difference between good and evil was solely based off of the extent to which a ruler attempts to gain power (which in Machiavelli's opinion, it should), the means to which the ends are obtained would be too ghastly to imagine. Although, I do strongly agree with Machiavelli's belief that an ideal state leader should be extremely efficient. However, Machiavelli's reason for advocating efficiency is because he believes that goodness coincides with it, and that obtaining power successful IS in fact efficiency; I, on the other hand, view efficiency more as successful ruling rather than merely obtaining power.
I think that my idea of an ideal leader and Machiavelli's idea overlap, somewhat. I agree that a leader should be efficient and decisive, and I think there are times when a leader must make choices that, while they may be slightly unethical, must be made for the good of the country. However, it is difficult to make any absolutes, and I think that each decision must be made on a case by case basis. In that sense, I think that my ideal leader needs to have the foresight/intelligence to determine when he should be moral and ethical, and when he needs to make the tough, unethical decision.
However, I do disagree with Machiavelli's belief that "the ends justify the means" and that it is better to be feared than loved. I think in the end, the leader's role is to serve the people, not himself/the mechanics of the state, and so, I think the leader must not make decisions which harm the majority of people while elevating the power of the state. Further, the leader must work to appease the people, and thus be loved by them, instead of trying to instill fear in them in order to better achieve his own goals.
I think my views of an ideal leader are pretty moderate - they fall in between the idealistic beliefs of Aristotle and the almost ruthless ideas of Machiavelli. I feel as if a leader's foundations should be moral and idealistic: he should want to be ethical, just, rational, and all the other traits we discussed in class. Because this leader is rational, however, he must realize that, realistically, there are certain things he has to do in order to maintain power and order. I do think that Machiavelli's traits of a leader are sometimes necessary, but they should not be used if there is any other way to accomplish a leader's goals. An ideal leader would recognize this and be able to strike a balance between optimism and realism; he would always strive for morality and goodness, but realize that sometimes cunning and manipulation are needed in order to accomplish the goals of the state. It is important to qualify that statement by saying that the goals of the state must be moral in and of themselves - if a leader is breaching morality to achieve immoral ends he is not a good leader.
My ideal state leader is one who will act in a way that will benefit the people. Machiavelli's ideal leader is one that will act in a way that will most benefit the state. The two leaders seem similar but I feel there is a difference. For example, War: If a leader is just interested in the improving the state they may go to war with another country in order to get a better access to a resource. However, if the leader is best interested in the benefit of the people, he may choose not to go to war if people are sure to die, taxes would need to be raised, etc.Machiavelli's leader is focused on the ends while my ideal leader evaluates the means and the ends.
Machiavelli's belief of a good leader was developed based on effectiveness. Morality, as lacking as in his time, was not as important to Machiavelli in terms of a leader's morality and ethical nature regarding the state. That being said, I am not intending to say that Machiavelli believed that a leader should not care for his citizens; on the contrary sometimes, for he must be both respected AND feared. In my belief, an IDEAL leader should be both moral in terms of his private life and effective in his manner in which he governs. However, if a choice between the two is needed to be made, I agree with Machiavelli's viewpoints. A leader should be intelligent, rational, persuasive, charismatic, confident, empathetic, MANIPULATIVE, efficient, motivated, and decisive. The manner in which he rules does not need to be personally moral, so long as he is effective in providing the best benefit for the state. Machiavelli, being very advanced for his times in the workings of the human psyche, understood the complexities of the mind and how humans interact with one another. Because of this, he understood morality and ethics are often hard to maintain when trying to rule effectively.
I personally believe that an ideal leader would be the one described by Aristotle: an intelligent, rational, morally righteous person. In an ideal world, Aristotle's king would be able to make ethical decisions which would provide for the state and it's inhabitants. Yet, Machiavelli's world was very different, and thus required a different type of leader. To combat with the constant deception and immorality, Machiavelli's leader had to be manipulative to be efficient, effective. The leader at times would need to make decisions which would benefit the state and the people, but might be immoral in the sense that it harms other states or people.
The tragic, but monstrous defeat of Democrats across the country this past Election Day, I believe exposed a crucial flaw in the presidency of Barack Obama: I, like so many other Americans fell in love with his candidacy, because it inspired me at such an inner-level. We looked to this individual as a source of hope, and we had so much confidence that he would be the savior of this nation, in effect. However, we quickly learned that the problems that needed to be dealt with were simply to great to solve within only a few years. Barack Obama, I do believe is a great leader, however, how he simply was not as effective as he should have been in his first two years. Why? Because he felt that he had to live up to the expectation that the nation placed on him (and that he really placed on himself during the campaign), that he would end the politics of partisanship, bickering, and isolation, and instead turn to a new chapter in American history of progress and change. Well, Barack, Washington doesn't work like that, and in the next two years, I fully expect to see some major changes in the way our President carries out his objectives. Openness, positive energy, and hope are great things, however, going forward, I think it will be crucial for President Obama to make decisive decisions, even if they go against the new Republican majority in Congress. He will need to show the American people that he is tough, and that he can GET STUFF DONE, and this might require him to play the "Washington game," in order to make things happen.
The point is this: Barack Obama hoped to come into the White House and change the way Washington gets business done. This didn't happen, and the American people spoke clearly. I expect to see him act in a more Machiavellian way going forward.
Machiavelli believed that a leader should be manipulative and even if they are corrupt they need to know how to not get caught and be sneaky. I believe that a leader should be able to manipulate people as well, but in a persuasive manner. However, I also believe that a leader should be just and morally right, so that they barely will need to use their skills of manipulation.
For me and ideal state leader is very dependent on the type of state they're ruling. Certain traits do carry over regardless of the current political situation, intelligence and especially observation are vital. This is primarily because to rule a nation appropriately, a ruler must understand the particular intricacies of his own nation; George Washington was famous for speaking very rarely, if ever, at political meetings, rather he listened intently to the words of his peers and advisors. Other things that might appear to be stable traits of leaders are actually extremely circumstantial; the leaders of Machiavelli's world did not possess the same morals as the leaders of modern day America, and nor were they expected to. Ethics and human law are, by nature, changeable and fluctuating, and a leader must be adaptable, above all else, so as to best serve his changing subjects. All the other traits - efficiency, charisma and confidence - depend on these other circumstances.
An ideal leader in my opinion is a man or woman who is well rounded and can relate to many different types of people. The word for this trait is empathy, and I believe it is the most important quality for a leader to possess. With the ability to identify with a wide range of people, a leader can be most effective in making just decisions that would benefit the majority of the nation or state. The basis of Machiavelli's view on leadership is the concept of instilling fear in your subordinates instead of likability. I do not think this way of governing is as effective because a leader should be a person who is well developed in most aspects of life, and therefore likable to most of his followers. A leader does not want to make any enemies.
Machiavelli believed that it is better to be feared than loved as a ruler because during his time rulers could not be effective unless they were feared. Now, in a time when leaders are elected, it is necessary for the leader to be charismatic to be elected. Once a leader is elected I think it is most important for the leader to be decisive so that change can be effected and moral so that the changes which are effected benefit the state.
First and foremost, I think a leader should devote himself completely to the people he has been entrusted to lead. In this sense, Machivalli and I agree. I also agree with Machivaelli's ends justify the means ideology to an extent... I do believe that sometimes tough choices must be made in order to achieve a larger goal but I disagree with him in that any means justify an end. A leader must have the morals/insight/intelligence to determine this line.
A leader must lead entirely for the benefit of the people. While a leader should be manipulative, efficient, decisive, and motivated in order to be a successful, the leader should always regard the his people in his decision making process. While it is essential for a leader to possess these types of qualities, an overly deceptive and manipulative leader can be harmful to the state. If a leader's unscrupulous actions are brought to light, many of the subjects will become disillusioned and the necessary ties of trust will be broken.
Ruling through inspiring fear in one's subjects is best form of leadership according to Machiavelli. Though I agree to some extent, I do believe that a state in which excessive terror reins can begin to feel tremendously oppressive. A leader should lead for the total benefit of the people, and this includes the happiness and general contentment of the people.
To begin with, a leader should be empathetic, compassionate, compelling, and intelligent (just to name a few). A leader should make all of his decisions in a way that would be beneficial to the country, the people, and the international relations of the country. Machiavelli believes that it is better to be feared than loved, and I also agree with that. If a leader is only loved, no matter what kind of leadership position they are in, they will be too "soft"- for lack of a better term. It will be easier for people to disobey him, or sway his decisions. A leader should be decisive and passionate in his decisions that they will benefit the food of the people. If a leader is feared, people will listen to them more. Also, when a leader is feared, they have a different way of presenting themselves verses a leader who is loved. When someone is feared they have a tendency to be more stern and deliver their beliefs in a more compelling way. However, they should not only be loved or only be feared, they should be a mixture of both. They should be feared and loved in such a way that they are loved by what they are doing for the people, but feared because they are respected.
Everyone wants an effective leader. In order for a leader to effective they must have certain unwavering qualities. An effective leader is someone who must be listened too. If they are loved, it will be easier for people to choose not to listen to them. If they are feared, people will listen to them because they are effective.
ReplyDeleteI think there's an important distinction to made regarding personal morality and political morality, which Machiavelli doesn't really make. In Machiavelli's eyes, as long as a leader gets the job done, any residual damage is irrelevant. In my opinion though, a leader's personal life is their business (to an extent though - if there are literal skeletons in their closet that's a problem), and their morality and empathy as a leader is something else. I want a leader who embodies many of the qualities described by Machiavelli - decisiveness, intelligence, rational thinking - but I also want a leader who wont make decisions based on greed, like going to war just for their own benefit. In that sense, I disagree with Machiavelli in that I require some ethical conduct from my leaders in a political conduct, but in terms of their personal lives, I think to an extent, they should be granted some privacy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that an ideal state leader should, above all, be open-minded. Open-mindedness is the key to efficiency and decisiveness, all qualities of an ideal leader. One must be open-minded so that he may consider and accept new ideas and perspectives. In contrast, a Machiavellian leader must, above all, be manipulative. He must display a keenness for, for lack of a better word, exploitation. It is after all, better to be feared than love. However, in our society where we elect our leaders, the leader must present a positive image to his voting demographic. Therefore, in some cases, the ideal leader should aspire to attaining the love of his subjects.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference between the kind of leader we would prefer for a state and that of Machiavelli is in his connection's with the people. Machiavelli thought a ruler should be feared over loved, and ruthless. This will enable him to be a good ruler, no doubt, but not a good representative of the people. In a democracy, or democratic republic, each citizen wants his or her voice to be heard. A monarchy is concerned with the success of the state, but this does not mean the happiness of the people.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Machiavelli's stance on uncoupling morality from politics is drastically too extreme for my liking, I agree to an extent that politics should be separated from politicians' personal lives. Machiavelli does not discredit morality, but rather explains that in the case of states, power has priority over ethics. In contrast, I think that a politician shouldn't recognize the supremacy of one over the other, but rather, attempt to achieve a balance. Because, if the difference between good and evil was solely based off of the extent to which a ruler attempts to gain power (which in Machiavelli's opinion, it should), the means to which the ends are obtained would be too ghastly to imagine. Although, I do strongly agree with Machiavelli's belief that an ideal state leader should be extremely efficient. However, Machiavelli's reason for advocating efficiency is because he believes that goodness coincides with it, and that obtaining power successful IS in fact efficiency; I, on the other hand, view efficiency more as successful ruling rather than merely obtaining power.
ReplyDeleteI think that my idea of an ideal leader and Machiavelli's idea overlap, somewhat. I agree that a leader should be efficient and decisive, and I think there are times when a leader must make choices that, while they may be slightly unethical, must be made for the good of the country. However, it is difficult to make any absolutes, and I think that each decision must be made on a case by case basis. In that sense, I think that my ideal leader needs to have the foresight/intelligence to determine when he should be moral and ethical, and when he needs to make the tough, unethical decision.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do disagree with Machiavelli's belief that "the ends justify the means" and that it is better to be feared than loved. I think in the end, the leader's role is to serve the people, not himself/the mechanics of the state, and so, I think the leader must not make decisions which harm the majority of people while elevating the power of the state. Further, the leader must work to appease the people, and thus be loved by them, instead of trying to instill fear in them in order to better achieve his own goals.
I think my views of an ideal leader are pretty moderate - they fall in between the idealistic beliefs of Aristotle and the almost ruthless ideas of Machiavelli. I feel as if a leader's foundations should be moral and idealistic: he should want to be ethical, just, rational, and all the other traits we discussed in class. Because this leader is rational, however, he must realize that, realistically, there are certain things he has to do in order to maintain power and order. I do think that Machiavelli's traits of a leader are sometimes necessary, but they should not be used if there is any other way to accomplish a leader's goals. An ideal leader would recognize this and be able to strike a balance between optimism and realism; he would always strive for morality and goodness, but realize that sometimes cunning and manipulation are needed in order to accomplish the goals of the state. It is important to qualify that statement by saying that the goals of the state must be moral in and of themselves - if a leader is breaching morality to achieve immoral ends he is not a good leader.
ReplyDeleteMy ideal state leader is one who will act in a way that will benefit the people. Machiavelli's ideal leader is one that will act in a way that will most benefit the state. The two leaders seem similar but I feel there is a difference. For example, War: If a leader is just interested in the improving the state they may go to war with another country in order to get a better access to a resource. However, if the leader is best interested in the benefit of the people, he may choose not to go to war if people are sure to die, taxes would need to be raised, etc.Machiavelli's leader is focused on the ends while my ideal leader evaluates the means and the ends.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's belief of a good leader was developed based on effectiveness. Morality, as lacking as in his time, was not as important to Machiavelli in terms of a leader's morality and ethical nature regarding the state. That being said, I am not intending to say that Machiavelli believed that a leader should not care for his citizens; on the contrary sometimes, for he must be both respected AND feared. In my belief, an IDEAL leader should be both moral in terms of his private life and effective in his manner in which he governs. However, if a choice between the two is needed to be made, I agree with Machiavelli's viewpoints. A leader should be intelligent, rational, persuasive, charismatic, confident, empathetic, MANIPULATIVE, efficient, motivated, and decisive. The manner in which he rules does not need to be personally moral, so long as he is effective in providing the best benefit for the state. Machiavelli, being very advanced for his times in the workings of the human psyche, understood the complexities of the mind and how humans interact with one another. Because of this, he understood morality and ethics are often hard to maintain when trying to rule effectively.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that an ideal leader would be the one described by Aristotle: an intelligent, rational, morally righteous person. In an ideal world, Aristotle's king would be able to make ethical decisions which would provide for the state and it's inhabitants. Yet, Machiavelli's world was very different, and thus required a different type of leader. To combat with the constant deception and immorality, Machiavelli's leader had to be manipulative to be efficient, effective. The leader at times would need to make decisions which would benefit the state and the people, but might be immoral in the sense that it harms other states or people.
ReplyDeleteThe tragic, but monstrous defeat of Democrats across the country this past Election Day, I believe exposed a crucial flaw in the presidency of Barack Obama: I, like so many other Americans fell in love with his candidacy, because it inspired me at such an inner-level. We looked to this individual as a source of hope, and we had so much confidence that he would be the savior of this nation, in effect. However, we quickly learned that the problems that needed to be dealt with were simply to great to solve within only a few years. Barack Obama, I do believe is a great leader, however, how he simply was not as effective as he should have been in his first two years. Why? Because he felt that he had to live up to the expectation that the nation placed on him (and that he really placed on himself during the campaign), that he would end the politics of partisanship, bickering, and isolation, and instead turn to a new chapter in American history of progress and change. Well, Barack, Washington doesn't work like that, and in the next two years, I fully expect to see some major changes in the way our President carries out his objectives. Openness, positive energy, and hope are great things, however, going forward, I think it will be crucial for President Obama to make decisive decisions, even if they go against the new Republican majority in Congress. He will need to show the American people that he is tough, and that he can GET STUFF DONE, and this might require him to play the "Washington game," in order to make things happen.
ReplyDeleteThe point is this: Barack Obama hoped to come into the White House and change the way Washington gets business done. This didn't happen, and the American people spoke clearly. I expect to see him act in a more Machiavellian way going forward.
Machiavelli believed that a leader should be manipulative and even if they are corrupt they need to know how to not get caught and be sneaky. I believe that a leader should be able to manipulate people as well, but in a persuasive manner. However, I also believe that a leader should be just and morally right, so that they barely will need to use their skills of manipulation.
ReplyDeleteFor me and ideal state leader is very dependent on the type of state they're ruling. Certain traits do carry over regardless of the current political situation, intelligence and especially observation are vital. This is primarily because to rule a nation appropriately, a ruler must understand the particular intricacies of his own nation; George Washington was famous for speaking very rarely, if ever, at political meetings, rather he listened intently to the words of his peers and advisors. Other things that might appear to be stable traits of leaders are actually extremely circumstantial; the leaders of Machiavelli's world did not possess the same morals as the leaders of modern day America, and nor were they expected to. Ethics and human law are, by nature, changeable and fluctuating, and a leader must be adaptable, above all else, so as to best serve his changing subjects. All the other traits - efficiency, charisma and confidence - depend on these other circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAn ideal leader in my opinion is a man or woman who is well rounded and can relate to many different types of people. The word for this trait is empathy, and I believe it is the most important quality for a leader to possess. With the ability to identify with a wide range of people, a leader can be most effective in making just decisions that would benefit the majority of the nation or state. The basis of Machiavelli's view on leadership is the concept of instilling fear in your subordinates instead of likability. I do not think this way of governing is as effective because a leader should be a person who is well developed in most aspects of life, and therefore likable to most of his followers. A leader does not want to make any enemies.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli believed that it is better to be feared than loved as a ruler because during his time rulers could not be effective unless they were feared. Now, in a time when leaders are elected, it is necessary for the leader to be charismatic to be elected. Once a leader is elected I think it is most important for the leader to be decisive so that change can be effected and moral so that the changes which are effected benefit the state.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I think a leader should devote himself completely to the people he has been entrusted to lead. In this sense, Machivalli and I agree. I also agree with Machivaelli's ends justify the means ideology to an extent... I do believe that sometimes tough choices must be made in order to achieve a larger goal but I disagree with him in that any means justify an end. A leader must have the morals/insight/intelligence to determine this line.
ReplyDeleteA leader must lead entirely for the benefit of the people. While a leader should be manipulative, efficient, decisive, and motivated in order to be a successful, the leader should always regard the his people in his decision making process. While it is essential for a leader to possess these types of qualities, an overly deceptive and manipulative leader can be harmful to the state. If a leader's unscrupulous actions are brought to light, many of the subjects will become disillusioned and the necessary ties of trust will be broken.
ReplyDeleteRuling through inspiring fear in one's subjects is best form of leadership according to Machiavelli. Though I agree to some extent, I do believe that a state in which excessive terror reins can begin to feel tremendously oppressive. A leader should lead for the total benefit of the people, and this includes the happiness and general contentment of the people.
To begin with, a leader should be empathetic, compassionate, compelling, and intelligent (just to name a few). A leader should make all of his decisions in a way that would be beneficial to the country, the people, and the international relations of the country. Machiavelli believes that it is better to be feared than loved, and I also agree with that. If a leader is only loved, no matter what kind of leadership position they are in, they will be too "soft"- for lack of a better term. It will be easier for people to disobey him, or sway his decisions. A leader should be decisive and passionate in his decisions that they will benefit the food of the people. If a leader is feared, people will listen to them more. Also, when a leader is feared, they have a different way of presenting themselves verses a leader who is loved. When someone is feared they have a tendency to be more stern and deliver their beliefs in a more compelling way. However, they should not only be loved or only be feared, they should be a mixture of both. They should be feared and loved in such a way that they are loved by what they are doing for the people, but feared because they are respected.
ReplyDelete