The Failure Of Leadership In Machiavelli's The Prince

These points show that the moves Jackson made, even though sometimes radical, were in the best interest of the citizens, and in Tocqueville’s eyes it was palpable that democratically was now how the government

In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.

Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli both believe that the actions of the people shape the characteristics of the ruler and define the type of authority that will be held towards the people. Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance, argues all men are untrustworthy due to their selfish, self-interested and impulsive ways of life in his writing, The Morals of the Prince, and therefore, to keep the people under control the ruler must be prepared to be cruel and instill fear among the people. Opposing Machiavelli is Jefferson. In The Declaration of Independence Jefferson believes people can be trusted since they have the ability to make their own decisions. Whereas Machiavelli supports tyranny, Jefferson believes

A government’s improvement revolves solely around recognizing the rights of men: “There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau, 1847/1998, p. 146). The people form the government. A

The start of American democracy began with a famous person known as Alexis de Tocqueville. Alexis arrived in the United States in 1831, after being gone for several years studying prison systems. While he was studying the prisons, he realized that society was becoming more and more involved with the government

The French people’s knowledge of their rights led them to believe that it is possible to achieve fairness and be respected in their own province. And lastly, the idea of questioning France’s government had peasants discover that their king barely even cared about their well-being and restricted them of representation.

Problems in America only grew worse when democracy was being added to the mixture of already complicated politics. In Woody Holton’s book, Unruly American and the Origins of the Constitution, he stated that, “many Americans. . . were growing ‘tired of an excess of democracy,’ a ‘prevailing rage of excessive democracy. . .’ [or] ‘democratical tyranny.’” Democracy was an attempt at home rule among the colonies, but not everyone was happy with this extreme excess of colonial citizens contribution to the government.

The Age of Absolutism The Age of Absolutism was a period of prosperity in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. While at this time many countries had absolute rulers, these rulers were able to make a lot of progress in advancing their nations. These rulers are some of the greatest rulers these countries have ever had and helped lead to the prosperity of this era. During this time period, a majority of the rulers were absolute rulers, having absolute power over their country.

In 1831 French sociologist and political theorist Alexis De Tocqueville and a lawyer he befriended named Gustave de Beaumont, spent nine months traveling around America studying its prisons and came back with a full report on the cultural, political and psychological life in America. While Beaumont wrote about the penitentiary system, Tocqueville focused more in the cultural and political life in America. He wrote two essays and published them in a book called Democracy in America. He discussed the possible threats to democracy and the possible dangers of democracy. He believed that religion and equality were the greatest ideas and they were the most advanced in the United States and that's why democracy worked so well in America.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville provides an analysis and critique of American civic life. During his travels across the country, he discovered how different America was from Europe, particularly France. While the majority of Europe consisted of aristocratic countries with hundreds of years of history, America was a young democratic country. Most notably, he observed that America was growing in equality. The growing equality becomes a presupposition of individualism and isolation, but despite this inevitable growth of equality, individualism and isolation can be minimized.

“I have tried to see not differently but further…”(Tocqueville, 1835) was Alexis de Tocqueville’s conclusion to the introduction of his perennial classic text Democracy in America, and adumbrates to the reader of his modern ideas and observations that were to follow. At the same time, he measures the progress of society through its relationship with equality and liberty. In this paper, I will highlight Tocqueville’s use of equality and liberty to compare the past and the modern, and establish his views on the effects of these concepts with society and each other. Finally, I will put forth that Tocqueville does not favour one concept over the other, but notes the complex relationship between the two and the importance of the co-existence of liberty and equality for a society of people. To begin, let us build the base case to compare with and look the past as defined by Tocqueville, with emphasis on equality and liberty.

He puts forward the idea of “freedom of opinion” (Tocqueville 106) and constitutes it as “independence of mind and real freedom of discussion” (Tocqueville 104). Unlike Locke, this stretches far beyond what is done. Tocqueville is careful to differentiate this liberty from the freedom of speech, as this freedom from opinion is more meant to indicate the freedom to follow different paths of thought and not be unfairly judged for it. Once again, it is the majority who suppresses this in Tocqueville’s opinion, as scorn and persecution for unwanted opinions permeate throughout society (Tocqueville 105). Tocqueville’s entanglement of liberty and what is right means that a majority’s limitation of liberty is unjust, while Locke’s concept of liberty means it must necessarily be restrained by a majority in order to protect the principle aim of government, to protect

Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.

De Tocqueville doesn 't view liberty as an attribute part of the democratic era. He believes that the only character that is associated with this era is equality. He explains in his theory that people of this era prize equality over liberty, although he doesn 't deny that democratic people value liberty, because everyone can take part in it and enjoy it effortlessly, as opposed to liberty where you have to "sacrifice" to achieve it (De Tocqueville, 1835). He holds that equality creates individualism, which means people separate themselves from one another, their ancestors and the future generations, that leads to tyranny and despotism. On the contrary, he claims that during the aristocratic ages, people were not selfish and careless about others ' needs because "aristocracy links everybody, from peasant to king" (De Tocqueville, 1835).

I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.