Prince V (Redux)
Political lessons from a winner
If Louis XII is a loser, then the winner must be Pope Alexander, who teaches that there is more to life than just politics. As a result, Machiavelli would have us realize that the church limits politics for Christians, it keeps them from doing all that a wise prince would do to be politically successful.
But notice, the Pope enjoys political success! So if not everyone is a failure, if the one who is politically successful is the one who says there is more to life than politics, who says that it is not important to be successful because the meek will inherit the earth, what are you to conclude?
Should we not conclude that the church’s professed standard is a sham?
The trans-political standard is a sham; the political standard is the real standard and the trans-political standard is a means of attaining it. In short, the trans-political standard – which to be clear is salvation – is a mask, it is a weapon that masks the true standard, the political standard, which is success.
The religious authorities who enjoy political success are evidence that political success is the standard, that success must be achieved, and yet this fact is hidden by religion. The church is perhaps the most powerful weapon when wielded by those with power – it becomes ideology; it is a pretense to keep the people from seeing through; it may be a cave capable of ruling the entire world.
That being said, despite Machiavelli’s showing us the problem, we still want a higher standard, say, justice. But as Machiavelli is making clear, the way to success is to convince others that you are an idealist while not being an idealist. In short, Machiavelli is suggesting that if you believe that anyone and everyone else really isn’t interested in political success you are being a dupe.
We don’t want to be a dupe, now do we? But we also want a standard higher than political efficacy. Machiavelli, like Thrasymachus, would have us believe that every group simply comes up with a notion of justice that legitimates their rule, but if there is no higher justice, a justice that transcends the rule of particular groups, then the only standard is victory, the right of the stronger. In short, might would make right, and political success becomes the entirety of the good life.
The insight that any claim to something higher is merely a political weapon directed against the other is an insight claimed by post-modernity, but as we can see here it is properly attributed to Machiavelli. If you recognize this, then what you do is act like the Romans.
All of that aside, you are still faced with Louis XII’s problem: you still have to deal with what everyone else believes. Thus, you have to know what others believe, and you have to find some way of controlling what they believe.
Since we have made a virtue out of limited government, and believe that government ought to pursue justice, we constantly invoke justice to try to get things done. In other words, we constantly cast our preferred political outcomes into the terms of justice, we make claims of justice on their behalf. A part of this is all of the ‘rights-talk’ that we constantly hear: we have a right to this or a right to that.
Notice how our candidates for office claim indifference to the self-serving benefits of power, all the while and at the very moment they are seeking power – do you really believe that they are moved by justice to stand for office, by something higher? Rulers or potential rulers always assume the mantle of public spiritedness, but what the example of Pope Alexander teaches us is that those who claim indifference to power usually are in the midst of seeking it.