Machiavelli in US History

The first time I studied Machiavelli I was a sophomore in high school. Admittedly most of the ideas I had sophomore year weren’t so promising, but I still stand by my initial analysis of Machiavelli: he’s a badass. I can understand how someone would disagree with his policies and I can see why someone wouldn’t like to be ruled by Machiavelli himself. But I just can’t get myself to argue against him. The concept of fear over love is incredibly interesting to me, and I fully support it. Of course, as a citizen I would rather not fear my leaders, but as a leader I would rather get done what I set out to do. Love can be a great thing, but fear is a productive thing. In The Prince he writes, “Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.”

Let’s consider my favorite example of why our good man Niccolo actually knows what he’s talking about. Remember Andrew Jackson? The president whose nickname was “Old Hickory” because of how tough he was? Well during his presidential term some of the southern states, lead by South Carolina, began refusing taxes. It was known as the Nullification Crisis, and they were purposely rebelling against the national government.

I argue with some confidence that it did not matter how much the Southern states loved or hated Andrew Jackson. Refusing taxes was an economic rebellion. They could have all loved Jackson, but they weren’t willing to pay. And if Andrew Jackson were so worried about his people loving him, maybe he would have handled the situation differently, but this was his response: “that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” In order words, “pay the taxes or I’ll come down there and kill you with my bare hands.”

Yeah, it’s harsh; I’m not saying it isn’t. But then they started paying taxes. He used a scary threat to pull his states together, force them into following the rules, and get his shit done. He also paid off the entire national debt for the first and last time in American history. Now try and tell me his strategy didn’t work. How can you argue that? I just think that as a ruler there is nothing that comes from love that you can’t get by inducing fear…except more confidence that it will be effective.

            We can also consider Machiavelli’s argument that the prince may be harsh and intimidating but it’s always in the best interest of his people. Jackson prevented a secession of states and kept his entire country together by threatening them the way they did. Additionally, he was doing what was best for the national economy, which also obviously ended up benefitting his people in the end (even the South Carolinians).

            We can all agree that in an ideal world we love the leaders we listen to.  In an ideal world Jackson would be willing to find a compromise or let his people do as they please. But this isn’t an ideal world. He did what he had to do, and I respect that,t even if his hands got a little dirty in the process. 



Jackson's quote provided by: http://elektratig.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-andrew-jackson-stories.html