In my opinion, an ideal state leader is one who can rule justly, defend his position, be loved and respected by the people, and lead a moral life to the best of his ability.
According to Machiavelli, he separates morality from leadership and thinks that a ruler needs to have the ability to protect his position, as well as show gentleness and intimidation whenever the occasion calls for it. To illustrate this point, he uses characteristics of a fox and lion to demonstrate that a ruler must be as strong as a lion and as cunning as a fox. He also writes that a ruler is better to be feared than loved to ensure the safety and security of the state. Finally, he believes that the end justifies the means, which implies that whatever course of action, moral or immoral, does not matter if the ruler accomplishes his grand goal.
To me, an ideal state leader is one who understands the necessity of balance. By this, I mean that a ruler should be simultaneously just, compassionate, empathetic, forceful, on task, and fiercely protective of his state. I differ from Machiavelli in that while he does think a leader should show some compassion but only when absolutely necessary, whereas I think a leader is best when he exercises each tactic to its full potential at the same time. Machiavelli's main thesis is his belief that it is far greater to be feared than to be loved. However, it is possible to be both, why not strive for that?
My ideal ruler would be someone that can relate to his or her peoples yet maintain control. They should be forceful, just, and a paragon of what the state represents.
According to Machiavelli, it is better to be feared than loved and only show compassion when necessary. I think that a leader should strive for compassion because if the people feel that the leader sympathizes and understands their worries, they are more likely to view the ruler favorably. I think that the people just want to know that their ruler is doing everything in their power to advance and better the concerns of the general public. However, Machiavelli believes that a leader should first advance his own agenda.
In my opinion, an ideal leader is dedicated to the preservation of liberty and security. The leader ensures that the technological progress of society is maintained without sacrificing the quality of life for the citizens. This ideal leader makes intelligent decisions that will protect his or her state from external threats, but will maintain peace and stability both abroad and in the homeland. He or she should not oppress the people and create an authoritarian style of government. A leader such as this acts selflessly and is committed to his or her mission.
Machiavelli’s views differ from mine specifically for the motives of the ruler. The objective of Machiavelli’s ruler is to gain as much power and influence as possible. This ruler is focused on his or her own progress rather than the progress of society as a whole. A Machiavellian leader uses fear and forcefulness to maintain stability and ensure that he or she will stay in power. My ideal ruler is working toward a better and more advanced society. This means that power is not the ultimate goal of the ruler. The leader will not need to rule by force because his or her actions will instill a sense of peace in the population. If the state is well maintained, then social and technological progress will follow.
I believe the ideal leader possesses both the technical skills needed to rule efficiently and the personal qualities that inspire the people to follow him. Such a leader is a capable diplomat and legislator, but he is also able to unite factions in disagreement and view issues from the perspective of his opponent. It is his humility, consideration, empathy, and honesty that allow him to exercise his talents to the greatest extent possible.
Machiavelli's definition of good leadership is far more narrow, focusing solely on the successes of a leader that can be easily defined. By separating effective leadership from morality, Machiavelli loses the intangible, but essential successes that must be taken into account when evaluating a leader. Years in power and battles won are, of course, important, but the perception the people have of their ruler are more significant. Machiavelli himself says that a leader should aim to keep the people happy, but his methods cannot bring about the result he hopes for in full. His progress is based on a foundation of hypocrisy, which threatens to collapse at any time. Thus, a leader that does not practice compassion and maintain integrity is less efficient than one who recognizes the importance of these fundamental human traits in government.
My ideal ruler is someone who is efficient and globally oriented.This ruler should also be able to listen to two opposing sides and create a compromise rather than base his actions solely on his beliefs. The leader also needs to understand the nation and what is best for the people. In addition, the leader needs to know when it is appropriate to act/release certain information or theories, as demonstrated by President Kennedy.
However, Machiavelli creates a connection between the success of a ruler and the ruler's progress, or the ruler's ability to gain power rather than the progress of the people themselves. This promotes immoral actions from the leader that leads the people into a form of depression. This immoral activity contrasts my ideas because it promotes acting wrongly rather than using judgement to interpret the people's wants and their ability handle and understand the actions of the government.
Machiavelli's theory of what makes a great leader revolves around his concept of whether or not it is better to be loved or feared. He spends a great deal of time discussing this notion and also takes the time to differentiate between the benefits of being a just leader versus an effective one.
I believe that in order to be a good leader, all of the above are necessary qualities. In terms of being loved or feared, I believe that both can be accomplished if done in a specific manner. It is possible that one can be respected, which is a combination of both love and fear. In my eyes, if a leader has these qualities, then they are more effective than those that possess just one or another.
I believe that the ideal leader is dedicated to the welfare of his or her people and is both loved and feared. It is important for a leader to justly rule and protect his or her people. Also, I think it is important to be feared and loved because they are both essential traits of a successful leader.
Machiavelli's view of an ideal leader is a bit different however. With Machiavelli, it is more important to be feared then loved because the respect and attention one gains from fear is far better than being loved. A Machiavellian leader will use force, fear, and anything else possible to preserve security in his or her state and in his or her power.
To me, an ideal leader is fair and just, patriotic with a sincere love for his country and the people of his country. An ideal leader is one whose values I can relate to and stand behind. Even when an ideal leader makes mistakes, as everyone does, he admits them and is apologetic, and does not try to conceal his missteps.
Machiavelli, however, believes that an ideal leader will do whatever he can to gain more power, even if his methods of acquisition are immoral by other standards. In the world of rulers, Machiavelli states that poison might be "good", so long as it helps a ruler achieve more power. So in the view of a leader, good means efficient.
An ideal leader, unfortunately, is not a realistic goal. However, I would look for a leader who is assertive, intelligent, self-aware and politically savvy. Would I want a leader who is honest, scrupled and humane? Yes, but I do not believe those can be effectively synthesized with those traits Machiavelli and I value in a leader first and foremost. It is possible, and probable, that in a leader's means to an end, morality will play a part, and often humanity and the interest of the people are important to the leader as the means to his ruling ends. I believe in the fox and the lion: the fox to successfully navigate the labyrinth of international intrigue and the lion to unite and protect the people. Each is the complement of the other, and they are both important to successful government. So perhaps I am naive in believing humanity to come as a means to an end of a leader's goals - it certainly wasn't the case of some of the most infamous leaders of our age.
I believe that an ideal leader is one who can balance both fear and love. The leader must be efficient in his work, which is only made possible once inspiring fear. The leader must also be respected by his or her subjects, which only comes when love is among the people.
Machiavelli's ideal leader however is solely determined on the end result of the leadership. Progress determines the quality of a leader. In order to achieve such progress, Machiavelli's leader is both the fox and the lion. He or she is capable of maintaining power (lion) and yet possesses the insight and strategic planning in order to succeed (fox).
I think a leader's job is to organize, assemble and have the confidence to make decisions that aren't necessarily what the populous wants, but what they need. I don't believe that a leader is meant to coddle anyone or go out of their way to make connections that become too personal outside their close friends and family. I think it's important to have mutual respect from a leader to a civilian but I don't think this falls into being loved or feared. It's like a sports team, you may hate another team but you have respect for their skills; you're not necessarily afraid of them but your rivalry keeps you away from feeling love. I think Machiavelli was too specific. Your feelings about a leader can't be categorized into two groups. I don't know know how much people love Obama, for instance, but how many people are afraid of him too? Not many.
I also don't really agree with Machiavelli's feelings that morals and virtuous actions can be separate from this leader's ability to effectively lead a body of people. Once you become a leader of a state, you become the state; You are the embodiment of the state and your character can never then become separate from your governmental success. I think as soon as a state feels as though they've been manipulated by a leader who has portrayed himself as one way but has many skeletons in his closet, they'll immediately lose the respect that I think is so important for a state to have for its leader. If a "fox" is running the country, what is stopping the state from taking this example as leeway to bend the rules for their own gain as well? It doesn't matter how good of a Prince one may be, as soon as the people feel like they've been duped in some way, you've ruined your credibility and therefore are no longer a good Prince. If you've successfully duped the people then congratulations, you've just prolonged the period of the public's deception for a while but if untruthful leaders continue their reign eventually the truth will imerge.
My view of a successful leader really depends on what type of government the leader is leading. If he is a president (as in the U.S.) he must be strong, and have deep conviction about his ideas, as otherwise they will become worn down in congress and will not become reality. In this system leader must also be popular in order to accomplish his/her goals, which although is not an intrinsic quality is none the less important. In an authoritarian system however, the leader must exhibit restart, fairness, and moderation. Machiavelli's Ideal ruler is a mixture of both of these, he has both the will, and also the power to implement it. This leader does not need to be popular, but that is ok as they can focus on actually acting instead of on the public's perception. This type of rule is focused on decisive action rather then debate and consensus, and in some situations can actually be appealing. It is my opinion that all of these types of rulers have their own place in society and history.
In my opinion, an ideal state leader is one who can rule justly, defend his position, be loved and respected by the people, and lead a moral life to the best of his ability.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Machiavelli, he separates morality from leadership and thinks that a ruler needs to have the ability to protect his position, as well as show gentleness and intimidation whenever the occasion calls for it. To illustrate this point, he uses characteristics of a fox and lion to demonstrate that a ruler must be as strong as a lion and as cunning as a fox. He also writes that a ruler is better to be feared than loved to ensure the safety and security of the state. Finally, he believes that the end justifies the means, which implies that whatever course of action, moral or immoral, does not matter if the ruler accomplishes his grand goal.
To me, an ideal state leader is one who understands the necessity of balance. By this, I mean that a ruler should be simultaneously just, compassionate, empathetic, forceful, on task, and fiercely protective of his state.
ReplyDeleteI differ from Machiavelli in that while he does think a leader should show some compassion but only when absolutely necessary, whereas I think a leader is best when he exercises each tactic to its full potential at the same time. Machiavelli's main thesis is his belief that it is far greater to be feared than to be loved. However, it is possible to be both, why not strive for that?
My ideal ruler would be someone that can relate to his or her peoples yet maintain control. They should be forceful, just, and a paragon of what the state represents.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Machiavelli, it is better to be feared than loved and only show compassion when necessary. I think that a leader should strive for compassion because if the people feel that the leader sympathizes and understands their worries, they are more likely to view the ruler favorably. I think that the people just want to know that their ruler is doing everything in their power to advance and better the concerns of the general public. However, Machiavelli believes that a leader should first advance his own agenda.
In my opinion, an ideal leader is dedicated to the preservation of liberty and security. The leader ensures that the technological progress of society is maintained without sacrificing the quality of life for the citizens. This ideal leader makes intelligent decisions that will protect his or her state from external threats, but will maintain peace and stability both abroad and in the homeland. He or she should not oppress the people and create an authoritarian style of government. A leader such as this acts selflessly and is committed to his or her mission.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli’s views differ from mine specifically for the motives of the ruler. The objective of Machiavelli’s ruler is to gain as much power and influence as possible. This ruler is focused on his or her own progress rather than the progress of society as a whole. A Machiavellian leader uses fear and forcefulness to maintain stability and ensure that he or she will stay in power. My ideal ruler is working toward a better and more advanced society. This means that power is not the ultimate goal of the ruler. The leader will not need to rule by force because his or her actions will instill a sense of peace in the population. If the state is well maintained, then social and technological progress will follow.
I believe the ideal leader possesses both the technical skills needed to rule efficiently and the personal qualities that inspire the people to follow him. Such a leader is a capable diplomat and legislator, but he is also able to unite factions in disagreement and view issues from the perspective of his opponent. It is his humility, consideration, empathy, and honesty that allow him to exercise his talents to the greatest extent possible.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's definition of good leadership is far more narrow, focusing solely on the successes of a leader that can be easily defined. By separating effective leadership from morality, Machiavelli loses the intangible, but essential successes that must be taken into account when evaluating a leader. Years in power and battles won are, of course, important, but the perception the people have of their ruler are more significant. Machiavelli himself says that a leader should aim to keep the people happy, but his methods cannot bring about the result he hopes for in full. His progress is based on a foundation of hypocrisy, which threatens to collapse at any time. Thus, a leader that does not practice compassion and maintain integrity is less efficient than one who recognizes the importance of these fundamental human traits in government.
My ideal ruler is someone who is efficient and globally oriented.This ruler should also be able to listen to two opposing sides and create a compromise rather than base his actions solely on his beliefs. The leader also needs to understand the nation and what is best for the people. In addition, the leader needs to know when it is appropriate to act/release certain information or theories, as demonstrated by President Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Machiavelli creates a connection between the success of a ruler and the ruler's progress, or the ruler's ability to gain power rather than the progress of the people themselves. This promotes immoral actions from the leader that leads the people into a form of depression. This immoral activity contrasts my ideas because it promotes acting wrongly rather than using judgement to interpret the people's wants and their ability handle and understand the actions of the government.
Machiavelli's theory of what makes a great leader revolves around his concept of whether or not it is better to be loved or feared. He spends a great deal of time discussing this notion and also takes the time to differentiate between the benefits of being a just leader versus an effective one.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order to be a good leader, all of the above are necessary qualities. In terms of being loved or feared, I believe that both can be accomplished if done in a specific manner. It is possible that one can be respected, which is a combination of both love and fear. In my eyes, if a leader has these qualities, then they are more effective than those that possess just one or another.
I believe that the ideal leader is dedicated to the welfare of his or her people and is both loved and feared. It is important for a leader to justly rule and protect his or her people. Also, I think it is important to be feared and loved because they are both essential traits of a successful leader.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's view of an ideal leader is a bit different however. With Machiavelli, it is more important to be feared then loved because the respect and attention one gains from fear is far better than being loved. A Machiavellian leader will use force, fear, and anything else possible to preserve security in his or her state and in his or her power.
To me, an ideal leader is fair and just, patriotic with a sincere love for his country and the people of his country. An ideal leader is one whose values I can relate to and stand behind. Even when an ideal leader makes mistakes, as everyone does, he admits them and is apologetic, and does not try to conceal his missteps.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli, however, believes that an ideal leader will do whatever he can to gain more power, even if his methods of acquisition are immoral by other standards. In the world of rulers, Machiavelli states that poison might be "good", so long as it helps a ruler achieve more power. So in the view of a leader, good means efficient.
An ideal leader, unfortunately, is not a realistic goal. However, I would look for a leader who is assertive, intelligent, self-aware and politically savvy. Would I want a leader who is honest, scrupled and humane? Yes, but I do not believe those can be effectively synthesized with those traits Machiavelli and I value in a leader first and foremost. It is possible, and probable, that in a leader's means to an end, morality will play a part, and often humanity and the interest of the people are important to the leader as the means to his ruling ends. I believe in the fox and the lion: the fox to successfully navigate the labyrinth of international intrigue and the lion to unite and protect the people. Each is the complement of the other, and they are both important to successful government.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps I am naive in believing humanity to come as a means to an end of a leader's goals - it certainly wasn't the case of some of the most infamous leaders of our age.
I believe that an ideal leader is one who can balance both fear and love. The leader must be efficient in his work, which is only made possible once inspiring fear. The leader must also be respected by his or her subjects, which only comes when love is among the people.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's ideal leader however is solely determined on the end result of the leadership. Progress determines the quality of a leader. In order to achieve such progress, Machiavelli's leader is both the fox and the lion. He or she is capable of maintaining power (lion) and yet possesses the insight and strategic planning in order to succeed (fox).
I think a leader's job is to organize, assemble and have the confidence to make decisions that aren't necessarily what the populous wants, but what they need. I don't believe that a leader is meant to coddle anyone or go out of their way to make connections that become too personal outside their close friends and family. I think it's important to have mutual respect from a leader to a civilian but I don't think this falls into being loved or feared. It's like a sports team, you may hate another team but you have respect for their skills; you're not necessarily afraid of them but your rivalry keeps you away from feeling love. I think Machiavelli was too specific. Your feelings about a leader can't be categorized into two groups. I don't know know how much people love Obama, for instance, but how many people are afraid of him too? Not many.
ReplyDeleteI also don't really agree with Machiavelli's feelings that morals and virtuous actions can be separate from this leader's ability to effectively lead a body of people. Once you become a leader of a state, you become the state; You are the embodiment of the state and your character can never then become separate from your governmental success. I think as soon as a state feels as though they've been manipulated by a leader who has portrayed himself as one way but has many skeletons in his closet, they'll immediately lose the respect that I think is so important for a state to have for its leader. If a "fox" is running the country, what is stopping the state from taking this example as leeway to bend the rules for their own gain as well? It doesn't matter how good of a Prince one may be, as soon as the people feel like they've been duped in some way, you've ruined your credibility and therefore are no longer a good Prince. If you've successfully duped the people then congratulations, you've just prolonged the period of the public's deception for a while but if untruthful leaders continue their reign eventually the truth will imerge.
My view of a successful leader really depends on what type of government the leader is leading. If he is a president (as in the U.S.) he must be strong, and have deep conviction about his ideas, as otherwise they will become worn down in congress and will not become reality. In this system leader must also be popular in order to accomplish his/her goals, which although is not an intrinsic quality is none the less important. In an authoritarian system however, the leader must exhibit restart, fairness, and moderation.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's Ideal ruler is a mixture of both of these, he has both the will, and also the power to implement it. This leader does not need to be popular, but that is ok as they can focus on actually acting instead of on the public's perception. This type of rule is focused on decisive action rather then debate and consensus, and in some situations can actually be appealing. It is my opinion that all of these types of rulers have their own place in society and history.