This is an obvious neologism, given all the people calling Obama's choice to opt out of public campaign financing a "Machiavellian" maneuver. If nobody else has coined it yet, I hereby submit, to be considered for inclusion in the Obama dictionary:

Barackiavellian (buh-ROK-ee-uh-VEL-ee-uhn) adj. displaying or implying any willingness, on the part of Senator Obama, to engage in the kind of ruthless, unscrupulous, deceptive political conduct that we expect from almost everyone else seeking national office, but which Obama is ostensibly supposed to be running against.

Ex: Senator Obama's decision to renege on his promise to accept public campaign financing was a typical exercise in Barackiavellian cunning.

Have you ever read "The Prince"?

I do understand that the MSM has, for the most part, co-opted the book and without reading more than the Cliff's Notes foisted upon the world a term - "Machiavellian" - that they think describes some sinister or deceitful element of leadership.

However, you would be very surprised by the actual text. And the context of the book. It is brilliant. As a statement of policy and politics in an age of monarchism and ruthless use and abuse of power, here was a writer who clearly and succinctly understood deep psychological and sociological elements of family and national power.

Until this book the politics of nations was understood wholly within the realm of the Church and as a mysterious decision by God.

I support Obama's candidacy, but I have never believed that he is naive or unaware of the necessities and realities of politics. To imagine that is simply silly. That said, it doesn't mean that I can't participate in "Change we can believe in" and "Hope." There are parts of his campaign and his presence in the political field that are opportunities for a sea change of immense proportions.

As a citizen of the US I have some strongly held beliefs about what I want my government and my country to do, how to participate at the international level, and what services I want it to provide to our citizens. I also have views and opinions on gun control, privacy rights, transportation, energy, banking regulations and taxation.

To imagine, at any level, that a candidate for Presidency would or could embody and embrace all the elements of my hopes, dreams, opinions and desires for this country is beyond naive - it is disingenuous and dangerous for the political process.

Politics - at every level - is about compromise and collaboration. It has to be. That way ALL of the people have a bit of a voice.

If Obama had not opted out of Public Financing once he realized how successful his Campaign is at raising money he would have been stupid. His primary reason for being in this race is to win. Winning will take enormous amounts of money. The American people have seen fit to send him a lot of it. THen his use of it makes sense, and is well within the bounds and parameters of the election.

Clever word plays are all well and good, but there are real issues here and that is something Machiavelli understood very well.

"It is essential therefore for a prince to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not to use, his goodness as necessity requires."

"That prince will prosper most whose mode of acting best adapts itself to the character of the times; so that at one time a cautious temperament, and at another an impetuous temperament, will be the more successful."

"Now, at this time the whole land of Italy is without a head, without order, beaten, spoiled, torn in pieces, overrun, and abandoned to destruction in every shape. She prays God to send someone to rescue her from these barbarous cruelties."

The Prince

Machiavelli is describing what a prince must do to succeed, not how to deceive. To put it in perspective: Bush is not machiavellian, he is rasputian.

I am glad to see Obama take on this mantel. It will be hard for all his detractors to call him naïve from now on. This is a man who came of political age in Chicago. If the the Democratic machine politic isn't this year's model of the Medicis,I don't know what is. And Obama came out of that pretty much intact if not a bit dirty (Rezko was a bit of a minus).

Of course Obama will survey the landscape and see what needs to be done to win this race. I never doubted that.

And for everyone to act surprised is disingenious. His campaign has been hinting large at htis decisions since February.

Plus, he never lied. He said that he would go for public funding if his opponent proved that he was serious about it. We should all ask McCain followers how serious he is since he is more than likely getting fined for trying to play the public funding system during the primaries. (So does that make McCain "barackiavellian" as well?)

And what would you be calling Obama if he trusted McCain after that?

Hi, artandsoul. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I read Machiavelli's The Prince in high school, loved it, and went on to read his Discourses on Livy. My last project in high school (and my first piece of college-level writing) was an attempt to find explcit support, in those texts, for my gut intuition that Machiavelli's carefully neutral prose concealed: bottomless contempt for the Church, incandescent hatred of autocrats and tyrants, unshakeable faith that the time for great Republics would come again, and a belief in the common people themselves as the ultimate source of power in society. . . and because I had this unfounded but unshakeable conviction that Machiavelli secretly despised the rulers of Europe and yearned for their destruction, I was likewise sure that the The Prince could not possibly have been written in good faith, and logically had to be some kind of infinitely subtle trojan horse.

Needless to say, I couldn't prove any of this. But that's still my take on Machiavelli.

Hi Thrasymachus -

I can understand how tempting it is to ascribe those feelings and beliefs to Machiavelli. Having studied Classics, I find so much of the old writings - from Homer to Plutarch to Dante to Shakespeare very relevant and almost prescient in that they speak of the "same" things we worry with, deal with and wonder about here in the 21st century.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with these associations, because I believe that great writing transcends the author's intent and lives beyond his or her lifetime to continue informing generations of readers.

However, that said, I do think it is important to be able to separate our OWN viewpoints from that of the author. What we think is relevant today about Machiavelli is one thing - to attribute that to his underlying motives is quite another.

For one thing, I don't believe that anyone in 15th century Italy could have or would have conceived of those ideas of monarchy or the Church. The society, and individual members of it, held a pervasive and firm conflation of God and Church and the rightness of hierarchy in the world. For the medieval scholar the physical world reflected the precise genius of God from rock (mineral) to Pope (God's chosen leader on earth). And even beyond that to angels and heavenly bodies on up to God Himself, even the three persons of God ranked Holy Spirit, Son of God and God the Father.

To think of this wholeness as something for which a man could or would use "contempt" would be unthinkable. Not rejected, just not able to be conceived of. Especially not in an educated and literate man. This is one of those instances in which it is vital for us 21st century readers to set aside our own knowledge and experience and truly try to put ourselves in another's shoes.

I think this is why you were unable to "prove" your hypothesis.

Which is not to say that a contemporary reading of "The Prince" in which we explore the possibilities of contempt for The Church, hatred of autocrats and return of Republicanism can be interesting. I think it can.

I also think that to read "The Prince" with an understanding of Machiavelli and the medieval mind might offer you more satisfaction and a greater understanding of the subtler genius at work there.

By accepting and using as a basis the inseparable belief in monarchy as the right structure for government, we can appreciate just how extraordinary it is that Machiavelli asserts that a common man, through education and thought (use of his God-given reason) can and should instruct a ruler. A ruler who is the earthly mirror image of God in Heaven.

It is a radical shift from the 1500 years belief that eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden in order to "be like God" was man's greatest sin, to a possibility that basically, eating the fruit worked! A man, like Machiavelli, understands things the ruler may have overlooked and so can assist, instruct and indeed INFLUENCE that ruler.

It is possibly the first chink in the utter, solid and comprehensive beliefs in The Church as wholly intertwined with society.

Taking for granted as we do that Church and State are properly separate we might miss the incredible moment that "The Prince" offers us for examination. It is, without trying to be too dramatic, akin to the moment homo sapiens realized he could "make" fire or "talk" to another. The shift in consciousness is that great.

We so often lose sight of just HOW pervasive The Church was in the lives and thought of the medieval man.

And then, in just 25 short years The Renaissance broke this all WIDE open. In art, in literature, in sculpture, in architecture tehre was a huge tidal shift and we (man) have never stood in the same place regarding God.

If you look at the Founding Fathers of the US you will find that they too looked for clues to forming our Government in the classical notions of Republicanism, but refused to settle for the notions of Republicanism that ultimately spelled doom for those societies in Greece and Rome. Instead they created in our Constitution and Bill of Rights something entirely new.

This is an altogether different discussion, but again it is one of those radical moments in history. It is worth stopping and looking at - especially during elections.

But as to Machiavelli - I think that he was far more interested in finding a way to be part of the power center, the core of the society he lived in. He supported the King in his rightful place, and was willing to support that place with his personal, individual reason and intelligence. Not based on birthright or wealth. It was very risky. And it was extremely radical.

Thanks for the great topic!

I think the only thing to call Obama if he did NOT decline public funding would be stupid.

He has already ruled out Federal lobbyist and PAC contributions and this is what the Public Financing was supposed to cut down on. He has also declined support from any 527.

So the reality of his political campaign strategy goes exactly to the spirit of the law and beyond the letter of it.

He is not the inexperienced, naive and ineffectual candidate that the opposition has enjoyed trying to make him.

In fact, he is a shrewd and VERY successful politician who understands he can take the high road on many issues and does so.

I find that very reassuring!

In Machiavelli's time, the Catholic Church was heavily invested in a religious, mystical construction of rulership in which political legitimacy was mystically conferred by the Church and the success or failure of governmental enterprises was a function of how closely the ruler adhered to Catholic moral principles and political doctrine.

If the Catholic Church was the "MSM" of Machiavelli's time, the political doctrine of Divine Right was his century's equivalent of Copyright Law. The notion that secular authority derived its legitimacy from the Church, and was bound by its moral dictates, was the basis of the Catholic Church's claim for political authority.

What made Machiavelli so radical, and so dangerous to them was that he completely demystified rulership. Kingdoms could be won or lost, and legitimacy was in the sword arm of the throne holder. The success or failure of a government was a function of common sense, not mystical sanctions or adherence to morality; and no form of government is mandated by God.

Machiavelli's challenge to the Catholic construction of political authority was taken as the grave threat to their social position that it in fact was. . . and I think he challenged the political authority of the Church on purpose.

We should remember that Martin Luther was a contemporary of Niccolo Machiavelli. By 1500, in Italy more than anywhere else, the Catholic Church was conspicuously secular and corrupt. Machiavelli lived in a place where Popes took to the field of battle to protect their secular wealth and power.

Moreover, in Machiavelli's lifetime, Florence overthrew its rulers and became a Republic, of which he himself was elected Chancellor. He knew firsthand how politial power could be gained, and how political legitimacy was really conferred: even the Pope himself wasn't above claiming them at swordpoint.

The Church knew full well how dangerous Machiavelli was; and the Protestant Reformation made full use of him. The Prince was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books almost instantaneously; and his name was made synonomous with Satan himself.

He was as cunning and clever as they come. He knew exactly what he was doing, and exactly how the Church would react. That's why he didn't publish while he was alive.

are always exciting.

Well, you have to admit. . .Renaissance Florence is a good setting for one. : )

According to today's news, O'Bama's campaign contributions have declined substantially. If this trend continues, then will he flop again?

Great thread, such a pleasure to see people that recognize how much more there is to "The Prince".

One point that I see missing from the discussion is the specific history of Italy that Machiavelli was reacting to. Although other countries had established kings and divine right etc, Italy was far more like a collection of nation states. To be Italian was secondary to being Florentine, Sicilian etc.

Italy suffered greatly from the intrigues between the various cities, rolling invasions (France and England if they wanted to pressure the pope, Holy Roman Empire when it wanted to expand, the Pope as it tried to defend itself, Normans). I don't know how Machiavelli felt about the Church, but we can safely say that he despised incompetent leaders. To him, moral qualms should not get in the way of creating a government strong enough to serve as a "bulwark against the vicissitudes of fortune" (paraphrase).

Blueshift -

I think the historical context is crucial to understanding medieval Italy! And those "nation-states" were nothing close to what we consider nations and/or states today. It is truly very important for us to get out of the 21st century to see that.

They were different from the ancient city-states of Greece and Rome as well.

These were family/corporate/merchant states. Yes, situated geographically - Florence, Bologna, Sienna, Rome, Napoli, etc. They had a "common" language in Latin, but their commerce and their bloodlines kept them together.

And whether we Americans like it or not, agree with it or not, we cannot look at the relationship of any individual - such as Machiavelli - and his relationship to The Church as something we could possibly understand.

For one thing, there was no question but that there was God. The one from Genesis. And Jesus. The one in the Gospels. And the Word was pervasive. Yes, there was corruption, greed, war, murder, adultery, etc. but with all of it there was a system of understanding it and it was The Church.

Machiavelli is illuminated by reading Dante. And Petrarch. Once you understand the nature of medieval Italian literature it is much more clear that Machiavelli - whatever he himself personally believed or felt - was writing literature. He was protecting himself - both politically and spiritually - by writing in this new genre. Not poetry, but prose literature. He knew it was dangerous and that he was treading on shifting sands, but he was experimenting in an amazing new world of human expression.

For the Italians the words were hugely important and carried more than simple directives and straight-to-the-point directives for a leader. "The Prince" is full of flourishes and is written with as much irony as we today think of it as full of political theory.

I believe Machiavelli felt strongly about wanting to be part of the Medici family. He wanted the power and the economic benefit that would flow from that association. And, without marriage into it how could that happen? He was not a painter and so could not benefit from them as patrons. But he was a terrific cleric. And his writing was what he had to offer. He also had a clever and careful eye and he had a wide streak of risk-taking!

In medieval Italy (and France for that matter) it was not cognitively dissonant for the Pope - as head of the church - to also be viewed as head of an army, ordering the Crusades, head of the Papal banks and so on. Today we are horrified by those kinds of bonds, but they were absolutely taken for granted by Machiavelli. So he was not advocated the overthrow of religious institutions nor of powerful families.

But he certainly did want a way in! :)

I'm going to get my copy out tonight and re-read some passages that were my favorites. They rarely get quoted by political scientists but often get bandied about in academic/classics discussions!

Dear "artandsoul", Barack's genuine Machiavellian (i.e.,pragmatic) move to private funding is all well and good, but it nevertheless drives a dagger in the heart of future prospects for the reformation of campaign financing, and also underscores what conservatives said all along: suppressing free speech - in the form of campaign contributions at least -- is not only wrong, but wrong headed and futile. Why? It's like playing "whack the mole". You plug up one hole, but the money will find a way to grease the wheels of politics by some other hole, always, ...unless you want to go "Pinochetellian" (yes, I just made the word up) on us! For that matter, let's compare the suppression of campaign funding to building a big fence across the border with Mexico. If you think one is good and one is bad, you have not thought either idea through. Both ideas hurt people and make criminals of persons who are doing what they believe is in their best interest while doing no truly tangible harm to anyone in particular. Of the two, the one you like least, I'd surmise, is the one most defensible, since the fence is to control the movements of persons who are not citizens, while the other stifles one's fellow citizens from exercising their most precious privilege - participation in the governing process. Still unconvinced? I'll make a deal with anyone interested: I'll accept more campaign finance reform when the same "fainess" obsessed politicians also put a cap on how much we citizens can spend on lawyers for high profile criminal trials like Enron or O.J. Simpson. There is some fairness I can live with! (I'd even throw in better funding to get better attorneys for the indigent, who are probably more likely to be innocent than the multi-millionaire defendants). I wonder if Machiavelli is laughing. And Lord Acton. The whole agenda of Liberalism runs afoul of the rules of politics. Keeping it fair for the underdog is like King Canute commanding the tide to flow backward. In the end, giving power via demagoguery to the "mobile vulgus" ( the turbulent mob) is the short order way of delivering our country to the shroud of oblivion.

Hi, Kevway. You wrote:

"I'll make a deal with anyone interested: I'll accept more campaign finance reform when the same "fainess" obsessed politicians also put a cap on how much we citizens can spend on lawyers for high profile criminal trials like Enron or O.J. Simpson. There is some fairness I can live with! (I'd even throw in better funding to get better attorneys for the indigent, who are probably more likely to be innocent than the multi-millionaire defendants."

Agreed! I'm just as tired of watching rich CEOs and celebrities buy their way out of trouble as you are. A cap on defense expenses seems like a good way to address the problem. My only caveat is that there would have to be some thought given to how to craft the policy so it doesn't end up effectively giving the government effective license to buy convictions.

I think if we're capping lawyers we HAVE to add in caps on jury awards for Med Mal.

Of course, going down this line of thinking we will have to revert to Shakespeare: "First, kill all the lawyers."