Listen to any American political debate today and at some point the argument will turn to the “founders’ intentions.” Often the rationales have nothinListen to any American political debate today and at some point the argument will turn to the “founders’ intentions.” Often the rationales have nothing to do with history or reality, but ideological agendas. One clue is to conflate “the founders” with “the framers.” The former were about the Declaration of Independence, the latter the Constitution, which is also why many conflate and confuse the two. Another popular method is to invest some sort of destiny, divine or otherwise, into the proceedings. Writings, interpretations, or some combination of both receive Talmudic scrutiny. Thankfully, this classic, more than a century old, still reminds us that more than anything, the framers were human beings, with human foibles, interests, misconceptions, and all the late 18th century ignorance one would expect with the with hindsight of history.
They were far wealthier and more privileged than their fellow citizens. But the weather, as Farrand reminds us, affected their outlooks and moods as much as anyone alive then or today. Far from meeting to create some infallible treatise, they convened to fix fundamental problems with the Articles of Confederation, which had governed the nation since the defeat of the British. They decided they need to do something new. But that didn’t prevent them from taking large parts of the Articles and inserting them—sometimes with little to no editing—into the new Constitution. Or from using parts of existing state constitutions. And rather than knowingly create an infallible document to guide the future, they were trying to fix a contemporary problem and avert future ones. They were people trying to come to terms with with their times. They were pretty successful in the task of laying out the mechanisms and functions of the newly created federal government.
This book is based on a far more comprehensive archive Farrand created. Now, more than 100 years on, his short, fluid narrative has one great value that should be timeless as long as the United States continues to exist. The framers were not demigods with divine insight. It takes people living in their times to make governing functional. Since at least 45% of today’s American voting public refuse to do so, this book might well be a historical anomaly one day....more
William Shakespeare The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 3, Scene 1
Shakespeare wrote about kings and princes. Ni
Am I politic? Am I subtle? Am I a Machiavel?
William Shakespeare The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 3, Scene 1
Shakespeare wrote about kings and princes. Niccolò Machiavelli represented, met with, and gave counsel to them. Emperors, popes, and generals too. Shakespeare lived his entire life within a stretch of about 90 miles as the crow flies. Niccolò, represented Florence on diplomatic missions taking him to France, into present day southern Germany, and Rome. Few of his contemporaries traveled as widely as he did. Shakespeare wrote about political intrigue. Niccolò negotiated, implemented, and survived it. Shakespeare wrote for theatrical audiences. Niccolò mostly wrote letters and treatises—we would call them memoranda today—to explain the world he experienced as he did his best to help his beloved Florence to survive. Shakespeare likely hoped his plays would live on after his death. Niccolò wrote plays late in his life that were well received but haven’t had the same staying power. But he surely must have believed that his writing was intended for immediate audiences.
Niccolò is most remembered for writing The Prince. Less known, however, is why and for what purpose Niccolò wrote The Prince. It was intended as something of a job application for Lorenzo de Medici, who had just consolidated power to rule the city state of Florence. Niccolò lost his job as a diplomat when the Florentine Republic came to an end just prior to Lorenzo’s ascension to power. The Prince was an attempt to win favor in the new administration. Niccolò’s work was essential in protecting and maintaining Florence’s independence during a time of constant wars and threats of it, mostly because of its location and wealth. Niccolò traveled throughout central Europe, skillfully conferring with, and advising popes, emperors, kings, dukes, generals, and other leaders—always with Florence’s domestic politics and diplomatic survival at the center of his agenda—when most people lived their entire lives within walking distance of their birthplaces. Since he was so closely identified with the Republic, he was shunned and not considered for employment with the authoritarian, family-driven Medici rule. Lorenzo disdained and hated everything the Republic embodied, especially the messiness of political factions.
In writing The Prince, his job application of sorts, Niccolò looked back at his career and the history of Florentine politics of power and survival with a pragmatic, dispassionate eye based on unique experience—not with theoretical principles or dreams about governing. His goal was not to write a treatise for future generations but, instead, for the task at hand. It was his demonstration to Lorenzo that he deeply understood the reality of his times, that he understood how things had changed and how to move forward. Had Niccolò known his work would live on for centuries, he would likely have been shocked and appalled that The Prince would be his most lasting legacy. After all, he was just trying to give a prospective employer his honest views based on a very successful career.
As I read Alexander Lee’s sympathetic account, I was reminded of Jonathan Sperber’s biography of Karl Marx. Niccolò, like Marx, was a man of his times. Whatever opinions or motives future generations may have had about them had little-to-nothing to do with the realities or intentions of their life stories. It just goes to show that verdicts handed down by history and literature can be unjust. Niccolò’s is about as cruel as they come. His name became an -ism, adjective, and noun. Not one is positive or endearing. Or accurate. On the other hand, Shakespeare was luckier. He became an adjective and noun, but not an -ism. He didn’t have sinister connotations attached to them. The Bard may not have created the slanders, but his prose was instrumental to help them endure. Had he been aware of the story of Niccolò’s life in the masterful way Lee conveyed it, he likely would not have used his artistic license to perpetuate unfair smears. He might have found a Shakespearian way of describing him, as one might say it in Yiddish: as a real Mensch.
The most boring and most interesting thing I've ever read. The most profound and most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The most frustrating and most cThe most boring and most interesting thing I've ever read. The most profound and most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The most frustrating and most coherent thing I've ever read. The most far-seeing and most fantasy-derived thing I've ever read. But I'm really glad I read it, occasionally re-read it, and am influenced by it, good or bad.
In my opinion, much of the Communist Manifesto is a restatement of Luke 6:31. No matter if you think this is important or tripe, if you've actually read it, then I hope you will agree with me that the intent was a just world. You may disagree about the means, but not its aspiration. Honestly....more
Machiavelli is, in my view, among the most misunderstood of thinkers. In this series of discourses, he provides some insights into the nature of war aMachiavelli is, in my view, among the most misunderstood of thinkers. In this series of discourses, he provides some insights into the nature of war and the military that were as profound when he wrote them as they are commonplace today: militias vs. standing armies, preparing for veterans, tying military goals to those of the general welfare.
He also warned of weak “princes” who failed to understand the interconnectivity between the civil and political life and “need only know how to dream up witty replies in his study; write a beautiful letter; display intelligence and readiness in his conversation and his speech; weave a fraud; adorn himself with gems and gold; sleep and eat in a more splendid style than others; surround himself with a large number of courtesans; conduct himself in a miserly and arrogant manner with his subjects; rot in laziness; give military positions as favors; despise anyone who had shown them any praiseworthy path; and expect that their pronouncements be taken as oracles.” Did he foresee Trump half a millennium ago?...more
Andersen's timeless story is the best summation of political behavior ever written. It should be required reading for every political science major anAndersen's timeless story is the best summation of political behavior ever written. It should be required reading for every political science major and anyone interested in politics and government. Andersen predicted and distilled the essence of modern political campaigns, especially in the United States....more
![By Isaiah Berlin - Four Essays on Liberty (1979-08-16) [Hardcover]](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1695832717l/139689946._SX50_.jpg)
Loading...
